Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT: Commissioners Jackman, Roupe and Chair Barry STAFF: Planner Livingstone, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address thePlanning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 23, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. DR-O1-030/V-O1-016/ED-O1-006 (503-30-061) - KOHN, 14168 Perata Court; - Request for Design Review and Negative Declaration approval to construct a new 4,200 square foot two-story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement, and demolish an existing 6,712 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The variance is to allow construction on a slope greater than 30%. The 40,068 square foot parcel is located in the HR zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 4-0) DR-O1-042 (503-69-017) - KOHLER, 21842 Via Regina; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,174 square foot two-story single-family residence. The existing 4,122 square foot single-family residence would be demolished. The 113,256 square foot parcel is located in the H-R Zoning District. The proposed height is 26 feet. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 3-1, HUNTER OPPOSED) DR-O1-038 (397-35-011) -JONES, 19369 Crisp Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,493 square foot single story, single-family residence. The existing 4,239 square foot single-family residence would be demolished. The 40,093 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. The proposed height is 21 feet. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 4-0) 4. DR-O1-020 (397-05-055) - 4 QUARTERS INC., 14377 Old Wood Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,175 square foot two-story single- family residence. The existing 2,476 square foot residence would be demolished. The 49,701 square foot parcel is in the R-1 40,000 Zoned District. The proposed height is 26 feet. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 4-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Reminder to the Commissioners that the meeting on December 26 will be cancelled. COMMISSION ITEMS Review Committee assignments regarding planning issues. COMMUNICATIONS Written -City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of September 5, 2001, September 19, 2001 and October 9, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 27, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-O1-042 - KOHLER Item 2 21842 Via Regina 2. DR-O1-030 &t V-O1-016 - KOHN Item 1 &r ED-O1-006 14168 Perata Court 3. DR-O1-020 - 4 QUARTERS INC. Item 4 14377 Old Wood Road 4. DR-O1-038 - JONES Item 3 19369 Crisp Avenue LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • l CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 5:00 p.m. PI~-CE: St. Andrew's Schoo1,13601 Sazatoga Avenue, Sazatoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting Rou. CAU. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 21, 2001. STUDY SESSION AGENDA The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citizens and staff, to discuss advance planning projects, continued applications and general planning issues. DR-O1-035, LL-O1-008, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST.ANDREWS PARISH AND SCHOOL; 13601 Saratoga Avenue; -The proposed project includes the construction of a bell tower, gymnasium, parking garage, reception hall, discovery center, youth room, Sunday school rooms, and the expansion of existing classrooms. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS for the Commission to receive comments and concerns from the community on the proposed project. (Opportunity for members of the public to comment only on the item appearing on the Agenda.) 2. SITE REVIEW at 13601 Saratoga Avenue for the Commission to view the site of the proposed project (DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013). (Action will not be taken by the Commission on the project at this time. A hearing date for action by the Planning Commission on the proposed project has not been set.) 3. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT PLANS at 13601 Saratoga Avenue for the Planning Commission to review the proposed project plans and model with St. Andrew's staff and consultants. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting RoI_I_ CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublic will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutcs on mattcrs not on this agenda The law gcnerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. Howevcr, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly rcgarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 23, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. DR-O1-030/V-O1-016/ED-O1-006 (503-30-061) - KOHN, 14168 Perata Court; - Request for Design Review and Negative Declaration approval to construct a new 4,200 square foot two-story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement, and demolish an existing 6,712 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The variance is to allow construction on a slope greater than 30%. The 40,068 square foot parcel is located in the HR zoning district. ~, 2. DR-O1-042 (503-69-017) - KOHLER, 21842 Via Regina; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,174 squaze foot two-story single-family residence. The existing 4,122 squaze foot single-family residence would be demolished. The 113,256 square foot parcel is located in the H-R Zoning District. The proposed height is 26 feet. DR-O1-038 (397-35-011) -JONES, 19369 Crisp Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,493 square foot single story, single-family residence. The existing 4,239 squaze foot single-family residence would be demolished. The 40,093 squaze foot pazcel is located in the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. The proposed height is 21 feet. 4. DR-O1-020 (397-05-055) - 4 QUARTERS INC., 14377 Old Wood Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,175 square foot two-story single- family residence. The existing 2,476 squaze foot residence would be demolished. The 49,701 square foot parcel is in the R-140,000 Zoned District. The proposed height is 26 feet. DIRECTOR ITEMS Reminder to the Commissioners that the meeting on December 26 will be cancelled. COMMISSION ITEMS Review Committee assignments regarding planning issues. COMMUNICATIONS Written -City Council Minutes from Regulaz Meetings of September 5, 2001, September 19, 2001 and October 9, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • • MINUTES ~ ~ ~~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ ~'~ S`, v~ G,~r DATE: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry and Jackman Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Lata Vasudevan APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 24, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 24, 2001, were approved with the following addition to page 8 ... Asked if the Geologic Report and development of driveway improvements is are compatible with the Hillside Specific Plan. