Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular 1vleeting ROLL C.A.LL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Roupe &r Zutshi Staff: Planners Livingstone ~ Oosterhous, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGLSNCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meetings of October 23 and November 13, 2002. ORAL CO:vI1vIUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. Hotivever, the Planning Commission may instn~ct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 5, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None 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. 1. REVIEW OF ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED FOR 14480 OAK PLACE, CUTLER, (397-22- 051); -The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to review the- findings and recommendations of an Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Barrie Coate regarding the impacts to ordinance protected oak trees from the construction of a structure closer than 10-feet to an oak tree. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED ADDITION OF THREE CONDITIONS TO ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS) 2. APPLICATION #02-138 (517-08-062) -BROWN, 14775 Oak Street; -Request for Variance approval to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) 3. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; -Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of- way to create a new northern gateway to the Ciry. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2002) (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Second Dwelling Units for various R-1 Residential Zones. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will implement both the City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866. The Housing Element anticipates that 45 new second dwelling units would be constructed over the next five years. Assembly Bill 1866 requires the City to treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner. This new law does not allow the Ciry to conduct a Public Hearing to consider the proposed new second dv,~elling. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on December 25, 2002 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Facsimile communications from Mitch Cutler requesting a Study Session with the Planning Commission regarding a Variance Application for fence height. (REQUEST DENIED) ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's «a e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planninQC~sarato~a.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA s DATE: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 3:00 ~.m. (Note new time) PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-138 - BROWN Item 2 14775 Oak Street • LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site ~~isit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ` AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mm~t.TTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meetings of October 23 and November 13, 2002. ORAL. Co:~~~iuIvICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGEI~'DA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December ~, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None 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. 1. REVIEW OF ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED FOR 14480 OAK PLACE, CUTLER, (397-22- 051); -The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to review the findings and recommendations of an Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Barrie Coate regarding the impacts to ordinance protected oak trees from the construction of a structure closer than 10-feet to an oak tree. (SULLIVAN) • 2. AP-PLICATION #02-138 (517-08-062) -BROWN, 14775 Oak Street; -Request for Variance approval to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) 3. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; -Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of- way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2002) (SULLIVAN) 4. APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Second Dwelling Units for various R-1 Residential Zones. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will implement both the City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866. The Housing Element anticipates that 45 ne~v second dwelling units would be constructed over the next five years. Assembly Bill 1866 requires the City to treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner. This new law does not allow the City to conduct a Public Hearing to consider the proposed new second dwelling. (SULLIVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the Meeting on December 2~, 2002 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN Facsimile communications from Mitch Cutler requesting a Study Session with the Planning Commission regarding a Variance Application for fence height. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: TYPE: ~~~~g ~~ Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 9, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 2002, were approved with a correction to page 4. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None .REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 17, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit Approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium, Sunday school Rooms, Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center and a Bell Tower. The project also includes a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguration of the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS) (CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02) • Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use Permit Approval for a new facility for St. Andrew's Parish and School. • Advised that this evening's meeting will consist of public testimony and Commission discussion but that no action will be taken. • Said that staff has recommendations for project revisions, which will be presented following the applicant's thorough project description. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial, Project Manager for St. Andrew's Parish and School: • Informed the Commission that St. Andrew's Parish and School has been at this location since the early 1960s, exhibiting good corporate and religious ties for and with the City. • Advised that their team present this evening consists of Reverend Cockrell, Mr. McKay, the project architect; the project landscape designer and their traffic consultant. • Said that this has been an evolving process over the last three years with lots of thought and care going into the proposal. - • Stated that he would explain how this project would mesh with the community and its neighbors. • Assured that they have planned a first class project that meets the needs of the Parish and School as well as the City of Saratoga. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: Said that St. Andrew's has been in operation since 1957 and built its current facility in 1962. Stated that this 1962 era facility is no longer sufficient to serve the Parish and School. Informed that there are more programs today. Therefore more meeting spaces are required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 3 • Said that this place never stops and that the Parish and School share facilities as much as possible with every. available room tightly scheduled. • Declared that they need more room, updated technical support and improved security. • Said that their space needs are drastic and not window dressing. • Assured that their project would fit within Saratoga graciously. Mr. Harry McKay, Head of St. Andrew's School: • Agreed that they are desperately in need of space, which is a daily problem. • Said that their library does not meet current standards and that their gymnasium is insufficient. • Reminded that the school was built 40 years ago and that teaching and learning is not the same today, as it was 40 years ago. • Reiterated that they simply need more space. • Assured that they will not increase enrollment. • Stated that they want to conduct a 21S` Century program within a 21S` Century facility. Mr. Jorge Rico, Project Architect: • Presented a PowerPoint Presentation with the site plan and elevations. • Stated that the current 40-year-old school does not meet new needs and that the entire school would be demolished with the exception of the Sanctuary, which will remain. Additionally, they will replace the gymnasium, construct atwo-story administrative/classroom building, another two-story classroom wing and atwo-story clergy/office building. • Said that the existing 203 parking spaces would be maintained. • • Described site constraints including a sewer easement over which they cannot locate buildings and the fifty-foot line at the creek embankment. There are also heritage Oak trees, which must remain. • Informed that the new site layout will permit improved vehicle queuing with two pick up and drop off areas, which will eliminate the current situation where queuing oftentimes ends up out on Saratoga Avenue. • Stated that the proposed gymnasium will include two volleyball courts, one basketball court and a theater. • Said that the classroom/administration building would house third and fourth graders, with the kindergartners through second graders on the first floor. There is a State requirement to have K-3 located on a first floor level for emergency exiting reasons. The fourth through six grades would be housed within a second story classroom wing. • Said that on the main campus level, five Sunday school classrooms are planned and both Parish and School administration buildings. There will be a gathering space for weddings, etc., a nursery, and on the upper level classrooms for seventh and eighth grade English, History, etc., and offices. • Said that the roof plan includes the use of mansard roofs to try to lower the height of buildings. • Described the cluster of buildings as equaling a campus. • Said that the gym would consist of light colored cement plaster over a darker cement plaster base. • Stated that they have agreed to lower the entry element of the Administration Building by three feet. • Said that a trellis component will tie buildings together as a unifying element. • Stated that the Parish Building with clergy offices would be lowered by 2.5 feet to reduce building height. • Described the Bell Tower. • Said that the project site is flat in the front with a bottom portion that drops 12 feet lower. This change in grade will give the effect of lowering the appearance of these buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 4 Page 4 • Assured that they have made an effort to reduce heights using the property's topography. Mr. Scott Sheldon: - • Stated that they held a series of neighborhood meetings as well as workshops with the Commission. • Said that they have dealt with issues is a real straightforward way and worked with staff on a number of issues. • Advised that a revised acoustical report was provided to staff. • Addressed traffic issues and assured that they don't want to impact either Saratoga or Fruitvale at all. • Made himself available for questions as well as any of the project consultants: Commissioner Garakani asked if any projections have been done in response to the letter from a neighbor concerning the visual impacts from this project in blocking their hillside view. Mr. Jorge Rico said that they have done a projection and that they do not believe the project will block views. Added that they have placed the tallest building in the middle of the site to diminish impacts on surrounding residences. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Rico if he has any calculations to share. Mr. Jorge Rico replied no. Commissioner Garakani suggested to Mr. Rico that these calculations be prepared. Commissioner Zutshi suggested photo simulations to show how these buildings might impact the surrounding residences. Director Tom Sullivan suggested a photomontage that accurately reflects what a building would look like on site. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is a distinction between a public library and a school, with different requirements. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City has the right to excuse some particular properties from certain requirements. Commissioner Zutshi said that a private school could not compare itself to a public library. Ms. Christy Oosterhous presented the staff recommendations as follows: • Suggested that no increase in enrollment be permitted without Planning Commission approval. • Added that there is no proposed increase enrollment. • Recommended the reduction or elimination of the bell-ringing schedule. • Suggested that the applicant recalculate the FAR since spaces above 15 feet in height have not been double counted. • Said that to deal with massing issues, the applicant should reduce the three-story element to a two- story element and that the Parish and School classrooms be combined as possible. • Reported that the applicant has agreed to reduce the mass and height of the entry. Saratoga Planning commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 5 • Suggested more detail elements on some buildings, that the roofline follows the hillside contours and that the proposed Color #2 have more earthtoneality. • Stated that staff finds the proposed bell tower to be too massive and imposing and recommended either outright elimination or relocation further away from Saratoga Avenue. • Advised that the revised Noise Study requested of the applicant was recently provided to staff. • Recommended Exhibit D for site circulation be implemented. This plan would provide 1,000 feet of queuing area. • Advised that the Arborist supplied comments and found most of the features of the plan present no major conflict. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the recommendation to reduce the entrances of two buildings and asked if it includes the defined area over the doorway. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. .The buildings in question are the Clergy and Administration buildings. Commissioner Kurasch supported the reduction of three-story elements to two-story, pointing out the 30-foot height limitation and stating that when there is a conflict between Zoning and General Plan, the General Plan supercedes Zoning. Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that the number of stories is limited but not the height. Director Tom Sullivan said that the General Plan indicates public/quasi public uses that can be increased through issuance of a Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposal from the school includes any increase in student population. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that any increase would be minor, with a fluctuation of less than five percent. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that with the expansion from 17 current classrooms to 18 proposed classrooms, the assumption can be made that student population could be expected to grow by about 25. Chair Jackman said that she sees the potential for an additiona122 students, which is a concern. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a letter from the school proposes a student cap at 500, with any increase requiring Planning Commission approval. Questioned the provision for parking if there should be an increase to 500 students. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant can be asked to evaluate that question. Pointed out that the parking on site is necessary more for Sunday than during weekday school uses. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Stated that the traffic report took into account 470 students. • Assured that they would have no problem developing a photomontage and reminded that they had placed story poles on site to depict proposed building heights. • Pointed out that Code permits three-story buildings for quasi=public buildings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 6 • In response to staff's recommendation to reduce heights in the Administration/Clergy buildings, they had prepared an extensive needs analysis. Additionally, the State has accreditation issues ~~ regarding amount of square footage per pupil, etc. • Said that their space needs have driven their proposed square footage. • Said that they have tried to utilize the site's natural slope. • Explained that the additional student population is a means to give some flexibility. • Pointed out that student population is down from last year but that next year it could go up. • Asked for that right within constraints. • Said that there are no parking impacts with a student increase to 500 since none of their students yet drive this being a K-8 grade school. Most students are dropped off. • Added that they are proposing to enhance the landscape along Saratoga Avenue. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Rico for the minimum legal height of a classroom. Mr. Jorge Rico said that a classroom ceiling cannot be lower than 8 feet but that most are 9 to 10 feet high now days. Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for the new gymnasium, library and classrooms but not the _ proposed bell tower. Chair Jackman suggested treating the bell tower separately. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the bell tower is part of this overall application. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that the bell tower is not a need but rather a tradition that they believe would add to the beauty and be a gift to the community in Saratoga. It is more to the "glory of God." Commissioner Zutshi said that there are many churches in Saratoga but only two with a bell tower Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that there are only 31 bell towers in the County. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this bell tower is proposed to be situated in front of their beautiful church building. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they don't mind and pointed out that the bell tower will be somewhat shielded by trees. Commissioner Zutshi suggested a simulation of the bell ringing to demonstrate to the neighbors how it would sound. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they could shield the sound away from neighbors and would close off the sound when practicing their bell ringing. Commissioner Zutshi insisted on the need for a simulation. Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they have a sample CD. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 7 Mr. Scott Sheldon advised that the sound impact from the bell tower is addressed in the acoustical report. Commissioner Zutshi again asked about a trial run. - Mr. Scott Sheldon said it would be impossible to provide it short of building the bell-tower. Reverend Ernest Cockrell: • Assured that the bells are a gentle sound. - • Said that they cannot disturb regular school classrooms for Sunday school use. • Pointed out that the Sunday school rooms will also serve as meeting rooms. • Reminded that they have 64 parish organizations requiring meeting space. • Declared that they are not just a school but also a parish. Commissioner Garakani asked about trees to block the bell tower from view. Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect for Project: • Pointed out that there are several Live Oak trees and Redwood trees that would block the bell tower. They are about 35 feet tall. - • Said that another Redwood tree could be added, a large 25 to 30-foot specimen to provide additional screening. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the 18-foot high parish hall located at the property line. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that the parish hall is 15 feet off the easterly property line and is about 24-feet high at the highest point. Said that this height could be dropped down. Commissioner Kurasch: • Expressed concerns about the intensity of use of this property. • Said that she is trying to understand the needs. • Pointed out that the additional 34,000 square feet represents an approximately 68 percent increase over what is there now, which has an effect on the area and community. • Said that she understands the importance to the applicant but needs to understand how it will work on this property. • Reminded that the General Plan supersedes the Zoning and sets atwo-story limit. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they have tried to blend in the needs of the School and neighborhood by using existing typography, using the natural slope and adding landscaping to make the School work. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked about the projections for space needs. There are 15,000 square feet of classroom space now and 18,000 square feet would be what the proposed enrollment requires. • Said she was wondering how to make it all work. • Stated that she does not see the building stepping down. from the slope. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they gave staff the list that outlines State school standards and that they have tried to be judicious and brought their proposal down to minimum standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 8 Director Tom Sullivan suggested continuing this line of discussion following the Public Hearing. Mr. Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court; Saratoga: • Said that his home shares one common fence with the Parish and School. • Said that he can understand the needs of the Parish and School. • Stated that part of the design is inadequate for the area. • Said that he currently has a strong objection until this project is modified. • Said that the proposed Parish center would be located adjacent to his property. • Demonstrated photos that depict his view of the School from his home and the view of his home from the School. • Declared that this existing building results in a big invasion of his family's privacy. • Stated that the proposed 24-foot height would block his views, views that he-has enjoyed for a long time and that he does not want to lose. • Informed that he submitted a letter, • Listed his objections and/or suggestions to include: • Reduce the building heights to two story. • Modify the setback of the Parish hall, proposed at 15 feet fora 24-foot high structure. • Modify the Parish hall's four big windows, which would overlook his property line and allow people from the Parish hall to-see into his living room. • Reduce or eliminate the bell tower. • Modify the plan to a maximum of two stories. • Break up the massing. • Increase the setback to 20 feet from his property line. • Lower the height of the Parish center to 15 feet. • Either remove or raise the height of the proposed four windows so that his property cannot be looked upon. • Advised that he has resided in Saratoga for eight years, enjoys his property and wants to be able to continue to enjoy his property. • Declared that he does not want to see a big building instead of blue sky. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Luoh if his home is_a single or two-story structure. Mr. Harry Luoh replied that his home is asingle-story as are most homes in the area. Ms. Susan Kranich, 19541 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Stated that she lives next door to Harry Luoh and has lived there since 1968, where her parents :- raised their five daughters. • Said that this project would impact her family greatly. • Stated that she can understand the need for improvements to the school but has a problem with the proposed heights, particularly for the Administration and northern classroom building, which are closest to her home and yard. • Said that she is concerned about the loss of view from her family home. • Expressed concern about environmental impacts from car exhaust, as vehicles would queue toward the creek area. • Asked if a study of potential impacts has been prepared. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 ~ Page 9 • Suggested that the bell ringing schedule might be problematic for her family and was concerned that the potential move of the bell tower away from Saratoga might cause it to be located closer to her home. • Declared that they have had very little problem with St. Andrew's Parish and School over the years. They have been good neighbors and it has been nice to hear the sound of children. • Stated that this proposal seems like a huge addition to what is currently apark-like setting. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Kranich how many stories her home has. Ms. Susan Kranich replied one. Mr. Donald A. Carr, 19803 Merribruck Court, Saratoga: • Said that he lives two blocks from the Church, has been a resident of Saratoga since 1980, a member of the Church since 1989 and involved with the School since 1985. His daughter graduated from St. Andrew's and went on to graduate from Mitty and USC. • Added that as he is involved with the Church and since his daughter got off to a good start at St. Andrew's, he is a proponent of this project. • Stated that he would like to see the project go forward. • Said that they cannot do things now because there is not enough room to accommodate the 64 different programs operated at the Parish and School. Mr. Jim Stallman, 19750 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that St. Andrew's is a good neighbor and that he is excited about the bell tower. • Said he notices a front path depicted and stated it is good to see this path. • Asked if there would be a sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue. • Pointed out that there is room to move the curb and add a sidewalk. • Suggested that parking not be prohibited along Saratoga avenue since it could calm traffic to allow such parking. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he believes there will be sidewalk but not all the way. Mr. Jim Stallman said that a sidewalk is needed from Mrs. Jorganson's onward. Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Project Landscape Architect, reported that there will be sidewalk all along the frontage of Saratoga. Ms. Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that her property is adjacent to St. Andrew's. • Pointed out that the school replaced a trailer about two years ago. Instead of being angled like the original trailer, the new trailer was installed parallel to her property. They were promised screening trees but they are not there. • Said that Saratoga traditionally does not have two-story classrooms but rather have a more park-like campus. • Said that while she can see the need for additional space, a 70 percent increase is too aggressive. • • Said that the big picture needs to be considered including traffic and noise concerns. • Asked that activities near their shared fence should be limited to avoid noise impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 10 • Pointed out that there is a park on the other side where no residence would be impacted by noise coming from this proposed building. ,~ • Said that people don't always stay within the building and that conversations from the site infringe on their use of their home and yard. • Stated her opposition to any three-story building and expressed a preference for single-story buildings. • Suggested the outright removal of the bell tower and said that she would not enjoy hearing the bells ringing every Sunday even though she does love music. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that several schools have been renovated with multi-story buildings, including Saratoga School with three stories and Redwood School, which has atwo-story science building. Asked Ms. Luoh if she was aware of the school when she purchased her home. ---- Mrs. Diana Luoh: • Replied yes. • Reminded the Commission that the trailer originally located closest to her home did not impact her family until it was replaced and repositioned on the site. • Pointed out that the school day is typically done by 3 p.m. However, the proposed Parish Center will have extended hours, seven days a week. • Concluded by saying that operations at St. Andrew's have changed since she purchased her home and now has a greater impact. Commissioner Zutshi had questions for the traffic consultant. Mr. Sohrad Rashid, Project Traffic Engineer and City Consulting Traffic Engineer: • • Stated that currently cars dropping off students at St. Andrew's School often end up queued on Saratoga. . • Added that with the proposed second drop off point, this would remove cars from queuing-off the street by increasing on-site queuing space by 70 to 80 percent. Commissioner Zutshi asked if parking has been considered too. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with up to 1,000 feet of queuing space, allowing 20 to 25 feet per car, would allow approximately 50 vehicles to queue on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about impacts with increased enrollment. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that an additiona124 cars would not be an issue. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Rashid to explain a Level D intersection and potential impacts with up to 470 to 500 students at St. Andrew's. Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with no change from the current 439 students, there would be no queuing onto Saratoga Avenue. Additionally, up to 470 could be accommodated on site. Commissioner Zutshi asked if any provisions are being made to accommodate left turns from the site onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Pa e 11 Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that no change is proposed. Commissioner Garakani asked what impacts to the site's queuing might occur if people are waiting to leave the property via left turns onto Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Sohrad Rashid stated that cars waiting for left turn exiting would not impact queuing on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked about meeting with neighbors. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Advised that they had relayed copies of the sign up sheets to staff. There were three meetings and two workshops. With the exception of Mr. Luoh, on one else who attended one of the meetings is present this evening. • Said that he wants to address needs for everyone. • Pointed out that St. Andrew's has been a good neighbor as has been testified by neighbors. • Stated that the intent and letter of Zoning regulations has been met. • Said that they have addressed security issues for their students. • Said that to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor to the east, the four windows that go in would be changed to a clear story window, located up high. Additionally, they will reduce the height of the roof so as not to impact neighbor views. • Informed that they moved the lunch area near Mrs. Jorganson's property with her support. • Stated that this is a good solution for all parties. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearin for A ends Item No. 1 at 8:40 .m. g g P Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated her support of staff's analysis and recommendations. • Said that the project needs to come more into balance with the rest of the area with less intensive uses and lower building heights. • Said that she-could not support so many variations from standards. Chair Jackman: • Said that the intensity bothers her. • Stated that she is not sure how to reduce some of these buildings but that they must fit better onto the site. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has a great deal of compassion for St. Andrew's. " • Pointed out that most public schools have remodeled and include high buildings. • Declared that kids are the most important thing in the world. • Said that she sees St. Andrew's making a great effort. • Agreed that one cannot teach today in a school built in 1962. • Said that we have to prepare kids for the future. • Agreed that something must be done about the building located closer to residences. • Said that this will be wonderful for the community and for St. Andrew's and should be allowed to go ahead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch questioned comparing this to public schools. Chair Jackman said that St. Andrew's has a wonderful reputation and the security improvements for its students is important. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she looked at the school today and found that it looks subdued and like a nice village school. • Expressed a problem with the proposed three-story buildings and bell tower. • Said that she is trying to visualize this big project on this site. • Stated a need to reduce bulk. • Agreed that she too understands the need for proper classrooms for children. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that he takes issue with the bell tower. • Said he could not understand why neighbors have not been taken more into consideration. • Said he basically would go with the staff recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it has achieved what was desired this evening. Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:50 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:01 p.m. ,~ *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #01-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI, 18360 Purdue: Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Sheet A-8 indicates a height of 21 feet but is actually 20 feet. • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family for a residence totaling 2,923 square feet. The first floor would be `- increased by 245 square feet and the second floor by 842 square feet. The maximum height would be 20 feet. • Described the lot as being 8,040 square feet within an R-1-10,000 Zoning District. • Said that staff finds that design policies have been met, that use of earthtones reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. • Informed that the applicant has provided evidence that their neighbors do not object with eight letters of support. • Recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 13 Commissioner Kurasch asked whether this home could be brought back at a future date to increase the height of the second story. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Mr. Cove Britton, Architect: • Explained the decision to go with a second story was made in order to preserve open space in the yard for the two young children in the family. • Said that the expansion to this smaller home is necessary to provide room for extended family members to visit. • Said that the interior height of the garage and guestroom would be the minimum allowed or 7 feet, 6 inches. • Said that they have worked with neighbors to address any concerns. • Pointed out that the windows along the property line are high to avoid any privacy impacts. • Said that they have carefully tied the new construction with the existing residence. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Britton about the front glass feature. Mr. Cove Britton described it as a bow window. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the purpose was for the slab at the side of the property. Mr. Cove Britton replied a service area -for maintenance of trash and recycle barrels. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not believe there were any windows next door to be impacted but rather a blank wall. Commissioner Kurasch said that one-does not see second story additions over garages much these days. Mr. Cove Britton explained that actually only the Craftsman style architecture locates the largest mass at the center of a house while other traditional styles do not. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is impressed with the reason expressed for placing the second story over the garage but said that it appears there is kind of a straight wall on the side elevation. Mr. Cove Britton replied that the second story is moved back three feet from the first story. Commissioner Zutshi said that three feet is not a lot of clearance. Mr. Cove Britton said that they wanted a 4 and 12 pitch roof and that required windows to provide egress from the bedrooms also impacted the need for this roof pitch. Commissioner Hunter stated that this does not look like any other home in the neighborhood. Mr. Cove Britton pointed out that this was not an issue for the neighbors who gave their support. Chair Jackman said that it is different but fits in. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Cove Britton said that it is a tradition northern European style. , Commissioner Hunter pointed out that only two two-story homes are found -among the approximately 160 homes in the immediate area. _ Mr. Cove Britton said t~ at he felt it could be supported if neighbors don't object. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern over the facade of the two-story addition, which creates a long mass. Additionally, the potential of this home being pushed up to 26 feet in height in the future, without Commission review, is a problem for her. Director Tom Sullivar; advised that there is a penalty for building height above 15 feet, which would require a reduction in the total square footage of house allowed. Added that the Commission has the authority to place a Condition of Approval that would require any change in the site plan, elevation or ridgeline be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:22 p.m. Ms. Suzanne Salehpour, 18421 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Said that the single-story ranch style character of her neighborhood is a key reason for her purchase of a home in this neighborhood. • Said that she wants to see the neighborhood retain its charm. • Pointed out that most additions in the area are accomplished without going up into a second story. • Said she would hate to see the neighborhood change in this way. • Asked that the Commission not allow atwo-story. Mr. Anjan Lukkoor, 18373 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he resides behind this property, which he purchased eight years ago. • Said that there are only three two-story homes. • Said that asingle-story neighborhood offers a lot of privacy. • Expressed his objection to a second story addition. • Pointed out that there are a number of ways to add on without needing a second story as these are fairly big lots. • Added that he would not object to a basement addition. Mr. Chris Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is directly across the street and that he is here to support this request. • Said that he was contacted early in the design phase and asked for his input. • Said he is impressed with the work and design put into this project. • Informed that he grew up in this neighborhood. • Stated that this project's design will greatly improve the neighborhood, offering some style and flare. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Wiles if his home is the one that had been removed. Mr. Chris Wiles replied yes. His home had asingle-story 1,024 square foot addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 ~ Page 15 Ms. Maureen Williams, 18396 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said she is very much in support and finds this to be a great design. • Identified her home as the other second story on the block. • Said she has three small children and asingle-story addition would have taken too much open space from their lot. They remodeled about 10 to 12 years ago with a second story addition. Chair Jackman asked how much square footage was added. Ms. Maureen Williams replied 1,100 square feet.. Said that since she did not get a letter of support in on time she elected to come this evening to support the applicant's request. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Williams if she had trouble getting her second story addition approved. Ms. Maureen Williams said that she installed a high fence with lattice as recommended by the Commission to help screen the addition from the neighbor's home. There have been no complaints. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Williams if she has a number of trees in her backyard. Ms. Maureen Williams replied that she has just one tree in the back corner of her backyard. Mr. Cove Britton stated that he believed this project could be approved with the impacted neighbors expressing support. Added that additional landscaping could be installed if necessary. Commissioner Garakani pointed .out that the concern is over future two-story home additions in the neighborhood. Mr. Cove Britton said that those applicants would also have to obtain Commission approval. Commissioner Garakani advised that this approval would establish a precedent for two story additions in this neighborhood. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that her main objection is that this house design does not look like any other house around and that she does not understand the turret type element. • Added that the home is not in keeping with the neighborhood. • Said that while it is fine for neighbors to express support, there is a reason for having a Planning Commission to review these proposals. If not, in the future, someone would look at this and question "how did that get through." • Said that her main objection is not the fact that this is a two-story but mostly because of the proposed glass bow window feature. Chair Jackman said that this home is not like the neighborhood and that asingle-story addition could be accommodated while still leaving a fair amount of open space available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed with the comments of Commission Hunter. ~~ • Said that the larger and most important .issue is lessening the impacts for everyone else including the precedent for second stories. • Stated that she cannot support atwo-story home in an area with a predominately single-story character particularly since there are options available for asingle-story addition to the home. • Suggested that the applicant try again with a smaller one story. Commissioner Zutshi said she saw a lot of homes in this area with additions, one-story additions. There are just two two-story homes. Suggested the applicant go for asingle-story design to in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that this neighborhood was built 50 years ago and is about to change. • Questioned what if three years from now others get to build atwo-story. How will this applicant feel then. ' • Said that overall, this home would look better than the rest of the houses over there. • Suggested going to a basement addition, which he could support, or providing better articulation. Commissioner Hunter said that she could support this second story because it is only 20 feet high but the design would need to match the neighborhood better. Chair Jackman. said that this is a nice proposed addition but that she has to say no to having it placed in a traditional one-story neighborhood as it would change that neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff has prepared a Resolution for approval. The Commission can prepare denial findings this evening and staff could bring the revised Resolution to the next meeting on Consent for final approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked how the applicant would feel about a request for redesign. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Cove Britton reminded the Commission that without a second story, this request would not require Commission review. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this statement is correct. Mr. Cove Britton continued to say that if the project is denied, it won't need to come back and they also would have the option to appeal the denial to Council. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Commission has the authority to require the single-story redesign to come back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Director has the option per Code to bring it back to the Planning Commission if he or she finds it necessary. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Pa e 17 Commissioner Garakani said he cannot outright say only single-story but rather he would like to see. more articulation in the design. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied a Design Review Approval to allow an addition to a residence located at 18360 Purdue with the findings that there is a lack of neighborhood compatibility, which is overwhelmingly single-story in character; due to the design of the front window; and due to a conflict with potential privacy issues as stated, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ____ ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Resolution would be added to the Consent Calendar for the next meeting. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #02-197 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R- 1-10,000, R-1-12.500, R-1-15,000 and the R-1-20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised .that this amendment is the result of complaints regarding the interpretation of side yard setback requirements, particularly as they relate to substandard lots. • Said that the letter of the law requires the entire building setback to be moved in by one foot for every foot above 18-feet in height. • Added that typically staff recommends that applicants apply for a Variance. • Stated that staff has prepared an Ordinance Amendment to address how to handle substandard lots. Another alternative would be to get rid of the 18-foot setback penalty for height altogether. • Advised that frankly the Ordinance as currently written is not working. • Explained that for non-conforming lots, the first floor must meet the minimum standard and the second floor must be moved in another five feet. • Informed that this issue did rise up to the Council, who instructed staff to prepare and bring forward this Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification regarding interior and exterior lots. Director Tom Sullivan explained that an interior lot is located between two other lots while an exterior lot would be found on a corner. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that most complaints have been based upon non- conforming lots. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 18 Director Tom Sullivan advised that most issues have been with remodels with second floors, usually on substandard lots, particularly when the applicants seeking additions want to take advantage of existing load bearing walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Amendment could be earmarked just for non-conforming lots Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could make that recommendation. Commissioner Garakani said that the current Ordinance offers the incentive to give a building articulation and avoid straight walls. Commissioner Zutshi said that straight walls could happen anyway with larger sized lots. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that a conforming lot width in R-1-10 is 85 feet. Some older lots have only a 50-foot width. Chair Jackman asked if McCoy Avenue has less than 85-foot width. Director Tom Sullivan said it could be that it does. Commissioner Garakani asked what the advantage would be for conforming lots. Director Tom Sullivan replied that if dealing with a new house, where the old house has been torn down, the current Ordinance works find. When remodeling or on a substandard lot, it does not. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission mostly sees tear downs. Asked if there is an advantage to having the Amended Ordinance apply in all circumstances. Director Tom Sullivan replied consistency is the advantage if the same guidelines apply to new and remodeled homes. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that it would make it simple to follow. Chair Jackman expressed that this Ordinance would create more open space. Commissioner Kurasch added that the Design Review process would still allow consideration of bulk and mass issues. Director Tom Sullivan said that if the 18-foot penalty rule is repealed, someone wishing to build up would have to meet Design Review findings. Commissioner Kurasch said that she had no problem with the proposed Amendment. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council for approval of the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-197) that would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 ~ - Page 19 1-10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000 and R-1-20,000 Districts, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None ~** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and or pruning of trees. The Amendment would also reduce the diameter of trees that would be protected by Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Code. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that it had become increasingly clear that the existing Tree regulations needed to be clarified and strengthened. The issue was last addressed 10 years ago. • Informed that staff and the Tree Committee (Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Garakani) took the work done 10 years ago and massaged it. • Stated that this item was advertised as a public hearing and that the environmental determination made longer noticing required. • Added that this item has also been advertised for Council's November 20`h meeting. • Recommended that the Commission move this item on to Council for action. • Said that he had given the entire revised Ordinance to both City Attorney offices and that 85 percent of their proposed changes have been implemented. For the most part, their changes included turning "will" into "shall." Some of the other proposed changes from the City Attorney need to be further explained to the Tree Committee, which can be done between this meeting and the Council hearing. • Stated that this represents a comprehensive update with definitions that are an important tool for staff. Included are where to measure the size of tree. The industry standard is 4.5 feet above grade. • Said that a significant change is that violations would go from being an infraction (with a $100 fine as a penalty) to a misdemeanor (with more severe penalties). As a fall back proposal, first violations could be treated as infractions while second violations would be misdemeanors. Chair Jackman said that the severity of the first event might play a role. Director Tom Sullivan advised that enforcement would have to be treated as is outlined in the Code. Commissioner Hunter commended the work done by Commissioner Kurasch and Tom Sullivan. Chair Jackman agreed that this has been an excellent effort. Commissioner Kurasch replied if it works. They wanted to have something that was achievable without diluting it down to nothing. Commissioner Hunter said that it is important to see what other cities are doing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 20 ,. Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a church in San Francisco that illegally removed three trees and will '~ be fined $1,000 per tree. Commissioner Hunter added plus the fact that the infraction made the news. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the revised Ordinance prohibits pruning the crown of a tree any more than 20 percent. Director Tom Sullivan added that up to 20 percent requires no permit while 20 to 30 percent pruning would require a permit. Additionally, no pruning can be done to a tree that is rooted on a neighboring property without a permit. Commissioner Kurasch suggested definitions for crown versus canopy. Director Tom Sullivan suggested adding the definition for crown. Commissioner Kurasch advised that the crown is the same as the canopy, the green leafy area. Commissioner Garakani added "the umbrella." Commissioner Kurasch replied very good. She expressed the importance of the preparation of a Tree Protection Plan, which would be a site plan. Director Tom Sullivan asked for suggested amended language to the draft. ;~ Commissioner Kurasch suggested adding the word "site." She added that the City Attorney recommended omitting the tree valuation from the Ordinance. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the City for spending time to do this and said that, while it is not perfect, it represents a great start. • Supported the approval of the Ordinance Update as soon as possible. • Said that he hoped the City would allow amendments and/or adjustments to this Ordinance in the future. • Stated his wholehearted support. • Said that it is good that affected neighbors would be notified of a tree removal permit. • Suggested a longer appeal period. • Pointed out that it takes just hours to cut down a tree. • Asked to what extent this Ordinance allows grandfathering in existing conditions. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Ordinance is prospective and not retroactive. Added that Council will hold two hearings and then 30 days later the Ordinance would be in effect. Mr. Bill Breck asked what would trigger the requirement to get a permit. ~• e Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 21 Director Tom Sullivan replied that encroachment into the root zone with almost anything would need a permit. Mr. Bill Breck questioned Section 070, 25(d) as it calls for pruning permits. Director Tom Sullivan said that there are certain instances when greater than 30 .percent pruning would be required. A 20 percent standard was chosen to back off from that maximum level. Mr. Bill Breck proposed removing ISA standards. Commissioner Kurasch did not support that suggestion. Mr. Bill Breck said that either ISA or specific rule should be enforced. Commissioner Hunter asked whether PG&E is allowed to prune without standards simply by right. Director Tom Sullivan advised that PG&E would require permits but he is not sure if the City has the authority over how they actually do the pruning. Mr. Bill Breck said that it would be prudent not to allow pruning of trees if trees are under City Arborist remediation, under stress, gouged or with severed roots, etc -Added the encroachment permit is not defined. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is defined under Section 15-50.20(H). The City Attorney put it in with all other issues. Mr. Bill Breck asked where. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are all on one form. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that both removal and encroachment permits appear on the same form. Mr. Bill Breck asked about penalties for damaging and encroachment of -trees and where they are specified. Director Tom Sullivan replied that all provisions are for misdemeanors, which are criminal penalties. Civil penalties need to be further addressed. Mr. Bill Breck pointed out that under State law, if damage is over $400, it becomes a felony. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that encroachment permits mostly would happen with development projects or activities while removals may be different from development activity. • Said that the Ordinance tries to accomplish a way to open the dragnet a bit. • Said that the goal is to find something that is enforceable and achievable and to avoid and prevent injury to trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 - Page 22 Director Tom Sullivan invited Mr. Breck to provide additional written comments within the next week for his use when writing the staff report. Mr. Bill Breck declared that the ISA formulas for valuing trees is way too low and agreed to submit the rest of his comments in writing to Director Sullivan. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:35 p.m. Chair Jackman stated that this is a good report and a big step from where we were. Reiterated that Mr. Breck is encouraged to submit additional written comments. Director Tom Sullivan added that he would schedule a meeting of the Tree Committee together with the ' City Attorney to make final changes prior to the Council hearing. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-210) that would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and/or pruning of trees, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Zutshi stated that lots of work was done on this and thanked those involved. Commissioner Hunter asked when Council would have its hearing on this Ordinance Amendment. Director Tom Sullivan replied November 20, 2002. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S APPLICATION #02-210 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA: Consistent with the provisions of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will broaden the opportunities to obtain a Use Permit for Second Dwelling Units on Residentially Zoned Properties. (SULLIVAN) (Request to be continued to December 11, 2002) Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff is proposing a continuance of this item to the meeting of December 11, 2002. **~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 23 COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS • There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, November 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • o ~ e MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Roupe called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 22, 2002. As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular minutes from the October 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that meeting were continued to the next meeting on December 11, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Roupe announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page '? CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1 "~ RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #02-053, APPLICATION_#O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI,_ 18360 Purdue: Denial of Design Review application to construct atwo-story single-family residence on an 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 (OOSTERHOUS) _. Acting Chair Roupe removed this item from Consent to be heard as a Public Hearing Item since there is a member of the audience wishing to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for rejecting this application. • Advised that he has lived in this neighborhood for 25 years and has significant concerns over what types of construction is being approved. • Pointed out that the neighborhood consists of smaller homes, from 1,400 to 1,600 square feet. • Said that he feels strongly that the neighborhood's character should be preserved. • Encouraged the Commission to keep up the good work as done with the rejection of this proposal. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as her father's representative, who owns a home in this neighborhood. • Said that she found out today about the Purdue project and is present this evening to obtain more information. • Stated that she is pleased that this proposal was denied. • Said that she was raised in this area and is concerned about architectural compatibility. • Declared that she does not want to see this neighborhood turn into another EI Quito Park type neighborhood. • Stated that a house recently approved on Swarthmore is more than two times larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. • Suggested that there should be ways to rein in initial approvals that are not compatible with neighboring homes. • Expressed appreciation to the Commission and sought guidance on what she can do to further her cause. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lara when the project on Swarthmore was approved. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Replied that the large home was approved by staff in October of this year. • Added that she had just learned about the project and the 10-day appeal period has already passed. • Said that she has a petition signed by 26 neighbors who do not support that project. • Said that they are concerned about architectural approvals occurring administratively without coming before the Planning Commission. • Questioned how a home can be doubled in size and not require Commission review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Pace 3 Acting Chair Roupe thanked Ms. Lara for her comments and advised that the Commission is not in a position to comment on this approval. Asked Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous to address Ms. Lara's concerns. Planner Christy Oosterhous: • Advised that the concerns and comments raised by Ms. Elizabeth Lara were received after the -- appeal period had passed. • Added that the applicant has been asked to revise the front elevation of the home. • Stated that the home meets the criteria for review through the Administrative Process. It is less than 18 feet in height, asingle-story and is a plain stucco bungalow design. Acting Chair Roupe pointed out that a number of applications submitted to the City are subject to Administrative Approval. It is not unusual that this particular matter was not brought to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Expressed concerns about features such as large columns and an eight-foot-long window located within four feet of a fence: • Added that this is the first home on their street that has been torn down and all landscaping removed. This was done very quickly. • Said that they are trying to organize themselves. Acting Chair Roupe suggested that the Director could look into the matter. • Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission is reaching the nexus of how far this matter can be discussed this evening particularly since it is not even a part of this project that is on the agenda. Acting Chair Roupe encouraged Ms. Elizabeth Lara to discuss her concerns further with Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution of Denial (#02-053) for Application #01-044 for property located at 18360 Purdue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-190 - (397-O1-012), SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, 18930 Allendale Avenue: Request for General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Very Low Density to Quasi-Public Facility. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow a parcel that is presently designated Residential Very Low Density and containing asingle-family dwelling to be designated Quasi-Public Facility. The change in designation is requested in order to facilitate a lot line change, which would allow the parcel in question to become Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 4 part of the adjacent Saint Archangel Michael Church facility. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared. (WELSH) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN). Acting Chair Roupe advised that there is a request for a continuance to a date uncertain for this agenda item. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that the applicant will seek to package the whole project into one application. This project will be renoticed when it comes forward again. ' i~C X PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Commission has discussed the Gateway Design Guidelines twice. • Recommended that this Public Hearing on the Guidelines be continued to the December 11, 2002, meeting to allow more Commissioners to be present. • Stated that the Gateway Design Guidelines warrants having a larger body available to fully discuss • it. Acting Chair Roupe stated that this would represent a continuance to a date certain. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are people present this evening that may like the opportunity to speak about the issue. Director Tom Sullivan said that it is possible to take public testimony if the Commission would like to do so. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said he was disappointed that this process would not continue tonight. • Stated that he would return on December 11, 2002. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Mallory for his email communications. Acting Chair Roupe stated that it is appropriate not to rush to judgement on this matter. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 ~ • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 5 Application #SD-O1-001 & ED-O1-003 - (397-27-029), .TAVANMARD/ASGARI, 20440 Arbeleche Lane: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single-family. Proposed Parcel A is 11,982 (net) square feet. The proposed Parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. The existing single-family dwelling is to be demolished. One single-family dwelling is proposed on each parcel. The project site contains a riparian corridor, the Saratoga Creek, and several mature trees. The proposed parcels are located in the R-M-4,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation for the proposed parcels is Multi-Family Residential. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two with building sites on each parcel. • Stated that the existing house would be demolished and a new single-family residence constructed on each parcel. • Informed that the property is located on the Saratoga Creek border and is zoned Multi-Family Residential. Multi-Family Residential and Commercial uses are located in the immediate area. • Said that the maximum height for Lot A is proposed at 28 feet, 6 inches and would be a two-story home consisting of 3,800 square feet. • Said that the maximum height for Lot B is 28 feet and would be a two-story home consisting of 3,900 square feet. • Described the 75-foot setback requirement for the riparian corridor. • Pointed out that the creation of two smaller parcels from one parcel would result in the creation of two parcels that would have constraints as far as the development of the parcels. • Discussed the Initial Study prepared and said that staff has determined that there are significant impacts as a result of this proposal. • Added that the proposal is not consistent with the Municipal Code regarding development within a riparian corridor and the proposed removal of 12 redwood trees. • Recommended that the Environmental Document be found inadequate since staff can only make five of nine required findings. • Recommended denial of the project with the findings that it is not consistent with the General Plan, the site is not suitable for development as proposed and that the design of the development would likely cause substantial environmental damage. Commissioner Garakani asked Planner Christy Oosterhous when this application was received by the City. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied August 21, 2001. Commissioner Garakani expressed surprise that staff did not identify these major concerns at that time. Asked if the applicant was aware of staff's position prior to this evening. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that it took some time to do the background research in order to come to this conclusion. Added that the applicant is actively involved in the whole process and that some impacts are visible only after the buildings were staked out on the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 ~ Page 6 Commissioner Zutshi asked about comments and/or requirements from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that no written comments were received from either agency. Commissioner Hunter stated that due to past problems with development near creeks, the City uses more caution. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are regulations about basements close to a creek. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site would need a geotechnical soils evaluation. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 7:37 p.m. Ms. Glush Dada, Project Designer: • Said that she just recently got involved with the design of this project but that project engineers have worked for about a year. • Stated that it has taken about two years to get before the Commission. ' • Said that this is an odd-shaped parcel that is hard to build upon." • Stated that they are not ruining any trees and that important trees on site are being retained. Only one tree would be cut. ' • Suggested that with the value of land in Saratoga, her clients have the right to expect to be able to build 3,000 square foot homes in order to get land value back. This square footage includes the garage area. These are very decent homes by today's standards in the Bay Area. • • Said that they have taken a creative approach to be able to fit decent sized homes on this property. • Declared that the redwood trees can be protected through structural building techniques. • Provided an exhibit that depicts the buildable area on the property. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that the applicant is willing to keep the redwood trees. Ms. Glush Dada said of course. The trees afford- privacy between this site and the adjacent commercial property. Added that constructing with piers every 15 feet would preserve these trees. Added that an Arborist can do a report about this type of construction near trees. Commissioner Garakani asked if Ms. Dada is concerned about tree roots damaging the structure of the house. Ms. Glush Dada said that there are ways of preventing that with installation of metal barriers. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Dada if she is willing to reduce the size of these homes. Ms. Glush Dada said that her client does not want smaller homes. This is the typical size home in Saratoga. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the 12 redwood trees. Ms. Glush Dada reminded that only one tree would be removed from the site. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 ~ Page 7 Acting Chair Roupe asked Ms. Glush Dada about the riparian corridor. Added that the setback standards set forth for riparian corridors indicates that both lots are considered unbuildable. Ms. Glush Dada said that the Biologist could better address this issue. Reminded that the Civil Engineer worked with City staff for one year and that they obeyed the setbacks provided. Acting Chair Roupe asked Planner Christy Oosterhous to clarify the issue of the riparian corridor easement. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the easement requirement for the riparian corridor is addressed in the Subdivision Section of the City's Municipal Code for when a subdivision is being created near a creek. A designated Creek Protection Easement is required. Commissioner Garakani asked about the required size of this Creek Protection Easement. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that it is based upon the biotic assessment. In this case it is a 75-foot setback from the corridor. Acting Chair Roupe clarified that the primary concern is the riparian corridor. - Mr. John Bushall, Biologist: • Informed that he prepared the biologic report that suggested the 75-foot setback. • Stated that this project would have increased setback encroachments but that mitigation can be taken that include eradicating non-native species and moving the wire mesh fence on site off the bank by 10 feet and replace it with a cedar split-level fence, and replanting 10 feet of the bank and part of the slope with native vegetation. • Said that biologically, these steps should mitigate increased encroachment into the setback. • Said that the applicant has done due diligence in working with this site. Commissioner Hunter questioned the potential adverse impacts on the creek from using herbicides to eradicate the invasive non-native grasses. Mr. John Bushall said that the product proposed, Aquamaster, is approved by the EPA for use near water. The process includes cutting the weeds and applying the herbicide directly to the cut stems. Commissioner Hunter asked why not just leave the creek as it is with the plants already there. Mr. John Bushall replied that they are not native to the area. Wildlife has no use for these plants and , the plants will ultimately take over the riparian corridor. This is a huge problem in the Bay Area. Acting Chair Roupe asked if replacement of plant material in the riparian corridor still results in encroachment into the riparian corridor. Mr. John Bushall replied yes. He said however that by creating nice mid canopy and underbrush, this project would create a better situation than what is there now. Commissioner Zutshi asked how Mr. Bushall weighs the encroachment into the setback with the replacement of the non-native vegetation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 8 Mr. John Bushall advised that typically a pristine and high-quality habitat needs a 100-foot setback. A 75-foot setback is recommended here. The mitigation for encroaching into that setback is at a three to one ratio. If you remove one tree, you replace with three. Acting Chair Roupe asked Mr. Bushall if this project meets that mitigation criteria. Mr. John Bushall replied that this project exceeds the mitigation criteria. Acting Chair Roupe asked staff for its position based on this opinion. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that she would stick to her conclusion presented within the staff report that this development is not appropriate for this site. Commissioner Zutshi asked for further clarification of the purpose for the removal of non-native vegetation. Mr. John Bushall said the intent is to prevent the spread of non-native vegetation, which is a Bay Area wide problem with invasive species. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the creek area is prone to flood. Asked what time of year the non-native vegetation would typically be removed. Mr. John Bushall stated that the removal is done by hand and erosion control measures, such as placing straw, is installed. Commissioner Zutshi asked who supervises this work. Mr. John Bushall said that he is not under contract. Said that they can provide supervision if contracted to do so. Ms. Diana Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Identified her family-owned business, Neal's Hollow, as being located at 14320 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The business was established by her parents in 1965 and she and her two brothers currently run the business. • Said that she is concerned about having two single-family residences on this site. • Said that the division of this lot does not make sense since it is already is at a disadvantage due to the riparian corridor. • Said that the stakes for the building on Lot B are in place and appear to be too close to the redwood trees. • Expressed concern about the potential for future conflict with a residential owner of Lot B over issues such as the lighting and business uses on their adjacent commercial property. • Stated that a limousine service has operated from Neal's Hollow since the 1970s. There is sensor lighting on the site as well as regular lighting. Additionally, there is a school operating at Neal's Hollow and it is important for these children to have quite between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Monday through Friday. Two homes could be extremely disruptive to the school. • Said that the close proximity of the house on Lot B to the shared property line with her site could hinder fire fighting ability on both properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 9 :, • Stated that there are potential flooding impacts with development of this property. • Advised that their attorney is investigating easement issues for utility- and access. • Thanked the Commission for listening to her views. Acting Chair Roupe reminded that the redwood trees would be preserved through the use of special construction techniques. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the stakes for the house are about half way under the canopy and the trees may not be able to be preserved. Commissioner Garakani recognized Ms. Espinosa's wish to be pro-active and prevent conflict before it occurs. Agreed that these are pre-existing businesses of which any new residential owners would have to be made aware at time of purchase of their homes. Ms. Glush Dada: • Stated that any drainage issues would be solved and that they never let dirty water drain to the creek. • Said that construction hours would be honored and no street parking would be required during construction. • Pointed out that tall trees, like redwoods, have long roots that grow straight down. Amore spread out tree has more spread out roots. • Added that as long as main roots are not bothered, it is okay to construct within 10 feet. Commissioner Hunter agreed that redwoods have deep taproots. Acting Chair Roupe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:14 p.m. Commissioner Hunter asked how large is the parcel. Director Tom Sullivan replied about two-thirds of an acre. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the property has just an 800 square foot house right now and what is proposed is about 8,000 square feet on the same property. Questioned whether typically a house of that size would be allowed on a parcel of this size. Acting Chair Roupe reminded that there are no FAR standards in the R-M zone. Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed that this is correct but added that this is not a typical site. Commissioner Hunter thanked staff for its report. Agreed with the analysis that this is not an appropriate use near a riparian corridor. The existing 800 square foot house could be bigger but not two single-family homes with a triangular lot. -Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this is too much for the lot size and with the proximity to the creek. The creek plays an important role in that area. Stated she would not be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that the main issue is the proximity to the creek. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November ~3, 2002 Page 10 • Said that he hated not to see the enjoyment of the use of the creek. • Expressed happiness with the mitigation that would improve the riparian corridor. • Suggested a reduction in the size of the homes or-incorporating abasement and said that he could support with one of those actions. • Stated the importance of keeping the redwood trees. Commissioner Zutshi said that she too would love to live near a creek but that huge houses would overwhelm the creek itself. Acting Chair Roupe: • Said that he is concerned about the substantial encroachment into the riparian corridor although mitigation would improve the situation particularly with the removal of non-indigenous species. • Said that he is concerned particularly with Lot B and the pressure of creating a small lot in a difficult location. • Suggested a single structure as this proposal is too much for the lot and too much of an encroachment into the riparian corridor. • Asked staff if the Negative Declaration, Subdivision and Design Review would be handled individually. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can simply deny the project with findings. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied Application #SD-O1-001 and ED-O1-003 to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels and construct two new single-family residences on property located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None *~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the November 27, 2002, meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on December 11, 2002. COMMISSION ITEMS Tree Ordinance Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission that Council would be discussing the Tree Ordinance at next Wednesday's meeting. Commissioner Garakani advised that he has received several calls about the Tree Ordinance. Some find that a misdemeanor is too much and questioned why not increase the fines. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Pa e 11 Director Tom Sullivan replied that this could not be done. The City Attorney and/or Judge could reduce a misdemeanor to an infraction. Additionally, once a matter has been corrected, the infraction is torn up rather than pursued any further. Commissioner Garakani added that concerns were also raised about the ability to trim branches from a neighbor's tree. Director Tom Sullivan said that to do so would require a permit. That process gives staff the opportunity to notice affected property owners. Site Visits Commissioner Hunter advised that morning site visits impact her ability to attend Heritage Preservation Commission meetings as the Commission's representative as she has to leave these meetings early to make the site visits. Proposed that the site visits be returned to 3 p.m. Commissioner Garakani agreed that if the visits could not be done between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., he would support returning to 3 p.m. Acting Chair Roupe agreed. upr r~iP„~a,- Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission is distributing calendars for a $10 donation. Said that she has a small supply available. Library Commission Commissioner Zutshi advised that there will be a Library site visit during the first week in December. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from September 24, 2002. AD.TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Roupe adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, December 11, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: N/A Location: 14480 Oak Place Applicant/Owner: Planning Commission Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: December 11, 2002 APN: 357-22-OSl ~_ Department Head ~% _,~ • • i ~ -vr / ~ ~\ Q.~ -= aver Roperty ~ Street_~rres ~ 7-T _ \ . ! nvero ~ ~ ~ _~ Parcels_n~.v ~ ~~ ~ I ~0 60 \ 120 180 240 300fl i; ~/ ~ ~ ~~ i' ; ~ ~ ~' i~~ ~' /~ / ~~ ;~ ~' c / '. ~ i \\ ~.\~ /i i~ ~ .`, i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ \~ \~, i ~~ '~ ~\ ., 0000.01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On august 28, 2002, the Planning Commission granting the Appeal of ~-7r. Breck regarding an Administrative Decision conditionally allowing pavement ~nthin ten feet of Oak trees at 14480 Oak Place. The Planning Commission Resolution had thee following conditions: 1. That the Ciry Arborist inspect and prepare an Assessment Report to the Ciry Planning Commission detailing the damage caused by construction and placement of said footings and said concrete wall within ten feet of each Ordinance-protected oak tree and the probable additional damage thereto which will occur in the future unless :applicant Cutler complies with conditions imposed by the Ciry Community Development Director and additional conditions imposed by the City Planning Commission; and 2. That the City Arborist prepare a recommended Mitigation Plan to the City Planning Commission for the preservation and remediation of the health of each of the damaged trees described in Condition 1 above, including a recommendation as to whether the health of said trees is best protected by removal of said footings and/or concrete wall or allowing said footings and/or concrete wall to remain in place while imposing additional mitigation measures; and 3. That the City Arborist prepare a Value of Damage and Bonding Recommendation Report to the City Planning Commission addressing the value of the damage caused bq construction and placement of said footings and said concrete wall ~~~ithin ten feet of each Ordinance- protected oak tree and the probable additional damage thereto ~~~hich will occur in the future unless Applicant Cutler complies with conditions imposed by the Ciry Community Development Director and additional conditions unposed by the Planning Commission, and recommending an amount and term for a bond in favor of the City assuring funding to pay for carrying out all of said conditions in the event the Applicant fails to do so and to guarantee the replacement of any of said trees which dies «~ithin a specified reasonable time period recommended by the City Arborist; and 4. That the Assessment Report, Mitigation Plan and Value of Damage and Bonding Recommendation Report required by Conditions 1, 2 and 3 above be: (a) completed as soon as possible and not to exceed 60 days from August 28, 2002; (b) pro~~ided (upon completion) to each Planning Commissioner, the City Community Development Director, Applicant Cutler, Appellant Breck, and the owner of each property abutting the subject real property; and (c) placed on the next reasonably available City Planning Commission , Agenda for a duly noticed Public Hearing to enable the Ciry Planning Commission to consider and impose any additional lawful and appropriate conditions on the construction of said concrete wall and the footings located adjacent thereto; and 5. That no additional construction shall occur on the subject real property nearer than ten feet to any Ordinance-protected oak tree until the final decision by the Ciry Planning Commission as to all conditions to be imposed pursuant to the Public Hearing held pursuant to Condition 4(c) above and unless such additional construction is consistent 000002 ~L-ith said final decision; and - 6. That the followin actions shall be completed by Applicant Cutler immediately (taking g practicalities into consideration): all tree protective measures identified by the Ciry Arborist in his April 22, 2002 Report shall be put in place, including, but not limited to, removal of all fill dirt within three feet of the Ordinance-protected trees, including, but not limited to, the one identified as tree number 1 by the Ciry Arborist in his April ?2, 2002 Report; and ~. That when construction near the Ordinance-protected oak trees does recommence on the subject real property, a licensed arborist shall first be retained by Applicant Cutler (or his successors in interest to the subject real property) to supervise such construction and to ensure adherence to each condition imposed by the City Planning Commission pursuant to the Public Hearing held pursuant to Condition 4(c) above; and 8. That there shall not be any further construction on any concrete wall or ~~~ithin ten feet of any protected tree on either side of such wall on the subject real property until all City Code enforcement matters pending as to the subject real-property have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Staff has prepared a Resolution for the Commission to consider. This resolution mirrors the mitigations found in the City Arborist Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept City Arborist Report and establish the mitigation plan by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City Arborist Report ~J ~~~~0~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000004 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received and re~~ie~ved an Arborist Report for the area along a 300-foot section of a concrete wall located at 14=180 Oak Place, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had required the preparation of an Arborist Report as a condition of granting the Appeal, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, with the information available in the Arborist Report, no~v condition the Appeal decision with mitigations to the impacts related to the wall construction within 10-feet of protected trees, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed this Arborist Report at a duly noticed Regular Meeting at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Arborist Report establishes lost value for the damage done to the four trees at X24,240, and WHEREAS, the Arborist Report establishes that the four trees have estimated values totaling $80,000 by use of the 9`h edition Guide for Plant Appraisal, and WHEREAS, the Arborist Report makes certain recommendations and conclusions regarding needed mitigations to ensure the continued health of the four trees inspected. WHEREAS, the Arborist Report states that the removal of the horizontal concrete footings, which protrude from the base of the walls would cause more damage to tree roots than benefit. The damage caused by removal of these footings would not replace the roots removed during the excavations and the equipment needed to remove the footings would merely cause additional root damage. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve that after careful consideration of the Arborist Report, the following conditions are required in order to mitigate the impacts to the four trees: 1. All soil above original grade beneath tree canopies and against tree trunks must be removed to areas beyond tree driplines by wheelbarrov~~ and shovel (not motorized equipment). Five buttress root bases must be made visible at least 1-foot from the trunk of trees #1 and 2. 000005 ?. any pathway planned beneath trees #1 and 2 must be of stepping stones laid on top of original grade, with a per«ous base material, and coarse sand or grit fill between stones. 3. tlycorrhi.al fungi must be injected by a certified arborist experienced with this procedure into all areas beneath the tree canopies both on the Cutler propert}' and adjacent properties. 4. Soaker hoses must be laid in concentric half circles 4 feet, 6 feet, and 8 feet from tree trunks on the Cutler property, and be attached to water hoses. ~. These soaker hoses must be covered with a 3i/a -4 inch thick layer of coarse tree chips (not shredded redwood bark) these chips to cover all areas beneath tree canopies. This mulch must be maintained for at least 2 years, or until inspection demonstrates the presence of absorbing roots in the top 3-inches of soil. 6. The soaker hoses must be turned on for one day per week (24 hours per week) to result in drip (not spray) from the soaker hoses at approximately l~ gallons per hour per 2~ feet of hose for one month. 7. The irrigation described in paragraph 6 must be repeated one day (24 hours) per month thereafter. End weight reduction from the ends of the lon est western ortion of the cano ies of b g P p trees ~3 and 4 must remove 6-8 feet of length by drop-crotch pruning and cables must be installed between the main trunk and west facing limbs of each of those trees. Landscape plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Department (and re~~iew by the City Arborist) for all landscaping in areas beneath tree canopies, prior to installation of any additional landscaping in those areas. These landscape plans must demonstrate: a. That no irrigation line trenches will be installed further than 3 feet from the house foundation on the east side of the Cutler property and irrigation for any plants on the south side of the Cutler property originates from the west or east and no trenches are dug on the south side. b. That the only irrigation planned to be installed beneath tree canopies will be by drip or lazer-tube irrigation with supply lines laid on top of existing grade, and covered with 3% - 4 inches of coarse chips. c. That the species of plants used in landscaping beneath the canopies not require irrigation more often than twice per month (consistent with Compatible Plants _ X00®Os c. That the species of plants used in landscaping beneath the canopies not require irrigation more often than twice per month (consistent with Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks by the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612). 10. Inspections of compliance be conducted by the City Arborist after each of the above procedures are completed and until inspection demonstrates the presence of absorbing roots in the top three inches of soil. 11. That a bond to assure performance of items 1-8 of section 2 in this report for 58,310 (cost of work plus 25% cost of inspection by City) to be refunded at completion of all such items. 12. That a bond for the cost of four 96-inch boxed installed replacement trees (estimated at 5100,000) be held up to nine years, with the City to inspect the trees at intervals of three years, at which time the condition of the four trees would be evaluated by the City to determine whether to release the bond, to partially release the bond, to retain the bond, or to utilize (or partially utilize) the bond to replace any of the four trees which is dead or imminently dying. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary,. Planning Commission • X00®0~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~J00008 BARRIE D. COATE -and ASSOCIATES Horticu[ural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408!353-1052 - Attachment 2 A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT WALL CONSTRUCTION ON FOUR OAK TREES AT' 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga and Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit to: APN 397-22-051 (Cutler Property) on September 23, 2002 and to APNs 397-22-058 (Houston), 397-21-030 (Goldman) and 397-22-054 (King) on October 15, 2002 By Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist Job # 04-02-070B • 000009 A REVIE W OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT WALL CONSTRUCTION ON FOUR OAK TREES 1 AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA Assignment Based on a decision by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga in its Resolution No. 02-043; #~ Tom Sullivan (City Community Development Director) asked me to perform the following three basic tasks: (I) to inspect, prepare and submit an assessment report detailing the damage (if any) caused by construction of footings and a concrete wall within l0 feet of four City ordinance protected coast live oak trees. This assessment is to include the additional damage (if any) which will occur in the future unless the applicant complies with conditions impcsed pursuant to my below recommended mitigation plan by the City Community Development Director and/or Planning Commission. (2) to submit a recommended mitigation plan inclusive of an estimated time table to the Planning Commission to aid in the preservation and remediation of the health of each damaged trees described in task (1) above including an opinion of the benefit or lack of benefit to said trees by removal of said footings. (3) to submit a value of damage and bond recommendation addressing the value of any damage caused by construction and placement of the footings within l0 feet of each ordinance protected oak trees and to define the additional damage which will occur in the future unless the applicant complies with conditions imposed pursuant to my below recommended mitigation plan- by the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission. In addition under item 3, I was asked to recommend an amount and. term for a bond in favor of the City insuring funding for carrying out all of said conditions in the event the applicant fails to do so and to guarantee the replacement of any said trees which dies within a reasonable time to be specified by me. In addition, because additional interim thinning may have occurred after the Planning Commission Decision, Mr. Sullivan asked me to assess whether this thinning occurred and, if so, the impact of this additional thinning. I was asked to complete this report as soon as possible but no later than October 28, 2002. I was allowed access to the Cutler property on September 23, 2002 in company of Mr. Brad Lind; Building Official, City of Saratoga and Sean Massiphour, the Cutlers'engineer. This access was limited by the property owner to the area within ten .feet of the 300-foot portion of the new concrete wall. I also performed a site visit to APN 397-022-058, APN 397-021-030 and APN 397-22-054, properties adjacent to the four City ordinance protected trees which I assessed. Summary All four trees appear to be in reasonably good to good health at this time although the structures of trees #1 and 2 have been damaged by excessive interior thinning. These two trees appear to be emerging-from the property line between APN 397-22-051 (Cutler) and APN 397-21-030 (Goldman). PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 V oo ~~~ A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADIACENT WALL CONSTRU.:"I70N ON FOUR OAR TREES 2 AT 14480 OAR PLACE SARATOGA Tree #3 is on the Cutler property and Tree #4 is on the King property to the east but at least 25 feet of their canopies (i.e. approximately 40 percent of each of the canopies) extends over the Cutler property. The following discussion and recommendations offer specific ways in which the health of the trees can be improved in the short term and long term damage diminished. For ease of discussion I will call the two trees on the south wall trees #1 and 2, and the two trees on the adjacent property to the east trees #3 and 4. I was told by the Cutlers' engineer that a footing of concrete of 11-inches thick near tree #1 and 20-inches thick near trees #2, 3 and 4 has been installed as part of the support for the stucco wall over the full length of the 300 foot wall involved in the decision of the Planning Commission reflected in its September 11, 2002 Resolution No. 02-043. I was also informed, by the Cutlers' engineer that 18 inch diameter seven foot deep piers were drilled adjacent to the wall at intervals of six feet on center. I was told by both Tom Sullivan and Brad Lind that the initially-planned wood fence involved a soil cut for a footing of a depth of 12-inches (about 18 inches wide). The new footing for the new concrete wall is up to 20 inches deep and varies from 44 inches to 53 inches in width on the Cutler side of the wall. Both Mr. Sullivan and Brad Lind informed me that the entirety of the new footing is above the original soil grade and that fill soil was brought in and covers the entire 20-inch deep concrete slab footing. These new concrete footings are attached to the wall and extend horizontally from 44-inches to 53-inches inside the wall. The effect of the excavation for the initial 18-inch wrde footing to 12-inches of depth will have been to remove some but not all of the absorbing roots in the area occupied by that initial footing but to leave most of the 1 to 2-inch diameter roots from which absorbing roots are annually reproduced. None of the absorbing roots in the area under the above-grade new 20-inch deep footings would have been removed. Introductory Discussion All four of the trees in question are coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The trees are all large specimens ranging from 20-inch DBH in tree # 2 (diameter at 4'/s feet above grade) to 44.5 inches in tree #4. It will be critical to the ongoing health of these trees to maintain the remaining absorbing roots in healthy condition. Trees #1 and 2 have been overthinned, resulting in the only healthy foliage being left at the ends of very long limbs. The excavation for the footings did far more damage than the drilling through the root mass for the piers that accompanied the construction of this wall since pier drilling leaves all of the roots between pier sites essentially undisturbed except for the compaction of the surface soil by the drilling equipment. This pruning will result in limb breakage in the future due to the development of a disproportionate relationship between endweight and branch diameter unless remedial drop-crotch pruning is done in 3-4 years. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 V00~~ A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT WALL CONSTRUCTION (?N FOUR OAK TREES AT ]4480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA 3 Trees #3 and 4 each have codominant limbs with included bark at six to eight feet above ground. These. are naturally occumng defects. In the future this will cause some potential for loss of a major limb over the Cutler property and for that reason endweight pruning should be done from the western terminal portion of the canopy and cables should be installed or reinstalled to prevent that limb loss. Tree #4 has a cable installed in it which is currently slack, probably due to reduction in weight as a result of pruning over the Cutler property. Task #1 Clay fill soil has been spread over the area beneath the portion of the canopy within six feet of the wall of each of the four trees. -This will inhibit access by roots to oxygen, one of the major ingredients of soil which supports healthy root growth. Soil has been deposited above -the original grade adjacent to the trunks of trees # I and 2 as well. Absorbing root mass in the specific areas. approximately 18-inches wide in which the 12-inch deep cuts were made for the footings was removed to the 12-inch depth, but the gravelly, well drained condition of the site soil will have resulted in 30 percent of the absorbing roots remaining below that depth and 80 percent +/- of the 1-2 inch diameter roots from which absorbing roots arise annually remaining intact, if not completely unaffected by construction equipment vibration. In the short term, the effect of this loss can be reduced to an acceptable level by strictly following the mitigation plan set forth below. will de end on the actions of the nei hbors For the next several years the root health of these trees p g where the undamaged 60 percent +/- of the root system exists while new roots are being produced. on the Cutler property. Future damage to this remaining portion of the root system on the Cutler property by overwatering, trenching, or soil compaction would create a probability of death of those already affected roots, due to watermold disease (Phytophthora cinnamomii) leaving the trees with only 60 percent +/- of a root system.' The loss of this many roots will leave access by watermold disease and oak root fungus into the dead root ends and a dramatically reduced life span or tree failure. Leaving or redepositing soil against the root collar or trunk of these trees will result in infection by oak root fungus disease. I estimate that 70% of the absorbing roots of the four trees were removed by excavating to 12-inches below grade across their root systems. If the following instructions are carefully followed there is a probability that a new absorbing root mass will grow in 1-2 years. It must be very clear however, that leaving the soil surface bare and dry, or overwatering or excavating for hardscape installations will certainly prevent that from happening. This, too, will result in a dramatically reduced life span or tree failure. -- PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COAT'E, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 1100012 A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT WALL CONSTRUCTION QN FOUR OAK TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA 4 In summary, the health of these trees will now rest in the short term with maintenance of the best possible soil environment on the adjacent neighbors property due to the soil cuts made on the Cutler property and in the long term by providing the best feasible root environment on the Cutler property. Task #2 Mitigation Plan 1. All soil above original grade beneath tree canopies and against tree trunks must be removed to areas beyond tree driplines by wheelbarrow and shovel (not motorized equipment). Five buttress root bases must be made visible at least 1-foot from the trunk of trees #1 and 2. The excavation and installation of impervious surfaces necessary for installation of any hardscape facilities or walkways beneath these canopies would be extremely harmful to remaining roots beneath trees and must be prohibited. The pathway planned beneath trees #1 and 2 must be of stepping stones laid on top of original grade, with a pervious base material, and coarse sand or grit fill between stones. 2. Mycorrhizal fungi must be injected by a certified arborist experienced with this procedure into all areas beneath the tree canopies' both on the Cutler property and adjacent properties. 3. Soaker hoses must be laid in concentric half circles 4 feet, 6 feet, and 8 feet from tree trunks on the Cutler property, and be attached to water hoses. 4. These soaker hoses must be covered with a 3'/4 -4 inch thick layer of coarse tree chips (not shredded redwood bark) these chips to cover all areas beneath tree canopies. This mulch must be maintained for at least 2 years, or until inspection demonstrates the presence of absorbing roots in the top 3-inches of soil. The water hoses must be turned on for one day per week (24 hours per week) to result in drip (not spray) from the soaker hoses at approximately 15 gallons per hour per 25 feet of hose for one month. 6. The irrigation described in paragraph 5 must be repeated one day (24 hours) per month thereafter. 