Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2022 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 2022 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING This meeting will be entirely by teleconference and will be conducted in compliance with Government Code section 54953(e) of the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. During the meeting the Chair will explain the process for members of the public to be recognized to offer public comment. Members of the public view and participate in the meeting by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88081936700 App (Webinar ID 880 8193 6700) and using the tool to raise their hand in the Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair. Members of the public can send written comments to the Commission prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Commission and will become part of the official record of the meeting. ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of June 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 REPORT ON 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. 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 Application SUB21-0001/GEO22-0004/ENV21-0002; 15015 Vickery Avenue (517-18-031) Gerald & Judith Butler – The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 2.850-acre (gross) parcel located at 15015 Vickery Avenue into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit. No trees protected by City Code are requested for removal for the subdivision improvements. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found with mitigation. Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-017 - adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-018 - approval of the two lot subdivision 2.2 Application PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109/GEO21-0001; 13480 Ward Way (389-37- 003); Ragavika Tarigopula & Pavan Kumar Chitumalla – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,036 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 25’-9”) with an 800 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.3 Application PDR22-0002/TRP22-0044; 13221 Paseo Presada (389-15-086); Majid Mohazzab – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,365 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 25’-6”) with a 790 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-016 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS 4. COMMISSION ITEMS 5. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 I, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on August 4, 2022 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 4th day of August 2022 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY JUNE 22, 2022 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Chair Zheng called the virtual Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Chair and Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission meeting was conducted pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) of the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The Planning Commission met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Chair explained that votes would be taken through roll call. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Herman Zheng, Vice Chair Clinton Brownley, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Anjali Kausar, Ping Li ABSENT: Commissioners Jojo Choi and Razi Mohiuddin ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2022. KAUSAR/ZHENG MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2022 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: CHOI, MOHIUDDIN. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 Application ZOA22-0001 – Zoning Code Amendment (CITY WIDE). An ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga Municipal Code to implement Senate Bill 9 by setting forth objective standards applicable to projects required to be processed for only ministerial review under Government Code sections 65852.1 or 66411.7 such as lot splits and two unit developments in single family zoning districts. Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868- 1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-014 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 15 - Zoning Regulations, of the Saratoga City Code. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 2 AHUJA/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 22-014 WITH MODIFICATIONS TO MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, KAUSAR, LI, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: CHOI, MOHIUDDIN. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Pedro reminded Commissioners that the Commission Recognition Dinner is 6PM, Wednesday 6/29/22 at Hakone Gardens and that the July Planning Commission meeting is canceled. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kausar announced the July 4th celebration at Kevin Moran Park. Commissioner Li announced the Saratoga Historical Foundation will have a table at the July 4th event. Commissioner Ahuja commented that the Community Harvest was again a big success and he and Commissioner Kausar thanked the City Council for continuing the event. 5. ADJOURNMENT Commissioners Li/Zheng moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 5 Meeting Date: August 10, 2022 Application: SUB21-0001/GEO22-0004/ENV21-0002 Address/APN: 15015 Vickery Avenue (517-18-031) Owner/Applicant: Gerald & Judith Butler From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared by: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner 6 Report to the Planning Commission 15015 Vickery Avenue August 10, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 2.85-acre (gross) parcel located at 15015 Vickery Avenue into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on the new lot. No trees protected by City Code are requested for removal for the subdivision improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-017 - adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 1) 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-018 - approval of the two lot subdivision (Attachment 2) PROJECT DATA The General Plan designation for this property is Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) with a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The R-1-40,000 zoning is consistent with the RVLD General Plan designation because the minimum lot size for this zone district is 40,000 square feet. The R-1-40,000 zone permits uses such as single-family dwellings, accessory structures and uses. Proposed Lot Sizes, Site Coverage and Floor Area Parcel Net Site Area (sq. ft) Maximum Site Coverage (sq. ft) Existing Site Coverage (sq. ft) Allowable Floor Area (sq. ft) Existing Floor Area (sq. ft) A 80,194 28,068 21,694 6,140 5,218 B 41,796 14,629 3,450 5,454 0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Project site is located at 15015 Vickery Avenue. The site is bounded on all sides by developed single family residences. There is an existing single-family residence and accessory structure located on proposed Parcel A. The existing home is accessed via an ingress egress easement off of the end of Montalvo Heights Drive, and a secondary driveway off Vickery Avenue. The existing home and accessory building will remain on Parcel A with access from Montalvo Heights Drive. The new Parcel B will gain access from Vickery Avenue which is a private road. Parcel A will be 1.84 acres and Parcel B will be 1.009 acres. Subdivision Map Findings The applicant is proposing a tentative map. The applicant must file and seek approval of a final map that is substantially in accord with the tentative map. 7 Report to the Planning Commission 15015 Vickery Avenue August 10, 2022 Page | 3 The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings [City Code Section 14- 20.070(b)]. Staff has provided evidence, which does not support any of the findings. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the city code. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD), are consistent with the zoning regulations, and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single-family residences and accessory dwelling units. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for the new single-family residence on the new parcel. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence is filed with the planning department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy, and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelope and the surrounding areas have a minimum percentage of slope. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that there are no physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the site currently has one existing single-family home. The subdivision application would result in the addition of an additional single-family residence. Surrounding properties in the immediate surrounding are characterized by low-density single- family residential uses on similar sized parcels. 8 Report to the Planning Commission 15015 Vickery Avenue August 10, 2022 Page | 4 5. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the proposed project which includes subdivision. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found. 6. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works, and Engineering. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 7. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will result in the creation of parcels to sustain their agricultural use. This property does not have a Williamson Act contract. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. No subdivision improvements are proposed. Improvements The property has established utilities and access; therefore, no subdivision improvements are proposed. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for the new single-family residence on the new parcel. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision. No significant environmental impacts were found with mitigation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to those within 500’ of the project site as well as interested parties for a 30 day public comment period. The comment period ended on August 4, 2022. No significant environmental impacts were found with mitigation. The IS/MND analyzes potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project in the following areas: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; 9 Report to the Planning Commission 15015 Vickery Avenue August 10, 2022 Page | 5 Energy; Geology & Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards & Hazardous Materials; Hydrology & Water Quality; Land Use & Planning; Noise; Public Services & Safety; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities & Service Systems; and Wildfire. A detailed discussion about the potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures can be found in Attachment 4. City Department/Outside Agency Review This Tentative Parcel Map was forwarded for review to the Saratoga Public Works Department, Engineering, the City Arborist, and the following agencies. No concerns or objections have been received. • Santa Clara County Fire Department • West Valley Sanitary District • Pacific Gas and Electric • San Jose Water Company • School Districts Neighbor Notification A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site and interested parties. As of the writing of the writing of this report, no neighbor comments have been received. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 22-017 2. Resolution No. 22-018 3. Tentative Map 4. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 1 RESOLUTION NO: 22-017 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION APPLICATION NUMBER: ENV21-0002 15015 VICKERY AVENUE (APN 517-18-031) WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, an application was submitted by Gerald & Judith Butler (owner) requesting to subdivide an existing 2.850-acre (gross) parcel located at 15015 Vickery Avenue into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on the new lot. WHEREAS, an Initial Study (IS) and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the Project by the City of Saratoga, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000 et seq.), and any other applicable requirements. WHEREAS, the IS and a notice of intent to adopt an MND were duly noticed and circulated for a public review period from July 5, 2022 through August 4, 2022 and the public and responsible agencies were duly noticed of the opportunity for review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15072. WHEREAS, the IS and MND represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis. . WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project, during which opportunity was given to address the adequacy of the MND. All comments on the IS and MND raised during the public and agency comment period and at the Public Hearing on the Project were considered by the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was presented with and/or had the opportunity to review all the information in the administrative record. WHEREAS, after the conclusion of the above-referenced Public Hearing, the Planning Commission considered all oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND and reviewed and considered the information in the IS/MND, public and agency comments on the IS and MND, the administrative record, and the staff report for completeness and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and all other applicable requirements. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: 1. The Project has been the subject of an MND under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§ 21064.5 and 21157.5, and pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 § 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and all other applicable requirements. The Planning Commission has considered the information 11 2 contained in the IS/MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions. 2. The IS identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the proposed Project but found that mitigation measures proposed for the Project and made a part of the Project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. 3. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are kept in the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and are maintained by the Community Development Director. 4. Pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commmission finds on the basis of, and after review of, the whole record before it (including the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, any and all comments received, and in light of expert and other evidence submitted), that (1) potentially significant effects were identified but mitigation measures made a part of the Project would avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) there is no credible, substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as to any issue raised. 5. After careful consideration of the matter, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, which was presented to the Planning Commission on August 10, 2022, and circulated for a public review period from July 5, 2022 through August 4, 2022 and is on file with the Community Development Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of October 2021 by the following vote: COMMISSION MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Herman Zheng Planning Commission Chair 12 RESOLUTION NO: 22-018 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NUMBERS: SUB21-0001/GEO22-0004 15015 VICKERY AVENUE (APN 517-18-031) WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, an application was submitted by Gerald & Judith Butler (owner) requesting to subdivide an existing 2.850-acre (gross) parcel located at 15015 Vickery Avenue into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on the new lot. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an Initial Study for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level all of the project’s potentially significant effects on the environment. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of the project. WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, Planning Commission held a public hearing at which the applicant and the public had an opportunity to be heard. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and it has been determined that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use LU 1.1 which provide that the city shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences; Land Use Policy LU 1.3 which provides that the city shall ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential remain so designated; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the City shall not approve any tentative map if the approving authority makes any of the nine findings set forth in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). For the reasons set forth below, none of the findings can be made. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable 13 specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the city code for the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the city code. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD), are consistent with the zoning regulations, and are compatible with the existing densities in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single- family residences and accessory dwelling units. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate that required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the city code, for the new single-family residences on new parcel. At the time an application to construct a single- family residence is filed with the planning department, the mass, bulk, view, privacy, and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed building envelope and the surrounding areas have a minimum percentage of slope. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that there are no physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the site currently has one existing single-family home. The subdivision application would result in the addition of an additional single-family residence. Surrounding properties in the immediate surrounding are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses on similar sized parcels. 5. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the proposed project which includes subdivision. The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed subdivision and no significant environmental impacts were found. 6. That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the City Code and 14 General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works, and Engineering. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 7. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access or use. The design of the subdivision would not conflict with easements for access or use. 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will result in the creation of parcels to sustain their agricultural use. This property does not have a Williamson Act contract. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. No subdivision improvements are proposed. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning commission hereby approves SUB21- 0001/GEO22-0004 located at 15015 Vickery Avenue subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of August 2022 by the following vote: COMMISSION MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Herman Zheng Planning Commission Chair 15 1 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICATION NUMBERS SUB21-0001/GEO22-0004 located 15015 Vickery Avenue (APN 517-18-031)) A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 6. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and 16 2 b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. An application for Design Review shall be submitted for any new single-family home to be constructed on the parcels. 8. The applicant shall submit for Arborist Review for any future Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Section 15-50. 9. The tentative map shall expire 24 months from the date on which it was approved unless a final map is approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. An extension of the expiration date may be granted by the Planning Commission for a period not exceeding 36 months. The application for extension with the payment of a fee shall be filed prior to the expiration date. Extension of tentative map approval is not a matter of right and the Planning Commission may deny the application. C. WEST VALLEY SANTITATION DISTRICT 10. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. D. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 11. The developer is to submit a completed application for service, approved site, utility and elevation plans, appropriate engineering, and pay all fees prior to gas and electric service being provided. All necessary Public Utilities Easements or Rights of Way must be secured by the applicant prior to the installation of service. The gas and electric service facilities will be installed under the applicable rules and tariffs in effect at the time of application. E. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW 12. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Geotechnical requirements as in the report by Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc. dated February 25, 2022. F. ENGINEERING 13. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil 17 3 Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 14. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Two copies of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. Two copies of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. Two copies of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. Two copies of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 15. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 16. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 17. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Additional easements for storm water drainage and treatment facilities shall be dedicated on the Final Map as needed. 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 19. Prior to the development of Parcel B the 36” storm drain line is to be rerouted into the storm drain easement. 20. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 21. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the City Engineer. 18 4 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park Development fee prior to Final Map approval. 23. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 24. Per City Municipal Code § 14-30.030(a) the project will be reviewed in accordance with the most recent and up to date which are jointly administered by CDD and DPW. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Permit Standards"). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be retained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete retention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to retain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 25. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 26. Conditions Requested by Other Agencies or Utilities. Applicant shall comply with all conditions regarding improvements, whether on-site or off-site requested by other Agencies or Utilities having jurisdiction over the project. Such agencies include but are not limited to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to issuance of city permits, the applicant must present evidence of permit approval by any such agencies, as required for any activities within jurisdictional areas of said agencies. 19 TOTAL SITELOT LINE ADJUSTMENT2.850± ACRES[Doc No 17542182]PARCEL ONE50' S.E. O.S.E. PER BK. F233 OR, PG. 513I.E.E & P.U.EPARCEL 7L.S.E.PARCEL 8APN: 517-18-065APN: 517-18-03114 SEC. LINEN 89°49'08" E76.72'S 25°48'11" W165.00'S 61°18'11" W100.00 'S 75°48'11" W283.73'N 42°51'16" W60.78'R=35.00' D=30°16' 1 3 " L=18.49'R=60.00'D=26°27'16"L=27.70'N 0 8 ° 1 5 ' 1 8 " E 133.6 0 'R=70.00 'D=25°12'29"L=30.80 'N 43 °23 '52 " E 9 5 . 7 0 'N 50°48 '55 " E130.00 'S 85°56'05" E160.00'S 19°06'05" E 103.67'S 85°56'05" E 26.00'VICKERY LANEMONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE6 ' I .E .E . & P .U .E .PARCEL 2 14' D . W . E . , I . E . E . & S . D . E .LOT 3[514 M 8]LOT 2[514 M 8]10' W.E.10' P.U.E.S.E.O.S.E. PER BK.F233 OR, PG. 51315' S.S.E.25' P.S.E.,I.E.E., &S.S.E.LOT 3[460 M 26]LOT 2[460 M 26]LANDS OF NOBRIGA[376 M 13]12' E A S E M E N T BK 1 7 3 7 O R , P G . 4 0 9 BK 1 4 5 3 O R , P G . 1 5 310' S.S.E.BK 270 OR, PG 674CENTER LINE OF 10'PG&E ESMT. PERBK 904 OR, PG 69310' S.S.E.BK 202 OR, PG 6471 4 ' D .W .E , I .E .E . & S .D .E .BK 1 0 0 OR , PG 2 0 4 7 D. W . E , I . E . E . & S . D . E . B K 1 0 0 O R , P G 2 0 4 7 B K 1 0 0 O R , P G 2 0 4 9 20' D.W.E., I.E.E. & P.U.E.BK 100 OR, PG. 2046R42'40'R-O-WGARAGEFF=98.00SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCEFF=102.55BUILDINGFF=102.45W W SCALE: NOT TO SCALEVICINITY MAPLEGAL DESCRIPTIONCAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 OF 2= 2.800 ACRES ± NET= 2.850 ACRES ± GROSSLOT AREA:UTILITY NOTE:THE UTILITIES EXISTING ON THE SURFACE AND SHOWN ONTHIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY A FIELD SURVEY. ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING AREFROM RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES ANDTHE SURVEYOR/ENGINEER DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THEIR COMPLETENESS, INDICATED LOCATION, OR SIZE.RECORD UTILITY LOCATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BYEXPOSING THE UTILITY.EASEMENT NOTE:EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE BASED ON PRELIMINARY TITLEREPORT ORDER NUMBER FWPS-2995152317 DATEDOCTOBER 26, 2015. BY CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY. OTHEREASEMENTS, IF ANY, ARE NOT INDICATED HEREON.0Scale 1" = ft30306090GERALD D. BUTLER AND JUDITH L. BUTLER15015 VICKERY AVENUESARATOGA, CA 95070PHONE NUMBER: (702) 768-7373TOTAL AREA9.13.1. OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 9503216185 LOS GATOS BLVD., SUITE 205GKM ENGINEERING2. ENGINEER:(408) 656-5917GEORGE K. MARINAKIS, RCE 776295. EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL6. PROPOSED USE: NO CHANGE8. PROPOSED ZONING: NO CHANGE12. 10. PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 27. EXISTING ZONING: R-1-40,000SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT= 2.850 ACRES ± (GROSS)STATE OF CALIFORNIA 94403 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SANTA CLARA COUNTY NOTES:4.A.P.N. 517-18-031 & 06511. NO NEW PUBLIC STREET NAMES INVOLVED.A.P.N. 517-18-031 & 06515015 VICKERY AVENUE 3. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.SURVEY CONTROLSET HUB AND TACKELEVATION = 89.78'(ASSUMED DATUM)CITY OF SARATOGA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPA TWO LOT SUBDIVISION SHEET INDEX:1. EXISTING CONDITION SITE PLAN2. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SITE PLANGKMengineering.comLos Gatos, CA. 95032 CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING 16185 Los Gatos Blvd. Suite# 205 (408) 656 5917SITE99CITY OF SARATOGAALL DISTANCES, AREAS & LOT DIMENSIONSSHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.20 GARAGEFF=98.00SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCEFF=102.55BUILDINGFF=102.45W W TOTAL SITELOT LINE ADJUSTMENT2.850± ACRES[Doc No 17542182]PARCEL ONE50' S.E. O.S.E. PER BK. F233 OR, PG. 513I.E.E & P.U.EPARCEL 7L.S.E.PARCEL 8APN: 517-18-065APN: 517-18-03114 SEC. LINEN 89°49'08" E76.72'S 25°48'11" W165.00'S 61°18'11" W100.00'S 75°48'11" W283.73'N 42°51'16" W60.78'R=35.00' D=30°16 ' 1 3 " L=18.49'R=60.00'D=26°27'16"L=27.70'N 0 8 ° 1 5 ' 1 8 " E 133.6 0 'R=70.00 'D=25°12'29"L=30.80 'N 43 °23 '52 " E 9 5 . 7 0 'N 50°48 '55" E130.00 'S 85°56'05" E160.00'S 19°06'05" E 103.67'S 85°56'05" E 26.00'VICKERY LANEMONTALVO HEIGHTS DRIVE6 ' I .E .E . & P .U .E .PARCEL 2 14' D . W . E . , I . E . E . & S . D . E . BK 1 0 0 O R , P G . 2 0 4 6LOT 3[514 M 8]LOT 2[514 M 8]10' W.E.10' P.U.E.15' I.E.E.S.E.O.S.E. PER BK.F233 OR, PG. 51315' S.S.E.25' P.S.E.,I.E.E., &S.S.E.LOT 3[460 M 26]LOT 2[460 M 26]LOT 1[460 M 26]LANDS OF NOBRIGA[376 M 13]12' E A S E M E N T BK 1 7 3 7 O R , P G . 4 0 9 BK 1 4 5 3 O R , P G . 1 5 310' S.S.E.BK 270 OR, PG 674CENTER LINE OF 10'PG&E ESMT. PERBK 904 OR, PG 69310' S.S.E.BK 202 OR, PG 6471 4 ' D .W .E , I .E .E . & S .D .E .BK 1 0 0 OR , PG 2 0 4 7 D. W . E , I . E . E . & S . D . E . B K 1 0 0 O R , P G 2 0 4 7 B K 1 0 0 O R , P G 2 0 4 9 20' D.W.E., I.E.E. & P.U.E.BK 100 OR, PG. 2046R42'40'R-O-W1.841± ACRES GROSS50'R.Y . S .B . F IR ST F LR .30'F.Y .S .B .FIRST FLR .20'S.Y.S.B.FIRST FLR.30'F.Y.S.B.FIRST FLR.20'S.Y.S.B.FIRST FLR.20'S.Y.S.B.FIRST FLR.50'R.Y.S.B.FIRST FLR.20' S .Y . S . B . F IR ST F LR .1.841± ACRES NET80,194 SQFT NETPARCEL A FRONTAGE 130 .0 'PARCEL A AVERAGE DEPTH 341.2'PARCEL AMINIMUM WIDTH 164.3'JTJTJTEX. DWY TOACCESS PARCEL APARCEL APARCEL B1.009± ACRES GROSS0.959± ACRES NET41,796± SQFT NETPARCEL BFRONTAGE 105.2'PARCEL BAVERAGE DEPTH 226.3'PARCEL BAVERAGE WIDTH 254.3'EX. DWY. TOACCESS PARCEL BCONCEPTUALBUILDINGFOOTPRINT =5425.0± SQFTCATCH BASINWATER METERFENCEPROPERTY LINEINDEX CONTOURCONTOURCURBTREEGASPOSTOVERHEADTELEPHONESANITARY SEWERSIGNVALVEFIRE HYDRANTFOUND MONUMENT AS NOTEDCENTERLINEEASEMENTUTILITY POLEMANHOLEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICSTORM DRAINWATERADJACENT PROPERTY LINESTORM DRAIN MANHOLECURB & GUTTERGAS METERBUILDING LINEABBREVIATIONSBENCHMARKPROPOSEDEXISTINGAREA DRAINCLEAN OUTLEGENDSANITARY SEWER MANHOLETENTATIVE PARCEL MAPA TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONCAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 94403 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPPROPOSED SUBDIVISION 2 OF 2SANTA CLARA COUNTY A.P.N. 517-18-031 & 06515015 VICKERY AVENUE0Scale 1" = ft30306090CITY OF SARATOGA SETBACK LINE(R)RADIALDOCDOCUMENTAPN:ACCESSORS PARCEL NUMBERFLR.FLOORF.Y.S.B.FRONT YARD SETBACKNONUMBERP.S.E.PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTP.U.E.PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS.E.SCENIC EASEMENTS.S.E.SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTSQFTSQUARE FEETS.Y.S.B.SIDE YARD SETBACKI.E.E.INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENTW.E.WATER EASEMENTR.Y.S.B.REAR YARD SETBACKGKMengineering.comLos Gatos, Ca 95032 CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING 16185 Los Gatos Blvd. Suite# 205 (408) 656 5917ZONNING = R-1-40,000Average acres per dwellingunit = 1/1.089 — .01778 (S)1/1.089 — .01778 (20.5) = 1.38DETERMINATION OF DENSITY = Anet/ Aavg per DU =2.800/1.38 = 2.029 = 2S.D.E.STORM DRAIN EASEMENTD.W.E.DRIVEWAY EASEMENTO.S.E.OPEN SPACE EASEMENTFLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSEXISTING PARCEL ALLOWABLEDESCRIPTIONPROPOSED PARCEL A ALLOWABLEPROPOSED PARCEL B ALLOWABLE24%42%NET AREA80,19447,00021%33%121,96882,0006,820AVERAGESLOPENET AREADEDUCTIONADJUSTEDNET AREAALLOWABLEFLOOR AREAEXISTING PARCEL EXISTING FLOOR AREAPROPOSED PARCEL A EXISTING FLOOR AREAPROPOSED PARCEL B EXISTING FLOOR AREA6,14016%22%41,79633,0005,4545,2185,2180DESCRIPTIONEXISTINGFLOOR AREASITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONSEXISTING PARCELEXISTING SITE COVERAGEPROPOSED PARCEL APROPOSED PARCEL B21,69427.1%NET AREA80,19425,14420.6%121,968IMPERV.SURFACESITECOVERAGEEXISTING PARCELPROPOSED PARCEL APROPOSED PARCEL B3,4508.3%41,796ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGEPER ZONING REGULATION SECTION 15-12.08080,194121,96841,79628,06835%42,68935%14,62935%AVERAGE LOT SLOPEEXISTING PARCELDESCRIPTIONPROPOSED PARCEL APROPOSED PARCEL B53,7251.8455,0252.80CONTOURINTERVAL (I)LENGTH OFCONTOURS (L)51,3000.96PER ZONING REGULATION SECTION 15-06.630NET AREA(ACRES)24%21%AVG. SLOPE (S)16%PER ZONING REGULATION SECTION 15-12.08521 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Two-Lot Subdivision 15015 Vickery Avenue Saratoga, CA Owner: Gerald D. Butler and Judith L. Butler Public Review Period July 5, 2022 to August 4, 2022 DRAFT 22 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 2 The City of Saratoga, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed two-lot subdivision at 15015 Vickery Avenue (Project). If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of one new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Pub Resources Codes § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs., 15000 et seq.) this document, combined with the attached supporting data and exhibits, constitutes the Initial Study/Negative Declaration on the subject Project. This Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) provides the basis for the determination that this Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC REVIEW In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this IS/ND commenced on July 5, 2022 and will conclude on August 4, 2022. During this period, the IS/ND will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. All written comments must be received prior to 5:00 P.M. on August 4, 2022. Please submit written comments to: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 njohnson@saratoga.ca.us Following the conclusion of the public review period, the Planning Commission will consider the IS/ND for the Project at a publicly noticed meeting. The Planning Commission shall consider the IS/ND together with any comments received during the public review process. The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Project and the IS/ND. 23 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 3 A. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1. Project title: Two-Lot subdivision at 15015 Vickery Avenue 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner njohnson@saratoga.ca.us / (408) 868-1209 4. Project location/APN: 15015 Vickery Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 517-18-031 and 517-18-065 5. Project sponsor name and address: Gerald D. Butler and Judith L. Butler 1015 Vickery Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) (1.09 DU/AC) 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-40,000) Description of Project: The Project Applicant, is proposing to subdivide an existing 2.850-acre (gross) parcel located at 15015 Vickery Avenue into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. The location of the Project site is shown on Figure 1, and the Project subdivision is shown in Exhibit A. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit. 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project site is located at 15015 Vickery Avenue. The site is bounded on all sides by developed single family residences. There is an existing single-family residence and accessory structure located on proposed Parcel A. The existing home is accessed via an ingress egress easement off of the end of Montalvo Heights Drive, and a secondary driveway off Vickery Avenue. The existing home and accessory building will remain on Parcel A with access from Montalvo Heights Drive. The new Parcel B will gain access from Vickery Avenue which is a private road. Parcel A will be 1.84 acres and Parcel B will be 1.009 acres. 9. Other public agencies whose review is required. San Jose Water Company; West Valley Sanitation District; and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Tamien Nation has requested formal notice of any project within the City of Saratoga . Noticing of this document will be sent to all tribes and if requested, consultation will take place prior to adoption of this document. 24 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 4 Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Tentative Map 25 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 7 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Date: June 30, 2022 Printed Name: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner 26 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 6 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: a-d) There are no scenic views or view sheds explicitly identified for this project area in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning documents. The proposed Tentative Map would subdivide an existing 2.8 -acre parcel into two lots. It is anticipated that a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit would be developed on Parcel B. It is anticipated that a single family home will be built on the parcel. If the proposed new residence exceeds 18’ in height or multi story, the new home would be subject to the Design Review requiring planning commission review thereby ensuring the compatibility of the aesthetic appearance of new development with existing development in the area. As such, no scenic vistas will be affected. The project area does not include any portions of a State Scenic Highway identified by the California Department of Transportation. There are no identified scenic resources or historic buildings within a state scenic highway located within the project area. The existing visual character of the area is characterized by both one-and two-story homes and related site improvements. Future development would be subject to zoning regulations, which include limits on building height, setbacks, grading and tree removal. In addition, the City’s Design Review process, which includes substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook, would be used to ensure visual compatibility within the project area. The construction of the new home would be similar to existing homes in the neighborhood and therefore would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,2,3,5, and 6 27 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 7 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? DISCUSSION: a) The project site has been developed with one single-family residential home and accessory structures for many years and is in an area fully developed with urbanized uses. There is no agricultural land or productive forestland on or adjacent to the site. The project site and all surroundings are designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of California Resources Agency. The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) publishes Farmland Maps and the most recent map was prepared in 2018. The map shows there is no farmland 28 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 8 on or near the project site; therefore, there is no potential to convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. b-e) The property is zoned for Single Family Residential (R-1-40,000) similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Land Use Element of the General Plan notes that there are no timber production areas within the City. There is no potential for the project to adversely affect timber resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on agriculture and forest resources. MITIGATION: None Source: 2, 3 & 7 29 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 9 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a-e) The City of Saratoga, including the project site, is within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management district (BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the SFBAAB, where the project site is located. Policies are also contained in multiple locations in the City’s General Plan, that support improving air quality. The future development of one single-family home would be subject to the City’s design review process and would include conditions of approval requiring best management practices during construction to minimize project related effects on air quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, the projects construction activities both for subdivision improvements and for the new single-family homes, would have a less than significant impact on the existing air quality of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: None Source: 2, 8 & 9 30 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 10 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-f) The proposed Tentative Map would subdivide an existing 2.8-acre parcel into two lots. I t is anticipated that a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit would be developed on Parcel B. The new parcel has a large open building site with little vegetation. No trees are proposed to be removed for any subdivision improvements. A drainage swale is located on Parcel B in the setback area on the western side of the proposed parcel. No known sensitive or special status species are located on the project site and no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community has been identified in the area. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. 31 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 11 MITIGATION: None Sources: 2 & 3 32 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 12 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including that interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? DISCUSSION: a-c) The Project Applicant, is proposing to subdivide an existing 2.850-acre into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. If the subdivision is approved, it will allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit. There are no known significant historical resource or archaeologic resources on the project site. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on Cultural Resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2, 3, & 5 33 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 13 6. ENERGY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? DISCUSSION: a-b) Implementation of the Project would not be considered to result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. It is expected that one new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit will be constructed on Parcel B. Energy consumption would be expected to be commensurate with similar uses and wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation is not to be expected. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on Energy. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 34 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 14 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (199 4), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? DISCUSSION: This section summarizes the potential Geology and Soils impacts related to the proposed Project based on the Engineering Geologic Investigation prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG dated December 6, 2021 (Exhibit B) and the Geologic Peer Review (GEO22-0004) prepared by Cotton, Shires & Associates dated February 25, 2022 (Exhibit C) a-f) The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into two lots with the existing home remaining on one of the lots. The site is characterized by both northeast facing hillslopes and relatively flat alluvial valley topography. The Project Engineering Geologist found that an existing old landslide underlies Parcel A and the existing residence. This neighborhood scale old landslide extends to the base of the slope near the proposed property boundary. The majority of Parcel B was found to be covered by artificial fill that will need to be further investigated and mitigated as part of future site development. 35 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 15 The Project Engineering Geologist found the risk of fault rupture, deep and shallow landsliding, liquefaction, and lateral spreading to be low. They specifically found that the mapped old landslide underlying Parcel A is stable given the subdued and gentle slopes. The property is located within two ground movement potential zones based on the City Ground Movement Potential map. An ‘Sls” zone encompasses a majority of Parcel A indicating the presence of the relatively old and potentially stable landslide. Parcel B is mapped within a “Ps” zone indicating an increased potential for shallow landsliding on moderate to steep slopes of the mapped landslide. The project site is not within a State delineated seismic hazard zones for landsliding, liquefaction, or surface fault rupture. The Berroca Fault is approximately 1,100 feet south of the site. The San Andreas fault is approximately 2 miles southwest of the site. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should perform subsurface exploration at the time of development of Parcel B. Lab testing and provide geotechnical design parameters for the proposed site development concept. Recommendations should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, foundation design parameters, and site surface and subsurface drainage improvements. This investigation should specifically delineate the surficial and subsurface distribution of undocumented fill at the site. Appropriate grading and foundations recommendations to mitigate these fill materials should be provided (e.g., removal and replacement of fill, deep foundations alternatives, etc.). The results of the Geotechnical Investigation should be summarized by the project Geotechnical Consultant in a report with appropriate appendices and submitted to the City for review by the City Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer prior to issuance of Geotechnical Clearance for residential development of Parcel B. Implementation of the seismic design parameters per Chapter 16 of the California Building Code for the development of any new structures, would reduce any adverse impacts associated with seismic shaking to be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the Geology and Soils character of the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION: Future site development should consider and thoroughly investigate and characterize the extent of artificial fill at the site. Future owners should be aware of this constraint and understand that site development may include additional grading and foundation measures to mitigate unsuitable surficial soils. Source: 2, 3 & 4 36 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision -makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site would create greenhouse gas emissions largely from the generation of electricity for the residential development and vehicle trips. Solid waste would make up a small amount of the total generation of greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD identifies screening levels for evaluation of operational GHG emissions. The City of Saratoga does not have an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD 2017b; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: “Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?” This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets, for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance have been established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as 37 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 17 on-road vehicles) (BAAQMD 2017b). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2e per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). Projects that could exceed the threshold of 10.000 metric tons of CO2 per year might involve use of equipment such as production flares, steam generators, thermal oxidizers and furnaces with an individual or combined project power rating of 20 MMBtu/hr or greater. None of these examples will be in use on this Project site. The quantitative threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e annually adopted by BAAQMD is applied to this analysis. If the project-related GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. Because the Project’s estimated operational greenhouse gas emissions falls below this threshold, there is a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2, 8 & 9 38 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 18 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION: a-g) The proposed Project is a residential development that does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other construction materials are routinely used during construction processes. The construction of the subdivision improvements would not be a source of hazardous emissions. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that the Department of Toxic Substances Control compile and regularly update a list of hazardous waste facilities and sites. A search of the Envirostor website (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2018) revealed that the Project site is not on the list. 39 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 19 The Project site is not within an airport land use plan, is not within two miles of a public airport, and is not near a private landing strip. The nearest airports are San Jose International Airport ten miles to the northeast, and Reid-Hillview Airport 16 miles to the east, northeast. The City participates in the Santa Clara County Operational Emergency Plan. The plan is an all-hazards document describing the County's Emergency Operations organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other guidelines, and critical components of the Emergency Response System. Development of the Project would not impair the implementation of this plan. h) The Project site is located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Zone and is categorized as Very High Fire Hazard Zone and is subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and approved them as submitted. Future development will be subject to review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department as to compliance with Public Resource Code 4290. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on Hazards and Hazardous Materials. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2, 10,11, & 12 40 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 20 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow DISCUSSION: a-f) The Project would subdivide an existing 2.850-acre parcel into two lots ranging in size from 1.84 acres to 1.009 acres. Parcel A contains an existing home that will remain on the site. If the subdivision is approved, it would allow for the construction of one new single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on Parcel B. 41 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 21 The proposed Project would utilize public water provided by the San Jose Water Company and would not use groundwater for any phase of the project. Regarding surface water that recharges the groundwater, the project site is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Consequently, the Project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or recharge other than its indirect impact on the use of groundwater by the San Jose Water Company. The Water Company receives water from Santa Clara Groundwater Basin supplied by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. According to the water district's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, there is adequate groundwater recharge within the Basin. Consequently, the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater resources nor substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and the impact is less than significant. New development on Parcel B would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and the Construction General Stormwater Permit require that any development on the Project site incorporate Low Impact Design techniques, provide erosion control measures during construction, and ensure that runoff does not exceed the rate and duration of that existing runoff. Further, the required Low Impact Design techniques require pre-treatment of runoff before it enters the City's storm water system. At the time of d evelopment of Parcel B there would be requirements to prepare a storm water management plan which would be reviewed by City staff to ensure it meets the City's requirements for storm water management. These requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would have no impact on downstream flooding, including impacts on downstream creeks. These requirements would also ensure that the proposed Project would not create or contribute substantial amounts of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. g-i) Large scale flooding is not a significant hazard in the City. Site drainage is generally characterized by infiltration or sheetflow to the existing drainage system. j) The Project site is located inland and is not at risk of inundation by a tsunami. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Two water tanks owned by the San Jose Water District are located near the project site. Field investigations indicate that if the tanks were to fail the project site is not in an area that would be affected. Flooding from a seismically-induced seiche is unlikely. The Project site is not located at the base of a hill and the area surrounding is developed with single-family homes on sites heavily vegetated. The Project site would not be subject to inundation by mudflow. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the Hydrology and Water Quality. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2, & 3 42 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 22 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project site contains a one-story single-family home and an ancillary building. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential. The proposed Project would include the subdivision of the site into 2-lots for single-family homes and would not physically divide an established community. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Designation and the zoning code. c.) The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, no habitat conservation plan conflicts/impacts would occur. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 43 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 23 12. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: a-b) The City of Saratoga does not contain any designated important mineral resources that need to be protected. Mineral resources in the City are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. There are several closed quarries within Saratoga and there are no mines or quarries known to be operating in the City or its Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site. MITIGATION: None Sources: 2 & 3 44 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 24 13. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: a) The standards of the City of Saratoga General Plan Noise Element utilize the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor. The Noise Element of the General Plan includes existing roadway noise and noise contour distances for various roadway segments within the City (Table NE-A1). The project site is not listed within the table as having excessive roadway noise. Policy 2.2 of the General Plan Noise Element requires residential development be designed and constructed to reduce interior noise levels of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms. Implementation of standard building design and construction techniques per CALgreen standards will ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. b) Equipment expected to be used during the future construction phase of the pro ject, would generate ground-borne vibration levels on a short-term basis. There are no long-term effects that would result from ground-borne vibration. c-d) Short-term noise impacts may be created during construction of the subdivision improvements such as minor grading for the new drainage facility and utilities. Temporary noise will occur at the properties adjacent to the site during construction of the Project. The noise levels are expected to be consistent with typical single-family home construction within the City. Compliance with the City’s construction hours will reduce the Project’s impacts on noise to less than significant. 45 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 25 e) The Project site is not located within an airport land-use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. f) The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and therefore, would not expose people residing in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on noise. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1, 2 & 3 46 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 26 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a) The Project would create one additional parcel for future construction of a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit. The existing home would remain. Future construction of one single-family home and accessory dwelling unit would not induce substantial population growth in the area. b-c) The Project would create one single-family home on site and will not displace existing housing, nor would the Project displace any people. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 47 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 27 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Saratoga Fire District provides fire protection to the City of Saratoga. The closest fire station to the project site is the Historic Saratoga Village located at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. Santa Clara County Sheriff provides law enforcement services to the City. The Project is an urbanized infill site therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police or fire facility. c-e) The Project would create one parcel for future development of a single-family home that would have a negligible increase in the demand for schools, parks, or public facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact Public Services. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 48 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 28 16. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a-b) The Project would create a parcel for one future single-family home site. The development of one single-family home and accessory dwelling unit would have a negligible increase in the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on recreation. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 49 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 29 17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION: a-f) The existing project site maintains access onto both Montalvo Heights Drive and Vickery Avenue. Once the project is approved, access to the existing residence would be from Montalvo Heights Drive and the newly created parcel from Vickery Avenue. Due to the minimal trip generation for one new home, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to traffic circulation. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 3 50 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 30 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, or in it discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision © of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a Cal ifornia Native American Tribe. DISCUSSION: The Project site is in an established urbanized area where residential land uses surround the site. An existing one-story single-family home and related accessory structure are located on Parcel A. MITIGATION: None Source: 1 & 2 51 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 31 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with enough permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a) Sanitary sewer services are provided by the West Valley Sanitation District. The district has adequate capacity to service the site and therefore the proposed Project would not cause the district to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b/d/e) The Santa Clara County Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company provide water service to the City of Saratoga. The District is responsible for designing and building local water reservoirs and water distribution facilities and operating water treatment plants. The District then sells treated water to local water retail agencies that serve communities using their own distribution systems. San Jose Water Company is the water retailer that provides water to Saratoga residents. c) The City uses a storm water collection system, in conjunction with the natural creek drainage system, to manage storm water runoff. Storm water collected through this system ultimately drains into the San Francisco Bay. The Project includes a Hydromodification Detention Basin which would be required to be install for adequate storm water infrastructure. In addition, the proposed development will require any new development on site to incorporate Low Impact Design techniques and that stormwater runoff be maintained on site to the maximum extent possible. 52 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 32 f) Solid waste and recycling service are provided by West Valley Collection and Recycling (WVC&R). Solid waste is picked up Monday through Friday weekly, depending on the Saratoga neighborhood. Paper, plastic, metal, glass and green waste, such as lawn trimmings, can be recycled. All recyclables collected are transmitted to the Material Recovery Facility located in San Jose, where they are sorted and processed into new materials. E-waste is not collected by WVC&R at this time but may be dropped off by residents at the Material Recovery Facility. g) Solid waste and recycling services is available to the Project. Development of the site would be consistent with the proposed General Plan and would need to comply with all federal and state regulations as well as any local goals and policies related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would be less than significant impact on utilities and service systems. MITIGATION: None Source: 2 53 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 33 20. WILDFIRE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes? DISCUSSION: a-d) The addition of one single family home would not impair the City of Saratoga emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The closest emergency evacuation route is Saratoga Los Gatos Road (HWY 9). The project site is in the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Zone and the Very High Fire Hazard Zone. Santa Clara County Fire Protection District reviews all land use proposals. The project was reviewed and approved on May 19, 2021, with no comments or conditions. Santa Clara County Fire Protection District would review future site development plans for Parcel B. The site and surrounding sites are on sloped topography however future Design Development review would require grading and drainage considerations and would include review runoff, post-fire slope instability, and drainage changes. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts on wildfire. MITIGATION: None Source: 1, 2 & 11 54 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 34 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direc tly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: a) The Project would subdivide an existing parcel into two lots. The parcel has been in use as a single- family residential home site for many years. One new home would be built on the new resulting lot. The site is in a developed urbanized area and does not support any sensitive habitats or provide habitat for any rare or endangered plant or animal species, and the proposed project would not affect or substantially diminish plan or animal habitats, including riparian or wetland habitat. The proposed Project would not interfere with any resident or migratory species habitat, or affect any rare, threatened, or endangered species. b) The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) The proposed Project is a residential project and does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 55 E. SOURCES 1. Tentative Map for 15015 Vickery Avenue, dated June 9, 2022 2. City of Saratoga General Plan 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map 4. City of Saratoga Ground Movement Potential Map 5. City staff review of the project. 6. California Department of Transportation State Scenic Highways Map 7. Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2018 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. April 19, 2017. 10. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database; June 2021 11. Cal Fire Hazard Zone Map October 2008 12. City of Saratoga Emergency Operations Plan F. EXHIBITS A. Tentative Map for 15015 Vickery Avenue, dated June 9, 2022 B. Engineering Geologic Investigation prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG dated December 6, 2021 C. Geologic Peer Review Memo, Cotton, Shires & Associates dated February 25, 2022 56 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15015 Vickery Avenue 36 MITIGATION MEASURES MM – Geology and Soils – 1) Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should perform subsurface exploration, lab testing, and provide geotechnical design parameters for the proposed site development concept. Recommendations should include, but not necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, foundation design parameters, and site surface and subsurface drainage improvements. This investigation should specifically delineate the surficial and subsurface distribution of undocumented fill at the site. Appropriate grading and foundations recommendations to mitigate these fill materials should be provided (e.g., removal and replacement of fill, deep foundations alternatives, etc.). The results of the Geotechnical Investigation shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a report with appropriate appendices and submitted to the City for review by the City Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer prior to issuance of Geotechnical Clearance for residential development of Parcel B. 57 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Date: August 9, 2022 Subject: 15015 Vickery Avenue - Supplemental Attachment 1 Please see attached email public comments received August 9, 2022. 58 From:Debbie Pedro To:Nicole Johnson; Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 10:50:30 AM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 10:41 AM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Larry Hester Phone Number Email Address Comments RE: Application SUB21-0001/GE022-0004/ENV21-0002; 15015 Vickery Ave 517-18-031 Gerald Butler My name is Larry Hester and I live at 20634 Vickery Ave. My lot, 033, is adjacent to the lot that the Butlers are proposing to develop. My neighbors and I are concerned about the construction traffic that will be coming and going from the site. Although the Butler's home address is 15015 Vickery Ave., they have always accessed their property from Montalvo Heights Drive - which is a city maintained street. But the portion of their lot, 031, that is to be developed lies along Vickery Ave - which has always been a private road. If Vickery Ave is used to bring in all of the construction equipment necessary to build the new homes, the burden of additional wear and tear on the road - and the added noise and congestion - will be unfairly distributed to the property owners who share and maintain the private road. My biggest concern is that my house is the last house on the small single lane road with no other exit and when trucks 59 are parked there we are unable to get down the road causing great delay and interference in our lives and perhaps affect safety in emergencies. So, I would like to request that the approval of the project be contingent upon the use of Montalvo Heights Drive - and not Vickery Ave - for construction traffic. Thank you, Larry Hester Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   60 From:Debbie Pedro To:Nicole Johnson; Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:05:17 PM     From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 11:33 AM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form   CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Charles Thomson Phone Number Email Address Comments To whom this may concern, The proposal by Gerald and Judith Butler to subdivide their property at 15015 Vickery Ave has the potential to significantly alter the status of the private section of Vickery Ave. No decision should be made on the proposal until all aspects of changes to traffic on the private road are addressed. The decision on the proposed project should be contingent the resolution of the following issues regarding the private section of Vickery Ave: 1.) Some of the property owners who share access and responsibility for the road live beyond the 500' radius within which public notices were sent. These owners need to be notified and included in the planning process. Therefore the public comment period needs to be extended until adequate notification can be given and responses addressed. 2.) A thorough evaluation of all of the impacts of the proposal on the private roadway needs to be completed and presented to all of the property owners before an informed decision can be made. 61 3.) Construction traffic should be confined to the city maintained street, Montalvo Heights Drive. Although the Butler's property address is 15015 Vickery Ave, they access their property from 20622 Montalvo Heights Drive, not Vickery Ave. The private section of Vickery Ave is a narrower roadway and a significant increase in larger vehicles during construction would constitute a potential safety issue for residents living beyond the site if access is restricted, as there is no other access on this dead end road. Also, the expense of additional wear and tear on the road surface during and after construction needs to be accounted for. 4.) The Butlers should be included in, and agree to the terms of, the Road Maintenance and Repair Agreement presently being prepared for all of the property owners sharing the private road. Please consider these impacts on the property owners who share the private section of Vickery Ave before a decision is made to approve the proposal. Thank you, Charles Thomson 14931 Vickery Ave Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   62 From:Debbie Pedro To:Nicole Johnson; Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 1:05:27 PM     From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:49 PM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form   CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joe Montgomery Phone Number Email Address Comments My name is Joe Montgomery. I own the property at 14950 Vickery Ave. I am concerned about the effects the proposed subdivision will have on our private road. The Butlers do not currently use our road for access to their property. They have always used Montalvo Heights Drive. Any traffic that uses our private road during and after construction will only add to the congestion, noise and wear on the roadway. The proposal should not be approved unless all issues related to the use of our private road are discussed with all of the property owners on the private portion of Vickery Ave. Apparently notices were sent only to those living within 500 feet of the Butler's lot. Some of my neighbors sharing the road live further away than that. I also ask that construction vehicles access the site from Montalvo Heights Drive and not Vickery Ave. In addition, the butlers should join the Road Maintenance Agreement that my neighbors and I are currently drafting so that the expense of repairing and maintaining the road can be shared fairly. Thank you for your consideration, 63 Joe Montgomery Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   64 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Date: August 9, 2022 Subject: 15015 Vickery Avenue - Supplemental Attachment 2 Please see attached email public comment received August 9, 2022. 65 From:Debbie Pedro To:Nicole Johnson; Frances Reed Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 4:39:51 PM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 4:11 PM To: Sunil Ahuja <ahujasu@yahoo.com>; Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name David Frederick Phone Number Email Address Comments Nothing but good will to the owners and best of luck with their plans. Some concerns: 1) Construction traffic should be confined to Montalvo Heights Drive, which is the city maintained road that the Butlers have always used to access their property. The private portion of Vickery Ave should not be allowed for use of construction traffic. There is a oak tree that spans the road between 14941 Vickery Ave and 14921 Vickery Ave that large vehicles have not been able to pass under; it is hard to see how a concrete truck (etc) would be able to do so either. Large vehicles could be blocking the private road which jeopardizes emergency ingress/egress. 2) We'd like the Butlers property to be included in a Road Maintenance Agreement for the private portion of Vickery Ave so that the increased burden on the roadway can be proportionally paid for. Although the Butlers do not presently use Vickery Ave to access their property, the building proposal seems to include permanent driveway access to, and use of, Vickery Ave. See Charlie Thomson at 14931 Vickery Ave for the latest status of the 66 Road Maintenance Agreement. The city maintains Montalvo Heights Road, yes? Will it maintain Jerry Way as well? 3) Because the proposed development will likely impact the private portion of Vickery in the aforementioned ways, the Planning Commission must reach out to all of the property owners on the private road and address any and all changes in the status of the road before a decision is made to proceed with the subdivision. Some of the owners live beyond the 500' radius within which notices were sent. 4) During heavy rainstorms, there is a lot of water coming down Jerry Way. Is that a concern to potential new owner? Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   67 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 10, 2022 Application: PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109 Address/APN: 13480 Ward Way/389-37-003 Property Owner: Ragavika Tarigopula & Pavan Kumar Chitumalla From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 68 Report to the Planning Commission 13480 Ward Way – Application # PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a 3,036 square foot two-story residence with an 800 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project includes new multi-story main structure. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 8,001 sq. ft. gross (0.18 acres) Average Site Slope: < 10% General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence w/Garage ADU Driveway/Walkways Patios/Porches Total Proposed 1,640 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft 1,448 sq. ft. 246 sq. ft. 4,134 sq. ft.* (40%) 5,600 sq. ft. (60%)* Floor Area Residence w/Garage ADU Total Floor Area 3,036 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 3,836 sq. ft.* 3,840 sq. ft.* Height 25’9” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 34’ 7’6” 14’8” 7’6” 15’2” 37’2” 30’ 2.5” 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 25’ 7’ 4.5” 12’ 4.5” 7’ 4.5” 12’ 4.5” 21’ 8.4” 26’ 8.4” Grading Cut = 60 CY Fill = 10 CY Export = 50 CY No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district * Includes onetime 800 sq.ft. allowance for ADU Per City code Section 15-56.025(5)(b) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located at 13480 Ward Way in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The 8,001 square foot property has an average slope of less than 10% and is currently developed with a single-story residence. The site is surrounding on all sides by one story single-family homes of various architectural styles. 69 Report to the Planning Commission 13480 Ward Way – Application # PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Page | 3 Project Description The proposed lower floor of the residence is 1,640 square feet and includes a family room, dining room, kitchen, and attached two-car garage. The lower floor also contains an additional 800 square foot attached ADU which has one bedroom, one bathroom, living room, and kitchen. The proposed upper floor is 1,396 square foot and includes three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The applicant has provided a color and materials board (Attachment 6). Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors/Materials Exterior Tan Stucco and Grey Cement Siding Windows/Trim Black Metal Window Frames Front door/Garage door Natural Wood Roof Grey Composition Shingles Trees The project Arborist inventoried four (4) protected trees on the site. One protected tree in the front yard is proposed for removal. The City Arborist has approved the removal of the coast live oak which is in poor condition. Replacement trees are required to be planted on the site (Attachment 2). Landscaping The installation of front yard landscaping is required prior to building permit final inspection. The project includes a condition of approval that landscaping is to be installed per City Code Section 15- 12.095. Geotechnical Clearance The project site is located within a fault zone, therefore, a Geotechnical Review was required. The City’s Geotechnical Consultant reviewed the Geotechnical Report provided by the applicant and has recommended approval of the project with conditions (Attachment 3). FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native 70 Report to the Planning Commission 13480 Ward Way – Application # PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Page | 4 trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that one protected tree is requested for removal which is in poor condition. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 4 feet and 6 feet to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. A row of 24” box Fern Pine and Bay Laurel trees will also be planted along the side property lines to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior materials and architectural forms. The grey cement siding combined with the off-white smooth stucco on the front and rear elevations help break up the appearance of mass. The hip roofs and recessed second story also reduce the overall mass of the structure. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of 71 Report to the Planning Commission 13480 Ward Way – Application # PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Page | 5 compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga News. The applicant submitted one (1) completed neighborhood notification form which had no negative comments. The City also received five (5) comment letters from four (4) neighbors. The adjacent neighbor on Ward Way, located east of the site, requested the home be redesigned to single-story and expressed concerns with privacy, requesting the second story windows facing their property have a sill height of 5’-6” above finished floor. The neighbor also requested the two living room windows on the first floor be non-operable. Three neighbors on Holiday Drive expressed concerns with the construction of a two-story home in the neighborhood and with potential privacy impacts (Attachment 4). The proposed second story windows on the side elevations will have sill heights of 4 feet and 6 feet to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. Fern Pine and Bay Laurel trees will also be planted along the side property lines for privacy. The proposed rear-facing balcony has been set back between the walls of the second story to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. The site is not located within a single-story overlay district. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence replacing an existing residence. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-015 2. Arborist Report 3. Geotechnical Clearance 4. Neighbor Notification Forms 5. Story Pole Certification 6. Material Board 7. Project Plans 72 RESOLUTION NO: 22-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR21-0029 AND ARBORIST REVIEW ARB21-0109 13480 WARD WAY (APN 389-37-003) WHEREAS, on November 11, 2021 an application was submitted by Ragavika Tarigopula & Pavan Kumar Chitumalla requesting Design Review approval for a 3,036 square foot two-story residence with an 800 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. 73 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR21-0029 and ARB21-0109 for 13480 Ward Way (APN 389-37-003), subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 74 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 13480 WARD WAY (APN 389-37-003) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 75 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Development Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut-off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 7. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 9. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 10. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 76 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 5 c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency, and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees 11. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 12. Privacy screening shall be planted along the side property lines as depicted in the approved Landscape Plans. The screening trees will be of an evergreen species, such as Fern Pine and Grecian Laurel, or similar, with a yearly growth rate of approximately 3 feet per year and shall be 10-12 feet in height at the time of planting. 13. A Building Permit must be issued, and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 14. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. FIRE DEPARTMENT 15. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 16. All requirements in the City Arborist Approval Letter dated December 10, 2021 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING 17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 18. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any 77 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 6 City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 19. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Remove existing driveway approach and replace with new driveway approach per City Standard Detail 207. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 20. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 21. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 22. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 23. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 24. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: • Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. • The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. • City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 25. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 26. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 78 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 7 27. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 28. Geotechnical Plan Review- The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations elements) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 29. Geotechnical Construction Inspection - The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. 30. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 31. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Indemnity Agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 79 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 8 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 13480 WARD WAY (APN 389-37-003) The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that one protected tree is requested for removal which is in poor condition. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have bottom sill heights of 4 feet and 6 feet to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. A row of 24” box Fern Pine and Bay Laurel trees will also be planted along the side property lines to help mitigate privacy impacts. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building has varying exterior materials and architectural forms. The grey cement siding combined with the off-white smooth stucco on the front and rear elevations help break up the appearance of mass. The hip roofs and recessed second story also reduce the overall mass of the structure. 80 13480 Ward Way Application # PDR21-0029 / ARB21-0109 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-015 Page | 9 e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. 81 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Christina Fusco, City Arborist Application No. ARB21-0109 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 13480 Ward Way Email: cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Owner: Ragavika Tarigopula & Pavan Kumar Chitumalla APN: 389-37-003 Date: December 10, 2021 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing home and build a new home with backyard deck. One tree is requested for removal to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $7,800 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Tree #1 is approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $4,890 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection 82 13480 Ward Way Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One coast live oak tree #1 is in poor condition, in conflict with the project, and meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 1 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1, 4, 6, 9 Poor condition. Past failure left tree in compromised state New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1)The tree information and recommendations from the submitted arborist report dated July 19, 2021; 2)The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection from this report dated December 10, 2021. TREE INFORMATION: Project Arborist: Kevin Kielty Date of Report: July 19, 2021 Number of protected trees inventoried: 4 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 1 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. 83 13480 Ward Way Attachment 1 Table 2: Tree information from submitted arborist report dated July 19, 2021. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Condition Appraised Value Coast live oak 1 Quercus agrifolia 28 poor $4,890 Coast live oak 2 Quercus agrifolia 20 Good $8,000 Coast live oak 3 Quercus agrifolia 26 Good $10,000 Coast live oak 4 Quercus agrifolia 27 Good $13,200 84 13480 Ward Way Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1)The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2)The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3)The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4)The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5)The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6)Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7)Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8)Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9)The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10)The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. (11)The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. 85 13480 Ward Way Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b.No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.Shall include the tree information and protection recommendations from the arborist report by Kevin Kielty dated July 19, 2021 copied onto a plan sheet. b.Shall include the Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection sections of the City Arborist report dated December 10, 2021. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $7,800 for tree(s) 2-4. c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d.May be in the form of cash, check, or a bond. e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5.Tree Protection Fencing: a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, CHRISTINA FUSCO (408) 868-1276”. f.Call City Arborist, Christina Fusco at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 86 13480 Ward Way Attachment 3 6.Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a.Requires a field meeting and approval from City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be Kevin Kielty unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. d.The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 3 and 4. 9.Tree removal: Tree #1 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed once building division permits have been obtained. 10.New trees: a.New trees equal to $4,890 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b.Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices, and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. 11.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 87 13480 Ward Way Attachment 3 12.Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. 88 AƩachment 4 13480 Ward Way  Legend      Tree ProtecƟon Fencing 89 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner DATE: April 21, 2022 FROM: Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review (S6012A) RE: Ragavika and Pawan; New Main Residence GEO22-0001 13480 Ward Way At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical peer review of the subject application using: • Engineering Geologic Investigation (report) prepared by Steven F Connelly, CEG, Inc., dated April 18, 2022. In addition to the above referenced documents, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and discussed the project with the Project Geologist. DISCUSSION We understand the applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1,684 square-foot residence to construct a new two-story residence at-grade. Additional site improvements include an attached additional dwelling unit. Concentrated site run-off is proposed to be routed to a detention basin and infiltrated into the subsurface soils. Prior estimates of project grading include 60 cubic yards of cut and 10 cubic yards of fill. We refer to our prior memorandum for a description of the site conditions. In our prior peer review memorandum dated February 2, 2022, we noted that the site is mapped within a “Pf” ground movement potential zone delineated by the City and recommended completion of a Fault Investigation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION To investigate potential geologic hazards at the subject property, we understand the Project Engineering Geologist reviewed several sets of historic aerial photographs, pertinent published and unpublished technical reports, geologic and hazard maps, as well as advanced supplemental subsurface investigation consisting of two continuously sampled borings across the subject property. The Project Geologist also prepared a site geologic map and cross section presenting their interpretation of the surficial and subsurface conditions at the site. We understand advancing an exploratory trench was considered to be unfeasible by the Project Team due to the 90 Victoria Banfield April 21, 2022 Page 2 S6012A potential for damage to the existing improvements. As noted by the applicant’s Consultant, trenching is typically found to be the most conclusive method for fault hazard evaluation. However, we understand that the Project Geologist has completed a study and notes that evidence of active faulting was not observed. They find that the proposed project is feasible and that is unlikely that primary ground rupture will impact the proposed improvements. We do not have objections to the results and findings presented by the Project Geologist. Consequently, we recommend approval of project Geotechnical Clearance with the following conditions attached: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review- The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations elements) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants’ recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspection - The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the engineering geologic and geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. DTS:CS:TS 91 92 93 94 13480 Ward Way, Saratoga CA 95070 13472 Ward Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Showed the plans on Nov 20th 2021. Attempted to get signature onNov 21st 4:45PM and Nov 22nd 8:30AM. They didn't answer doorbell. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 95 96 97 From:Ilin Shieh To:Victoria Banfield Subject:13480 Ward Way, comments from 13472 Ward Way Date:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 10:54:47 PM Hi Victoria, Thank you again for showing us the design review plans, here are our comments as discussed: 1. North Elevation: First Floor Living Room Windows One of our main bedrooms faces the applicant’s two living room windows, so we ask that these windows be fixed (non-operable) and be of high STC value. Both are shown as window type “W2” on plan, flanking the television on the wall. 2. North Elevation: Second Floor Guest Bedrooms 1 & 2 Windows We ask that the guest bedrooms 1 and 2 windows (facing our property) have a sill of 5’-6” A.F.F. or above. Both are shown as window type “W1” on plan, directly behind the beds. These windows will be visible from our bedroom and laundry room. Please raise the windows to reduce sightline into our property. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. My folks are looking forward to a quiet retirement, so they'd appreciate consideration towards sound and visual privacy. Please keep us updated. Thank you. Best, Ilin Shieh 98 rom: Mohan Family  Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 7:31 PM To: Planning  Subject: Proposed new residential unit at 13480 Ward Way, Saratoga CA Hello: This is regarding the new house that the owners of 13480 Ward Way are proposing to build at that location. We live diagonally across behind their lot at We have reviewed their building plan and feel very concerned about losing our privacy due to the proposed 2nd story. Could you please persuade them to build a 1-story house instead, which would also keep with the current profile of the neighborhood? We like to assume that the relative privacy afforded by the prevalent 1- story style in the neighborhood played some role in their liking and buying this lot last year. We urge you to please help maintain this significant advantage of this place. We most certainly do not wish to lose the serenity and privacy we currently enjoy in our living quarters. Thanks. Best regards, Sudhir & Taruna Mohan  Saratoga, CA 95070 PS: We have also emailed to the owners our concern and urged them to go with a 1-story plan. 99 From:Pearl & David Bethel To:Victoria Banfield Subject:PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109/GEO21-0001; 13480 Ward Way (389-37-003) Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2022 11:23:02 AM Attachments:2022 08-02 email from db to City oppose 2-story 25-feet tall sub-standard lot size.docx To: Planning Commission From: David Bethel Re: PDR21-0029/ARB21-0109/GE021-0001; 13480 Ward way, (389-37-003) My name is David Bethel. I own the property and reside at – two houses over and behind the proposed new construction of a two-story house. I strenuously oppose this development as proposed. The two-story above-grade design of the structure is completely out of character for the neighborhood. This neighborhood consists of six dead-end streets running off of Dagmar Drive (Fontaine, Ronnie, Christie, Harper, Ward, Holiday). There is not a single, legal, two-story residence on any of those streets. The lots are among the smallest size in all of Saratoga, a non-conforming 8,000 sq. ft. in a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum zone. The original tract was developed with 950 and 1,250 square foot residences. The neighborhood has for a long time been in transition with many remodels, additions, and tear-downs. The upward range of new residence sizes is about 3,000 square feet, with a few exceptions. The neighborhood is analogous to the formerly unincorporated area near Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, or the also formerly unincorporated Rancho Rinconada area of Cupertino, located north-west of Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger Road. Both of those areas have seen development with “Monster Homes” – two-story boxes that tower over much smaller homes, all set on small lots. With regard to the proposal at 13480 Ward Way, passing through the intersection of Ward Way and Dagmar Drive, one is struck – even shocked - by the unusual height of the story poles. The phrase “monster house” immediately comes to mind. The proposal for front and rear exterior balconies would merely add insult to injury. The immediate effect would be to diminish the market values of adjacent properties. I strongly encourage the members of the Planning Commission to drive through the neighborhood and visualize the impact for yourselves. Again, the two-story aspect of the proposed construction should be rejected as unsuitable as it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood - even as the neighborhood transitions from very small to moderately large sized residences. Thank you for your consideration of my perspective, and please reject the application as proposed. Sincerely, David Bethel 100 From:Tj Singh To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Double Storey Home in the neighbourhood Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2022 5:31:27 PM Hi Victoria My name is TJ we live on holiday drive been there since the early 90s. I am wondering why a double-story house is being allowed now in the neighborhood which would change the profile of the entire neighborhood being I think the only two story building other than the one on a flag lot of dagmar. Also if I am not mistaken they are going to be balconies on this home and while we all love balconies it would seem strange where everything is a ranch home and you can actually almost look down on the neighbors who knows where. We have never in the past almost 30 years wondered about any construction but this seems to be somewhat aggressive while we wish the homeowner every happiness in their home it would seem extremely unbalanced to have a double-story home in a neighborhood which is rampant with single story houses. Initially I was hesitant to voice this opinion but I would really urge the council to reconsider this decision we don't know these people and there is no personal connection either. Once again I would reiterate our anxiety about such a departure from the norm in the neighbourhood We hope you would reconsider. Regards TJ Ps. I would have been happy to come in person to discuss this but we are traveling. 101 102 EXTERIOR COLOR / MATERIAL SCHEDULE MATERIAL / APPLICATION CODE COLOR MANUFACTURE COMPOSITE SHINGLES ROOFING METAL WINDOW FRAMES GARAGE DOOR SLIDING GLASS DOOR METAL GUARDRAIL M1 M3 M4 M5ROOFWALL MISC.* NOTES: EXACT COLORS TO BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT M8 M6 GREY BLACK BLACK SMOOTH STUCCO OFF WHITE CEMENT SIDING M2 CONCRETE WALKWAY M7 C.H.I OR EQ JELWEN OR EQ. JELWEN OR EQ. GAF OR EQ. - - BLACK GREY - - GREY WOODEN BROWN NOTES: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: DRG NO: SCALE: ADDRESS :889 San Antonio Road, Suite 110, Los Altos, CA 94022 CONTACT : EMAIL :team@aronbuilders.com PROJECT : THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ARON DEVELOPERS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ARON BUILDERS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA NOTES: • ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES. • DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED. • ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS--UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED. • IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION. • THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION. • ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. • THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.) REVISIONS : N REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REV BY 650-380-0644 LIVIO 12" = 1'-0" A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 1022 13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA 07.06.2021 SAGAR SUBHENDU M1 M3 M4M2COMPOSITE SHINGLES ROOFING SMOOTH STUCCO SLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL WINDOW FRAME CEMENT SIDING CONCRETE WALKWAYM5M6 M7 M8METAL GUARDRAIL GARAGE DOOR 103 1. HERS VERIFICATION REQUIRED FOR THE HVAC COOLING, HVAC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAN SYSTEMS, AND IAQ (INDOOR AIR QUALITY). PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION (HERS) TO PROJECT BUILDING INSPECTOR, PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. 2. AT FINAL INSPECTION, A MANUAL, COMPACT DISC, WEB-BASED REFERENCE, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEDIA INCLUDING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CGBSC SECTION 4.410.1 SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING.3. ALL ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, CAULKS, PAINTS, COATINGS, AND AEROSOL PAINT CONTAINERS MUST REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR FIELD VERIFICATION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.4. PRIOR TO ENCLOSING THE WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING, CONFIRMATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHOWING THE FRAMING MEMBERS DO NOT EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT.5. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING, PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE CERTIFIED GREENPOINT RATER THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHECKLIST AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED POINTS WERE ACHIEVED. 6. PROPERTY LINE SURVEY WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION7. BUILDING HEIGHT VERIFICATION WILL BE COMPLETED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR AND PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION8. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT ROUGH INSPECTIONNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSELOT-3, 13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGAZONING COMPLIANCEEXISTINGPROPOSEDAllowed/RequiredLOT COVERAGELAND AREA COVERED BY ALL STRUCTURES THAT ARE OVER 6FT IN HEIGHT1,684 SF(21.04 %)3,334 (1640+246+1448) SF(41.68 %)4800.6 SF(60 %)FLOOR AREAMEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS(21.04 %)SETBACKS (MAIN HOUSE)FRONT (1st/2nd)REAR (1st/2nd)RIGHT SIDE (1st/2nd)LEFT SIDE (1st/2nd)25' 8" feet38' 9" feet9' 8" feet12' feet25' / 30' feet21' 8.4" / 26' 8.4" feet7' 4.50" / 12' 4.5" feet HEIGHT26' feetSQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWNEXISTINGCHANGE INTOTAL PROPOSEDHABITABLE LIVING AREAINCLUDES HABITABLE BASEMENT AREAS 1,684 Square feet3,388 Square feet3,388 Square feetNON-HABITABLE AREADOES NOT INCLUDE COVERED PORCHES OR OPEN STRUCTURES0 Square feet448 Square feet448 Square feetLOT CALCULATIONSNET LOT AREA8,001 Square feetLANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN :TOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA (EXISTING AND PROPOSED): 4,044 Sq. ft.EXISTING SOFTSCAPE (UNDISTURBED): 0 Sq. ft.NEW SOFTSCAPE (NEW OR REPLACED LANDSCAPING)AREA: 3,957 Sq. ft.SUM OF ALL THREE SHOULD EQUAL THE SITE'S NET LOT AREAFIRST LEVEL =1,640 Sq.ft,PATIO =246 Sq.ft,IMPERVIOUS AREA = 1,448 Sq.ft.3,036 SF(37.94 %)FIRST LEVEL=1,640 Sq.ft, SECOND LEVEL= 1,396 Sq.ft3,040 SF( 38 %)25' / 34' feet37' 2" / 30' 2.50" feet7' 6" / 14' 8" feet7' 6" / 15' 1.87" feet 8,001 Sq.ft (Net Lot Area)DEMOLITION OF 1,684 SF OF EXISTING RESIDENCE STRUCTURE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 3,036 SF MAIN HOUSE AND 800 SF ADU OVER LOT 8,001 SFVICINITY MAP N.T.SGENERAL NOTESCONTACT INFOOWNER : PAVAN KUMAR CHITUMALLA & RAGAVIKA TARIGOPULA+1 206-504-0606ARCHITECT: LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS SCOPE OF WORKSHEET INDEXDEFERRED SUBMITTALS 1. FIRE SPRINKLERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D AND STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOTE THAT PER CRC 313.3.7, A SIGN OR VALVE TAG SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE MAIN SHUTOFF VALVE TO THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STATING THE FOLLOWING: WARNING, THE WATER SYSTEM FOR THIS HOME SUPPLIES FIRE SPRINKLERS THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN FLOWS AND PRESSURES TO FIGHT A FIRE. DEVICES THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OR DECREASE THE PRESSURE OR AUTOMATICALLY SHUT OFF THE WATER TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SUCH AS WATER SOFTENERS, FILTRATION SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF VALVES, SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A REVIEW OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BY A FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST. DO NOT REMOVE THIS SIGN.2. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM TO BE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.ZONING COMPLIANCETHE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODECITY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCETYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : V-BZONE DISTRICT : R-1-10LOT AREA: 8,001 SFHISTORICAL: NONEW STRUCTURENEW TWO STORY ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 3,040 Sq.ft. MAXTOTAL FLOOR AREA MAIN HOUSE LIVING AREA 3,036 SFADU LIVING AREA 800 SFTOTAL COUNTABLE AREA 3,836 SFIMPERVIOUS AREASDRIVEWAY 500 Sq. ft.WALKWAY 304 Sq. ft.WOODEN DECK 644 Sq. ft.FIRST FLOOR 1640 Sq. ft. AVEAGE SLOPE OF SITE : SITE IS LEVELEDCIVIL ENGINEER: RW ENGINEERING 408-262-1899 SITEMAIN HOUSE=2,588 Sq.ft, ADU=800 Sq.ft.ADU=800 SFADU=800 SF ADU=800 SFADU=800 SFSITE1,684 SFNOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BYRAGAVIKA & PAVAN'S RESIDENCESHEET CONTENT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO:SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-65001REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"TITLE SHEETA1.001TITLE SHEET13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDUDRG NUMBER DARWING NAME DATEA1.001 TITLE SHEET 11-MAY-2022A1.002 NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT 11-MAY-2022A1.003 NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP 11-MAY-2022A1.004 PRIVACY DIAGRAM 11-MAY-2022A1.005 SITE LAYOUT 11-MAY-2022A1.006 SITE DEMOLITION 11-MAY-2022A2.001 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 11-MAY-2022A2.002 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 11-MAY-2022A2.003 ROOF PLAN 11-MAY-2022A3.001 NORTH AND WEST ELEVATION 11-MAY-2022A3.002 EAST AND SOUTH ELEVATION 11-MAY-2022A4.001 SECTION A-A & B-B 11-MAY-2022A5.001 DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 11-MAY-2022A6.001 AREA CALCULATION 11-MAY-2022A7.001 MATERIAL BOARD 11-MAY-2022C-1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 11-MAY-2022C-2 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 11-MAY-2022C-3 BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 11-MAY-2022L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 11-MAY-2022L-2 HYDROZONE PLAN 11-MAY-2022SU-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 11-MAY-2022T-1 TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET 11-MAY-2022T-2 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 11-MAY-2022U-1 UTILITY PLAN 11-MAY-2022LOWEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADEHIGHEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADEAVERAGE ELEVATION POINTTOP MOST ELEVATION POINT - MEASURED FROM AVERAGE POINT (ABOVE) TO THE TOP MOST POINT OF THE ROOF(INCLUDE SEPARATE CALCULATIONS FOR CHIMNEY, ETC.)331' 2.75" feet330' 4.50" feet330' 9.62" feet25' 8.6" feetLANDSCAPE: GREG LEWIS 831-359-0960 7' 4.50" / 12' 4.5" feet 3104 46"5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.85CONC330.84330330.79331.12331.49331.22331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.329330330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.89CONC330.87CONC330.82CONC330.78CONC329CONC330.52AC330.89AC330.84CONC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.81CONC330CON330.59CONC330.ON330CONC330.21CONC330.89CONC330.87330.75CONC330.86CONC330.88CONC6"6"34"134731348113491135011349013472134641350013535135251351513505WARD WAY1346513545HOLIDAY DR108.5108.5108.5108.5108.5108.573.7473.7473.77747410710710710710710774.7774.7974.7974.7974.7574.7774.7974.7974.7974.75NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARAs indicatedA1.002NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE LAYOUT-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1" = 20'-0"1NEIGHBOURHOOD SITE PLAN1348013465134731346413480WARD WAYWARD WAY13490135001350113491134811347213472134801348013490VIEW LOOKING OF 13480 WARD WAY EXISTING HOUSEFRONT YARD (EX HOUSE)RIGHT YARD (EX HOUSE)105 NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/16" = 1'-0"A1.003NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT MAP-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDUCONTEXT MAP13434134421345013458134641347213490135001348013435134431345113459134651347313481134911350113465134751348513495135051351513525135351359913464 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13472 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,STONE VENEER13480 TWO STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13490 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13500 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13465 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13473 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13481 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,WIDE HORIZONTAL SIDING13491 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,STONE VENEER13501 ONE STORY, HIP AND GABLE ROOF,STONE VENEER106 46"N45°15'00"E 73.74'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N45°15'00"E 73.74'5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.85CONC330.84330.42330.79331.12331.49331.22331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.30330.07329.61330.87329.86329.63330.32330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.89CONC330.87CONC330.82CONC330.78CONCEL=330.04SITE BENCHMARK329.72CONC329.86CONC330.52AC330.89AC330.84CONC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.81CONC330.71CONC330.59CONC330.53CONC330.44CONC330.21CONC329.61CONC330.89CONC330.87329.58CONC330.75CONC330.86CONC330.88CONC330.16TRCT329.98TRC329.38TRC329.21TRC329.15TRC329.66TRC330.1633329.89329.43329.09ROLLED CURBNEIGHBORING HOUSENEIGHBORING HOUSE6"6"34"27"25"ADJACENT D/WMBWARD WAYWOODENPATIOCOASTLIVE OAKTR-1TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLE73' - 8 7/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEWMCONCRETE WALKWAYVIEWVIEWVIEWVIEWVIEWVIEWVIEW135251347213490WINDOWWINDOWWINDOWHUMAN HEIGHT6' - 1"Temp. Level 1332' -8 3/8"Temp. Level 1343' -8 3/8"WINDOWDOOR6' - 1"HUMAN HEIGHTTemp. Level 1332' -8 3/8"Temp. Level 1343' -8 3/8"DOORNEIGHBORING HOUSE13525 30' - 2 1/2"16' - 4"36' - 1"HUMAN HEIGHTTemp. Level 1332' -8 3/8"Temp. Level 1343' -8 3/8"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARAs indicatedA1.004PRIVACY DIAGRAM-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU3/32" = 1'-0"1PRIVACY DIAGRAM1/8" = 1'-0"2Section 21/8" = 1'-0"3Section 3NEIGHBORING HOUSE134721/8" = 1'-0"4Section 4NEIGHBORING HOUSE13490443322WINDOW107 DNN45°15'00"E 73.74'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N45°15'00"E 73.74'5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.85CONC330.84330.42330.79331.12331.49331.22331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.30330.07329.61330.87329.86329.63330.32330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.89CONC330.87CONC330.82CONC330.78CONCEL=330.04SITE BENCHMARK329.72CONC329.86CONC330.52AC330.89AC330.84CONC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.81CONC330.71CONC330.59CONC330.53CONC330.44CONC330.21CONC329.61CONC330.89CONC330.87329.58CONC330.75CONC330.86CONC330.88CONC330.16TRC329.98TRC329.38TRC329.21TRC329.15TRC329.66TRC330.16329.89329.43329.09ROLLED CURBNEIGHBORING HOUSEBORING HOUSE6"6"34"27"25"ADJACENT D/WMBWARD WAYNDNDNWOODENCOVERED PATIOCOVEREDPORCHWOODENPATIOENTRYPROPOSED 1ST LVL SETBACK25' - 0"PROPOSED 1ST LVL SETBACK7' - 6"PROPOSED 1ST LVL SETBACK37' - 2"PROPOSED SETBACK7' - 6"COASTLIVE OAKTR-1TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLE108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"25' - 0" 46' - 4"37' - 2"7' - 6" 58' - 8 7/8" 7' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEMGMSECOND LEVELPROPOSED SETBACKSETBACK LINEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE WITH CLEANOUTBACKWATER VALVEWITH CLEANOUT4" SAN POINT OF CONNECTION TO NEW SSCOJTJTJTJTCONCRETE DRIVEWAYCONCRETE WALKWAYCONC. PATHWAYALLOWED 1ST LVL SETBACK21' - 8 3/8"ALLOWED 1ST LVL SETBACK25' - 0"20' - 0"..30' - 0" 41' - 4"37' - 2"WINDOWPROPOSED 2ND LVL SETBACK30' - 2 1/2"PROPOSED 2ND LVL SETBACK14' - 8"PROPOSED 2ND LVL SETBACK15' - 1 7/8"PROPOSED 2ND LVL SETBACK34' - 0"AC/HEAT PUMPOUTDOOR KITCHENWITH 3' HEIGHTTREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCINGALLOWED SETBACK7' - 4 1/2"ALLOWED 1ST LVL SETBACK7' - 4 1/2"ALLOWED 2ND LVL SETBACK12' - 4 1/2"ALLOWED 1ST LVL SETBACK12' - 4 1/2"ALLOWED 2ND LVL SETBACK41' - 7 3/4"ALLOWED 2ND LVL SETBACK26' - 8 3/8"SECOND LEVELALLOWED SETBACK37' - 0"9' - 4"375' - 0"10' - 0"20' - 0"5' - 0" 20' - 0"TURNAROND AS PER D-1325' - 0"25' - 0" 30' - 0"20' - 0"30' - 0"R 20' - 0"R 20' - 0"A320' - 0"18' - 6 1/4"20' - 6"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/8" = 1'-0"A1.005SITE LAYOUT-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1SITE LAYOUTSTORM WATER RETENTION NOTE:DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORM WATER WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM.1108 SHEDGMEMAC D/WCONCCONCCARPORTCONC PATION45°15'00"E 73.74'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N45°15'00"E 73.74'5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.85CONC330.84330.42330.79331.49331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.30330.07329.61330.87329.86329.63330.32330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.89CONC330.87330.82CONC330.78CONCEL=330.04SITE BENCHMARK329.72CONC329.86CONC330.52AC330.89AC330.84CONC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.81CONC330.71CONC330.59CONC330.53CONC330.44CONC330.21CONC329.61CONC330.89CONC330.87329.58CONC330.75CONC330.86CONC330.88CONC330.16TRCT329.98TRC329.38TRC329.21TRC329.15TRC329.66TRC330.163329.89329.43329.09WMROLLED CURBNEIGHBORING HOUSENEIGHBORING HOUSE6"6"34"27"25"ADJACENT D/WMBWARD WAYNHATTCHED AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDHATTCHED AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED25' - 8 1/8"38' - 8 3/4"11' - 11 1/8"9' - 8 3/4"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/8" = 1'-0"A1.006SITE DEMOLITION-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1SITE DEMOLITION109 DNDNUPDN20'-6" X 20'-0"GARAGEWOODENCOVERED PATIOOPEN WOODEN PORCHWOODENPATIO10'-4" X 5'-0"MUD ROOM20'-6" X 19'-0"FAMILY ROOM +DINING5'-6" X 5'-0"POWDER ROOM7'-10" X 5'-0"PANTRY22'-1" X 16'-5"KITCHEN12'-10" X 8'-0"FOYER12'-3" X 3'-11"STAIRCASE14'-10" X 14'-1"ADU GUESTBEDROOM 113'-0" X 11'-0"ADU KITCHENADU LIVINGROOM11'-0" X 5'-0"ADU BATH6'-8" X 5'-0"ADU S. LAUNDRY11'-0" X 2'-0"ADU CLOSET7'-10" X 5'-0"ADU PASSAGE5'-3" X 3'-7"PASSAGE7'-3" X 5'-4"PASSAGE46' - 4"58' - 8 7/8"0' - 6" 10' - 11 7/8" 0' - 4" 12' - 9" 0' - 6" 12' - 8" 0' - 6" 20' - 0" 0' - 6"2' - 6"16' - 0"4' - 10"1' - 2"0' - 4"5' - 0"0' - 4"1' - 2"5' - 2"2' - 0"2' - 4"2' - 0"6' - 5"2' - 0"2' - 4"2' - 0"3' - 1 7/8"58' - 8 7/8"0' - 6"42' - 7"0' - 4"14' - 9 7/8"0' - 6"4' - 5 1/2" 6' - 0" 7' - 3 3/8" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 9' - 6" 18' - 0" 3' - 6"41' - 4"12' - 6"56' - 2 3/8"W1W2W2W4W4W2W2W1W3W3W3W3W6W6D1D2D2D3D3D3D3D3D4D4D67'-8" X 3'-6"ADU BEDROOMPASSAGE15'-6" X 12'-9"D8D7D3GDW02W01W01W01W01W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02ENTRYEMGM2A4.0011A4.001RISER - 18 NOSTRADE DEPTH - 11"RISER HEIGHT - 7"FLIGHT WIDTH - 3'9"W7W7W711ADU0' - 6" 20' - 6" 0' - 6" 5' - 0" 0' - 4" 19' - 0" 0' - 6"7' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 5" 2' - 8" 2' - 10 3/8" 3' - 0" 3' - 7 1/8" 3' - 0" 7' - 7" 3' - 0" 3' - 2 1/2"0' - 6" 12' - 11 1/2" 0' - 4" 5' - 0" 0' - 4" 5' - 0"0' - 4"2' - 0"0' - 4"14' - 0 1/2" 0' - 6"4' - 8 1/4" 4' - 0" 6' - 0 1/4" 3' - 0" 2' - 9 1/4" 3' - 0" 4' - 0 5/8" 3' - 0" 5' - 11 1/8" 3' - 0" 1' - 10 3/8"20' - 6"20' - 0"18' - 6 1/4"3AC/HEAT PUMPW01W02TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C.TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C.A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019 CBC AND THE CRC.B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC.C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES.E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER.F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP.G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER.K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS.GENERAL NOTESNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARAs indicatedA2.001FIRST FLOOR PLAN-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR PLANWALL LEGENDS ( FIRST LEVEL )110 12'-0" X 11'-6"GUEST BEDROOM212'-0" X 11'-6"GUEST BEDROOM111'-8" X 8'-6"M. BATH7'-11" X 5'-0"LAUNDRY8'-8" X 3'-5"PASSAGE9'-0" X 6'-0"BATH17'-9" X 12'-6"MASTERBEDROOM11'-8" X 8'-6"FAMILY AREA7'-11" X 4'-10"CLOSET12'-7" X 7'-3"CLT9'-0" X 5'-0"BATH8'-0" X 6'-8"CLOSET8'-0" X 2'-0"LINEN CLOSET10'-9" X 9'-1"STAIRCASE5'-8" X 4'-0"SHOWER5'-8" X 4'-0"WCTERRACESHR44' - 3 1/2"4' - 6"10' - 0"6'-4" X 3'-6"BEDROOMPASSAGE0' - 6" 11' - 4" 0' - 6" 7' - 11 1/2" 0' - 4" 5' - 0" 0' - 4" 6' - 0" 11' - 10" 0' - 6"3' - 11 3/4" 4' - 0" 6' - 5 3/4" 3' - 0" 3' - 10" 3' - 0" 3' - 2" 3' - 0" 5' - 7 3/4" 4' - 0" 4' - 2 1/4"0' - 6"12' - 0"0' - 6"4' - 8"0' - 4"5' - 0"0' - 4"7' - 3"0' - 4"5' - 8"0' - 4"5' - 8"0' - 6"3' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"2' - 4"2' - 0"4' - 2 1/2"3' - 0"1' - 8"3' - 0"11' - 2"3' - 0"2' - 5 1/2"3' - 0"1' - 9 1/2"0' - 6" 17' - 9" 0' - 4" 8' - 6" 0' - 0 1/2" 4' - 0" 0' - 6"2' - 8 1/4" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 6" 4' - 0" 5' - 5 1/4"0' - 6"0' - 4"0' - 6"12' - 0"0' - 6"16' - 7"0' - 6"12' - 6"0' - 6"3' - 9" 6' - 0" 6' - 7" 2' - 0" 2' - 4" 2' - 0" 2' - 4" 2' - 0" 5' - 11" 2' - 0" 2' - 4" 2' - 0" 4' - 8"W1W9W7W7W1W3W7W7W1W1W7W7W7W1W3W3W9W3W3D7D3D3D2D3D2D3D3D2D3D3D3D5D5D9SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"1' - 2"1' - 2"0' - 8"1' - 2"1' - 2"1' - 2"1' - 6"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGTERRACEW01W01W01W01W01W01W01W01W01W01W01W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W02W022A4.0011A4.001RISER - 19 NOSTRADE DEPTH - 11"RISER HEIGHT - 7"FLIGHT WIDTH - 3'9"TPO11SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"W02W0113' - 6"4' - 3 1/2"43' - 11"43' - 1"31' - 7 1/2"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"ROOFROOFW01W02TYPICAL 2X6 EXTEROIR WALL @ 16" O.C.TYPICAL 2X4 INTERIOR WALL @ 16" O.C.A. ALL PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, INCLUDING THE 2019 CBC AND THE CRC.B. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R319 CRC.C. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE 2x6 AT 16" O.C. WITH 1/2" EXTERIOR SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND 2x4 AT 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP. BOARD AT INTERIOR WALLS. SHEAR WALL PANELS AND SPECIAL FRAMING CONDITIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.D. PROVIDE 1/2" GYP. BOARD AT WALLS AND CEILING UNDER STAIR USABLE ENCLOSED SPACES.E. STANDARD DOOR FRAMING SHALL OCCUR 4" FROM RETURN WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. HARDWARE PER OWNER.F. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A LANDING WITH A MAXIMUM 7.75" STEP.G. ALL BEDROOMS SHALL HAVE A WINDOW THAT MEETS EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. THIS WINDOW SHALL BE DESIGNATE BY AN (E) AFTER THE WINDOW SIZE AND STYLE. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ FT. THE NET CLEAR HEIGHT OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND THE NET CLEAR WIDTH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 INCHES. GRADE FLOOR AND BELOW GRADE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING OF NOT LESS THAN 5 SQ FT. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAN 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR. WINDOWS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WINDOW WELL. CRC R310.2H. ALL OTHER WINDOWS SHALL BE OPERABLE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.I. ALL GLAZING IN SLIDING GLASS DOORS, SHOWER ENCLOSURES, AND OTHER REQUIRED SAFETY LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE SAFETY TEMPERED GLASS. CRC R308.4J. BALCONY FLOOR SHALL BE 2" BELOW FINISH FLOOR AND SLOPED 1/4" PER FOOT AWAY FROM DOORS. DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED. DRAINAGE PIPE WILL GO THROUGH FASCIA TO GUTTER.K. EXTERIOR A/C UNITS ARE ANCHORED TO 3" CONCRETE SLABS SHOWN ON PLANS.GENERAL NOTESNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARAs indicatedA2.002SECOND FLOOR PLAN-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLANWALL LEGENDS ( FIRST LEVEL )111 SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"1' - 6"1' - 10"1' - 6"2' - 8"1' - 10"2' - 8"1' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 10"1' - 0"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 8"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 6"GUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTEROVERHANGSLOPE - 1 3/4" / 1'-0"SLOPE - 3" / 1'-0"7' - 1 7/8" 22' - 7" 8' - 0" 16' - 8" 6' - 10"61' - 2 7/8"9' - 0"40' - 8"6' - 7 1/2"56' - 3 1/2"6' - 10"17' - 2"10' - 2"3' - 5"16' - 6"7' - 1 7/8"61' - 2 7/8"47' - 3"47' - 3 1/2"49' - 8"47' - 3"44' - 4"9' - 8 1/2"34' - 7 1/2"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGBELOW TERRACENOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"A2.003ROOF PLAN-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN112 FIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"1' - 6" 9' - 5" 1' - 0" 9' - 0"W1D6W7W2W2W1W7W7W7W11' - 6 1/8"1' - 4 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"1' - 10 1/8"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGROOFROOF2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"GUTTERGUTTER6' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"330' - 4 1/2"329' - 10 3/8"330' - 10 1/8"330' - 1 3/4"EX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADELOWESTEX. GRADE3" 3" 1 3/4"SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINT355' - 7 1/2"345' - 8 5/8"330' - 9 5/8"PROPOSEDGRADE330' - 9 5/8"PROPOSEDGRADE330' - 9 5/8"AVG. GRADE1SMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTGREY CEMENTBOARD SIDINGHEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 8 3/4"1 3/4" (331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"(356' -6 3/8")TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8" 24' -10"3' - 11"356' - 3 5/8"AC/HEAT PUMPFIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 8 3/4"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 5"1' - 6"1' - 3 5/8"2' - 0"W3W3W3W3D7W3W3W3W8W6W6D1GDW9W91' - 6 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"1' - 10 1/8"1' - 0 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANG2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"ROOFROOFROOFROOFMETAL GUARD RAILGUTTERGUTTER331' - 2 3/4"333' - 2 3/8"331' - 2 1/2"330' - 4 1/2"330' - 4 1/4"EX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADELOWEESTEX. GRADE2' - 6"3" 3" 3" 1 1/2" 1 3/4"1 3/4" SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTGREY CEMENTBOARD SIDINGGREY CEMENTBOARD SIDING355' - 7 1/2"355' - 6 1/2"14' - 3 1/2"15' - 5 5/8"GMEM5' - 6"3' - 6"330' - 9 5/8"PROPOSEDGRADE331' - 2 3/8"PROPOSEDGRADE2 1/8" 1'-0"3" 330' - 9 5/8"AVG. GRADE1SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINT1 3/4"1 3/4"(331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8"(356' -6 3/8") 24' -10"3' - 11"WOODEN GARAGE DOORNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"A3.001NORTH AND WEST ELEVATION-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1North1/4" = 1'-0"2West22113 FIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"9' - 5"3' - 11"9' - 0"1' - 6"D8W3W3W7W7W7W7W4W4D72 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"3' - 6"METAL GUARDRAILROOFROOFROOFROOFGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTER2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1' - 10 1/8"1' - 0 1/8"1' - 