7. End weight reduction from the ends of the longest western portion of the canopies of trees #3 and 4 must remove 6-8 feet of length by drop-crotch pruning2 and cables must be installed between the main trunk and west facing limbs of each of those trees. Steps 1-5 and 7 must be performed by November 15, 2002. Landscape plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development-Department (and review by the City Arborist) for all landscaping in areas beneath tree canopies, prior to installation of any additional landscaping in those areas. These landscape plans must demonstrate; ' Myconhizal fungus technical sheet z Drop-Crotch Pruning Schematic PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 000013 A REVIER' OF THE EFFECTS OF ADIACENT WALL CONSTRUCTION ON FOUR OAK TREES _ _ 5 AT ]4480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA a. That no irrigation line trenches will be installed further than 3 feet from the house foundation on the east side of the Cutler property and irrigation for any plants on the south side of the Cutler • property originates from the west or east and no trenches are dug on the south side. b. That the only irrigation planned to be installed beneath tree canopies will be by drip or lazer-tube irrigation with supply lines laid on top of existing grade, and covered with 3'/s - 4 inches of coarse chips. c. That the species of plants used in landscaping beneath the canopies not. require irrigation more often than twice per month (consistent with Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks by the California Oak Foundation, 1.212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612). I recommend that inspections of compliance be conducted by the City Arborist after each of the above procedures are completed and until inspection demonstrates the presence of absorbing roots in the top three inches of soil. Removal of Concrete Footings In my opinion, removal of the horizontal concrete footings, which protrude from the base of the walls would cause more damage to tree roots than benefit. The damage caused by removal of these footings would not replace the roots removed during the excavations and the equipment needed to remove the footings would merely cause additional root damage. Value of Damage and Bonding .~ The four trees have estimated values totaling $80,800 by use of the 9`" edition Guide for Plant Appraisal. I estimate the value of loss to trees #1 and 2, to be 30% based on the combination of permanent root loss. and the effects of construction activity on absorbing roots in the area between the tree trunk and the Cutler house. I estimate the value of loss to trees #3 and 4 to be 30% because the I2-inch deep footing of concrete would have severed so many roots which extend beneath the tree canopies, that several years will be required for new roots to regrow in that area, if they do, indeed regrow. This amounts to an estimated existing loss in value of $24,240. Potential future loss of root vigor which could lead to tree death in 8-12 years would be caused by the activities which have already occurred, increased by damage from any activity in the area beneath the tree canopies which reduces vigor of remaining roots. These damaging activities include any trenching on the, south side of the Cutler property or further than 3 feet from the Cutler house on the east side, allowing the' soil surface beneath the canopies to be bare and dry, applying water too frequently to areas beneath tree canopies by sprinklers, applying water in areas beneath tree canopies more often than twice per month or retaining or replacing soil against the root collar or trunk or compressing soil with motorized equipment. in areas beneath the canopies. • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, COI~'SULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 000014 A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT' WALL CONSTRUCTION ON FOUR OAK TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA - 6 It is entirely possible that any or all of these trees will gradually decline due to actions already taken by the applicant in spite of these efforts but their decline is certain if these steps are not taken. It would be most accurate to request a bid from an ALCA member landscape contractor for cost to carry out the mitigation procedures, listed in Task 2, in the event that it becomes necessary for the city to assume responsibility for those actions. Based on my experience, I estimate cost for them at: $6,648 Mitigation Steps 1. Remove all soil above grade 4 men with wheelbarrows and shovels at $12 per hr. x 24 hrs. $1,152 2. Mycorrhizal injections $500 per tree x 4 trees $2,000 3. Soaker hoses 100' per tree at $30 each $120 Changes in hardscape design and installation unknown 4. Tree chips delivery and spreading six I O yard load of chips at $100 per load $600 labor to spread chips 4 men x 12 hrs x $12 per hr. $576 5. & 6. Cost of water negligible 7. End weight reduction from trees #3 and 4 plus 2 cables by ISA certified arborist $600 for pruning per tree $1,200 2 cables installed w/in-line springs $1,000 Total $6,648 Replacement of the trees is not possible in real terms but 96-inch boxed coast live oak trees are available which if properly cared for would survive for 50-100 more years. Their cost delivered to the site is $10, 000 to $15, 000 each. Estimated cost for installation by crane would be $10,000 to $12,500 each, to total about $20,000 to $25,000 each. 96-inch boxed coast live oak trees would be about 8-12 inch diameter trunk, height of 25 feet, with 25 foot canopy spread. It would require an additiona130 years to reach the size of the existing trees #1 and 2, and 50 years to reach the size of trees #3 and 4. • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS. CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 V ~~®1S A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ADJACENT WALL COI~'STRL.:TION ON FOUR OAK TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA 7 I recommend a bond to assure performance of items 1-7 of section 2 in this report for $8,310 (cost of~ work plus 25% cost of inspection by City) to be refunded at completion of all such items. In addition, I recommend a bond for the cost of four 96-inch boxed installed replacement trees (estimated at $100,000) be held up to nine years, with the City to inspect the trees at intervals of three years, at which time the condition of the four trees would be evaluated by the City to determine whether to release the bond, to partially release the bond, to retain the bond, or to utilize (or partially utilize) the bond to replace any of the four trees which is dead or imminently dying. Respectfully submitted, Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Mycorrhizal fungus technical sheet Drop-Crotch Pruning Schematic ISA Trunk Formula Method Pictures Map BDC/sl Ba Ie D. Coate , • • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 ~oools BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 5. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof,shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the appraiser/consultant; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the author; particularly as to value considerations, identity of the appraiser/consultant or any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. 8. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc. in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 10. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 11. When applying any pesticide, fungicide or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 12. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. • ~00~1'7 ~^n. MycorTree~Root Saver... A ~~er~imuleh For Trees and Shrubs t`•lycorTrer'" Root Saver'" is used in venical mulching and root zone treatment of trees and shrubs. It contains ;; blend of endo (VAIv1) and ecto (Pt) mycon~hizal fungi, beneficial bacteria, biocatalysts, organic soil nutrients proteins, complex carbohydrates, humic acids, yucca plant and seakelp extracts, and Terra-Sorb'" hydrogels. PACi;AGING 4~;lil;lhlr in 5 ~;Illnn (16 Ih.l pails, c;lch pail c[mlains ?t1O-3 [ri.. scnnps. STORAGE/SHELF LIFE Shelf I-ife - 24 1\1onths :This product is stable in cool, dry storage conditions for up to 24 months, and possibly longer if refrigerated. Do not FI•eeze. no not expose to direct sunlight. HfAL'fH ANf) SAFETY INFORMATION In auc u(allergii rrarliunis), (real synlplums :Ind cunlacl physiri:ul. I'nklu[ ~ nl,~ inlrndrd lilt iugcsliuu. lu rlsc ul ingestion, sock medical alluniuu. Slippery when weJ. beep uul of narh of rllildren. A P P I. (CATION RATE S For use wish coring drill or auger. Apply 3 oz. MycorTree'" Root Saver'" per 2"-3" diameter hole 8" deep on ?.5 ti)uJ [:enters Each 36 Ih. pail heals 1,200 sq. fl. (nr 480 oz. per 1,000 sq. ft.) 11 I I2 I'. (' 'I' I () N 1 I' l) It 11 ti I'; bur bell rrsulls Inurulnle u'ilhin and just beyond (.l •S Jeer) drfp line un 2.5 ji~ol carters'. I. Renr)vr Il)Illih Ir[)nl IIl)Inelllale area to he drilled. ]. ;\pl)ly .1 ui.. t,1yi11r'I~rr~"' 12u1)I Savo." directly unlu s1)il Iurn)ing a su):III pile. i. Urili liircilly Illrough sn)all pile ul Mycor'I•ree'" Ruut Saver'" to an 8" depth. 4. Mix product and soil by drilling up and down 2 or 3 times. ~. Ir1y'corTree'" Rool Saver'" and soil are now mixed. o Ali soil and product mixture around top of holz should he put in hole. ~. SJep on the vertical mulched hole to pack the mixed material. 8 Rrplacr mulch '). Ci11 I1, IIC\I .~Ilr 1111 ~.5 I~uul iCI11Cll. 10. 1~'alrr a(trr inoculating. +~'urr- Fnr Piuluings [rl' using A9vcnr'" 1rre .Srn'er'" Tizrlupluw nnil Healthy Srru•r'" llir+%rrlili;er nlhlrrs. c(,n~lP~'rllilll'rY Dnll Jircaly lhruug4 wll pile ury ( My<u Tine ~--'v ~ R lu1 Sarcr"' ` kcuwrc nwldi J) lur' a IU uuA'ululC - - -- `-.~ ~ -J _ s- J.rp __ _ - -._•- tiprcics: I\1yi111'I•rCC" R1111J S:IVeI'" is effective fur all u~ee :Intl shrub species except Rh(nluduulruns, At:dcas, ;u111 Laurels. ~ahiih re[luiro eriiuid u)ya)rrhizae. Soil pli: The fungi and bacteria in this product were chosen haled on their ability to survive and influence plant roots over a broad pH range of 3.0 to 8.0. Fungicides: The [Ise of certain fungicides can have a detrimental effect nn your inoculation program. Soil application of any htngicide or bactericide is not recommended for two weeks before or after use of this product Herbicides and Insecticides: Do not interfere with mycorrhizal development, but may inhibit the growth of ,1unr Jeri xl)iiir: it n1u nsrd prupwiy. TECHNICAL. ASSISTANCE 1~1u lerhnii;ll a,sislanie, fall Ibe I'I;uu Ileallll (':Ire Inl~)line a1 I-}{II(1 ~121~11O51. MYCOKI REE' RODT SAVER" nAS A Low SALT WNl'ENT AND DOES N(rr CnNUIN PLANE PATJIOGENS oN IIEAVY METALS. IT (X1ES NOT CONTAIN AJJIAfAL OR POULTRY MANURE. SEWAGE Ok SLUDGE THAT PknDIJCE K1UL ODIIRS WIIL•N WET M~corrhi~al 7~ee and Slim Inoculant Beneficial mycorrhizal fimgi and bacteria, microbial catalysts and Terra-Sorb" Nydrogel. LIA~ITED~ WARRANTY Plain NraAh Care. Inl'. offers/ar mfr Ihr prwh+r, AlytmTrtr'-Raul Suva". T'HER£.4RF. NO IIsIKR.1NT/ES' OF AIEK('NANTrI Ulr.1T1' (lK F1TN£S'.S t Uk rl 1 tl KTICIII aR N11K1'U.SE a hip I+ eurn,l bryuad dlr drsrripuan +J Ihr p,vJm f in Ibis syrrifinuwn sheer ar ulna pruduc'1 bloomer, unJ hubihly r f ylanr llruhh Carr. Inc. is lirnimd to rrplurrmrnr of any pruduu which Burs nrn nmu shut sper~[nuans. Suggalials fur use m1d it furrnuuon un rrsblu ubluina/ n•ilA iu use art usnwlyd by the munufnnurn u, bt reliable. Sinrr runduuuu +~ ust urr inundr Ihr runuul + J PLuu nru6h (',ur. hu'. Inc bulvv n r ~y,,,,nil.L~ lur all , wi+r. inrLuhng u,ju, y ,u,.l ,i.,uu,yc ,Ir„u~ /iwn Ihr usr of dos pnsilun alone rnnlh+nuliun milli ud,rr mu+rr iuh Tel: 1(800) 421-905 I (412)826-5488 I':Ix: (412) R2h-5415 www.plauthcallhc;ue.unu Myeur'1'rcc"' ItuuJ tiavcr'", "I-ecru-Jorh°rnd I leulthy Su,n" are Ir~demarks of Plant Health Care, Inc. 01998 Plan) Health Cart, Inc. 440 William Pitt Way ~'ittsburgh, PA 15238 t i C B D oa e arr e . £r Associates DROP CROTCA PRUl`'II~1G (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Prepared by: Los Gatos, CA 95033 Barrie D. Coate HORTICULTllRAL CONSULTANTS DATE: 11/93 CONSULTING ARBORISTS Proper drop-crotching of a tree showing where the cuts are to be made. In each case a leader is allowed to remain: This prevents or reduces latent bud growth, and reduces unwanted suckers. After drop-crotching note that the tree is thinned and somewhat reduced in size and mass but without the pruned or sheared look. Drop-crotch pruning does not mean mere removal of low hanging~branches. It does result in a better form and reduction in wind-sail. Drop-crotch pruning costs significantly more than topping or overthinning, but does not reyuue repruning for several years. ~0~019 Reducing the Height of a Large Tree Through the use of drop-crotch pruning, tree size can be reduced without weakening the tree or creating an eyesore. ~ 1 Perimeter limbs are pruned where they join large-diameter side branches. ~\i ~ `~ ~ \. 1 t 1, ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~/ ! / i ~`/ ~ 1 Lei i ~~ The tallest branches ane cut back to a large- diameter secondary branch so that a Leader nemains. • • To thin the tree, some branches ane cut ofj`' back to the main trunk. Arborists have different terms for pruning operations, usually based on the purpose far pruning and diameter of the limbs to be cut. These go by such names as safety prune, crown lifting (removal of lower limbs), medium prune, and many others. A good reference on the technicalities of pruning is Richard W. Hams' Arboriculture (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632). As an alternative to topping, the technique of most importance is one called drop-crotching. The results can be most amazing. When done correctly, drop-crotching is like a good haircut -virtually unnoticeable. Drop-crotching is a method that combines thinning out the crown of a tree and reducing its height and spread. But rather than the ends of branches simply being lopped off, limbs forming the perimeter of the tree are pruned at their junction with shorter, large-diameter side branches. In this way, a leader always remains. In turn, the presence of a leader prevents or reduces latent buds from sprouting into the bushy growth that results from lopping off branch ends. For even more assurance against sprouting, large cuts can be treated with naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), but this should be applied only by or with the advice of an arborist. With care, drop-crotching can reduce tree size while at the same time retaining the species' natural form. It can also often be accomplished without cutting limbs larger than six inches in diameter. An example of drop-crotch pruning to control tree growth beneath utility lines. . Drop crotching 77t@E CITY USA BULLEnN No.8• National Arbor Day Found do UO~b~.O t 6't 11CY13-.3t Pro • • Prepared for Tom Sullivan, Direcxor of Comm. Dev., Address: 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga Date: Sep 23,2002 Job #: 04-02-0708 Failure Date TOTAL BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (4013) 353-1052 23535 Summit Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95030 • TfUfllt FOrr11U12 Method Aarrie n. Cna1e Associates-Cnnsnltinp Arlx~risls TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 2000 Established by the International SodetyofArboricufture, 2000 Trees MORI=The_r+ 30' diameter Appraised Value=Basic Value X Cond~ion X Location Basic Value-Replacement Cost+ (Basic Price X [TAA-TAB X Spades) SPECIES: Coast Live Oak. Quercus agrifolia TREE is 1. Replacement Cost Cost of largest commonly available transplnrrtable tree, as installed in an average location (as established for Northern California by the Western Chapter). If the appraised tree is in e location which will make installation of n replacement espeddty difficufl or e~ensive, you should incense this line to nccountfor costs above the average 2 Replacement tree Basic Price Group (per sq. inch) ~ 3 3. Getermine the difference in trunk wrens If dia = 30' or more, determine ATAti Dina (Diameter @ Breast Height or @ 4.5 feet) A. ATA„ 835.00 B. Replacement treeTAq = 14.6 (refer to table 11-1992) C. Subtract TAr, from TA,, (3A-38) - 820.40 Adjust Line 7 for Location 9 Appraised Value (before damage, 0 applicable) -Round Line 8 to nearest E100 Appraised Value (after damage, rf applicable) 10 For Pnrtiel Loss: 11 Removal/Reconstruction Cost A appropriate 1 S1,805 ~ (37.00 ~ per inZ times (3.C) 530,355 530,355 532.160 525.728 Location = (Sde + Contribution + Placement) - 3 90% 80% 70% - 80% 4 MuRiply Basic Price by area differences 537.00 5 Adjust step 4 by Spades rating 100 i. 6. Basic Value = 51,805 530,355 7 Adjust Line 6 by Condition 80% 8. Adjust for Location: 520,582 I S20,600 520.600 ~ Page 1 000021 'd1 te023 3B PM TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, 2000 Established by the International Society of Afioricutture, 2000 ItgPe I FS4 Than ~0' die_meter Appraised Value-Bnsic Value X Condition X Location Basic Value-Replacement Cost + (Basic Price X (Tq,-TAR] X Speaes) SPECIES: Coast Live Oak. Quercus agrifolia TREE #: 'i. Replacement Cost: Cost of largest commonly available transplantable tree. as installed in an average location (as established for Northern California by the Western Chapter). ff the appraised tree is in a location which will make installation of a replacement especially drfficult or expensive, you should increase this line to account for costs above the average 2. Replacement tree Bnsic Price Group (per sq. inch) ~ 3 3. Determine the difference in trunk areas If dia = 30' or less, determine TAB, Dien ZQ' (Diameter @ Breast Height or @ 4.5 feet) A TAA ~ 314.00 6 Replacement treeTAfl 14.6 (refer to table 11-1992) C. Subtract TAq from TA„ (3l~3B) - 299.40 4. Multiply Bnsic Price try area d4ferences 537.00 5. Adjust step 4 try Speaes rating 100% 6. Basic Value = 51,805 511,078 7 Adjust Line 6 by Condition BOi 8 Adjust for Location: 2 51,805 I 537.00 per inZ times (3.C) 511,078 511,078 f12,883 510, 306 Location = (Site + Contribution + Placement) - 3 90% 80% 70i BO°i° Adjust Line 7 for Location 9 Appraised Value (before damage, d applicable) =Round Line 8 to nearest 5100 Appraised Value (after damage, rf applicable) 10. Fo- Partial Loss: 11. Removal/Reconstrudion Cost if npp-oprinte Prepared for Tom Sullivan, Director of Comm. Dev., Address: 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga Date: Sep 23,2002 Job ~: 04-02-0708 Failure Date TOTAL BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Coraultants (408) 353-7052 23535 Summit Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95030 (8.245 I S8.200 S8,200 ~ ; • • TfUrlk FOfl11U12 NI@tllOd Barrie D. Coate AagociatraConsultinp Artwri+ts Page 1 000022 1IIRtg71233 PM • • TfUnk FOfR1U~i3 Method Barrie D. Coate Asarxiatex-Consulting, Arboricts TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 2000 Established by the International Soaety of Arboriculture. 2000 oa MORE Than 30' diameter ~t--- Appraised Yelue-Basic Value X Condition X Location Basic Yelue=Replacement Cost + (Basic Price X [fA,,,-TAry] X Species) SPECIES: Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia TREE #: 3 1. Replacement Cost 51,805 Gost of largest commonly available transplantable tree, es installed in an average location (as established for Northam California bythe Western Chapter). ff the appraised tree is in a location which will make installation of n replacement espedally difficult or expensive. you should inaease this line b account for costs above the average 2. Replacement tree Basic Price Group (per sq. inch] # 3 !37.00 3. Determine the difference in trunk areas If dia = 30' or more, determine ATgw Dinrr (Diameter @ Breast Height or @ 4.5 feet) A ATAA~~„ a 850.60 B. Replacement tree TAR 14.6 (refer to table 11-1992) C. SubtractTAR from "fAA (3A-38) = 836.00 4. Multiply Basic Price by Wren differences 5. Adjust step 4 by Spetaes rating 6. Basic Value = 7. Adjust Line 6 by Condition " 8. Adjust for Location: Location = Adjust Line 7 for Location 537.00 100 =1,805 + X30,932 75 % (Site + Contribution + Placement) - 3 90% 80% 70 % 80% 9. Appraised Value (before damage.rf applicable) =Round Line 8 to nearest S7 00 Appraised Value (after damage, if applicable) 10. For Partial loss: ~ 11. Removnl/Reconstruction Cost if appropriate Prepared br: Tom Sullivan, Director of Comm. Dev. Address: 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga Date: Sep 23.2002 Job #: 04-02-0708 Failure Gate BARRIE D. COATS x32.737 I 524,553 119,642 1 519.600 1 TOTAL (19.6001 and ASSOCIATES Horlicvllural Consultants (4011) 353-7052 23535 Summit Rd., l.os Gatos, CA 95030 • Page 1 per in2 times (3.C) !30,932 530.932 000®23 tQ:+t102t791 PM Trunk Formula Method Bame D. Coate Associates-(:onsvllinf Arborisls TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 2000 Established by the International Soaey of Arboriculture, 2000 IrpPg-MORE Than 30' diameter Appraised Value=Basic Value X Condition X Location Basic Value=Replacement Cost + (Basic Price X (fq,,-TARJ X Species) SPECIES: Coast Live Oak. Quercus agrifolia TREE f>E: 4 1. Replacement Cost 57,805 Cost of largest commonly available transplantable tree, as installed in an average location . (as established for Northam Cal'rfomie bythe Western Chapter). Hthe appraised tree is in a lot~tion which will make installation of a replacement especially difficult o- expensive, you should increase this line to account for costs above the average 2. Replacement tree Basic Price Group (per sq. inch) # 3 (37.00 3. Determine the difference in trunk areas If die = 30° or more, determine ATAA, Diary q9,~' (Diameter @ Breast Height or @ 4.5 feet) A ATAA = 1333.50 B. ReplecementtreeTAR = 14.6 (refer to table i 1-1992) C. SubtractTAF from TA„ (3A 3B} a 1318.90 4. Multiply Basic Price by area differences (37.00 per in2 times (3.C) 548,799 5. Adjust step 4 by Species rating 100% 548,799 6. Basic Value = 51.805 548,799 550.604 7. Adjust Line 6 by Condition 80% 540,483 8. Adjust far Location: Location = (Site + Contribution + Placement) - 3 90 % 8D % 70% = 80% Adjust Line 7 for Location 532,387 9. Appraised Value (before damage, if applicable) =Round Line 8 to nearest S100 532.400 Appraised Value (after damage. if applicable) 10. For Partial Loss: 11. Removal/Reconstrudion Cost A appropriate Prepared for. Tom Sullivan, Director of Comm. Dev. Address: 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga Gate: Sep 23,2002 Job S: 04-02-0708 Failure Date BARRIE D. COATS TOTAL 532,4001 and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-7052 23535 Summit Rd., Los Gatoe, CA 95030 • • Page 7 v00024 A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction On Four Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga • :~~_ __._ _ ~:.._ --_ _- =- __ ~~ ~~~r: -__:ry • • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 23, 2002 I~QOQ~s • • • Prepared by_ Bame D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 23, 2002 X00026 A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction On Four Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction-On Four Oak Trees r Ai ]4480 Oak Place, Saratoga • • • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 23, 2002 ~~0~2~ TPhotO 5 -the root collar of tree #2 is covered. A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction On Four Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga • Photo 7 -included bark site in trunk of tree #3. • • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 23, 2002 eJOU t7~7.r8 A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction On Four Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga • • • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 23, 2002 00009 ~ Photo 9 -included bark site in tree #4. • • Photo l0 -showing the width of the 20" deep concrete flatwork. Prepared by: Barre D_ Coate_ Consulting Arborist September- 23, 2002 ~~D~~Q A Review Of The Affects Of Adjacent Wall Construction On Four Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga ,~ ~ LOT B f ~ ,~ LOT A ~~ ` f n •3'J3't 3"vr 17(i 9tl ~ f ~ - _. _ ____.._.._._---__-__-__.~.__-_ ---__-_~~~_ ~n.,i- A Ftcvicw of the Affects of Adjacent Wall Construction BARRIE U. COATS and ASSOCIATES ~ Fuur Oak Troes al the Cutler Progeny NWt75SI!>`+7 21575 Sird l.. Preparcxl for' V CJr, U YSQIY City of Saratoga, Planr2ir5g Dcpartntcnt HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Se tember 2l 2W2 coNSULTINC ARBOwsr yob a oa~z~~os ~ ~ ,~ C7 ~ E ~\ ~~47'04•~6• ~ ~ 134.52 0 ~ •~ j ~ `~ R~42.0 0 8 € I ~ ~11~ ~, C I Ls2:S.E' o II `~ RCS` .~ w ~ ~ ` ~ rr Trce uumlxrs correspond to evaluation charts. ~ ~ '~ S`~ All dirneruior-s wtd free locauoru ~ / ~ ~• ~ \ are approxirnatc• ~ - ~ t `^ , ,~ X R ~ ~' ~ ^~ x S I $ see ~• s v ~ r I .~ ~ ~t- ,. ~~ ~ x f ~~! s ~ /' Y a 1 ~ ~ H i~~ Y~ Cr 14kp ~ 4 r ' r~`~~J ` g r. ~'1 i'`~ I. ~ ~~Q gyp' ~ ~r ~ ... l ~ 1 ! ' I $ ot.t srnr n[aro.oc t a ~ ~ ~• ,.~ ~ . ~ ~ T ,., • ,: s ~,Q, J ~ ' ~ Qn ~ ~N•lll. 1~1. r... I O n 2 ~.rrL i i """x~` a.a.~ i ~ • • ~ COVOtC9 P(,(iC1 ~ ~ ~ ILM"tih ~`~' (ll[tt o:liF[ ~ Sid' C[R I OEGC j ~ ~ ,~ ~ pDrb(Lb 4.s HIM[ CI trF t p~no o ~ - H g 2.e ~, ~ r o ~ o t Ys L _- U .fSraM ~ ualy e/ I M.. / .-_ _ ~_ ~ l / i "~ R i , , „„nnr.~r) • ' .wi.rsnr,.o.~•~ F3 1' }4 ,.;i 8 ~ ~3'J)•13"t'( ... 175 r. n:: ~ ~, .Qp . ~ ,.,,:., ~n~~.,.,....~~N Wl I J ,~ o ~ ~ & I,~u_o ~rr~ ~ P.,,..• . - Eru~rl~ sr~t~ ,~ ~ I w, ~ .. ~>~ - ~y ~~ . . . ~ POHLE . , ;. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • OOOJ32 Attacr~nent 3 ~ Alan • -----Original Message----- From: Tom Sullivan [mailto:tsullivan@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:35 AM To: 'Alan King' Cc: Dave Anderson Subject: RE: Barrie Coate report re 14480 Oak Place Mr. King, I will pass on your concerns to Barrie Coate and have him address them prior to taking the report to Planning Commission. Unfortunitly he is away on vacation for a few weeks. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Alan King [mailto:aking@volterra.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:54 AM To: Tom Sullivan Cc: Anita Schiller; Bill Breck; Brad Lind; Cassandra Huston; Dave Anderson; Tom Davies Subject: Barrie Coate report re 14480 Oak Place Tom, I note a couple of problems with this report. Paragraph 1 of page 3 should read "Tree #3 is on the Huston property -- " • Paragraph 3 of page 3 should read "-- and the two trees on the adjacent properties to the east trees #3 and 4." The drawing attached is also incorrect in two ways. The property labeled POHLE by tree #3 should read HUSTON. And Tree #4 is slightly misplaced. It should be further north by a few feet. It is on the north side of the redwood fence that runs east-west between the Huston property and ours. When Barrie Coate and Brad Lind visited here on October 15, Barrie said that he'd also prepare a report on the Black Oak in the corner of our property. He stated that this tree had sustained the most damage because the foundation and piers of he wall are right beside the tree and the pier drilling went through a buttress root area. This Black Oak tree is represented by an unlabeled dot on the drawing about 15' west of the marking for tree #4. This is tree #6 on Barrie Coate's 4/22/02 report. I'm not clear as to why this tree is not included in the latest report. It seems to be impacted by the subject wall and also need attention. ;,., Alan King , Telephone: 408 867 3445 Home office: 408 867 31 16 Email: aking@volterra.com • i ii2si2oo2 ~ U00033 .Page 1 of 2 ~, Tom Sullivan From: Bill Breck [bill@deriveit.com] • Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:19 PM To: Dave Anderson; Jonathan@wittwerparkin.com; Tom Sullivan; aking@volterra.com; Alan King; Holly Davies; Casshuston@aol.com; Anita Schiller Subject: RE: King's Black Oak left out of the report; Yet another black oak left out Importance: High 1) Yes, 1 too have this question. Alan showed me where the first wall ended, and where the second portion of the wall started --- it was right at the point 6 inches away from his Black Oak. 2) Also, Barrie Coate's April 22 report, entitled "A Commentary on the effects of perimeter wall construction..." mentions a black oak, 28 inches diameter. It is listed as tree #6 in that report. It is clearly not the King's black oak, which measures closer to 40 inches in diameter. It is yet another tree not mentioned in his latest report to the Planning Commission. Please follow up on this right away. The Planning Commission Resolution wanted all. trees that were affected by the boundary structure (footings and above ground portions) to be part of the report. Thanks. -Bill Breck 857-8000 -----Original Message----- From: Alan King [mailto:aking@volterra.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:11 PM To: Bill Breck Subject: FW: Barrie Coate report re 14480 Oak Place FY I -----Original Message----- From: Alan King [mailto:aking@volterra.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:43 AM To: tsullivan@saratoga.ca.us Cc: Brad Lind; Dave Anderson Subject: 1tE: Barrie Coate report re 14480 Oak Place Tom, Do you know why our Black Oak was left out of this report? From Barrie's and Brad's remarks when they were here, I got the feeling that the city attorney had excluded it or something like that. And Barrie told Brad he'd do a separate report. I don't understand why it would be excluded since it's right by the same wall and Barrie clearly said it is severely impacted. i li2si2oo2 v00~34 • • • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: App # 02-138/ 14755 Oak Street William and Dianne Brown John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ,S+-~ December 11, 2002 Y i 517-08-062 Department Head.' 000001 14755 Uak Street CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07/09.!02 10/16/02 1U27/02 1U27/02 1U2U02 The applicant is requesting a Variance to allo~~ a nev~~ basement to be built under the existing single-family one story house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allov~~ the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. The lot area is x,696 square feet and is locatedwithin an R-1-10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Variance application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution «rith Conditions 2. Applicant's Arborist Report 3. Applicant's Letter to the Planning Commission 4. Applicant's Article on Basements ~. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • oooooz File No. 02-733;14755Oak Street • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 (Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 5,696 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.7% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading will occur. Excavations for basements are not considered grading. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (~EQA) 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. Lot Coverage: Building Footprint Driveway, Patios, Light Wells and Walkways Proposal Code Requirements ti~laximum Allowable 56°i~ 60°io 1,877 sq. ft. Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: TOTAL First Floor Garage Second Floor (Basement) TOTAL Front (Sixth Street) Rear Left Side (Oak Street) Right Side Residence Detached Garages C:\'~1vDocuments\Oak Stteet 14775 SR Var.doc 931 sq. ft. 2,so8 sq. ft. 3,a~18 sq. ft: Maximum Allowable 1,359 sq. ft. 411 sq. ft. N/A (1,392 sq. ft.) 1,770 sq. ft. x,560 sq. ft Minimum Requirement 19 ft. 25 ft. 7 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 6 ft. Maximum Allowable 15ft. 26 ft. Existing N/A 12 ft. ~J04~03 File No. 02138;14755 Oak Street MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Only one small change v~~ill be made to the exterior of the existing residence. The door to the main entrance ~~ill be moved approximately two feet. All other colors and materials vvi]1 remain. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow a new basement to be built under the existing single-family one story house. The existing house intrudes into the front and exterior side setbacks; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The applicant received a variance for an addition to the house in 1993. This approval allowed the garage to be moved out of the right-of--way and a small addition to the existing house. The new Basement Ordinance requires basements to be built entirely beneath the building footprint and does not allow basements to encroach -into required yard areas. Based on the above requirements the allowed envelope for a basement is greatly reduced. The applicant is proposing a basement that will stay beneath the footprint of the existing house that is already located in the front and exterior side setbacks. Variance In order to approve a variance application the Planning Commission must make all of the required variance findings in the affirmative. If any one of the findings cannot be made the request must be denied. The following is reviev~~ of each of the required findings for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in both size and shape. The zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The size of the applicant's parcel is x,696 square feet that is almost half of that required for the district. The lot is also nonconforming in the ~-idth and length «~ith the narrowest part of the lots width being only 33 feet ~~~ide. The lot is further restricted as a corner lot with the increased exterior side yard setback of 15 feet. The strict enforcement of the basement setback regulation would deprive the applicant the common building practice of locating the basement directly below the existing house as required in the ordinance and deprive the owner of a reasonable sized basement as enjoyed by the other property owners throughout the community. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. C:`•,~h•Documencs\Oal: SQeet 14775 SR Vaz.doc ' • OOU®04 File No. 02-138;14755 Oak Street This finding can be made in the affirmative in that this is a unique situation ~~~ith a nonconforming corner lot with the existing building already located in a required setback. The existing house is small in size when compared to nearby residences and the additional square footage increased bj~ the basement will not alter the physical appearance of the existing house thereby maintaining the charm of the existing house and neighborhood character. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safet<~ or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the «cinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed basement «-ill not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces «~ithin a garage. The residence has an existing two-car garage. Trees No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed project. The applicant has pro~~ided the City with an Arborist report that has been reviewed and accepted by staff. In addition to the report staff has added a condition of approval requiring a X2,500 tree protection bond. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report ~a-as distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has pro«ded documentation that the neighbors have re~~iewed the proposed plans. New Basement Ordinance This application was submitted prior to the new Basement Ordinance being established. The nest- ordinance requires that all new basements apply for an administrative design re~~ie~v process. Staff feels that the noticing requirements for the Variance Application meet the intent of the Administrative Design Re~~ie«~ process and that the proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisf<~ all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, maximum height and impervious coverage. The Basement Ordinance also requires that the applicant receive geotechnical clearance for all basements. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report to the Public Works C:\'~1yDocuments\Oak Street 14775 sR Vaz.doc L(,~ VUU~©~ File No. 02138;14755 Oak Street Department for re~~iew and staff has made the geotechnical clearance a condition of project approval prior to obtaining a building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Variance application «~ith conditions b}~ adopting the attached Resolution. • C:\\feDocumcn[s`-,Oak Saeec 14775 SR Var.doc ooooos Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA William and Dianne Brown; 14755 Oak Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Variance to allow a nev~~ basement to be built under the existing single-family one story house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks; and - - WHEREAS; the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at v~~hich time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present e~~idence; and Whereas the proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quahry Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "Nevv Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in both size and shape. The =oning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The size of the applicant's parcel is x,696 square feet that is almost half of that required for the district. The lot is also nonconforming in the width and length with the narrowest part of the lots width being only 33 feet wide. The lot is further restricted as a corner lot with the increased exterior side yard setback of 1~ feet. The strict enforcement of the basement setback regulation would deprive the applicant the common building practice of locating the basement directly below the existing house as required in the ordinance and deprive the owner of a reasonable sized basement as enjoyed by the other property owners throughout the community. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent v~~ith the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. • ~0~~0~ This finding can be made in the affirmative in that this is a unique situation v`~ith a nonconforming corner lot with the existing building already located in a required setback. The ~~ existing house is small in size when compared to nearby residences and the additional square footage increased by the basement will not alter the physical appearance of the existing house thereby maintaining the charm of the existing house and neighborhood character. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or v,~elfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed basement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follovv~s: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of William and Dianne Bro«-n for Variance approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. Any changes to the approved plans shall be submitted in «Titing with plans highlighting the changes and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. The follovti~ing 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 re~~isions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped «~ith a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ' ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note v~~ith 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. 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. ~~0~08 PUBLIC WORKS 4. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure an encroachment permit if deemed necessary. The applicant shall also secure a Geotechnical clearance prior to the building or demolition permit being issued. CITY ARBORIST ~. All recommendations in the Applicant's Arborist's Report date stamped September 18, 2002 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 if deemed necessary 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 or Demolition 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. E. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of 52,500 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 7. A grading and drainage, final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be submitted for re~~ie~v and approval by the Arborist prior to issuance of Building Permits. 8. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the 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 9. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all ne~~ and- e~isting buildings in such a position as to be plainly ~~isible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with the background. 10. Early Warning Fire System Required: Pro~~ide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. uoo~o9 11. Roof covering shall be fire retardant. 12. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in nev~~ly constructed attachecUdetachedgarages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet CITY ATTORNEY 13. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection ~~ith City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action v~~ith respect to the applicant's project. 14. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a «olation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages ofa2~0 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. l~. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 16. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. li. 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. 1~00~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of December 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: I\ OES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Acting Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted. upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall Have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property 0~~-ner or Authorized Agent Date • 00041 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 1~0U~12 MARK BEAl;DO[N Attachment LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A.S.L.A. Arborist -International Society of Arboriculture ~ (~ (~ C.A.P.C.A. Pest Control Advisor- p l~1 L5 P.O. Box 2032 • Sen Jose, California 95109 $EP 1 $ ZQQ2 Telephone (408) 395-2862 CITY OF SARATOGA ^.OMMUNITY DEVELOPMF"'"~ TREE REPORT MR. AND MRS. BROWN 14755 OAK STREET SARATOGA,CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 THE BROWNS ARE PROPOSING TO EXCAVATE ABASEMENT LIVING AREA UNDER THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THEIR EXISTING RESIDENCE EXCLUDING THE GARAGE PLUS CONSTRUCT TWO 4'6 INCH BY 11' 3 INCH LIGHT WELLS TO LET NATURAL LIGHT INTO THE BASEMENT AREA THE GRADE CUT REQUIRED TO CREATE THIS NEW BASEMENT AREA WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET DEEP. TIRE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THE BASEMENT EXCAVATION MIGHT DAMAGE SOME EXISTING TREE ROOTS. ON SEPTEMBER 21''D AND 3~, I INSPECTED THE TREES THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THE .. n.^i ~.r~1T• yt~n ~ ~~ ~'i'T/_1T~T {x~{T ~ Fnr r_t?WING FINDIGS: iJAJLi~'.[L'. La\.ia lyi :jam i 1) THERE ARE TWO 20 INCH AND ONE 12 INCH DIAMETER CAMPHOR TREES (C]NNAMOMUM CAMPHORA) ALONG OAK STREET. PORTIONS OF THE CANOPY OF ONE OF THESE TREES PASES OVER PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE ROOF. THESE TREES HAVE BEEN TOPPED BY P.G.&E. IN THE PAST AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE THE BEST STRUCTURAL FORM.THIS SPECIES OF TREE HAS A VERY VIGOROUS AND COMPETITIVE ROOT SYSTEM THAT CAN RECOVER FROM CONSIDERABLE ROOT PRUNING. THE TRUNKS OF THE TREES ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE ASPHALT PAVEMENT ALONG OAK STREET BUT A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE (18 TO 32 FEET )FROM THE BASEMENT EXCAVATION. IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT ROOTS FROM THESE CAMPHOR TREES HAVE PENETRATED THE DRY SO]L MASS UNDER THE EXISTING HOUSE. HOWEVER, I WILL MONITOR THE BASEMENT EXCAVATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREE ROOTS DURING THE GRADING OPERATION. 2) THERE IS A 12 INCH DIAMETER COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (PICEA PUNGENS `GLAUCA') ALONG THE SIXTH STREET PROPERTY SIDE. THIS TREE HAS A NARROW CANOPY AND IS 10 FEET FROM THE BASEMENT EXCAVATION. AGAIN TT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THIS TREE WILL HAVE ANY ROOTS IN THE EXCAVATION AREA. I WILL ALSO MONITOR i HIS TkEE DURINCr GRA17IIv(i OPERATIONS. 3) THERE IS ALSO A 4 INCH DIAMETER DWARF ORANGE TREE 25 FEET FROM THE BASEMENT EXCAVATION. THE BRANCHES OF THIS TREE ARE NEAR THE ENTRY AND EXIT POINT OF THE BOBCAT EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT. THESE BRANCHES SHOULD BE PULLED OUT OF THE TRAFFIC WAY AND A 6 INCH BARK MULCH SHOULD ALSO BE PLACED ON THIS TRAFFIC WAY TO PROTECT THE TREE ROOTS. IN SITMMARY, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT SIGNIFICANT TREE ROOTS WILL BE ENCOLJIVTERED IN THIS BASEMENT EXCAVATION PROJECT BUT I WILL MONITOR THE GRADING OPERATION FOR TREE ROOTS ON THE DAY OF EXCAVATION FOR EXTRA PROTECTION OF THE TREES. ~, .. ~_. . _.~.. ~~c~~~00013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000014 Attachment 3 -The Variance Requested for the Basement at 14755 Oak Street Should Be Granted Due to the Following Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances to the property, including size, shape, location and surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the home owner at 14755 Oak Street, the applicant, of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. a. There are many old houses in the vicinity, the historic District of Saratoga, that were built prior to the existing zoning regulations. As a result, there have been many building variances granted in this area. Our home was built prior to the existing zoning regulations. We feel that our home should be granted the same privilege as other old homes in the neighborhood. The historic section of Saratoga is a unique and wonderful neighborhood. Many of the lots in the historic section are small. Many of the homes, such as ours, were built long before Saratoga became a city in 1956. As the historic buildings in the neighborhood have been renovated in recent years, many building variances have been granted. Variances are often required in this historic neighborhood as the original-existing structures are not in compliance with current setback restrictions as they were built before the current building setback-restrictions were enacted. Rights to a variance approval should be "grand fathered" in to preser-. ~ ~he historic section. b. The livable square footage of our house is less than the majority of the houses in the neighborhood. Some of those houses were granted variances or were built before the current zoning rules. The reason that we want to add a basement is to increase our indoor living space. We are a family of four, with two growing kids and want more room Our property is small and further restricted as it is a corner lot. Adding the basement seems like the least disruptive method of obtaining the additional living space. The structure won't be visible from the outside. Our house will look the same before and after. We feel that we should be entitled to the same privilege as other houses in the neighborhood. c. All of the properties on our block enjoy the privileges of underground building spaces, except ours. There are nine houses on our block. Out of that nine 1. one, 14706 Sixth Street, has a basement; 2. one, 14700 Sixth Street, has an approved building permit to build . abasement, but has not yPt started construction; Page 1 of 1 ~OO~~S 3. three, 14739 Oak Street, 14701 Oak Street~and 14683 Oak Street, have wallcout living spaces that are partially underground; 4. three, 14730 Sixth Street, 14710 Sixth Street, and 20731 St. Charles, have walkout garages, which are partially underground; 5. and one, our property for which this variance is requested, has no underground building. Our living space is the only house out of the nine houses on the block with no existing or approved underground building feature. Therefore, to deny this petition for our basement would be denying us the privileges enjoyed by the owners of all of the other properties on our immediate block and classified in the same zoning district. 2. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties or improvements in the vicinity. Many of the properties in the vicinity have some underground living space. There have been two variances that we know of, granted for basements in on our block in the past few years. These are at 14706 Sixth Street and 20701 St. Charles Street. There is a house with a basement that was just built at 14499 Oak Street, we don't know if they received a variance or not. There is another basements that was built a few yeazs ago at 14678 Oak Street that did not require a variance. The following are the basements and other partial underground living spaces that we know of in our immediate neighborhood. Theses aze in addition those on our block that aze mentioned above in l.c. a. There is a basement at 14706 Sixth Street that was built after being granted at variance. This property is two houses away from us and on our block. b. There is basement at 20701 St. Charles that was built after being granted a variance. This property is four houses from our property. c. There is a basement at 14678 Oak Street, three houses down and across the street from our property. d. There is a basement at 14499 Oak Street. e. There is a partially underground, walkout basement at 14739 Oak Street, which is adjacent to our property. f. There is a partially underground walkout basement at 14701 Oak Street, which is one house away from us and on our block. g. There is a partially underground walkout basement at 14683 Oak Street, which is two houses away from our property and on our block. • Page 2 of 2 ~00~~6 h. There is a partially underground walkout basement at 14721 Sixth Street, across the street and down one-from our property. i. There is a partially underground, wallcout garage, at the following neighboring houses: 1. 14730 Sixth Street, adjacent to cur property 2. 14710 Sixth Street, one house away on our block 3. 20731 St. Charles, three houses away on our block 4. 20770 Pamela Way, across the street and over two houses 5. 20792 Pamela Way, across the street and over three houses 6. 2080 Pamela Way, across the street and over four houses 3. The granting of this variance for the basement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance is not for any regulation pertaining to signs. 5. The variance is not for any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities. We believe that the above reasons support the granting of the requested variance. The Saratoga City Counsel granted us a variance 9 years ago for the current house footprint based on the above criteria and for the same reasons. Since the proposed basement does not alter the footpruit (other than a fight-well at ground level), we believe that the same analysis and conclusions should continue to apply and the variance should be granted. • Page 3 of 3 ~J40~1'7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~04~~8 Retrofitting Basements Attachment 4 ~TI~C" NL1NE LOGIN ~ MEYBERBMIP INFO Where Contractors Go To Work On The Wab - Research :. , .. .. . - ~ sss ' _ August • • ~ aESEO-RCfI Research Home Advanced Search Browse Articles Computers Design Electrical Exteriors Finance Foundations & Sitework Framing & Structure HYAC Interiors Kitchen & Bath Legal Management Plumbing Roofing Thermal & Moisture Tools & Equipment Browse Q&A Browse Depts Browse Covers ~BOQKSTORE Bookstore Home ~ MAGAZIN E SERVICES Subscribe/Renew Advertise Print Link to this Site Author's Guide Free Product Info About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy 1 JLC ONLINE ARTICLE Retrofitting Basements Where lots are small and permit restrictions are tight, adding on often means adding down by Biii Brown Historically, few California houses have had basements. Virtually all of the tract houses put up during the postWorld War II housing boom were built on slabs or stem wall foundations, and so are most of today's new houses. But in the past few years, more and more California homeowners have been showing an interest in basements. Much of this has to do with increasingly restrictive building permit conditions. In the area south of San Francisco, where I work, many planning departments restrict building footprints to a specified percentage of the building lot. Such floor-area ratio restrictions often make it impossible for owners of existing homes to gain the floor space they want with a conventional addition. At the same time, height restrictions designed to preserve existing views may prevent them from raising the roof and adding another story. t~00019 http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront13d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 2 of 11 Other than moving to a larger home, that leaves adding downward as the only alternative for the homeowner who wants more space. Retrofitting a basement isn't easy or inexpensive, but property values in the Bay area are high enough to make it a practical option for many homeowners. My company, Bill Brown Construction, specializes in high-end residential concrete work, and we have a well-established system for adding basement living space without unnecessary disruption of the site or the structure itself. Design Many of our projects result from word-of-mouth references. We then refer the new clients to our preferred engineers and architects. Some of the time the homeowners have already engaged a design team. The desire to retrofit a house with a basement is generally the result of homeowners and their designer or architect, in the process of designing a remodel, finding that the guidelines set by their respective planning departments are too restrictive. Every project we have worked on in the past 20 years here in the Bay area has been required to be structurally designed by a licensed structural engineer. A soils engineer provides a report that spells out the geological conditions and recommends soil bearing pressures. The structural guys use the soils report to generate the potential loads the structure will encounter. It's interesting how much variation occurs in the opinions of structural . engineers on a residential basement design in similar soil conditions with the same soils engineer. Give three engineers the same plans, and they will return three radically different projects. That's why we like to be involved in the selection of the engineering team if possible. Figure 1. Retro>itted basements sometimes feature extensive glazing combined with- terraced gardens (above). In other cases, one or more foundation wells -- equipped with permanent ladders and fenced for safety -- provide minimal code-required egress and a modest amount of natural light (right). Not your father's basement. Some people want their basements to have walkout patios with terraced gardens; others just want the minimum required egress (see Figure 1). Minimum egress is all that's generally required by building departments. Air and light requirements are usually met by the _ installation of the egress well. This typically consists of window or door access to a pop-out well with a ladder or stair to climb out. Most egress wells are ~00~~~ http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 a 1.d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 3 of 11 covered by removable steel grating or surrounded by a safety rail. A permanent ladder, fixed to the wall, is often the means of getting into and out of the well. Each city or county has guidelines for light, air, and egress, and they vary quite a bit. Picking a structural engineer is critical for the success of the project. The structural engineering should be done by someone familiar with the problems regularly encountered when retrofitting, such as shoring, .excavating in tight quarters, subterranean waterproofing, and shotcrete applications. Stitch Piers OSHA rules for shoring or sloping vary for different soil conditions. A typical basement excavation in reasonable soil will allow the lower 5 feet of the cut to stand vertical ~rithout shoring, with the balance to grade sloped back at a minimum of a 1-to-1 pitch. That's fine if you have the room, but it can be a problem when the house has a narrow side or back yard setback. If the excavation is 10 to 12 feet deep, for example, the back slope required is 5 to 7 feet -- an impossible demand when the setback is only 5 to 6 feet. Because basement retrofits are most popular on tight lots, we see this kind of problem often. Dealing with it involves shoring the face of the soil to permit going down vertically for the full depth of the excavation. There are several ways to do this, but the method we use most often involves placing a series of concrete pilinys, or "stitch piers," around the perimeter of the foundation. In addition to shoring up the face of the excavation, the piers act as bearing points for the steel beams that support the house during excavation. With properly engineered stitch piers in place, we can excavate vertically right up to the face of the piers. When the new basement is done, the stitch piers are no longer needed and are usually cut off a foot or two below the level of the finished grade. Sinking the piers. As in all remodeling work, we have to deal with buried utilities before we can start digging. The in-ground piping under an existing house is normally limited to a sewer pipe, possibly a gas line at the perimeter, and quite often an electrical conduit. The sewer is usually rerouted around the excavation, or strapped to the joists for the duration of the project. We simply cut sewer lines and reinstall them later, except when the client is planning to stay in the house. The gas meter and supply line are most often removed during construction. Local cities and counties require the line to be cut in the street to prevent the excavation from filling with leaking gas and providing an untimely and unwanted demolition of the house. Electrical conduits can be strapped to the house or supported on a rack built for that purpose. We try to keep everything functional .f possible, for use during construction, and to avoid reconnection fees. Once we've taken care of the utilities, we drill holes just back from the building line to a depth and spacing calculated by our structural engineer. (Because we're in California, earthquake loads are factored in.) We usually use a drill rig mounted on a small excavator to bore these holes, which are typically 18 to 24 inches in diameter (Figure 2). The holes extend to the depth of the excavation plus the additional depth needed to resist the overturning force of the soil outside the excavation. In many cases, that involves boring down 20 feet or more. • 000021 http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 4 of 11 • Figure 2. An excavator-mounted "dang/e drill" is used to bore holes for stitch piers. Bit extensions can be added as needed to bore to depths of 25 feet or more. The drill rig can also be used to insert rebar assemblies that are too heavy to move by hand. That can be quite time consuming, especially if you hit a large rock that has to be drilled out with a core drill. If there's no way to bring in a drill rig, we sometimes have to hand-dig for the piers. That's a specialized job that's actually done by miners who work with specially engineered shoring. Needless to say, it's slower than drilling and much more expensive. In good soil, the uncased bore holes serve as forms for the piers. We usually use four to six #5 rebar vertical reinforcing bars per pier, with a #3 stirrup surrounding the vertical steel at 12 inches on-center. Once the steel has been lowered into place, the holes are pumped full of concrete mix specified by the engineer. Jacking the House The stitch piers are typically spaced 4 to 5 feet apart, allowing us to install steel shoring beams on 8- to 10-foot centers, with every other pier acting as a support-for the end of a beam. Wherever possible, we use clear-span shoring, which uses steel beams sized to support the full width of the structure without intermediate supports. If the lot size permits sloping the face of the excavation enough to avoid the need for stitch piers, we can often bear the beams on the undisturbed soil beyond the excavation. That calls for longer beams, which increases the required strength and adds to the difficulty of handling them. Bringing in the beams. So far, all of our basement retrofits have involved houses built on stem walls, because the cost of shoring a structure built on a slab would exceed the cost of a new building. To prepare for installing the beams, we send a crew. out with jackhammers and a compressor to break holes in the stem walls wherever beams are needed to support the structure. We take our beams to the job on a 40-foot low-boy flat-bed truck. That can get pretty exciting in a neighborhood with narrow streets. At the site we use heavy-duty rollers, cribs, and pry bars to manhandle the beams into place. Shifting the load. Transferring the structural load from the original foundation to the temporary piers and beams is handled by our house-moving sub. He positions a series of heavy-duty jacks under the beams and ra~ijses c~ lJ UO,J.?v2 http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefrontl3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page ~ of 11 them little by little. Instead of lifting the house -- which can crack finished surfaces and rack openings out of square -- the goal is to transfer the structural load without actually moving anything. This takes skill, practice, and a fight touch. Once the weight is taken by the beams, the beams are shimmed with hardwood wedges or steel plates, and the jacks are removed until the new foundation is complete (Figure 3). Figure 3. The steel beams that temporarily support the structure are inserted into holes that have been jackhammered through the stem walls. Once the beams have been raised into position with jacks and shimmed into place, the jacks are removed and the original foundation is demolished. Excavation Our company owns five Bobcat skid-steer loaders, which allows us to do most of our own excavation work. Their ability to turn 360 degrees in their length is essential in the tight quarters under a house. With the available attachments, we find that we can do almost any job that requires heavy lifting, trenching, or mass excavating. Dealing witrh fill. We start the excavation by digging a ramp in the direction of the house at a point that offers the best angle of attack. If possible, we like to cut the ramp with an excavator that has the ability to spin 180 degrees and load a truck directly behind itself. Once the ramp is done, the skid-steers can begin cutting a slot into the soil under the house. As the hole gets bigger, the skid-steers feed the soil to the ramp for the excavator to load into trucks for transport to a landfill or other projects requiring fill (Figure 4). In some cases, we park a small excavator at the top of a light well or other opening to bail the dirt out as the skid-steer unit or units push the soil to it. • Figure 4. Tracked skid-steer loaders are preferred for working beneath the house because they're highly maneuverable and provide excellent traction. The 00023 http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 6 of 11 skid-steer pushes the excavated soil to an opening, where it's scooped up by an excavator and loaded into a waiting dump truck. Crib shoring. When the layout of the site doesn't permit us to bring in beams long enough to use free-span shoring, we sometimes have to resort to crib shoring instead. A typical crib is a square wood frame about 2 feet high, with internal diagonal braces. Such frames are stacked below wood or steel beams to provide support where needed (Figure 5). When we're using cribs, the excavation becomes a real chore. At the start of a project, the soil level is typically 18 inches to 2 feet under the bottom of the joists. When the shoring .beams are installed, they're supported on stacked timber and jacks in the crawlspace. The beams are initially very close to the ground, so digging must begin in an area where there are no cribs or jacks. Once we've created a slot between the cribs or jacks to a safe working depth, we have to take time to "jump the crib" -- placing a new intermediate support before removing the crib in the previously unexcavated area. Digging out a large foundation in this way can take weeks, compared to just a few days if clear-span shoring is used. Structural Slabs In the San Franrisco Bay area, most municipalities and counties are concerned about earthquakes. The 1989 Loma Prieta quake and the more recent Northridge shake in Southern California have given engineers many examples of failed steel-reinforced concrete to analyze. Earthquake concerns, coupled with the geological conditions in the area, contribute to a conservative approach by structural engineers. Steel configurations for residential installations resemble those that just a few years ago would have been used for light to heavy commercial or public works buildings. In many instances, that involves a "mat slab" footing design rather than a conventional cantilevered slab, which is thickened only where needed to provide a footing. A typical mat slab is 10 to 12 inches thick throughout, although we have poured some slabs up to and beyond 20 inches thick. This may seem like a bit much for a residence, but here in California people tend to litigate, and we have to cover our backsides in order to remain in business. • • • ~~~~.r~ http://w-ww.j lconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Figure 5. Where full-length shoring beams are impractical, shorter beams are supported by cribwork as needed. No stitch piers were required to support the solid soil forming the face of the excavation shown here. The concrete vault will eventually house a sump pump. Retrofitting Basements ,~ • B'to 17 reiriorced -f SAOOtrele ~ti Dntpge mtt •, • •• i i 3 nBRt3rene ~ (ref eX1re irnpm Lp vall. ~ ~ 7Rirl mfiRC[-ne nMBdlpe) ~ ' r¢rrdaroed ~ ~. ~.:..~=. ~ • • yam- r1Ut fibD 1l f~11r:la7,~;.r~'~.7~ .,,e:; i:riunW ~ur>c DninepiDlDe yrld ; 8tlaia6~deetopq;. wraaped In Dory~ftrs m ~fJtilpt Iutnp . eotk etf'lecStl - ' Drainage and waterproofing membrane. Our basements are meant to provide dry, high-quality living space, so we take great care to drain and waterproof the area before pouring the slab. The drainage systems we feel the most comfortable with are multitayered to resist groundwater as well as surface seepage (Figure 6). Foundation Waterproofing Detail Temporary !~ beiins support exiuiti~ htxa \ dunnq e~ora-•aoan end q»undittion incteltttion I f New 1ot3fs sistRreO In ebstu0. tyDiCiY C~ • Page 7 of 11 6as6rtp hotae, conereti stem ~uehs rernovad hrw 2x mu4st11 I.