0 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"1' - 0 1/8"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANG2' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"330' - 10 1/8"330' - 4 3/4"330' - 10 3/4"331' - 4 1/8"EX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADELOWESTEX. GRADE3" 3" 3" 3" 1 3/4"1 3/4"SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTGREY CEMENTBOARD SIDING355' - 6 3/4"356' - 3 5/8"345' - 5 1/4"GMEM3' - 6"5' - 6"330' - 9 5/8"PROPOSEDGRADE331' - 1 1/4"PROPOSEDGRADE330' - 9 5/8"AVG. GRADE1HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 8 3/4"GREY CEMENTBOARD SIDINGSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINT(331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8"(356' -6 3/8") 24' -10"1' - 0"1' - 6 1/8"AC/HEAT PUMPFIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"W1W1W1W2W2W7W7W11' - 3 5/8"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 5"1' - 6"HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING25' - 8 3/4"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"1' - 4 1/8"1' - 2 1/8"1' - 2 1/8"1' - 2 1/8"1' - 2 1/8"1' - 4 1/8"1' - 2 1/8"ROOFOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANG5' - 6"GMEM330' - 10 3/4"330' - 4 5/8"331' - 2 3/4"330' - 6"4' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 1 3/4"1 3/4"SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINT3' - 0"355' - 6 3/4"355' - 7 1/2"355' - 6 1/2"15' - 4 1/8"LOWESTEX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADE331' - 2 3/8"PROPOSEDGRADE331' - 1 1/4"PROPOSEDGRADE330' - 9 5/8"AVG. GRADE1SMOOTH STUCCOWITH OFF WHITE PAINTGREY CEMENTBOARD SIDINGSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINTSMOOTH STUCCOWITH GREY PAINT(331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8"(356' -6 3/8") 24' -10"4' - 0"3' - 11"METAL GUARDRAIL356' - 3 5/8"AC/HEAT PUMPNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"A3.002EAST AND SOUTH ELEVATION-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1East1/4" = 1'-0"2South22114 FIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"PANTRYSTAIRCASEPASSAGEMUD ROOMPASSAGEPOWDER ROOMMASTERBEDROOMFAMILY AREACLOSETLINEN CLOSETSTAIRCASED3D3D2D3W7D9D3D3W7D3W02W01D2W02W02W02W02W01W02W02W01ADU BATHW02W01D32 1/8" 1'-0"1 3/4" 1'-0"1' - 6"1' - 10"1' - 0"1' - 6"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGROOFROOFROOFROOFGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERGUTTERADU BEDROOMPASSAGERISER - 18 NOSTRADE DEPTH - 11"RISER HEIGHT - 7"FLIGHT WIDTH - 3'9"330' - 9 1/2"330' - 8 1/2"331' - 2 5/8"331' - 4 3/4"330' - 2 3/8"CRAWL SPACEEX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADELOWESTEX. GRADE2' - 11"3' - 0"3" 9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 5"1' - 6"3" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"3" 3" 2' - 0"1 3/4" 1'-0"(331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8")(355' -10 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8"3' - 11" 24' -10"24' - 10"356' - 6 3/8"3' - 6"FIRST FLOORFINISH333' -2 3/8"ROOF BOTTOM352' -7 3/8"GRADE LEVEL331' -8 3/8"SECOND FLOORFINISH343' -7 3/8"W01W02D2METAL GUARD RAIL1' - 6 1/8"1' - 6 1/8"1' - 6"GUTTERROOFROOF2 1/8" 1'-0"2 1/8" 1'-0"1 1/4" 1'-0"D7W01W02W01D3D5W01D2ADU GUESTBEDROOM 1ADU LIVINGROOMADU PASSAGEMASTERBEDROOMM. BATHSHOWER1' - 6"OVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGOVERHANGGUTTER330' - 10 3/4"330' - 10 3/4"330' - 4 1/4"330' - 8 3/8"EX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADEEX. GRADE330' - 2 3/8"2' - 1 7/8"1' - 11 5/8"9' - 0"1' - 0"9' - 5"1' - 6"CRAWL SPACE2' - 0"3" 3" 1 3/4"(331' -8 3/8")(332' -8 3/8")(343' -8 3/8")(352' -7 3/8")(355' -10 3/8") 0' -0" 1' -6" 11' -1" 20' -11"TOP OF ROOF356' -6 3/8" 24' -10"3' - 11"24' - 10"355' - 5 3/8"356' - 3 5/8"3' - 6"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"A4.001SECTION A-A & B-B-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/4" = 1'-0"1SECTION A-A1/4" = 1'-0"2SECTION B-B115 8' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"3' - 9 3/4"W18' - 0"3' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 0"W28' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 0"W38' - 0"5' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"W48' - 0"5' - 0"D18' - 0"D28' - 0"2' - 8"D37' - 0"4' - 6"D4 D59' - 0"2' - 8"D6D7 D88' - 0"6' - 0"8' - 0"18' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 6"D9W58' - 3"1' - 2"W68' - 0"3' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"W710' - 0"8' - 0"1' - 6"8' - 6"W88' - 0"2' - 8"3' - 0"8' - 6"16' - 0"GD2' - 6"8' - 0"2' - 0"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/4" = 1'-0"A5.001DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDUDOOR SCHEDULEMark Count Width HeightHeadHeightD1 1 5' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D2 5 3' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D3 14 2' - 8" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D4 2 4' - 6" 7' - 0" 7' - 0"D5 2 2' - 8" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D6 1 2' - 8" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"D7 2 6' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D8 1 18' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"D9 1 6' - 6" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"GD 1 16' - 0" 8' - 6" 8' - 6"WINDOW SCHEDULEMark Count Width HeightHeadHeightW1 7 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0"W2 4 3' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 0"W3 9 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 0"W4 2 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0"W5 2 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 8' - 0"W6 2 1' - 2" 8' - 3" 8' - 3"W7 10 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0"W8 1 8' - 0" 1' - 6" 10' - 0" 116 DNDN448 SFG11077 SFA391 SFC208 SFD201 SFE115 SFB90 SFP1156 SFP221' - 4" 25' - 0" 6' - 11 1/2"21' - 0"12' - 6"25' - 2 7/8"15' - 7 7/8" 43' - 1"13' - 0"8' - 0" 8' - 4" 25' - 0"12' - 6" 8' - 10"154 SFA285 SFB154 SFC208 SFD427 SFF168 SFE13' - 0"10' - 0"6' - 7"13' - 6"13' - 10"31' - 7 1/2"25' - 6"11' - 6 1/2" 21' - 1 1/2" 11' - 7 1/2"13' - 0"10' - 0"6' - 7"13' - 6"13' - 10"11' - 10" 20' - 7 1/2" 11' - 10"20' - 10"NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/8" = 1'-0"A6.001AREA CALCULATION-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR FINISHAREA CALCULATION FIRST FLOORMARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREAG1 21' - 0" 21' - 4" 448 SFA 25' - 0" 43' - 1" 1077 SFB 8' - 11 5/8" 12' - 10 3/8" 115 SFGrand total: 3 1640 SFAREA CALCULATION PORCHMARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREAP1 6' - 11 1/2" 13' - 0" 90 SFP2 12' - 4" 12' - 8" 156 SFGrand total: 2 247 SFAREA CALCULATION ADUMARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREAC 15' - 7 7/8" 25' - 0" 391 SFD 8' - 4" 24' - 10 7/8" 208 SFE 8' - 0" 25' - 0 7/8" 201 SFGrand total: 3 800 SF1/8" = 1'-0"2SECOND FLOOR FINISHAREA CALCULATION SECOND FLOORMARK AREA LENGTH AREA WIDTH AREAA 11' - 10" 13' - 0" 154 SFB 13' - 10" 20' - 7 1/2" 285 SFC 11' - 10" 13' - 0" 154 SFD 10' - 0" 20' - 10" 208 SFF 13' - 6" 31' - 7 1/2" 427 SFE 6' - 7" 25' - 6" 168 SFGrand total: 6 1396 SFFIRST LEVEL AREA + SECOND LEVEL AREA + ADU = TOTAL FLOOR AREAFIRST LEVEL AREA + PATIO AREA + ADU + IMPERVIOUS = TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AREAALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE AREA = 4,800.6 + 800 = 5,600.6 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA = 3,840 SF 1640 + 1396 + 800 = 3,836 SF1640 + 246 + 800 + 1448 = 4,134 SF2246117 EXTERIOR COLOR / MATERIAL SCHEDULEMATERIAL / APPLICATIONCODECOLORMANUFACTURECOMPOSITE SHINGLES ROOFINGMETAL WINDOW FRAMESWOODEN GARAGE DOORSLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL GUARDRAILM1M3M4M5ROOFWALLMISC.* NOTES: EXACT COLORS TO BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER & ARCHITECTM8M6GREYBLACKBLACKSMOOTH STUCCOOFF WHITECEMENT SIDINGM2CONCRETE WALKWAYM7C.H.I OR EQJELWEN OR EQ.JELWEN OR EQ.GAF OR EQ.--BLACKGREY--GREYWOODEN BROWNNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR12" = 1'-0"A7.001MATERIAL BOARD-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDUM1M3M4M2COMPOSITE SHINGLES ROOFINGSMOOTH STUCCOSLIDING GLASS DOORMETAL WINDOW FRAMECEMENT SIDINGCONCRETE WALKWAYM5 M6 M7 M8METAL GUARD RAILWOODEN GARAGE DOOR118 GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC-1DATE:SHEET NO.SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWBASIS OF BEARINGS:SITE BENCHMARK:NLEGENDABBREVIATIONC-1SWALE2TYPICAL GRADING AROUND FOUNDATIONC-11DETENTION BASINC-13SANTA CLARA COUNTY13480 WARD WAYSARATOGA, CAAPN: 389-37-003119 (TO BE MAINTAINED)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEFIBER ROLLEROSIONCONTROL PLANC-2DATE:SHEET NO.SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.RWSANTA CLARA COUNTY13480 WARD WAYSARATOGA, CAAPN: 389-37-003NLEGENDHYDROSEEDING:GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:ADDITONAL NOTES:120 NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTION DATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARC-3BEST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU121 DNDNDNWOODENCOVEREDPATIOCOVEREDPORCHWOODENPATIOENTRYCOASTLIVE OAKTR-1TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEM GMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSJT JT JT JTCONCRETEDRIVEWAYCONCRETEWALKWAYCONC.PATHWAYWINDOWOUTDOOR KITCHENTREE PROTECTFENCINGTREE PROTECTIONFENCINGTREE PROTECTIONFENCING3REMOVE333TURNAROND AS PER D-13of#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-09601 Driveway Close to Front Entry of House - Concrete- non-slip broom finish and natural color2 Tree protection fencing min. 5 feet tall - chain link fence with 2inch dia posts min. 10 feet OC3 Ex. 6 foot tall, solid wood fence in good condition to remain4 6 foot tall x 3 foot wide solid wood gate and fence to match existing fence5 Concrete walk - non-slip broom finish and natural color6 Concrete paving for trash/recycle containers7 New 3 foot tall, solid wood, good neighbor fencelewislandscape@sbcglobal.net"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and applied them forthe efficient use of water in the landscape design plan"Gregory Lewis - Landscape Architect Lic. #2176 5/2/225/2/223per city comments122 DNDNDNWOODENCOVEREDPATIOCOVEREDPORCHWOODENPATIOENTRYCOASTLIVE OAKTR-1TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEM GMWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSJT JT JT JTCONCRETEDRIVEWAYCONCRETEWALKWAYCONC.PATHWAYWINDOWOUTDOOR KITCHENTREE PROTECTIONFENCING3REMOVE333TURNAROND AS PER D-13of#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net5/2/223per city comments123 13480 WARD WAYSARATOGA, CATOPOGRAPHIC& BOUNDARYSURVEYSANTA CLARA COUNTYDATE:SHEET NO.SCALE:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:RW ENGINEERING, INC.DATEBYREVISIONNO.OF SHEETSRWAPN: 387-37-003SU-1BASIS OF BEARINGS:SITE BENCHMARK:NOTES:ABBREVIATIONLEGENDSITE DATA:N124 NOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGART-1TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEET-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU125 46"N45°15'00"E 73.74'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N45°15'00"E 73.74'5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.42331.49331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.30330.07329.61330.87329.86329.63330.32330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.87CONC330.78CONCEL=330.04SITE BENCHMARK329.72CONC329.86CONC330.52AC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.71CONC330.59CONC330.53CONC330.44CONC330.21CONC329.61CONC330.89CONC330.87329.58CONC330.75CONC330.86CONC330.16TRCT329.98TRC329.38TRC329.21TRC329.15TRC329.66TRC330.1633329.89329.43329.09ROLLED CURBNEIGHBORING HOUSENEIGHBORING HOUSE6"6"34"27"25"ADJACENT D/WMBWARD WAY0SCALE: 1" =10'10205NWOODENCOVERED PATIOCOVEREDPORCHWOODENPATIOENTRYFRONT SETBACK25' - 0"SIDE SETBACK7' - 6"REAR SETBACK37' - 2"SIDE SETBACK7' - 6"COASTLIVE OAKTR-1TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLE108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"25' - 0" 46' - 4"37' - 2"7' - 6" 58' - 8 7/8" 7' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEMGMSECOND LEVELBUILDING OUTLINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED MAIN HOUSE1TREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCING3AC/HEAT PUMPTABLETREESIZENOTETR1TR2TR3TR4TR5TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES RETAINED AT SITE -05 NOSTR6NAME OF TREECOAST LIVE OAKTO BE REMOVEDCOAST LIVE OAKCOAST LIVE OAKCOAST LIVE OAKPLUMAPPLE46"25"34"27"6"6"TREE PORTECTION NOTE:TREE PROTECTION FENCING AROUNDTREE NOS. 2, 3 & 4RETAINEDRETAINEDRETAINEDRETAINEDRETAINEDNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGAR2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGARAs indicatedT-2TREE PROTECTION PLAN-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1TREE PROTECTION126 N45°15'00"E 73.74'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N44°45'00"W 108.50'N45°15'00"E 73.74'5' P.U.E.330.15329.87329.94330.71330.38330.60330.99330.67330.12331.34330.86330.89330.95330.85CONC330.84330.42330.79331.12331.49331.22331.25331.21330.90330.90330.80330.82330.73330.30330.07329.61330.87329.86329.63330.32330.84CONC330.84CONC330.76CONC330.89CONC330.87CONC330.82CONC330.78CONCEL=330.04SITE BENCHMARK329.72CONC329.86CONC330.52AC330.89AC330.84CONC330.57CONC330.38CONC330.37CONC330.51CONC330.81CONC330.71CONC330.59CONC330.53CONC330.44CONC330.21CONC329.61CONC330.89CONC330.87329.58CONC330.75CONC330.86CONC330.88CONC330.16TRCT329.98TRC329.38TRC329.21TRC329.15TRC329.66TRC330.163329.89329.43329.09ROLLED CURBNEIGHBORING HOUSENEIGHBORING HOUSE6"6"34"27"25"ADJACENT D/WMBWARD WAYWOODENCOVERED PATIOCOVEREDPORCHWOODENPATIOENTRYFRONT SETBACK25' - 0"SIDE SETBACK7' - 6"REAR SETBACK37' - 2"SIDE SETBACK7' - 6"TR-2TR-3TR-6TR-5TR-4COASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKCOASTLIVE OAKPLUMAPPLE108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"108' - 6"73' - 8 7/8"25' - 0" 46' - 4"37' - 2"7' - 6" 58' - 8 7/8" 7' - 6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEMGMSECOND LEVELBUILDING OUTLINESETBACK LINEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE WITH CLEANOUTBACKWATER VALVEWITH CLEANOUT4" SAN POINT OF CONNECTION TO NEW SSCO1TREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCINGTREE PROTECTION FENCING3AC/HEAT PUMPNOTES:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:DRG NO. :SCALE:ADDRESS :329 S San Antonio Road Suite #4, Los Altos, CA 94022CONTACT :EMAIL :team@golivio.comPROJECT :THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS AND SHALL NOT BE REFERRED, REPRODUCED, COPIED, ETC, WITHOUT EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LIVIO BUILDING SYSTEMS, LOS ALTOS, CA USA650-209-6500NOTES:• ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND INCHES.• DRAWING SHALL NOT BE SCALED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.• ALL CENTERLINES ARE FROM THE CENTER OF COLUMN/ WALL AND THE DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS- -UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED.• IN CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND IN DRAWINGS AND DETAILS, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ARCHITECT, AND RECTIFIED, PRIOR TO ITS EXECUTION.• THIS DRAWING IS ISSUED STRICTLY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED AND SHALL BE RETURNED AFTER COMPLETION.• ·LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SUPERCEDE THE SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS.• THIS DRAWING SHALL BE REFERRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN ITS TITLE (FLOORING PATTERN, FALSE CEILING, SHUTTERING PATTERN, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, ETC.)REVISIONS :REV.DESCRIPTIONDATE REV BY1REVISED AS PER COMMENTS18-JAN-2022 SAGARN2REVISED AS PER COMMENTS02-MAR-2022 SAGAR3REVISED AS PER COMMENTS11-MAY-2022 SAGAR1/8" = 1'-0"U-1UTILITY PLAN-13480 WARD WAY, SARATOGA11-MAY-2022SAGARSUBHENDU1/8" = 1'-0"1UTILITY PLAN127 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner Date: August 9, 2022 Subject: 13480 Ward Way - Supplemental Attachment 1 Please see attached three public comment emails received August 9, 2022. 128 (c) (d) From:Miranda Lu To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Comments from 13490 Ward Way, regarding 2-story proposed building on 13480 Ward Way. Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 9:33:33 AM Hi Vcitoria, Below is my comments for the Committee, regarding the proposed 2-story new building on the13480 Ward Way, Please include. Also let me know if there is anything else you'd need from me. Thanks. Not in favor a 2-story building proposed on 13480 Ward Way, Saratoga CA ============================================================== The proposed 2-story structure is in a scale not suited for the single-story neighborhood where it's located. Not only old buildings in the neighborhood are single-story ones, but also the new builds. It seemed that the desire to fit an 800sf ADU on the 8000 sf lot took away the space needed for the main house. (Were there any ADU actually done on similar size lots in Saratoga?) Concern over the privacy was paramount, especially nowadays with the COVID or other pandemics. Significant amount of time (work as well as play) was spent at home, where seemed to be the only safe haven for most residents. The proposed 2- story design would subject the surrounding properties to an undesirable "zoo" like environment. Ref: 15-45.080 - Design review findings. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. =============================================================== Regards, Chungmai (Miranda) 129 From:Mohan Family To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Re: Proposed new residential unit at 13480 Ward Way, Saratoga CA Date:Monday, August 8, 2022 10:12:35 PM Hi Victoria, We plan to attend the Zoom meeting on Wednesday. Meanwhile: The owners and their general contractor have responded to our privacy concern by claiming something to the effect: 1) There are no windows or openings facing in such a way which may cause any privacy concerns. 2) Any possible view from the 2nd story is completely obscured by the presence of large trees. 3) In addition to existing trees several new evergreen privacy screening trees would be planted along the property boundary. Here is our response for the planning commission to reflect on: 1) The proposed second story has a rear balcony and windows in the rear and the left side, all providing view into our backyard and rear interiors. We don’t understand on what basis the owners and their contractor are claiming otherwise. 2) The trees are not permanent structures. Any privacy they provide cannot be relied upon on an ongoing basis. Their foliage and its density would change with time. Many shed their leaves in the fall and winter months. They might get damaged and even die under adverse weather conditions. Moreover, the owners might opt to trim them in the future for aesthetic, maintainability, utility, or safety reasons, in ways that could affect our privacy. In the specific case of the proposal under review: - Frankly, the owners might be well-advised to keep the existing two oak trees in their backyard trimmed to reduce fire danger to their house and the neighborhood. PG&E itself might choose to do so in the future since the two trees are next to power poles and lean over high voltage power line and other cables. - Another tree, which the owners seem to be relying upon in their rather misleading drone pictures, is on the property of their neighbor at 13490 Ward Way and hence not under their control. That tree might get trimmed by its owner, or PG&E, in the future for the same reasons as mentioned above. More importantly, it is a deciduous tree which is devoid of any foliage and screening effect during the fall and winter months. Please consult the attached pictures to visualize how little privacy would be left for our backyard and rear interiors especially during the cold months. 130 131 132 133 134 3) The proposed new evergreen trees along the property boundary would take quite some time to grow tall enough, and even then it is not clear how much privacy they would indeed provide. Moreover, again, given the ever present fire danger in our neighborhoods now, it doesn't seem advisable to plant more big tall trees next to our houses. At the very least, any planning decisions now should not be based on the planting of new big trees given the uncertainty about the safety and future utility of these trees In conclusion, we are absolutely supportive of the owners to build a new house and thus improve the appeal and profile of our neighborhood. However, they should do so without adversely impacting our quality of life. We like to believe that their decision to purchase their lot was influenced by the relatively better privacy available at this location compared to other options. We would like the owners and the planning commission to help maintain this charm and key advantage of our neighborhood. Thanks. Best regards, Sudhir & Taruna Mohan ---- 135 From:Shanshan Liu To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Respond to the 13480 Ward Way development plan Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:41:05 PM Hi Victoria, My name is Shanshan Liu, the resident at 13525 Holiday Dr. Our backyard is adjacent to 13480 Ward Way. Thank you for having the hearing session to get a public view on its development plan. Unfortunately, I am out of town this week and cannot join the zoom meeting, hence trying to send my comments through email here. In short, we have serious concerns about the adverse impact of our family's privacy. The owner shared two drone photos where the view "seems" to be obscured by trees, and stating that the current trees are "entirely blocking any view into your property". This contradicts with my observation, see photos attached. 1. Staying in my master bedroom and bathroom, the pole lines can be seen clearly. Such privacy intrusion will definitely put a lot of stress on living in our own home, especially the room where we should feel most relaxed. Even in the photo shared by the owner, our master bedroom window is visible (also attached), plus it only offers the view from two set points. I can reasonably believe that there is no way to avoid such intrusion when the house is fully built. The owner's evidence might not be objective to reflect the real situation. 2. On top of that, we won't be able to enjoy the outdoor activities in our backyard freely as the whole area will be fully exposed, and right under the view of someone's eyes. 3. One of the two trees that the owner relies upon to block the view actually seems to belong to another neighbor. I don't think it's appropriate and fair to put such responsibility on other owners. 4. The trees adjacent to the property line need to be properly trimmed for safety reasons, as there are PG&E power lines (can be seen in the photos too). If we can see through when the foliages are at their fullest, the concern will be even more severe when the leaves are less dense and branches are trimmed. I don't see that we can rely on the trees to block the view and maintain privacy at all. Based on the evidence today, the proposal to address privacy concerns is unreliable and sketchy at its best. Not sure whether the plan was thought through for the situations mentioned and not mentioned above. Besides that, we also feel the new construction will disrupt the holistic view of the neighborhood, with a building almost 26ft tall sticking out. We understand that the owner would like to remodel their property, and absolutely in supportive for that. Would love to support them to improve the property and enhance the conditions. But this should not adversely impact privacy and be at the cost of neighbors to sacrifice the living quality. A little background, we actually just purchased our property this April. What attracts us is the tranquility and privacy of the neighborhood. This played a big part in our decision. We would 136 like to help maintain such character of our neighborhood. I want to thank you and Saratoga planning commission again for reaching out to get the public view. I hope we can work together to find a solution that works for the owner and for the neighborhood. Looking forward to the outcome of the hearing. Best, Shanshan From the master bedroom window From the bathroom in the master bedroom. 137 Photos from 13480 owner Preview attachment balcony_view.JPGbalcony_view.JPG10 MB 138 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner Date: August 10, 2022 Subject: 13480 Ward Way - Supplemental Attachment 2 Please see attached public comment email received August 10, 2022. 139 From:Mohan Family To:Victoria Banfield Subject:Re: Proposed new residential unit at 13480 Ward Way, Saratoga CA Date:Wednesday, August 10, 2022 11:53:49 AM Hi Victoria, The owners have written to us today morning acknowledging our concerns. They continue to insist that their current design would not permit views into our living area. We disagree with this assertion. In their proposed 2nd story, the windows on the right side (the side facing Portos Dr) and the windows and balcony (patio) in the back side have clear lines of sight into our living spaces. They also continue to mention planting tall mature evergreen trees. This is a case of, “Cure is worse than the disease”. We should not add more big tall trees to our neighborhood; on the contrary, as PG&E might also agree, we should trim the ones that we already have shorter and away from the power poles and lines. We are already just one nasty thunderstorm away from a calamity. We should ensure that our future planning factors in the reality that we now live in a fire vulnerable area; let’s not plan to add more fuel … . Besides, it is impossible to foresee if, when, and how, these proposed trees would provide requisite privacy to us. Thanks for being a conduit to the planning commission. Best regards, Sudhir & Taruna Mohan r, Saratoga, CA 95070 140 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 10, 2022 Application: PDR22-0002 Address/APN: 13221 Paseo Presada/389-15-086 Property Owner: Majid Mohazzab From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 141 Report to the Planning Commission 13221 Paseo Presada – Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a 3,365 square foot two-story residence with a 790 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-016 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project includes new multi-story main structure. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 10,021 sq. ft. gross (0.23 acres) Average Site Slope: < 10% General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence w/Garage ADU Driveway/Walkways Patios/Porches Total Proposed 2,015 sq. ft. 790 sq. ft 985 sq. ft. 180 sq. ft. 3,970 sq. ft.* (40%) 6,812 sq. ft. (60%)* Floor Area Residence w/Garage ADU Total Floor Area 3,365 sq. ft. 790 sq. ft. 4,155 sq. ft.* 4,170 sq. ft.* Height 25’6” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 28’6” 6’6” 11’6” 6’6” 11’6” 36’6” 48’ 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 25’ 8’ 13’ 8’ 13’ 25’ 35’ Grading Cut = 57 CY Fill = 18 CY Export = 39CY No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district * Includes onetime 800 sq.ft. allowance for ADU Per City code Section 15-56.025(5)(b) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located at 13221 Paseo Presada in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The 10,021 square foot property has an average slope of less than 10% and is currently developed with a single-story residence. The site is surrounding on all sides by one and two story single-family homes of various architectural styles. 142 Report to the Planning Commission 13221 Paseo Presada – Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Page | 3 Project Description The proposed lower floor of the residence is 2,015 square feet and includes a family room, dining room, kitchen, office, and attached two-car garage. The lower floor also contains an additional 790 square foot attached ADU which has one bedroom, one bathroom, and a living room/kitchen space. The proposed upper floor is 1,350 square foot and includes three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The applicant has provided a color and materials board in the plan set (Sheet MB). Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors/Materials Exterior Tan Stucco Windows/Trim Dark Green Trim Front door/Garage door Dark Wood with Glazing/Black Metal with Glazing Roof Dark Brown Composition Tile Trees One protected tree is proposed for removal. The City Arborist has approved the removal of one Modesto Ash because there is decay in the interior of the tree and modification designs to retain the tree are not feasible. In order to preserve a tree with this condition, the tree protection area of no disturbance would have to be set at 13.5 feet from the trunk. Replacement trees are required to be planted on the site (Attachment 2). Landscaping The installation of front yard landscaping is required prior to building permit final inspection. The project includes a condition of approval that landscaping is to be installed per City Code Section 15- 12.095. FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller 143 Report to the Planning Commission 13221 Paseo Presada – Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Page | 4 oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that one protected tree is requested for removal which is in poor condition and in conflict with the project. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have raised sill heights to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will create a two-story residence in a neighborhood with both one and two-story structures, fitting with the context of other residences within its vicinity. The building has varying architectural forms to break up the appearance of mass. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks. In addition, the applicant has provided a solar study demonstrating that the shadowing effect of the proposed residence is minimal due to the recessed second floor and hip roof. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of 144 Report to the Planning Commission 13221 Paseo Presada – Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Page | 5 compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga News. The applicant submitted two (2) completed neighborhood notification forms. One (1) adjacent neighbor located south of the site expressed concerns with privacy (Attachment 3). In response to privacy concerns, the applicant has raised the bottom sill height of the second story windows on the side elevations to 6 feet above the second story finished floor level. The applicant has also proposed frosted glazing on the larger window facing south. The neighbor confirmed that their concerns have been addressed. The City also received one (1) comment letter from the adjacent neighbor located north of the site with concerns regarding privacy and solar access. In response, the applicant provided a solar study in the plan set (Sheet A5) which shows the shadowing effect of the proposed residence is minimal due to the recessed second floor and hip roof and the development does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence replacing an existing residence. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-016 2. Tree Removal Permit 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification 5. Project Plans 145 RESOLUTION NO: 22-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR22-0002 13221 PASEO PRESADA (APN 389-15-086) WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022 an application was submitted by Majid Mohazzab requesting Design Review approval for a 3,365 square foot two-story residence with a 790 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. 146 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR22-0002 for 13221 Paseo Presada (APN 389-15-086), subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 147 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR22-0002 13221 Paseo Presada (389-15-086) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 148 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Development Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut-off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 7. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 9. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 10. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 149 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 5 c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency, and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees 11. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 12. A Building Permit must be issued, and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 13. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 15. All requirements in the Tree Removal Permit dated March 24, 2022 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING 16. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 17. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 18. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: 150 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 6 a. Remove existing driveway approach and replace with new driveway approach per City Standard Detail 205 & 206. b. Remove and replace existing rolled curb fronting Paseo Presada with new vertical curb and gutter per City Standard Detail 203. Removal of existing rolled curb concrete shall be from joint to joint within the property line. Curb and gutter shall be placed over a minimum of six inches (6”) of base. It shall be compacted to 95% relative compaction before placing concrete. See City of Saratoga Standard details. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 19. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 20. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 21. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 22. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay- Friendly Landscaping). 23. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: • Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. • The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. • City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 24. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 151 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 7 25. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 26. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. 152 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 8 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS PDR22-0002 13221 Paseo Presada (389-15-086) The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new residence, as well as contouring the site as necessary to direct water to landscaped areas. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that one protected tree is requested for removal which is in poor condition and in conflict with the project. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. The second story windows on the side elevations will have raised sill heights to avoid impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will create a two-story residence in a neighborhood with both one and two-story structures, fitting with the context of other residences within its vicinity. The building has varying architectural forms to break up the appearance of mass. 153 13221 Paseo Presada Application # PDR22-0002 August 10, 2022 Resolution #22-016 Page | 9 e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks. In addition, the applicant has provided a solar study demonstrating that the shadowing effect of the proposed residence is minimal due to the recessed second floor and hip roof. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. 154 155 156 Sheet1 Neighbor Review Forms Project: 13221 Paseo Presada House Address Status 13235 Paseo Presada Responded 13207 Paseo Presada Not able to contact 13193 Paseo Presada Form delivered, No response yet 13238 Paseo Presada Under Construction 13214 Paseo Presada Responded Page 1 RECEIVED MAR 08 2022 157 158 159 160 1534 Carob Lane Los Altos California, 94024 650.941.8055 P 650.941.8755 F www.smpengineers.com July 1,2022 City Of Saratoga Attn: Planning Official SUBJECT: 13221 Paseo Presada Saratoga, CA 95070 APN: 389-15 -08 Story Poles Verification . This letter is to confirm in writing that SMP ENGINEERS, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, has field checked the story pole height and general location, at the above mentioned address. The story pole height at the highest elevation measured is 319.61 feet, average, (E) ground level elevation is 294.20 feet , story pole height will be at about 25.40 feet level. Story pole locations also are in general conformance with the plans. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, SMP ENGINEERS, A California corporation By: Saeid Razavi R.C.E. 52724 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 LOCATION MAPLEGENDSHEET INDEX:SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT NOTES:UNDERGROUND UTILITIES:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FIELD REPORT:UTILITY NOTES:GENERAL PROJECT NOTES:STANDARD GRADING NOTES:WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY:GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW:NOTE:EARTHWORK TABLE172 NOTES:a. ALL GRADING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDSESTABLISHED BY THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR AIRBORNE PARTICULATES.b. APPLICANT / OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN THE STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYIN A CLEAN, SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION. ALL SPILLS OF SOIL, ROCK OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BEREMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC PROPERTY. ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BEMAINTAINED IN A CLEAN, SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION.c. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF RECORD SHALLPROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.d. DAMAGES TO DRIVEWAY APPROACH, CURB AND GUTTER, PUBLIC STREETS, OR OTHER PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.e. PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINAL, ALL DRAINAGE, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING OF THESITE SHALL BE COMPLETED.UTILITY NOTE:STORM WATER RETENTION NOTES:DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORM WATER WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTIONDISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THESANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM.”PUBLIC STREET NOTES:173 SANITARY SEWER BACKFLOWPREVENTER DETAILEARTH SWALE DETAILSPLASH BLOCK DRYWELL/ BUBBLER DETAILSUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL8"12"VERIFY18" MIN.12" MIN.VERIFY PUMPWELL DETAIL FOR OVERFLOWELEVATION VIEWPUMP NOTES:DROPPED FOUNDATION CONCEPTUAL DETAILIMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATION 174 STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP-FIBER ROLLSCONCRETE WASHOUT AREAEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND MEASURESFIBER ROLL NOTES FIBER ROLLTEMPORARY COVER ON STOCK PILEPERSPECTIVESTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(TO BE MAINTAINED)MaintenancePLANPROFILE175 176 177 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner Date: August 10, 2022 Subject: 13221 Paseo Presada - Supplemental Attachment 1 Please see attached public comment email received August 10, 2022. 178 179 (Pursuant to the Federal and State energy policy, the local government agency should be most protective of its residents' right to solar access.) 180 Frances Reed From:Victoria Banfield Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2022 8:31 AM To:Frances Reed Cc:Debbie Pedro Subject:FW: Planning Commission August 10 2022 Meeting - 13221 Paseo Presada Public comment for 13221 Paseo Presada received post‐meeting:    From: Nathan Dau    Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:48 PM  To: Victoria Banfield <vhernandez@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: Re: Planning Commission August 10 2022 Meeting ‐ 13221 Paseo Presada    Victoria, unfortunately my travel schedule pre earned me from dialing into the public hearing.  If possible, I would  like to submit my concise public comment regarding the proposed development at 13221 Paseo Presada:    Dear City of Saratoga,    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 13221 Paseo Presada. I am very happy  to see continued development in the Quito Village area.  Regarding the proposed development at 13221 Paseo  Presada, however, I am deeply concerned about the proposal for a large 2‐story home.  I believe the proposed size  and design are inconsistent with the look and feel of Paseo Presada which currently consists of mostly single‐story  homes dating back to the 1950s.   I fear that approval for a large two‐story structure here will lead to widespread  construction of giant 2‐story homes throughout the Quito Village area.  I believe this would be detrimental to the  charm and cozy neighborhood feel of Saratoga.  I therefore hope the City of Saratoga will review the 2‐story  proposal with the upmost scrutiny.    Sincerely,    Nathan Dau   181