~Nth inthor Colts ~n0 orry bald-0owns) searrerlto exiitinp Eoor sys-em prpr m uatatinp stwtcrete Beampodrsts eealad up end atiDdi ppiers remowa io •f 2A' Celaw finish D~ Sono ie~-~ and beams a~ remote) Figure 6. The author's multilayered foundation waterproofing system ensures a dry basement and can be adapted to formed shotcrete walls or walls that are gunned against the excavation without backfill. The first step in this process is to shape the sub-slab grade to a slight slope toward a drainage sump below the level of the basement floor. We often use reinforced concrete pipe set vertically for the sump walls, because the float switches on our preferred pumps need a space of 12 to 16 inches to function properly (Figure 7). V 00 ~~5 http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 8 of 11 • Figure 7. A reinforced concrete pipe set into a groove cut into the excavation face provides a drainage sump that lies outside the living space. The turned-up edge of the slab waterproofing membrane covers the lower section of the pipe, which will later be covered by a reinforced shotcrete wall. A grid of drainage pipe enclosed in polyester sock material is placed on the gently sloping grade. This is followed by a layer of crushed stone, a protective layer of filter fabric, and a waterproofing membrane. Our favorite material for this application is a product called Paraseal (Tremco, 800/321-7906, htt_p../jwwwaremcose_a_lants.com), which is a flexible, high-density polyethylene membrane with a layer of bentonite -- a highly expansive clay-like mineral -- adhered to one side. If any water makes it past the outer layer of poly, it liquifies the bentonite, which is forced into the pores of the concrete and swells to provide a reliable seal. One of the greatest advantages of using bentonite is that you can apply it to uncured concrete- without a warranty problem. The product does not rely on a chemical bond for its performance. When we use Paraseal under a floor slab, the material is laid bentonite side up over the drainage mat. The material comes in 4x24-foot rolls, so we overlap it 2 inches where necessary and staple the seams with a box stapler to keep them in position while the concrete is poured. The pressure of the concrete causes the material to seal to itself at the laps. We leave plenty of extra material around the perimeter to ensure a good bond to the membrane that will later be placed behind the walls (Figure 8). f~U0~26 http://www.j lconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Yage y or 11 _ Figure 8. A two-layer rebar grid reinforces the structural slab against seismic loads and eliminates the need for pad footings beneath point loads. After the slab has been poured, drain mat and waterproofing membrane will be applied to the face of the excavation -- which has been stabilized with stitch piers -- and shotcrete will be gunned against the bank. The above-grade portion of the wall will be backed by a single-sided form. To avoid puncturing the slab membrane with grade stakes, the screeds that will be used to level the slab are supported with temporary /umber braces nailed to the overhead joists. Rebar and utilities. Once we've rolled out and secured the waterproofing, we lay out the reinforcing steel, plumbing, ductwork, and electrical conduit. A typical mat slab steel configuration consists of a double layer of #5 steel at 12 inches on-center; at the perimeter walls, a vertical #5 or #6 rebar dowel will protrude 3 to 4 feet out of the slab at 4 to 6 inches on-center. During this stage, it's essential to minimize any staking through the membrane for screeds or bracing. If it becomes absolutely necessary to penetrate the Paraseal, a liberal dose of Paramastic -- a proprietary sealant designed to be compatible with the Paraseal -- must be smeared around the stake. Finally, the slab is poured and finished in the usual way. Basement Walls Where possible, we'll often place the stitch-piers or other shoring several feet outside the final location of the basement wall. That leaves room for conventional two-sided concrete forms and lets us install poured foundation walls with conventional waterproofing, perimeter drains, and crushed-stone backfill. On many tight lots, though, there simply isn't enough room to form and pour foundation walls. In those cases, we use shotcrete -- ahigh-quality sprayed concrete that minimizes-form work and can be applied even in tight quarters. Single-sided forms. One approach to placing shotcrete involves forming the outside surface of the wall with single-sided snap-tie forms, placing the rebar grid on the inside, and applying the necessary thickness of shotcrete (Figure 9). The amount of steel specified will vary with the preference of the engineer, the height of the wall, and the local soil conditions. A single grid of #5 steel at 12 inches on-center is fairly typical, but some walls call for two or even three times that much steel. Unless it is very high, a shotcrete wall is usually 8 to 12 inches thick. Figure 9. Gunning shotcrete against a single-sided form, rather than directly against the excavation, provides space for stone backfill and affords more control over the waterproofing on difficult sites. ~~~~~~ http://www,jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Retrofitting Basements Page 10 of 11 Once the single-sided forms have been stripped, we waterproof the walls with a layer of Paraseal, which laps over and outside the Paraseal turned up beneath the floor-stab. The Paraseal is protected by a layer of dimpled drain mat (Figure 10). Finally, we put down afabric-wrapped perimeter drain and backfill with crushed stone to within about 2 feet of the finished grade. We use a clay-type soil for the topmost portion of the backfill to resist infiltration of surtace water. Figure 10. Formed shotcrete walls are waterproofed with a layer of Paraseal membrane -- visible near the top of the wall -- followed by dimpled drain mat. The upper edge of the drain mat will be secured with a termination bar provided by the manufacturer. The worker visible at top is standing in an excavated void reinforced with stitch piers: Formless shotcrete. On sites with good .natural drainage, it's sometimes possible to do away with forms altogether by spraying shotcrete directly against the wall of the excavation. This also does away with the need to backfill, but it requires a different approach to waterproofing: Instead of a waterproof membrane applied to the outer surface of the wall, it involves pinning the drainage mat and membrane to the face of the excavation, placing the rebar, and shotcreting over it to the required thickness. If we're going to be using that approach, we take special care during the excavation phase, so we're left with smooth, flat walls. We've found that broken snap-tie pins work well to secure the waterproofing and drainage mat to the soil. Like punctures beneath the slab, these snap-tie penetrations are waterproofed with a bentonite sealant. Structural Supports Some structural upgrading is often needed when a house is retrofitted with a basement. At minimum, we have to replace the existing interior concrete stem walls with a new support system. We use steel beams for that purpose most of the time. The mat-slab foundation simplifies the process, because there's no need to use pad footings for interior point loads -- the floor slab is capable of bearing point loads anywhere. Sometimes we install new I-joists if we're increasing the span or if the old joists are undersized. Typically, the old joists are left in, and the new joists are sistered to them. Lowering the jacks. Before we shotcrete in the new foundation walls, we ~~0~~8 http://www.j Iconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d588d271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 Rirtrofitting Basements Page 11 of 11 secure a new mudsill to the existing floor system, complete with new bolts and hold-downs. The new mudsill acts something like a plaster ground as the shotcrete wall is sprayed up against it. -- When the concrete reaches an acceptable strength, the jacks are lowered, allowing the beams to settle into blocked-out pockets in the new foundation and transferring the structural load to the new basement walls. Finishing up. At this point, there's still plenty of work to do. There's usually some finish cracking to repair on the original structure, and many of our customers hire a general contractor to finish their new basement as additional living space, occasionally including amenities such as wine cellars and home theaters. But once the jacks and beams are removed and the beam pockets have been closed up, our job is done. The T-shirts our crews wear say it ail: "We Do the Hard Part." Bi// Brown is a specialty concrete and general contractor in Saratoga, Calif. Home ~ About Us ~ Subscriptions ~ Research ~ Forums ~ Bookstore ~ Membership Info ~ Contact Us ~ Privacy Policx JLC Online is part of the Hanley-Wood network of construction-industry Web sites Hanley-Wood, LLC Remodeling ePlans Toois of the Trade. eBuild The. Journal of Light Construction World of Concrete. Residential_Architect • 000029 http://www. j lconline.com/cgi-bin/j lconline.storefront/3d6ab8a6004d5 884271 a401 e 1 d2906~... 8/26/2002 ~~. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 00030 ~ `'} ~ ( ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ., ~,~ y,~U.~ ~' f . '~~C-' G~t~-G~ .~%%t~GZ (~° ~-~~-~/L~-rC.. .~y[~L ~~-a~-~~- ~~- ~ f - J J 'e?~~ ~ ~~~: ~ ~._ .~ ~ ~ ~~ L . ~, ~i ~f Z_°~,t f ~ ~~~0~~ DEC ~ 2 2002 CITY OF SARATUGA ~~~MI INITV flF\!FI loo+~'" • ~ .~ ~~ '33 ~ `A-~- C7 ra r~ sc , ~:c's~ ~~f~175 • November 28, 2002 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 To the City of Saratoga Planning Commission: We reside at 14730 Sixth Street, Saratoga, directly next door to the Brown's at 14774 Oak Street. We have carefully reviewed their plans for building a basement under their existing home and fully understand the temporary inconveniences we will experience during construction. We applaud them for a design that facilitates their needs as a growing family without expanding existing setbacks or otherwise disturbing the unique visual charm of our neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission to approve the requested variance for the Bro'+~-m's basement and thereby encourage similar community conscious designing for all of us who in the future might be faced with a similar challenge of improving our quality of life here in Saratoga . Thank you for soliciting our input regarding this project. ,~pnlll~6[~~~'l~ uu DEC 0 2 2002 u CITY OF SARA [ OGA ~~AMI INITY 11FVF! n~"'- Sincerely, o ~~ , ,. .~ , Linda, Molly and Jon Krain • i • • 14760 Oak Street Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter in support of the project under consideration at 14775 Oak St., Application # 02-]38 (S17-08-Of2). Through their past example, we are confident that the Brown's plans for the improvement of their property will enhance our neighborhood and be true to the character of our area. We completely support their project and are happy to support them in any possible way. We ask you to grant the Brown family a variance from the set back code so that they may proceed with their project. Sincerely, V ~ John and Nikki Teeter ~~ SEC 0 2 2 002 ~~~^ ~TY~FSAR;IT~GA 'ITV fl~:~icl nn~,.. • December 1, 2002 • City of Sazatoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application #02-138 (517-08-062) -Brown, 14775 Oak Street Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We live at 14761 Sixth Street at the comer of Oak Street and our home faces the Brown's side yard on Sixth Street. We are writing this letter in strong support of the Brown's request for a variance to build a basement under the existing residence. We understand that a portion of their home lies within the setback area along Oak Street which is the reason a variance is required. Many of the homes in our older neighborhood do not meet the current setback requirements and require variances for remodeling and additions. The Brown's proposed basement will provide addition living space for their family and not change the appearance of their attractive home. We urge you to approve their variance request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ray d Sue Persico 14761 Sixth Street Sazatoga, CA, 95070 ~~~~~~ `i ~ ~: DES 0 2 x.002 CITY pF SAKAr~ ~~~~.. ~~nn~11NITV ~1F~ u l~ y`I ~. ~~; VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) PROJECT DATA A.P.N. 517-0(f-62 14755 UAK STREET SARATOGA, CA 95070 OWNER: WILLIAM E. BROWN AND DIANNY C. R1LL[Y-BROWN USE: SINGLERES ZONING: H-110,000 AREAS. LOrsIZE 5,pw6s.F ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 2,560 S.F IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OCATION OF E%ISTING APPROVED 2'-6' / N STORM SEVER LATERAL m CONSTRUCT INLET GR. 579,50, [NV MATCH E%. LATERAL / m y ALNUT ~ 4' 4~~ ~, CONSTR. MANHOLE V/ PUMP / ~ ~ / \\ m ®A E ~ R[M 582.2, INV 570.0 4' Rock Blo-swale / 2O N \\~ E TREE ROCK LINED SVALE / \~ti a \ N>o ~\ ~~ Oy, ~y ]9'-0' (E aa~n\ `40' \ Fps \~ ~ \~ 12\7 / ` \~ ~ / ~ V \`~ m //''~ \ _ ` / m ~~ L E)~R\ LIS ~ iO ~~ ~\ (E) 5' CHAIN-LINK FENCE / ~~ ~ti~RICK\AVER ~ Area aln~P\`~\SSB, / ~~4 /Area Dr ~4c `. \\ ~~ , ll'-3 '~I' P // ~ A~// 4' (E / ~' ._6• (E) 6' VODD FENCE // / -6 - ,~, S,S,B .°,_,; /~~.- (E) BRICK PAVER / / E) 7' N m D, 3 \~d o, I J tJ / ) / s° n N 2 - - - S8~ ~ A t5' 0 ,_0. ( F GUY V N 584 m (E) BRICK PAVER ~ D E DRIVEVAY a D ~ P E%ISTING PROPOSED BASEMENT WIUGHIWELLS OS. F. 1,3925.F. E%ISIINGFIRSTFLODR 1,3595.F. 1,359S.F. E%ISTING GARAGE 411 S.F. 411 S.F. PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS 0 S F 1075.F. SUB-TOTAL 1,7705 F. 1,8715.F. BRICK PATIO FRONT 177S.F. 1775.F. RED TILE WALKWAY 1A25.F. 1825.F. BRICK WALKWAY 1905.F. 180 S.F BRICKDNIVEWAY 1435.F. 1435.F. BRICK PATIO REAR 239 S.F. 2393F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 4,101 S.F. 2,609 S.F. IMPERVIOUS ALLOWABLE 3,4185.F. E%ISTING PROPOSED AVERAGE SLOPES. 8.7% 8.7% SLOPE AT BUILDING BITE: 6.7 % 8.7% AGE OF RESIDENCE'. fi0 YEARS NOTES ® BASEMENT BELOW DRAINAGE NOTESI SLOPES OF 2% OR GREATER AWAY FROM THE FO,UNDATI~N SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG THE ENTIRE PERIMETER FAR A DISTANCE OF 5 FEET MINIMUM, INSTALL SUB-DRAIN AROUND THE PERIMETER ()F BASEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION AND UNDER HIS DIRECTION, THE SUB-DRAIN TO BE DISCHARGED INTO A SUMP, GRAPHIC SITE PLAN XISTING FIRST FLOOR l(T-I:fllD)II~ General Notee DRAINAGE DESIGN BYI WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. Na Pavbion/Issue Dote Oaeanll 6 R®le ra. xw .e aaa~ 141!! Dap Street 6arnWpa, CA 95p7p NfRp p13dT90 Pea (IOtl) p77d794 BILL BROWN fnneavction e~ e.~..e spa. BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 OAK STREET sARarooA, cA BROWN ey `10/1/02 A-1 .r NO SCALE GAftpEN3 c~ 5 'e P yF~@ T ---__ - --- - i I ~ __~'_-__ --__. ~- - ~--------------- 6 ' I --------------------~------------ I 2 y ~ ---------------- ~`---10 I ~ ~ I ~ I ~I 48 -10~" I I ~ ~13'-7 6"-~f' j I I , i ' S' 2'- DLDSET ~ I I ~ I I ~~'6 -516 J I 10' -'~~ 4 _31 a BATH / '/~~. I I 2 -', ~4'-6" I 3 it C~MMDN RD~M 6'-104" ~,.~' I , 17'-5a a~ 2p,_Ca F 7 0 ' X10'-101" ''~~ mA I J' LAUN-RY a • ~ ~ 11i_~7a i ~ ~.~ IADN ~ /~ JJ I q T FIRST L ~'/ ~~ I ~, 7~-81 a ~ / 14'-7~a ANPE LAUN-RY ~ / O TABLE ~ ~ I 2 '' 1 I ~~.' i i a ' 1 '/ I I I I ~ I ~' ,~ I r I /' I I / / I I ~~ ' PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN I ~/ ' / I / / I / I / . I .~ Genaml Nolee Na Rewaron/luue Dole ~~~ ~»_~~ 14755 Udt5UOet SenWpe, CA 45970 (40R)971d79D am (4U9) 971479Y BILL BROWN Cunsttucbon np.i ho .e in.w BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 DAK STREET SARATOGA, CA ~ .. BROWN '10/1/02 A-2 .~ ND SCALE r_ Ik 19/_Op 1 I 1 I k i I Ir I I 1 A x ( ~ ucxrvaL vAL CitOINH LEVELI I ~k I I I I # I I ~ } l ,. r 15' ~ / . ~ , . ~~ -ice LADDER ( I I DINING RD~M I I I I 1 1 ~ LIVING ~ R~DM 20' ._ 6' B ~ _ ~ RELOCATED TO 2' MA%. 4'-6° BASEAEN AC4UNI .:. , .~ ~~ ~ i ~~ ~. ~ ~~r~~~ ' ~~ .. .. :~ .. LIGHTWELL ~ , ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ i .' I.~ .. ~.' J ' " ~----~ MASTER BEDROOM ~ ~ .GARAGE ~':~~ ATF~ ~ .. - .. .. KITCHEN ~ ~~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ' .. ~.. ... ~ .-' REF. -_-__J ~i' _ '. ( .' ,,. 5'-11° '~ ~.-'~~ ~/ u cLnsEy.' ux LL ~- ' W N .' ^ .' ~ ~ I U AT BEDRDEM 2 ,, I. ~_~ / i I B ' 9'-7° / ~ I j*~/ I i PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 10' 7'- ~' 34'-8° Genaal NotaA No. Rede'ion/leeue Ode ~~~ .~..~ 111lA UaH Hva[ SAnaRA cA 9s9ra (40n B7Jd790 Ym (Ntl) A7Y1199 BILLBROWN cunem~cdon ~~~~ BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 OAK STREET SARATOGA, CA BROWN `10/1/02 A-3 ..NO SCALE ,~ 16'-18" EXISTING DINNING R~~M EXISTING GRADE-~ PARASEAL -RA1N MAT J-DRAW 6N 16 g~- S%YLIGHT YELL (D B'-0' CEILING HALLWAY 9'-D' CEILING E%ISTING 2s} FLGDR JD]STS SECTION A-A SECTION B-B ;~ i 5'-112°. E) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D D D D D 1~' EXIST ING D D D D D ~' E%ISTING ~ o o a o o E XISTWG GRADE ~FLGDR SHEATH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NEV 11 ~' iJ[ FLODR .. JOISTS a 16' 6C. EXISTING FOUNDA TO REMAIN TION i REMOVE 4.0 -RAW PIPES '1 sLaPE To suNP g N GRADE Gerroral Netee No. Revleion/leeue -ote vsoAa or ~ruo ~»"~~ 1475! Uat5ueet SenWge, CA 95070 (AOR)873A790 Fn (lOX) X71A799 nn.I. seawly Cnnattuction n.I.~ a_ .a Aar.. BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 OAK STREET SARATOGA, CA BROWN ~'10/1/D2 A-4 ND SCALE a. ,, EXISTING FRONT DOOR LOCATION PROPOSED FRONT DOOR LOCATION General Naln Na. Redemn/Issue Galo ~ a arrao w., x...~a arm 141950at SOetl SereaC4 CA %070 page7n.lr9o Faa (108) N71/799 DIIZ DROWN Conewction n.M ear. a+ aati BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 OAK STREET SARATDGA, CA ~'~ BROWN mia/1/a2 A-5 es ND SCALE ~- General Notae 1 REAR ELEVATION GRADE No. ~ Revieion/leeue Dole EAST ELEVATION E%ISTING GRADE B~ o~ o<~ ~..... 147%OekSval Seretol4 CA 95171 (a1~e79-a~9o Fay (4tltl) tl71/799 H11.1, HROWN CansGUCdon nyn «n..a eae~. BROWN RESIDENCE 14755 OAK STREET SARATOGA, CA ~~' BROWN mla/1/42 A-6 .. ND SCALE ITEM 3 City of Saratoga _ Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROIvi: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development ' DATE: December 11, 2002 RE: Gateway Design Guidelines Since the second hearing conducted September 25, 2002 on the Gateway Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission has held several study sessions on the proposed Guidelines. At the study sessions, the Planning Commission formulated discussion points, which are located in the far right column of the attached revisions table. As you may recall, the re~~isions table chronicles the gateway taskforce recommendations and staff recommendations. In particular, the Planning Commission will continue their discussions from the study sessions on the topic of landscaping and buffering in the Gateway. At the Commissioners request staff has prepared tables and sketches for illustration purposes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Tables 2. Sketches 3. Existing Commercial Zoning Regulations 4. Re~~isions Table, dated December 11, 2002 • ~J00001 C THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 00000 • Gateway Design Guidelines. Page 6, Numbers 12 & 13. =` 12 tr Adjacent to Residential A. Height=l8' Rear setback=20' (for mixed use) Number of stories=one B. Height 18'>26' Rear setback=30' Number of stories=two 13 Adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd Attachment 1 A. Height=l8' Front setback=20' (for mixed use) Number ofstories=one B. Height 18'>26' Front setback 30' Number of stories=two • *Above figures based on July 26, 2002 task force meeting. ~O~~O~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~?ODU04 (~ v *Figure 1: Side yard setbacks U ~ 1~ ~'"' R O N T P L **Figure 2: Front and rear yard setbacks to fl Front PL I 20 fl RESIDENTIAL USE to fl 18 ft 26 fl E A R P Rear PL 20 fl ~ I Right of Way 30 ft 30 ft *Figure 1 scenario based on current toning ordinance. ** Figure 2 scenario based on desibn I;uidelines task force meetinb July 2(~, 2(1O2 `~ ,» Sample Setback Illustrations COMMERCIAL USE One Story < 18 fl 20fl 20 ft 30 ft l~ O n '~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~JO~J~06 Attachment • • • (b) Not less than ten feet of the required front yard shall be landscaped and permanently maintained. (c) Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the re¢ttlations set forth in Article 15-29 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 15-18.110 Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in a P-A district, except as permitted under the reguiarioas set forth in Article 15-30 of this Chapter. 15-18.120 Off-street parking and loading facilities. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be pmo- vided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of this Chapter. 1~-18.130 Design review. All structures shall be subject to design review appa~oval in accordance with the provisions of Article 15-06 of this Chapter. Article 15-19 C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 15-19.010 Purposes of Article. 15-19.020 General regulations. 15-19.030 C-N district regulations. 15-19.040 C-V district regulations. 15-19.050 C-H district regulafions. 15-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. 15-19.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020,the commercial districts are included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following proposes: (a) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores and service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the Ciry. (b) To provide opportunities for retail stows, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the conve- nience ofthepublic and in mutually beneficial:elationship to each other. (c) To promote stable. attractive commercial develop- mentwhich will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City. (d) To provide space for communiry facilities which may appropriately be located in commercial areas. (e) To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development, including off-street parking and loading areas. (f) To protect commercial properties from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, heavy traffic and other objectionable influences. and from~fire, explosion, noxious fames and other hazards. (g) To implement the Saratoga Village Spec Plan, as adopted by the City on May 18, 1988, and thereby achieve the following objectives with respect to the village: (1) Preservarion and enhancement of the small-scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting ~ potential shoppers and diners; (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectrual and landscape quality of the Village: (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restatrrarrts, convenience shops, services and rrsi- dences; and (4) Conservation of historic structures. 15-19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any. commercial district, unless a use in- volves the operation of a business providing direct custom- er service (including, but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on-site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., in which event such use may be allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Retail establishments, except restaruants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (2) Service establishments. (3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations press ibed in Article 150 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off-street parking facilities as se[ forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter. (5) Accessory strvcttues and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any commercial district, upon the granting of a use permit ptrsuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter. (1) Restaurants. (2) Markets and delicatessens. 313 ts.n~ r>~ UODUO'7 15-19.020 (3) Any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (4) Hotels and motels. (5) Bed and breakfast establishments: (6) Institutional facilities. (7) Community facilities. (8) Game arcades. (9) Gasoline service stations on sites abutting Saratoga/Sttnnvvale Road, Saratoga/Los Gatos Road or Sarazoga Avenue and accessible directly from such arterial road; provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an enclosed structure. (10) Animal establisi'~ments. as defined in Section 7- 20.010(c) of this Code. All animal establishments shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section ?-20.210 of this Code. (11) Public buildings and grounds. (I2) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations. drainage ways and santcanes, storage tanks, transmission lines and cable television facilities. (13) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (14) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. (c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Section 15-05.055(x) of this Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts: (1) Any use which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes. radioactivity, or other discharge which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or propem. (2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibra- tion, glare or electrical disturbance, detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard of fire or explosion. (3) Any use involving drive-through service, such as restaurants and financial institutions with drive-through windows. (4) Any use involving automotive body work. such as collision repair. painting, dismantling or customizing. (5) Mini-storage facilities. (6) Outdoor sales or storage of molar vehicles. (d) Location of building sites. The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any strvcutre shall not exceed thirty percent slope, and no strvctru~e shall be built upon a slope which exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five-foot contour lines, except that: (Sanwga 69'n 314 (1) A variance ptasuaru m Article 15-70 of this Chapter maybe granted where the findings ptrscribed in Section 15-70.060 can be made, and. (2) An exception under Article 1435 of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance may be granted where the findings pre- scribed in Section 14-35.020 can be made. (e) Yards. No use shall occupy any required yard, except fences, walls. hedges, landscaped areas. walks. driveways and par~rtg areas. No required yard shall be used for a loading area or for storage. (f) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) Where a site is adjacent to an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, a solid wall or fence six feet in height shall be located along the property line between the two districts, except in a required front yard, ;and an at~ea five feet in depth adjoining such property Line shall beland- scapedand permartentlymaintained with plant materials suitable for enstuing privacy. screening unsightliness and insulating adjacent properties against noise. (2) Open storage of materials and equipment shall be permitted only within an area surrounded and screened by a solid wall or fence (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height; provided, that no mate or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall or fence. (3) All outdoor trash containers and garbage areas shall be fuIly enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufficient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage containers shall be placed or kept within twenty-five feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit An owner or occu- pant of a commercial establishment shall comply with the requirements of this subsection within sixty days after receiving a directive from the City to do so. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this subsection (f), the Planning Director or the Planning Commission may require the installation of a solid fence or wall up to eight feet in height along any property line that abuts a residential district, upon a determination that such fence or wall is necessary to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of the commercial activity upon the residential use. In the case of an ezistirtg commercial development, such fence or wall shall be installed within sixty days after the requirement is imposed by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, unless a longer period of time is allowed by the Director ar the Commis- sion by reason of extenuating circumstances. including, but not limited to, the installation cost of the new fence or wall, or the value of any existing fence or wall to be demolished, or the cost of removing any existing fence or wall. • • U©UU08 25-19.030 r~ ~~ (5) Required pedestrian open spaces, front yards and side yards, and not less than fifteen percent of any parking lot area, shall be completely landscaped and permanently maintained. (6) No credit shall be given against any landscaping or open space requirement imposed by this Article by reason of adjacent public parldngfacilities or public rights- of-way. (7) Whenever screening or landscaping is required by the provisions of this Article, or as a condition of any project approval, the owner or occupant of the property shall keep and maintain such screening and landscaping in good condition and repair. (8) .Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (f), fences, walls and hedges shall comply with theregula- tions set forth in Article 15-29 of this Chapter. (g) Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in any C district, except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article IS-30 of this Chapter. (h) Off-strcet parkdng and loading facilities. Except in the case of a site located within and constituting a part of a City parking district, off-street parldttg and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of this Chapter. (i) Design review. All structures shall be subject to design review approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 156 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.91 §§ 3, 4, 1991: Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Ord. 71.122 § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 71-163 § 1 (part), 1996) 1:-19.030 C-N district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to thepermitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Atticle, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N district (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this chapter. (1) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (2) Medical offices and clinics. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C-N district shall be ten thousand square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-N district shall be as follows: 315 Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structurrs on any lot in a C-N district shall be sixty percent (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C N district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR. R-M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. No side or rear yard shall be required for any lot in a C-N district, subject to the following exceptions: (1) On a reversed corner lot abutting a lot in an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum exterior side yard shall be not less than one-half of the required front yard of the abutting lot (2) Exceptas otherwise provided in subsection (g)(1) of this Se.^tion, on a lot abutting an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard abutting such other district shall be thirty feet. (3) On a lot directly across a street or alley from an A, R-1, or HR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard adjacent to such street or alley shall be ten feet, Where a side or rear yard is required under any of the foregoing provisions, one foot shall be added to the required yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a structure within thirty feet of the lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-N district shall be twenty feet. (i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely en- closed savcttue, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining, nurseries, garden shops and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property Lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupantof the site. (k) Alternative standards for muhi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section. where multifamily dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as cs:~.wg, eat :00009 15-19.030 determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space ~on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 1~-19.040 C-V district regulations, (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(x) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-V district (1) Professional and administr~atiive offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter. (1) Religious and charitable institutions. (2) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theaters. (6) Automobile upholstering shops, provided all opera- tions are conducted within an enclosed structure. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a GV district shall be ten thousand squaw feet (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C-V district shall be as follows: Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C-V district shall be sixty percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R-1, HR, R M or P-A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yard. The minimum side yards of any lot in a C-V district shall be ten feet and the mini- tsa~~8, s-9~ 316 mum rear yard of any lot in a C-V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: _ (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side yard for each one foot of height or 5action thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the mar lot line for such yard exceeds fourtcen feet in height. (3) On a comet lot. the minimum exterior side yard shall be twenty feet (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structtu+e in a C-V district shall be twenty feet (i) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An aria not less than ten feet in depth along all property Imes that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or path- ways asrequired bythe Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the. site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, vine- covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates whew necessary) not less than six fr.,et in height. This rtquirement shall not apply tooff-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas. nurseries. garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of • t • • - - i~ • • ~_ .• this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission. based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constiwte overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the strttcturrs and density of development on adjacent properties; and '(3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properries. (Amended by Ord. 71.113 ,(part), 1992) 15-19.00 C-H district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the per~itred uses listed in Section 15-19.020(x) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either about the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (2) Single-family and multi-family residential units. when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (b} Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having sweet frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Single-family and multi-family residential units, when located at street level and having street frontage. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Net Site Area CH-1 5.000 sq. fr. CH-2 7,500 sq. fr. (d) Site frontage, widffi and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth in each C-H district shall be as follows: 3I7 15-19.050 District Frontage Width Depth CH-I 50 ft SO fr. 100 ft. CH-2 50 fr. 50 fr. 100 fr. (e) Coverage; pedestrian open space. (1)~ In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by strucwres shall be eighty percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site may be covered by structures if, for any structure coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent~area on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be sixty percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front yard may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term "pedestrian open space; ' as used in subsections (exl) and (2) of this Section, means common attas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front yard. No front yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. The minimum front yard of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifrecn feet. (g) Side yards. No side yards shall be required in either the CH-1 or CH-2 district. (h) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required in the CH-1 district. No rear yard shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line that abuts a public right-of--way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1 district. Where the rear lot line of any lot in the CH-2 district abuu an A, R-1, HR, or R-M district, the minimum rear yard shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a strvctur; within sixty foot of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Height , CH-1 35 feet. No portion of a strvcwre facing Big Basin Way shall exceed two stories, and no portion of a strucwre facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three stories. CH-2 26 feet. No structure shall exceed two stories. (S~eao~a i95) oO~V' 15-19.050 (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely en- closed structure, except for off-street parldne and loading, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. (I) Modification of standards for historic strvdures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a strucrure which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13-ZS of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic strucrure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The modification will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the avail- ability of on-street parking. and will not create a hazard to the public safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-10$ $ 1,1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 1~-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15-55.130 of this Chanter. any clinic operating no earlier than 7:00 .~:hi. and no later than 9:00 P.M., any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages and any res- taurant. market or delicatessen which, as of September 6. 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating as a permittBd use, shall be exempted from the reouirement for elimination after lapse of time pursuant to Section I ~-6.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain a use permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respects shall be regards as a noncon- forminguse. Any mini-storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit granted prior to September 6, 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and conditions of such use permit. Article 15-20 R-OS: RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Sections: 15-20.010 Purposes of Article. 15-20.020 Permitted uses. 15-20.030 Conditional uses. 15-20.040 Nonconforming uses. 15.20.050 Development criteria. 15-20.060 Snhdivision of sites. 15-20.070 Site frontage, width and depth. 15-20.080 Site coverage. 15-20.090 Front yard, side yards and rear y~- IS-20.100 Height of structures 15-20.110 Accessory uses and structures. LS-20.120 Fences, walls and hedges. 15-20.130 Signs. 15-20.140 'Off-street parking and loading facilities. IS-20.150 Design revieR. 15.20.160 Storage of personal property and materiak. 15-20.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the residential open spacc district: is included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes: (a) To preserve hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition through the establishment of dedicated open space areaz, and through environmentally sensitive low density residential use. (b) To promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character and preserve important resources such as forests, natural vegetation, watersheds, animal habitat, scenic beauty, recreational areas, open space and public access thereto. • • • cs~~ s-9s~ 318 t~, G,. S' U SARATOGA SUNNI'VALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES . Table of Revisions December 11, 2002 INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISIONS TABLE Attachment 4 ~~~~~~~ ~ The following table has been prepared to serve as a guide to the successive revisions to the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Desilm Guidelines. 'I"he left column includes text from the~une (i, 2002 hinal llraft.l'hat Final llraft incorporates input from the May 10 and 24, 2002 Task Force Meetings that were exclusively devoted to discussion of the Guidelines, 'T'ask hone revisions to that text arc noted in the center column (July 2G) and the column to the left (August 23), to create a chronology of revisions reading left to right For each guidcliue item. The Gateway Taskforce is an aduisory committee to the 1'lannin~ Commission and sta~f on the Gateway Design Guidelines. Z he task force is comprised of husinesr and residential property oavners with cornpeting irrterertr. In light o f their divergent views, sta~f hasprepared recommendations to the Planning Commission representin~q the interests of the City as a whole. 1 hose recornnaendations can he bound in the colr~mn titled "staff recommendation" :f he Planning Commission held several study sessions on the Guidelines. fls a result, the Planning Commission has created a draft column of recommendations a.r di.rcurrion points located nn the far right of the table helou~. Revisions are highlighted in bold type, with deletions indicated with astrike-through and additions iti italics. If there were no revisions "No Revisions" is noted. "I'o date, no .revisions have been ~iroposed to graphics included in the Final llraft -Design Guidelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS June 6, 2002 -Final Dtaft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt TABLE OF CONTENTS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions A, Introduction Page 1 A, Introduction Page 1 No Revisions No Revisions This document, in ifs fofalify, is the Gateway Design _ Guidelines, B. A licabili Pa e 2 No Revisions B. A licabili Pa e 2 No Revisions B. Gateway District Boundary Page 2 B: C. Gateway District Boundary Raged Page 3 No Revisions B: C. Gateway District Boundary Rage-2 Page 3 No Revisions C. Goals for SaratogalSunnyvale Road Page 3 tr D. Goals for SaratogalSunnyvale Road Raged Page 4 No Revisions G: D. Goals for SaratogalSunnyvale Roatl Rage-~ Page 4 No Revisions D, Development Standards Page 4 B. E, Development Standards Raged Page 5 No Revisions D. E, Development Standards Raged Page 5 No Revisions E, New Scenario Page 5 ~ F. New Scenario Raged Page fi No Revisions E: F. New Scenario Rages Page 6 No Revisions F. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles ~ G, Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles No Revisions F: G. Design Guideline Objectives and Gui ding Principles No Revisions Page 6 Rage-G--Page 1 Page f~ -Page 1 Architecture and Materials Page 7 Architecture and Materials Rage-T Page 8 Architecture and Materials Page-7 Page 8 Commercial Retail Signage Page 9 Commercial Retail Signage Rage 9 Page f0 Commercial Retail Signage Raged Page 10 Landscape and Buffering Page 10 Landscape and Buffering RagedA Page 11 Landscape and Buffering Rage-~B Page 11 Fencing and Screening Walls Page 11 Fencing and Screening Walls Raged-1 Page i2 Fencing and Screening Walls Paga 11 Page 12 L'ghtin and Fumishin s Pa a 12 Li hiin and Fumishin s Pa a 13 L' htin and Furnishings Raged2 Page 13 ~" u ~RATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions I'agc 2 PART 1-INTRODUCTION June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mtn INTRODUCTION No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions The Design Guidelines far the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road No Revisions No Revisions Gateway have been prepared to guide new development or No Revisions No Revisions property re-development in the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway district. The Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway streetscape improvement master plan has been adopted to address improvements within the public sfreetright-0f-way to create a new norihem gateway to the City. These guidelines build upon that plan to address private sector redevelopment that is anticipated to occur adjacent to the public street right-of-way on private, commeraally zoned property. Additionally, the guidelines provide direction for the design of mined-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as rovided for in the General Plan housin element. __ These design guidelines were developed in concert with the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions These design guidelines were developed in concert with the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway master plan through a series Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway master plan through a of citizen Task Force meetings. Goals for the Gateway were series of citizen Task Force meetings. Goals for the Gateway identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further refined at were identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further successive meetings. An inventory of existing conditions and visual refin^d at successive meetings. An inventory of existing images that occur along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was prepared condifrons and visual images that occur along Saratoga- inthe early stages of project development that served as the basLs Sunnyvale Road was prepared in the early stages of project for a Visual Preference Survey. That survey allowed Task Force development that served as the basis for a Visual Preference members to document their preferences as to what types of design Survey. That survey allowed Task Force members to elements retleded an appropriate character for Saratoga and the document their preferences as to what types of design Gateway district. Draft guidelines and successive revisions to those elements reflected an appropriate character for Saratoga and drafts have resulted in this document addressing; the Gateway district. Draft guidelines and successive revisions to those drafts have resuted in this document addressin • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N • Applicability; No Revisions " Applicability; Commercial Zone district; • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N "Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N No Revisions • Goals fortheSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; Commercial Zone districts; Commercial Zone districts; • Development Standards (or new development; • Goals for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; "Goals for lheSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these • Development Standards for new development; • Development Standards for new development; gu~elines to a "typical" site; • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these guidelines • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design guidelines to a "typical" site; io a "typicel"site; Guidelines for. • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design Architecture and Materials Guidelines for: Guidelines for: Commercial Retail Signage Architecture and Materials Architecture and Materials Landscaping and Buffering Commercial Retail Signage Commercial Retail Signage Fencing and Screening Walls Landscaping and Bufferirg Landscaping and Buffering Lighting and Fumishings Fencing and Screening Walls Fencing and Screening Walls Li Min and Fumishin s Li htin and Fumishings J; w JARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 3 PART 2 -APPLICABILITY June 6,.2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt This a e added after June 6, 2002 Drafl APPLICABILITY No Revisions_ APPLICABILITY No Revisions These guidelines and development standards are intended b No Revisions _ This document is intended to govern new development occurring in the No Revisions govem new development occurring in the Saratoga Sunnyvale Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Gateway District, as defined by the boundaries Road GatewayDisfrict, as defined by the boundaries described in described in this design guideline document. The guidelines are not this design guideline document. The guidelines are not intended. intended to apply to existing uses or development (structures and site to apply to existing uses or development (structures and site improvements) but rather, to new development of mixed use, commercial improvements) but rather, to new development ofmixed use, or residential projects or substantial redevelopment of existing uses as commercial or residentialprojects orsubstantial redevelopment described below. of existing uses as described below. 1. These developmentstandards and guidelines shall notrequire No Revisions t. These development standards and guidelines shall not require No Revisions properties in the gateway to be redeveloped as mixed use; properties in the gateway to be redeveloped as mined use; 1. These development standards and guidelines shall appty upon No Revisions 2. These development standards and guidelines shall apply upon No Revisions reconstruction of 50'~ ormore of the building total floor area of reconstruction of 50% or more of the building total floor area of an an existing building, cumulative oven 5 yearperiod; existing building, cumulative over a 5 year period; ~ 3. If rebuilding in-kind replacement of a current use, the No Revisions 3. If rebuilding in-kind replacement of a current use as a result of a No Revisions provisions of these development standards and guidelines shall catastrophic event, the provisions of these development standards and notapply; guidelines shall not apply; 4. References to adjacent'exisfing residential' uses shall be No Revisions 4.References to adjacent'existing residential' uses shall be defined as No Revisions defined as existing residential uses present as of 2001. existing residential uses present as of 2002. Residential development Residential devebpment subsequent to 2001 shall not be subsequent to 2002 shall not be considered existing residential uses for considered existing residential uses for the provisions contained the provisions contained in these development standards and guidelines; in these development standards and guidelines; PART 3 -GATEWAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 Task Force Mt STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION GATEWAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions District Bounda Ma Gra hic No Revisions No Revisions _ ______ _ No Revisions _ No Revisions iJ r-~ . J~ i~ ~RATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 4 PART 4 -GOALS FOR SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt GOALS FOR SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD No Revisions _ __ No Revisions _ No Revisions No Revisions Goals established for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road by the Saratoga No Revisions _ No Revisions ___ _ _ __ No Revisions __ _____ _ No Revisions Gateway Citizen Task Force are; 1. Create a memorable GalewaylSpecial Entry 2. Character and Image identifiable 3. Maintain business viabilitylcommercial strength 4. User friendly ~ 5. Improve Safety 6. Meet functional and other necessary requirements 7. Improve corridor consistency 6. Develo functional and character elements For the purpose of Design Guidelines, those goals can be. No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions expanded upon fo further define the scope o(the proposed guidelines through the addition of objectives and guiding principles for tannin and desi n that su rt each oat. The planning and design objective and guiding principles can be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions expressed in terms of the existing uses in the condor and the potential future uses that might define a desirable future condition in the condor. • 1' JARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 5 PART 5 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS r~ fu June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of a 1 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of a No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions mined-use residential and commercial development. mined-use combination of residential and commercial development. A Use Permit is not required for single use commercial develo ment. 2 Design Review is required for all proposed mixed-use 2 Design Review is required for all proposed mined-use No Revisions Applicants shall meet with adjacent residential and commercial Design Review applicants shall meet with adjacent residential and commercial projects. combination of residential and commercal projects. property owners during design developmentprior to submi(fing an residential and commercial property owners during application b the Planning Department for review, design development prior to submitting an application to the Plannin De artment for review. 3 The design of mined use projects will be required to 3. No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions conform with the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook including buffering set bade requirements included in these deli n uidefines. 4 The maximum net density is twenty (20) dwelling units 4 The maximum net density is twenty (20) residential No Revisions No Revisions The maximum net density is twenty (20) dwelling units per per acre. dwelling units per acre. acre. 5 The dwelling units shall be located on either a second 5 The residential dwelling units shall be located on either No Revisions No Revisions The dwelling units shall be located on either a second floor floor or of the rear of the arcel. a second floor or at the rear of the arcel. or of the rear of the arcel. 6 The dwelling units shall not comprise over fifty (50) 6 The residential dwelling units shall not comprise over No Revisions No Revisions The dwelling units shall not comprise over fifty (50) percent percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The fifty (50) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The of the total floor area of all buildings on the site, The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten {10) percent maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) percent maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) far projects providing below market rate rental housing. Set backs for projects providing below market rate rental housing. Sef backs percent for projects providing below market rate rental and building loations should consider building bcafion of adjacent and building bations should consider building location of adjacent housing. Sel backs and building locations should consider ro roe buildin location of adjacent roe . 7 Overall site coverage may be increased up to ten (10) 7 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions ercent for ro acts containin below market race housin units. 8 Parking for both the commercal and dwelling units B Parking for both the commercial and residential No Revisions No Revisions Parking for both the commercial and dwelling units shall be shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, providing that the dwelling units shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, as spedfied in tl~e Zoning Ordinance, providing that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. providing that the Planning Commission may consider shared Planning Commission may consider shared parking in arkin in some cases. same cases. 9 Each dwelling shall have a private, useable outdoor 9 Each residential dwelling shall have a private, useable No Revisions Amenities and public open space areas shall be encouraged where (hey Each dwelling shall have a priuafe, useable outdoor space, space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. outdoor space, i.e, decks, balconies, yards or patios. do not int~inge upon the qualify of liie olsurroundingsingle-family i.e. decks, balconies, yards orpafios. Amenities and residences, public open space areas shall be encouraged where they do not infringe upon the quality of life of surroundin sin le~famil residences. 10 The maximum height of a mixed use structure shall be 10 The maximum height of amixed-use structure shall be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 26 feet. Any structure that is solely commercial on a site that has 26 feet. Any-strusture~hatas~lely-sommersiat-en a~ite that mined use the maximum height is as in the underlying zone. These has~mixed~rse-tire-maximumfieigtrt~s~as-iMhe~rndeAyin~one: maximum heights are further governed by a bulklplane transition of These maximum heights are further governed by a bulkiplane height from the property edge. transition of height from the property edge. 11 Building heights shall be established based on average 11, No Revisions , No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions existing grade of the proposed development Bile to prevent excessive fillip and ariificiall elevated total buildin het hts. ~4 ' JAItATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions 1'a~c G r L 12 Building heghts shall be restricted fo one story (18' maz. 12 Building heights shall be restricted to one story (18' maz. No Revisions No Revisions . (see attached tables and sketches) ht.) adjacent io existing residential uses and Saratoga-Sunnyvale ht.) adjacent to existing residential uses and-Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at the minimum setback of 20 feet. Then feet (10') additional Road ai the minimum setback of 20 feet for mixed use, Ten feel building setback (30' total from property line) shall be required for (10') additional building setback (30' total from property line) shall be buildings taller than 18' to provide a transition of building heights to required for buildings taller than 18' to provide a transition of buiHing ~ the maximum allowable 26 foot max. ht, . he' hts io the maximum allowable 26 foot maz. ht . 13 Building heights shall be restricted to one story (18' No Revisions _ No Revisions (see attached tables and sketches) max. ht)adjacent toSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road of the minimum setback of 10 feet for mixed use. Ten feet (10') additional building setback (30'total from property line) shall be required for buildings taller than 18' to provide a transition of building het hts to the maximum allowable 26 foot max, ht.. __ _ 13 Building Heights to 26 feet maximum are allowed a3 14 No Revisions. No Revisions _____ _ No Revisions No Revisions ad'acent to existin 2-sto residential buildin s. 14 Perimeter 8 feel height solid fencing shall be required 14 15 No Revisions No Revisions _ __ ______ _ ___ __ No Revisions _ No Revisions adjacent to existing residential uses. v 15 Any redevelopment projects shall provide sound walls a5 16 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions and landscape screening in order io protect the privacy and quality of life of abutting residential land uses as provided for in these design uidelines. 16 The commercial component of redevelopment projects sial-semponentefaedevelepment No Revisions 17. The retail commercial component of redevelopment projects in the No Revisions i in the Gateway districlshall belimited insize tolocal-serving projects-in~the~atev~y-district-shall-limited-in-size~eassal- Gateway district shall be limited in size to community serving businesses. i businesses. sinesses: 17 In mined use projects, office uses are permissive on tl~e jests;~o#fise-uses-are-permissive$n No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions second floor adjacent toSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road and require use theseser~d~leeradjasent~o-SaralogaSunnyvale~oad and rmit on round floor. round-Aeor: • .d Q. .. ~RATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions ]'age 7 PART 6 -NEW DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 Task Force Mt STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION NEW DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions ~ No Revisions New Develo men( Scenario Gra hic No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions PART 7 -DESIGN GUIDELINE OBJECTIVE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES une 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt DESIGN GUIDELINE OBJECTIVE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1. PLANNING AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1. No Chan a No Chan a No Chan a No Revisions 1 The primary planning and design objective for the 1 The primary planning and design objective for the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Saratoga Gateway District is to organize buildings, parking and Saratoga Gateway District is to organize buildings, parking and internal site circulation to create convenient, comfortably-scaled infernal site circulation to create convenient, comfortably-scaled commercial activity areas and inwrporafe residential uses fo incease commercial activity areas. andanserporate-residentiatuses-te diversi in Sarat a's housi stock. insreasediversi ra a'a-~ousi tusk: 2 Allow forincorporation of residential uses fo increase No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions diversi in Sarato a's housin stock. 2 Preserve and protect Sarafoga's pedestrian•friendly 2-3 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Preserve and protect Saraioga's pedestrian-friendly environment and enhance the quality of life by encouraging environment and enhance the quality of life by Commercial activity in the Gateway district. encouraging accessible Commercial activity in the Gatewa district. 3 Promofeiencouragehovsing provision consistent wish 3 4 Promoieiencouragehovsing pre+rfsien provisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions General Plan for resident employees of the City of Saratoga consistent with General Plan for resident employees of the City of businesses and service roviders such as teachers. Sarat a businesses and service roviders such as teachers, 5 Promote site design and other oppo-tunities to No Revisions __ ____ _____ No Revisions No Revisions encoura a the displa of uhlic art. 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES No Revisions No Revisions _ __ _ No Revisions No Revisions Guidin rinci les in su ort of chose ob'ectives include the tollowin ; No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Encourage a diverse miz of complementary commercial 1 Encourage a diverse miz of complementary commercial _ No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions uses (retail, restaurant, service) wish residential uses located on upper uses (retail, restaurant, service, oKce) wish residential uses located Boors and io the rear of the ro e on u er doors and to the rear of the roe _ 2 Crease a strong identity that represents the entire No Revisions No Revisions _ No Revisions Create a strong identity chat represents the entire arafoga Gateway District. This may be accomplished through the use Saratoga Gateway District. This may be accomplished f finishes or Bile elements that lie the different uses together through the use of finishes or site architectural elements that fie the different uses together 3 Provide a variety of building sizes and building facade 3 Provide a variety of building sizes and building facade No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions articulation fo foster variety, miz and to mitigafelarge-scale building articulation to (osier variety, and miz and- in order fo mitigate large- masses, scale building masses, i k. ~ItATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 8 4 Coordinate site development proposals fo maximize site 4 Coordinate Bile development proposals fo maximize site No Revisions Coordinate site development proposals to maximize site to site No Revisions to site connections, minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access to site pedestrian connections. minimize-Saratega•Srrnnyvale-Read pedestrian connections minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access conflicts and promote shared parking where possible. assess~ontlicts-and-premete~hared parking-uulrere~ossible: conflicts and promote or encourage shared parking where possible. 5 Coordinate site developmentproposals to promote No Revisions No Revisions Geerdinate-s+te~ieveleprnent-preposals~topromote shared arkin where ossible. sharedparking-wherepossible~ 5 Locate service and ancillary areas so that they can be 5- 6 No Revisions No Revisions _____________ No Revisions No Revisions visually screened from view and are away from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and edestrian use areas _ 6 Encourage site design where parking does not dominate 6 T No Revisions No Revisions _ _ ____ _ No Revisions Encourage site design where parking does not site layout from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or from buildings. dominate site layout from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or from buildings frontages by locating some parking __ __ _______ in back o(or underneath buildings where feasible. 7 Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the ~ 8 Where appropriate, R-provide direct, continuous No Revisions No Revisions Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the street to building entries, across all large parking areas and between pedestrian routes from the street to building entries, across all large street to building entries, across all large parking all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway District. parking areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga District. Gateway District. Dedicatetlpetlesfrianoccess paths should be encouraged between parking spaces and not on drive aisles. Mitgafe potential adverse impacts io existing neighboring g mitigate-potential-adverse-impacts-le-existir~ No Revisions No Revisions Through the design reviewprocess, mitigate potential s in a manner consistent witlr the character of those uses. neightaoring-usesan-a-mar+ner~onsistent-with#he~haraster-et adverse impacts to existing neighboring uses in a those-uses: manner consistent with the character of chose uses. 9 Focus commercial development Toward the front of the 9 Focus Encourage commercial development toward the No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions roe alon Saraf a-Bunn ale Road. front of the ro alon Sarat a-Bunn vale Road. ~RATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 9 PART S -ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Encourage smaller-scale building floorplates with a 1 Encourage smaller-scale building tloorplates with a No Revisions No Revisions residential scale and architectural s le, residential an a ro riots scale and architectural s le, 2 Buildings should relate specifically to Saratoga's No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions residential areas and illustrate residenfialmassing wifhlow-pitched able or hi roofs, dormer windows, etc. 3 In order to reduce the perceived scale of buildings, No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions building masses shall be broken info smaller components. Large 'boxes" with no articulation will not be allowed. 4 No portion of a building wall should exceed 35 feet in No Recisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions horizontal length unless articulated wish a change in surface material, color or surface plane. No parapet or roofline should exceed one half of the length of the building facade without a change in elevation. All primary building entrances must be identified wish architectural details ch as towers, projections, varied roofs, trellis work, pergolas or vexed ent a s. 5 Buildings with facades longer than 70 feet should be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions designed with vertial breaks to create differentiation abng the front facade. This can be done with indented balconies orland articulation of massin orland cha es in material, texture, and color 6 Comers of buildings should be highlighted wish special 6 Comers of buildings should be highlighted with special No Revisions Street frontage (acades of buildings should be highlghted with special Street frontage facades of buildings should be design features to inaease visual interest where appropriate. design features to increase visual interest where appropriate. design fealures to increase visual interest where appropriate. Entrances highlighted with special design features to increase Entrances or display windows io the retail shops are encouraged at Entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged at or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged. visual interest when; appropriate. Street facing building comers that face the street building corners that face the street corner locations. entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encoura ed. 7 Roo~ines should be varied in style and size fo create No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions interest, All buildings should include roof fealures such as pitched roofs, detailed parapets, or entry fealures. Rooftop mechanical e ui ent shall be screened on all sides. 6 Rooftop mechanical units, vents, and flues shall be No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions screened. Screening rooftop mechanical equipment by means of itched root forms or enthouses is encoura ed _ 9 Service and baling areas should be located away from 9 Service and loading areas should be-losatedaway-from No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions adjacent residential uses and visually screened from Saratoga- not be located immediately adjacent to existing residential uses, Sunnyvale Road and-visualfy-screened trorn-Saratoga-Sunnyvale-Read: 10 Service and loading areas should not be located No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions immediately adjacent to Saratoga•Sunnyvale Road and should be visuall screened from Sarato a•Sunn ale Road, • ,,, JARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 10 PART 9 -ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS -CONTINUED June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 2G, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC RECOMMENDATION Task Force Mt 10 A specific color palette, list of materials, and common 40 11 No Revisions No Change ___ 10 1f No Revisions No Revisions architecural features will be required for all development in the Saratoga Gateway District. This is intended to establish a common theme or style of architectural design for all buildings within the District. All buildings shall incorporate 360 degree (i.e. all building laces use of materials and color. __ 11 Colors for all buildings should be earth tones, neutrals 14 11 No Revisions No Revisions ___ ___ 11 11 No Revisions _ No Revisions and soft muted colors. The predominant color should be in the range of grays, beige through dark brown, terracotta and sandstone, dark greens, or muted red, Bright incense colors are not allowed, Stark white or black is discouraged for use other than as trim. Un•muted rima colors are not allowed 12 Finish materials for walls should be predominantly natural ~, 13 No Revisions No Revisions 12. 13 No Revisions No Recisions aterials such as brick, textured block, stone, slate, stucco, wood, p board siding or textured and colored concrete that closely resembles such materials. Accent materials may include canvas for awnings, metal Prim, ceramic tiles, concrete castings, terra cotta, or stucco. Window and door trim should be bronzed or baked enamel colored finish that is complimentary to the color of the wall. Materials such as galvanized metal, glossy aluminum, smooth concrete, metal sidin ,vin I, and reflective lass are not allowed 13 Encourage canopieslawningslarcades to define entrances a3 14 No Revisions No Revisions 43 14 No Revisions No Revisions and rovideshelteralon buildin s. 14 Building entrances should be set back from drive 44 15 No Revisions No Revisions 14 15 No Revisions No Revisions curblines a minimum of 10 feet. 15 Building entrances should be visible from parking areas, 45 16 Building entrances should be identi#iable~visible from No Revisions Building entrances should be visibly identifiable from parking areas. Building entrances should be visibly identifiable arkin areas, 16 Building materials should include appropriate materials to ~ 17 Building materials should include appropriate materials is No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions convey a residential nature. Such materials should establish a single, senvey-a-residen#ial-nature. Such materials should establish a re nizable thematic s le for all ad'acent commercial areas sin le, r nizable thematic s le for all ad'acent commercal areas. 17 A predominance of masonry, wood and brick shall be 4~ 18 No Revisions. No Revisions ~ 18 No Recisions. No Revisions used on round levels of all buildi s 18 Reneciive materials such as bright aluminum and glass x-19 No Revisions. No Revisions 16-19 No Recisions. No Revisions are not allowed as the rims buildin material on exteriors. 19 Pedestrian amenities, such as benches, trash 4A 10 No Revisions No Revisions Pedestrian amenities, such as benches, decorative paving material, No Revisions receptacles, outdoor dining and vendor carts on private property, are trash receptacles, outdoor dining and vendor carts on private property, encouraged fo be consistent with the theme established by Saratoga- are encouraged fo be consistent with the theme established by Sunnyvale Road Gaiewa . Sarat a-Sunnyvale Road Galewa . _ • ti ~. . • SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions I'~ge 11 PART 1O -COMMERCIAL RETAIL SIGNAGE June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23, 2002 Task Force Mtg STAFF PC RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION COMMERCIAL RETAIL SIGNAGE No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Recisions 1 signage should be visible but fit appropriately with No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions buildi architecture. 2 Sign materials should complementary and consistent with No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions architectural materials. 3 Individual sforetronflshop signage at entries should be No Revisions 3 Individual storefrentlshep~ignage at No Revisions No Revisions encouraged ata pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under enkies3hould-be~nsouraged-at-a pedestrianssale; eaves, awning signs and building mounted signs such-as~ranging~igns-undeFeaves~wning signsand building~nounted~igns: (Moved to #8 below) 4 Commercial signs for the identification oimulti-tenant No Revisions 4--Gommercial-sign~Ior~theadentifisalion~f No Revisions No Revisions projects or buildings should beground-mounted, internally orground- multi-tenant-projects ar-buildings-should~egreund• Ighted with a masonry base that is integrated with site landscaping. nreunted;internally-or-ground-lighted-with-a-masonry base-that-isantegrated~vith-siteaandssaping: (Moved to #7 below 5 No polemounted signs identifying wmmeroial businesses No Revisions ti• 3 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions are allowed 6 No permanent billboards are allowed anywhere in the No Revisions # 4 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Sarat a Gatewa District. 7 Internally lit cabinet-type signs are discouraged No Revisions 7 5--k-ternallyait~abinet-type signsare No Revisions No Revisions disseur ed; B signage should be ground-lit or otherwise washed with No Revisions @ ~ 5 Signage should be-ground•litflr-0therwise No Recisions No Revisions light from a concealed light source. washed~vit#~Aghtfirem a-concealed light-seurce: Moved to #7 below 9 Monument signs shall exhibit the following design No Revisions 9 y 6 Monument signs shall exhibit the following No Revisions No Revisions character. design character. Horizontal orientation. Horizontal orientation, Extemaly illuminated only. Externally illuminated only is encouraged. Limited to one monument sign per parcel, Infernally lit signs subject to review Sign size "matched" io frontage length of parcel. Limited to one nwnumeni sign per parcel, Must use natural materials. Sign size "matched" to frontage length of parcel. Encourage monument sgns to be similar within the Gateway. Must use natural materials. Must maintain adequate landscaping around the monument sign. Encourage monument signs io be similar design consistency within the Gateway. Monument signs are fo be placed so that they are visible to passing motorists. Must maintain adequate landscaping around the monument sign. Commercial signs for the identification of multi~ tenant projects or buildings should be ground mounted, internally o-ground•lighted with a masonry base that is integrated with site landscaping. signage should be grounddit or otherwise washed with li ht from a concealed li ht source. 3 . .~ . ~IZATOGA-SUNIVYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions I'agc 12 10 StorefrontlShop signage. No Revisions 19- ~ 7 StorefronVShop signage: The issrrc of when cornmcrcia! Avoid impacts to existing residential Prefer indirect illumination, Prefer indirect illumination, srgn:+gc should be turned otTshould properties Internally illuminated signs only permitted along Saratoga- Internally illuminated signs only permitted along he :iddresscd through .a City wide Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. ordinance ivhicl~ will arply ro nll Individual storefrondshop signage at Sign area and intensity as per Municipal code. Sign area and intensity as per Municipal code. commercial s;l,•nage in Saratoga, entries should be encouraged at a Illuminated signs muss be off after hours of operation or gpm. pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs NO CONSENSUS REACHED ON THIS ITEM: Illuminated Individual storefronf/shop signage at under eaves, awning signs and building signs must be off after hours of operation or gpm entries should be encouraged of a mounted signs. pedestrian scale, such as hanging Individual storefronbshop signage at entries should signs under eaves, awning signs and be encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such. as hanging building mounted signs, signs under eaves, awning signs and building mounted signs, 11 Regulatory signs on private property: No Revisions d1 ~ 8 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Limited 1018 inches by 24 inches only. One is permitted at each entranceiexit. Must be mounted at a finished height no higher than 5 feet, Prefer the use of 4x4 lumber versus aNanized i . 2 Seasonal banners on light poles identifying the Gateway No Recisions a2 aO 9 No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions istrict may be permitted. It may be permissible to identify, in a small font, a business or individual in exchan a for fundi of the banners, n U ,; . a , ~1tATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 13 PART 11-LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC Task Force Mt RECOMMENDATION LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERING No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Landscape islands should be provided in parking lots to No Revisions No Revisions Landscape islands should be provided in parking lots to interrupt intemupt consecutive runs of 10 or more spaces. Landscape islands consecutive runs of 10 or more spaces. Landscape islands shall shall incorporate a miz of shade tree and shrub plant material to incorporate a miz of shade free and shrub plant material to visually visually buffer internal site views from both ground and io provide buffer infernal site views from both ground and to provide shade. shade, Minimum width of landscaped islands shall be 8 feet (min.). Minimum width of landscaped islands shall be 8 feel (min.). SO% o the arkin lot shall be shaded in 10 ears. 2 Parking areas should incorporate low landscaping buffers No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions to screen parked cars from adjacent streets. All head in parking adjacent to public right of way or residential areas shall be screened by one of the following: 30-inch minimum high masonry wall incorporated with landscape setback. 30-inch minimum high earthen berm, A dense shrub planting (shrubs planted a minimum of 4 feet on enter . 3 Landscaped parking islands and medians should No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions constitute a minimum of 15 rcent of the overall arkin area 4 The use of landscaping should be encouraged to No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions distinguish access points, break up parking and define pedestrian access and s aces. 5 Landscaping layout and design should screen and orient 5 Landscaping layout and design should ssreenand No Revisions Landscaping layout and design of front fayade should screen-and No Revisions the pedestrian environment orient the pedestrian environment. orient the pedestrian environment. ' 6 Street tree plantings shall be required along Saratoga- 6 Street tree plantings shall be required where none exist No Revisions No Recisions 6 Street free plantings shall be Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (maz.) spacing to promote a consistent along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (maz.) spacing to required where none exist along Saratoga- treecanopy, reduce perceived building heights and provide shade, promote a consistent tree canopy, reduce perceived building heights Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (maz.) spacing 10 and provide shade. Street trees shall be pruned and otherwise , promote a consistent tree canopy, reduce maintained to provide visibility of businesses, perceived building heights and provide shade, Street trees shall be pruned, consistent with ISA pruning standards, and otherwise maintained to provide visibility of businesses. 7 Private drives serving the internal circulation needs of No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions proposed development shall require street free plantings at 50 foot s acin max. . 8 Shrubs, groundcovers and perennial plantings are No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions encouraged between detached pedestrian walks and buildings, 9 Trellises with flowering vines and hanging flower baskets No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions are encouraged at building entries to make the entry mare easily ~entifiable~rovide edestrian scale and add visual interest r l "i, °A JARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions I'agc (4 10 Buffering between commercial or mined use projects and 10 Buffering between commercial or mixed use projects No Revisions Buffering between commercial or mined use projects and adjacent 10. Buffering between commercial or mixed adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: residential uses shall incorporate: use projects and adjacent existing residential 8 toot hgh solid (decorative) masonry wall. 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. uses shall incorporate: 20 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering -2A 5 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for 20 foot depth exclusive landscape butter yard reserved for buffering 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are buffering purposes • no private outdoor use or ocher programmed purposes - no private outdoor use or other programmed activities are 20 foot depth exclusive landscape butler allowed within the buffer yard. activities are allowed within the buffer yard. allowed within the buffer yard. yard reserved for buffering purposes - no Landscaping shall consist ofover-sized "mature" plant material. -6andscaping-shall consist-ot~wer-sired"mature'=plant Landscaping shall consist ofover-sized "mature" plant material. private outdoor use or other programmed No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides that material: Mature shall be defined as 36"boxed trees of a minimum height of activities are allowed within the buffer yard. face adjacent residential properties. -Nabalsanies-0r-windowsabove greund~leeraeveten the 15' planted as to create a screen within 5 years. Landscaping shallconsist ofover-sized Rear or side parking lots adjacent 1o residential uses shall be sides hat-face adjacent residentiayproperties: No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides that "mature" plant material. Mature shall be designed to be equipped with locking gates to besecured on -Rear~rside parking btsadjasent-te-residential-uses-shalL6e face adjacent residential properties. defined as a minimum 36"boxed free or a weekends: designed-te-he-equipped-with~ocking-gates lo-be secured~n Rear or side parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be minimum height of 20'planfed as fo create weekends; designed to be equipped with lacking gales 1o be secured on weekends: ~ a continuous eve-green screen within 5 years. 11. No balconies or windows above ground boor level on the sides that face adjacent existing residential properties. 12. Rear or side parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be designed io be equipped with locking gates to be secured on weekends: 13. Solid walls between mixed use and commercial properties shall provide breaks in the wall for edestrian access. 11 Buffering between commercial or mined use development No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions , No Revisions and oUrer similar uses shall consist of a minimum 4 foot (min,) depth fandsca area looted with trees, shrubs and roundcovers. • ~~ ~RATOGA-SUNNYVAI.E ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 15 PART 12 -FENCING AND SCREENING WALLS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force Mtg August 23,2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PC Task Force Mt RECOMMENDATION FENCING AND SCREENING WALLS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Fencing materials in the Saratoga Gateway District shall No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions consist of wood, wood and masonry combinations or woad with masonry columns to reflect the general residential character of the Sarat a communi . , 2 Fencing installations shall incorporate continuous No Recisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions landscaping at the base and edges of the fence io integrate the I fence wish Bile and landsca in 3 Fencing is discouraged between properties of similar No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions use 4 Trash service and loading areas should incorporate No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions masonry wall buffers to screen service areas from adjacent street, All trash, service and loading areas shall be screened by a 8 foot (min,) heght masonry wall or enclosure designed io be an integral and com lementa eziension of the buildin architecture. 5 Trash, service and loading areas should not be located 5 Trash, service and loading areas should not be located No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions along street frontage or adjacent to existing residential uses and will along-adjacent to street frontages or adjacent fo existing residential be screened from view from public streets, open areas, and uses and will be screened from view from public streets, openareas; edestrian corridors a estrian~errfders: ~ 6 Trash and recycling enclosures shall be of masonry No Revisions No Revisions _ No Revisions IJo Revisions construction using broken face, slump block, raked joints or other f textural variation to provide shadow effects and other subtle visual interest. 7 Self closing gates shall b provided on all trash and No Revisions No Revisions _ No Revisions No Revisions r clin enclosures B Concrete-filled bollards or other means of corner No Recisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions protection are encouraged fo protect enclosures from vehicular traffic and loadin lama e. U '~~ .11 ~~ .. ~RATOGA-SUNNY.VAI,E ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Revisions Page 1 G i PART 13 -LIGHTING AND FURNISHINGS June 6, 2002 -Final Draft July 26, 2002-Task Force,Mtg August 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION PAC Task Force M~ ___ _- _ RECOMMENDATION LIGHTING AND FURNISHINGS No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 1 Pedestrian lighting isencouraged fhroughouinon-parking No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions ` areas, A single "village" type thematic light fizlure should be selected i for the Sarato a Gatewa District, 2 High-pressure sodium, wall pack and "barnyard" light No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions 3 L' ighi poles in parking areas shall be limited types are discouraged. to a 18 fool height..Lighl poles in parking areas shall be limited to a 12 fool mazimuin het hg 1. 3 Light poles in parking areas shall be limited to a 18 foot No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions het ht. __ __ _ 4 All parking lot lighting shall be down cast "cut-off' type No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions which will not cast glare on adjoining properties, A photometric study shall be re wired to document li htin levels ai roe line. __ ___ i ___ All pole lights shall use the same color and style of pole No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions nd future. i 6 Site furnishings including benches, trash receptacles and No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions bike racks should be wmplemeniary fo the family of site furnishing ~ elements designated for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road gateway streetsca e. 7 .Bike racks shall be provided for new retail or mined use No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions develo ment ~ 8 Site lighting shall be restricted 1o security lighting only No Revisions No Revisions No Revisions Security lighting shall avoid impacts to after business hours. residential ro erties. ITEM 4 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: 02-172 -Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment Location: Citywide Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: December 11, 2002 Department PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Saratoga recently adopted a ne~v Housing Element of the General Plan. One of the "Programs" contained in the new element is Second Dwelling Units. Program 1.1 of the Housing Element calls for .the City to adopt a re~~ised set of regulations governing the development of second dwellings units on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. The Housing Element also includes Program 4.2 -Amnesty Program for Existing Second Dwelling Units. The same ordinance revisions address this Housing Program also. This past legislative session, AB-1866 was passed and the Governor has signed the measure into la«-. In brief, this bill requires local governments to use a ministerial process for approving second housing units and prohibits them from applying any development standard that «>ould have the effect of precluding an affordable housing development from recei~~ing a density bonus and concessions. This legislation also set the maximum allowable sire of a second dwelling unit at 1,200 square feet. We will not be able to require Second Dwelling Unit applications to be subjected to a lise Permit. However, we can establish development standards that provide protection to neighborhoods as long as they do not, in and of themselves, preclude second dwelling units. ~~Ve can also establish "incentives" so that the second dwelling units can be deed restricted in a manner that pro~~ides that if they are rented that they will be rented to a very to«• or low income family unit. The proposed Ordinance amendment addresses both new second dwelling units as well as existing second dwelling units. During the City Council Public Hearings for the Basement Ordinance amendments, the issue of second dwelling units having basements arose. As I recall, it vas an issue of total area of the second dwelling and whether the area of the basement would count as part of the total square footage of the second dwelling unit. Yes, it would count as part of the maximum 1,200 square feet. This is different than not counting the area as part of the maximum floor area of the property's total improvements. Please see section 15-56.030 (c). The information contains the existing language and proposed new language. Old language to be removed is shown with "fit" and new language is shown in Bold Italics. If no changes are proposed to existing language the font is ~0~~01 sho~~~n "~ithout any special treatment. The proposed ordinance amendments, «~hich ~~-ill implement the t~~~o Housing Programs, follov~~: IS-56.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to authorize the establishment of secondary dwelling units in single-family districts to comply with state law and to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Flement of the Saratoga General Plan. Controlled construction of secondary living units will promote a stable heterogeneous community with a balanced social and economic mix. --_mn i b • , ZZ~ i• i ~---a ~C'C'YT1'TYT . ~ _TYIT'P C Ul ~~C~ b aT~i'f' . ~O 'tCTpr~Sel~'~ t~~lrouSi b e'~ i 15-56.025 One second unit per site. Only one-second unit shall be permitted on any one site. 15-56.030 Development standards. Except as other~~~ise pro~~ided in Section 15-56.110, each nec~~ second dwelling unit shall comply with all of the follo~~~ing development standards ~t~-be b"1c111LCU: (a) Lot size. If the newsecond dwellingunit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site area of the lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot, ,~tl~e ~ot-is -sha$--l~at ~ _ ~- -,-ice TL,T~C'Tl, (c) Unit size. The new second dwelling unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed ~t twelve hundred square feet " ' ,not including the garage. Ifa second dwelling unithas a basement, the area ofthe basement.is included uoooo2 as part of the total maximum allowed. (d) Building codes. The newsecond dwellingunit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) Zoning regulations. The new second dwelling unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). ~~__~ _- - _ . _ _'_. A one-time IO% increase in site coverage and allowable floor area maybe granted by the Community Development Director if the new second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. (f) Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the new second dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The garage requirement may be waived if the new second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. If the garage requirement is waived, an open parking space must be provided. (g) Sewer. The new second dwelling unit shall be ~ connected to the sanitary se~~~er system. (h) Access. The newsecond dwellingunit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) Common entrance. If the newsecond dweUingunit is attached to the main dwelling, both the new second dwelling unit and the main dwelling must be sensed by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the newsecond dwellingunit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. S (j) Limitations on number of bedrooms. A new second dwelling unit may not have more than two bedrooms. (j) Appearance. All new construction to create a secondary living unit must match the existing main structure in color, materials and architectural design. b 7 b 5 ~ ' uoooo3 15-56.040 Inspections. (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing second dwelling unit or appro~•al of a proposed unit to be attached to the main dwelling, priortcr-the-pu~rc " , an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second dwelling unit, and any main dwelling to ~~~hic:h a second dwelling unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply «~ith all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. , t.kis completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the applicant thereof shall pay the cost. (b) Each existing second dwellingunit and a main dwelling, to ~~~hich a second dwelling unit ~~-ill be attached by a common wall, shall be re~~ie~~~ed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of .a use~ennit building permit. Such recommendations may. include the connection of the second S dwellingunit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main d~~•elling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liabilin~ with respect to the physical condition of the property. , ~ t-txse-permit b• UOO®04 b • b b b b b b > > b • ~ , c b , b ~ , • > > b c b b JUUDUS ~-~etorcler- ~e--s~~;,rri, is -- ^in _L ~-~-=r~-rrr,-rTr .ct~tandards n ^- ^~ non. rsstrttt7nrts ~r ~m , -~ ~ ATP ~~ b 8 IS-56.OSOLegalization of existing second dwellingunits. • (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary• housing conditions. Second dwelling units currently exist which ~~~ere created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimating of such dwellingunits under the lave, the owners of property on which second dwellingunits are located should be encouraged to legalize such dwellingunits prodded the dwellingunits are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second dwellingunits are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the Cit}• has the responsibility to either ensure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second dwellingunits that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This.Section shall apply only to second dwellingunits established prior to _, 2002 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was lawfully constructed, and which complied ~~ith an}- applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after _, 2002 ,shall be deerned a ne~v dwellingunit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application grit to legalize an existing second dwelling unit shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as shall be prescribed. In lieu of the items described in Section 15-55.040 of this Chapter, the application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location bf all structures, trees, landscaping ooooos and off-street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and-the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15-X6.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. ~ b ~' (~ (S) If the site is a 1-ullside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Community Development Director: (i) A topographic map of the site shov~ring contours at intervals of not are than five feet; and/or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. {~j (6) If the existing second dwelling unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. b b -' ~ i i i b ~ a • - 000007 (f) Standards. Existing second dwellingunits shall comply v~~ith the follo~•ing standards: (1) Where the existingsecond dwellingunit is located upon a hillside lot, t:he applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the existing second dwellingunit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the existingsecond dwelling unit shall comply Frith the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Pro~~ided that not less than three off-street parking spaces are available orc the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the existing~second dwelling unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the parking .space for the existing second dwelling unit shall be screened from ~~ie~v from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a - parking space for the existingsecond dwellingunit. (4) Where the existingsecond dwellingunit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement ~~vherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the existing second dwelling unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary se~~~er whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. ~~-slra$-trot ' r b ~ . ~~IL~SLTCI • (6) The existing second dwellingunit shall comply with such other standards, «•hich in the judgment of the Community Development Director are necessary or appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. b ~ ~ b ~~ ,~t12~515 '~irectQr b b ' _~ -' r-flQ~ ,7~~e (h) Disqualified existing units. Any existing second dwelling unit established prior to _, 2002 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a ne~~ second dwellingunit subject to the remaining pro~~sions of this Article, except as follo~~s: ~_ _~ . ~r-mrrn-n~ ., -~7h~-existnlg ~errmrrrrrrrr ~) (1) The existing second dwelling unit shall comply with the standards set forth in X00®©8 subsection (f) of this Section. {3~ (2) The existing second dwellingunit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter. (i) Burden of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second dwelling unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. • • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance Amendment implementing Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 4.2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution X00®09 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~J000~0 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. _ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has considered a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment which implements Housing Element Program 1.1; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e«dence; and WHEREAS, the City has demonstrated that the proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with current state law, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment implements the standards set forth in the Housing Element in that it has removed age-related occupancy restrictions, in that it eliminates the 1.6-acre minimum site requirement for detached second units, in that it eliminates the annual limit of 20 new second units, and in that the new ordinance allows open parking spaces for very low and low income occupants. • The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment implements the pro«sions of state •la~v in that the requirement that a Use Permit be obtained for all new second dwelling units has been deleted. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Cit<~ of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed language of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that they adopt the proposed amendments to the City of Saratoga Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, as presented in the following text: 15-56.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to authorize the establishment of secondary living units in single-family districts to comply with state lave and to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Controlled construction of secondary living units will promote a stable heterogeneous community with a balanced social and economic mix. 000011 15-56.020 One second unit per site. Only one-second unit shall be permitted on any one site. 15-56.030 Development standards. Except as otherwise provided in Section 1~-56.050, each second unit shall comply with all of the following development standards: (a) Lot size. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site area of the lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. Unit size. The second unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed twelve hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. If a second dwelling unit has a basement, the area of the basement is included as part of the total maximum allowed. (b) Building codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (c) Zoning regulations. The second unit shall comply with applicable zoning; regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, and height limits). A one- time 10% increase ui site coverage and allowable floor area may be granted by the Community Development Director if the new second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. ' (d) Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space v~~ithin a garage shall be pro~~ided for the second unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The garage requirement-may be v~~aived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they may only be rented to below market rate households. If the garage requirement is waived, an open parking space must be pro~~ided. (e) Access. The second unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (~ Common entrance. If the second unit is attached to the main dv~~ellir~g, both the second unit and the main dwelling must be sensed by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (g) Limitations on number of bedrooms. A secondary li~~ing unit may not have more than t~vo bedrooms. (h) Appearance. All new construction to create a secondary li~~ing unit must match the existing main structure in color, materials and architectural design. 15-56.040 Inspections. (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing second unit or approval of a proposed unit to be attached to the main dwelling an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the applicant thereof shall pay the cost. (b) Each existing second unit and a main dwelling, to which a second unit will be attached 000012 by a common wall, shall be re~~iewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a building permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to tris Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability v~~ith respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or warranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. 15-56.050 Legalization of existing second units. (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second units currently exist which were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimating of such units under the la«~, the owners of property on which second units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units pro~~ided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued -human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibility to either insure they are made both safe. and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This Section shall apply only to second units established prior to _, 2002 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was la~~=fully constructed, and which complied with any applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after _, 2002, shall be deemed a nevv unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application to legalize an existing second unit shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as shall be prescribed. The application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A «cinity map showing the location of the site. (?) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off-street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15-56.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. (5) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Community Development Director: (i) A topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not are than five feet; and/or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (6) If the- existing second dwelling unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site 000013 (d) Standards. Existing second units shall comply with the following standards: (1) Where the second unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Pro~~ided that not less than three off-street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the parking space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where the second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever-the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. (h) Disqualified existing units. Any second unit established prior to _, 2002 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not ha~•ing been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1) The existing second unit shall comply ~~ith the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this Section. (?) The existing second unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article h-70 of this Chapter. (i) Burden of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second unit depends upon the establis~unent of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. • ~JOOfl14 G i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission OOOJ15 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~J00016