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff report. CONSENT CALENDAR SD-95-007.4 (503-82-006) -RODEO CREEK HOLLOW -PHASE II - K2M ASSOCIATES, LLC, Paramount Court: Request for atwo-year time extension to Phase II of a previously approved Tentative Map. (OOSTERHOUS) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 2 :~ Commissioner Roupe asked for verification that an extension had previously been granted and that this second extension would be the last allowed. Director Sullivan advised that per State Law this would be the last permitted extension of this approval. Commissioner Roupe asked if there is any required rational for the granting of an extension. Director Sullivan replied no and suggested that the Commission take minute action approving this extension. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted atwo-year extension to SD-95-007.4 for property on Paramount Court. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** Commissioner Roupe suggested hearing Item No. 5 first since the recommendation is for continuation. Acting Chair Kurasch announced that Non-Public Hearing Item No. 5 would be taken out of order. NON-PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028): Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area is located within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is pre-zoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (Request for continuance to January 9, 2002) Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants have requested a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Item No. 5 (Garrod Farms, 22600 Mount Eden Road) to its meeting of January 9, 2002. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Hunter acknowledged the students from Saratoga High School who are in attendance at this evening's meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 *** DR-O1-036 (397-18-048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to remodel and expand an existing single-story 3,375 squaze foot residence and construct a new 875 squaze foot second story. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence would be 26 feet in height. The site is 28,229 squaze feet and is located in the R-1-40,000 zone district. (VASUDEVAN) Ms. Lata Vasudevan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants seek approval for an 875 square foot second story addition with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Informed that the property consists of 28,229 square feet. • Described the materials as including beige smooth plaster with gray accents, a wood shingle roof on a California ranch style home that will be similar to the existing home. • Stated that anon-conforming wrought iron fence exists on the property that is between six and seven feet in height. Ordinance permits no more than asix-foot high fence and limits the height to three feet for the front of the property. The maximum allowable height with an electronic gate is five feet. • Advised that staff is proposing an added condition of approval that this non-conforming wrought iron fence be brought into compliance with Ordinance regulations prior to issuance of building permits for this addition/remodel. • • Stated that the project meets the required findings for approval and that staff is recommending approval. • Said that the applicant/owner is in the audience. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that upon the site visit, he is concerned about ensuring the protection of the live oak trees in the front. • Pointed out that the Arborist has called this out as a serious concern in his report. • Asked staff if these concerns have been addressed with the conditions of approval. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Gary Schloh, Project Architect: • Thanked staff and reminded the Commission that he was before them about two years ago with a proposal for this same property. Their project is now smaller with a second story addition and the remodel of the existing house. • Said that while they seek approval for a maximum height of 26 feet, he did not believe the home would reach 26 feet in height. • Declazed that the fencing issue comes as a surprise. • Distributed photographs depicting other fencing in the neazby azea, including the adjacent property and one across and down the street. These fences aze between seven and nine feet in height. • Added that they are hoping to keep this existing fence as it represents a safety feature for the children of this household since the property is located close to Highway 9. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 4 Pointed out that this is not a proposal for a new house. Said that in his experience with remodels and additions, non-conforming conditions can usually be kept as long as they are not made worse. Said that he is available for questions. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that the fence can be six feet in height if located further back on the property. • Expressed his appreciation to Mr. Schloh for bringing in photos of other fencing installations and asked when this fence was installed on the subject property. Mr. Gary Schloh said that it appears to have been installed approximately in 1986 although there are no permit records on microfilm to substantiate the installation. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for direction. Director Sullivan suggested that this issue is a policy decision for the Commission to make. Added that when a substantial addition is under consideration, the opportunity is there for the Commission to bring non-conforming issues into compliance or it can determine that the addition is not a significant one and therefore requiring conformance is not required. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff if a Variance was approved for this fencing installation. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that there is no record that this fence was considered by the City at all for any types of approval. Added that typically, there is no fence approval required for wood or wrought iron fences six feet or less in height. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Schloh how long the current owners have owned this home and whether it was before 1986. Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the Bramletts have owned the home since that time. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Schloh if they are prepared to honor the conditions for the protection of the oak trees, including the requirement to remove the turf currently in place beneath the trees. Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the turf has been in place for a number of years and that oaks tend to acclimate to their surroundings. Pointed out that they are not in bad health. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that if this project receives approval, the conditions of approval would mandate that the turf located below these trees must be removed. Director Sullivan pointed out that Condition 8 is clear and to the point on that issue. Commissioner Roupe stated that this is not an item for discussion but rather a requirement of approval. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:26 p.m. and, as there were no parties present who wished to address the Commission, she immediately closed the hearing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Zutshi pointed out an area on the plans that does not specify use. Ms. Lata Vasudevan replied that this space is for storage and has been counted with the total square footage. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that as this is a substantial modification to this home he feels justified in requiring the modification of the non-conforming fence. • Stated that the conditions of the Arborist's report must be honored. • Said that this project will be a nice addition to the community. Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Roupe's comments. She advised that while she too has grass beneath a large oak tree on her property, she must defer to the recommendations made by the Arborist. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that since this is basically a remodel and there are at least two other non-conforming fences in this area, he does not find it necessary to require the removal of the fence. • Suggested that this fence be painted black so that it is less visible. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is fine with the project as proposed. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Said that she supports the application as proposed but that this request offers the City the opportunity to correct past mistakes so she prefers to see the fence lowered so as to be conforming. • Added that she is not willing to second guess the Arborist's report and so she agrees with the remedies for the oak trees. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-036 to allow a remodel and expansion of an existing home on property located at 14920 Farwell Avenue with the added condition that the existing non-conforming fence be brought into conformance with Ordinance requirements: AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-O1-028 (397-17-033) - JALAN, 19805 Versailles Way: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,037 square foot residence and demolish an existing 4,217 square foot home. The proposed height is 25.5 feet. The lot is 40,060 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SUL,LIVAN) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows: • Provided technical corrections to the table to reflect maximum coverage for this specific lot configuration to be 6,020 rather than the 7,200 listed. Therefore, this project will have to be trimmed by 17 square feet. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a typographical error on Page A-1 of the plans. The square footage is depicted as 6,037 in one spot and 6,137 in another. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that he would defer to the architect to clarify which number is accurate. • Added that all setbacks have been met and/or exceeded. • Pointed out that all conditions imposed by the Commission on the home across the street have been added to this project. • Said that the 4,217 square foot home will be demolished and a new 6,037 square foot home constructed. • Advised that the applicants had invited the neighbors to a meeting. Several letters were received from the neighbors. One suggested moving the home further back from the street. No problems were raised about the home's design. Commissioner Roupe pointed out an error to page 6 of the report for a setback that reads 43 feet that must be larger to make sense. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this number.should actually read 83 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan how far the portico is from Versailles Way. Director Tom Sullivan replied 49 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch asked how far the rest of the house is from Versailles Way. Director Tom Sullivan replied an additional 16 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch asked how far the house is set back from the house next door. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has spoken with this neighbor and they are asking for screening landscaping and to have the pool equipment relocated, which is not a problem with the applicant. Acting Chair Kurasch questioned why a landscaping plan is not available. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this project pre-dates that requirement. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:41p.m. CJ Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect: • Reminded the Commission that they approved another house he designed across the street from this site. At that time he was given two directions from the Commission. One was to work with staff to Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 7 ensure that this house is different from the first one. The second requirement was to work with the neighbors. • Advised that he met with Director Sullivan to review materials. The wainscoting on this home will be natural stone (limestone). • Added that they conducted an Open House for the neighbors on September 8th at which two adjacent neighbors attended. Two issues were raised. The placement of the pool equipment shed .and windows facing their yard. • Advised that they are willing to move the pool equipment shed as well as adding landscaping to hide any windows from the adjacent property. • Added that on September 11th, they met with two other neighbors across the street. One asked them to rotate the placement of the pool. • Said that on October 27th they had an Open House with notices sent to the neighbors. Two adjacent neighbors showed up. • Said that on November 4th one neighbor asked them to move the house back on the site. • Stated that they can reduce the 6,037 square feet to 6,015 square feet easily. • Informed that they had a surveyor measure the height of homes in the immediate area. Their structure will actually be 24 feet, 2 inches high from the grade at the front door to the highest ridge. This is because the street is higher than the house. • Added that as seen from Versailles Way, this house will be two feet lower at the ridge than the house next door and 5.5 feet lower than the house across the street. • Pointed out that the architectural styles are diverse on this street and made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification for a space depicted on the plans. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that this is an elevator. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the additional roof ridge is necessary and, if so, whether the elevator could be relocated elsewhere. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that he has broken up the roof ridge per the City's guidelines and that the roof over the elevator also ties in with the roof over the playroom. Commissioner Roupe advised Commissioner Zutshi that the plans are depicting a footprint. Director Tom Sullivan added that every time the facade is moved back, they get a new hip. Commissioner Zutshi asked the height of the front door. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied 9 feet, 9 inches. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that per the plans and rendering, the portico appears to stand out and seems to be a bit bigger than required per a functional point of view. Asked if there is any functional reason for this height. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that the height is intended to bring attention to this architectural feature. Commissioner Roupe said that this portico is ostentatious. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Greg Kawahara pointed out that this house has but one arch while a house across the street has five arches. Added that the house next door has atwo-story front entry feature. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for the height from natural grade. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that they had to get the height from a surveyor. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if the Commission has had this problem before. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is easier to establish the grade from vacant land that from land with something on it. He advised that 25 feet, 6 inches is the best estimate. Commissioner Roupe asked if this height is compatible with adjacent properties. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if there is a conflict with the tree when considering moving the house back. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that this decision would be up to the Arborist. Commissioner Roupe said that it appears that there is about five feet of space available to back up the structure without encroaching on the tree, subject to the Arborist's agreement. Asked Mr. Kawahara if he is willing to defer this decision to the Arborist's counsel. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested adding a condition requiring a completed landscape plan for the front. Added that screening for the side landscaping should be determined in cooperation with the neighbor. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder: • Stated that they have no problem with preparing a landscaping plan. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that if the plan must rely on neighbor consent the project could be delayed. Commissioner Roupe said that the intent is not to require the neighbor's approval but rather to require staff review and approval. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff how this issue is typically handled. Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff will require that additional screening be negotiated with the neighbors and that per the Conditions of Approval, mature replacement trees will be required. Acting Chair Kurasch asked how many neighbors met. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied two neighbors met face-to-face with them. Commissioner Garakani suggested installing a retaining wall with landscaping to solve the need for screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Paul Doble said that they might be able to add a 2.5-foot berm if the neighbor supports that idea. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the portico might not tie mto the neighborhood. Asked if this feature could either be redesigned or eliminated. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that they would not want to outright eliminate the portico but could consider reducing its size, making it rectangular instead of square. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the height of the portico be dropped. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that it would be possible to drop it by about a foot. Director Sullivan said that it might be possible to change the gable to a hip roof on the portico. Ms. Yvonne Pillai, 19800 Versailles Way, Saratoga: • Said that she lives across the street and that her husband submitted a letter. • Added that this house will be closer to the street and obscure their view of trees. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Pillai if added trees in the front would be helpful. Ms. Yvonne Pillai replied yes. Ms. Catherine Lin, 19779 Versailles Way, Saratoga: • Said that she would like to see the pool shed relocated closer to the pool due to noise concerns. • Added that the owner has agreed to do so but she wants to be sure it occurs. • Said that her property is to the east of this site and that bedroom windows will face her backyard while the existing house has only a bathroom window. • Recommended screening landscaping to ensure privacy. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Lin how she would feel about a six foot fence that appears to be eight feet from her property, which would be the case since the grade of her property is lower than her own property grade. Ms. Catherine Lin said that perhaps lattice could be installed but that first she would want to see if her other neighbors would be willing too. She does not want to have lattice solely on one of her four shared fence sides. Added that she would prefer landscape screening to lattice. Commissioner Hunter suggested some sort of vine to provide screening. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that actually the new window will be smaller than the existing window. Mr. Greg Kawahara clarified that there will be one large window for the bedroom and two small frosted glass windows for two bathrooms on this elevation. However the windows are eight feet off the floor therefore offering no privacy impacts. Mr. Raj Jalan, Applicant and Property Owner, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga: • Said that the portico is a feature he requested. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 10 • Added that while he is willing to reduce the width and height of the portico he wants to retain the gable roof on the portico. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that it appears the neighbor's privacy concerns have been taken care of. • Advised that she has a problem with the entrance's 10-foot high door. • Added that if the door is lowered, the roof can also be lowered. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for the height of the portico roof. Director Tom Sullivan replied 20 feet. Commissioner Roupe said that he supports moving the structure back from the front property line by five feet, with the approval of the Arborist. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the feeder roots are located 30-inches beyond the drip line. With the condition of approval to obtain the Arborist's approval for moving this structure back, this requirement works. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she thought moving the house would adversely impact the tree and therefore she supports leaving it where it is. • Added that she has no problems with the house but finds the portico to be too big and intrusive. She would like to see its height reduced. • Pointed out that the owner and neighbor seem willing to work together on landscape screening. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the mitigation for the tree includes the requirement to remove existing fill per the Arborist's report. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that it was unfortunate that some smaller trees cannot be saved under the Ordinance. • Suggested a flat roof on the portico. • Said that he expects the final house to closely resemble what is depicted on the rendering. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Said that this project is over the top. • Stated that she does not like the portico and would like to see it eliminated outright but that minimally it must be reduced from the current 20 foot height in order to bring it more into scale with what is appropriate to the neighborhood. • Pointed out that she does not like overly big houses. • Expressed her faith that staff will approve a landscape plan that meets the screening needs. • Said that she found the multiple roofs to be busy. • Agreed that the pool equipment issue has been settled. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan said that the pool equipment still appears in the wrong place on the plans and that a condition of approval should be added to ensure its relocation to the west side of the property, closer to the pool. Commissioner Garakani said that he likes the fact that the garage is not facing the street. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve DR-O1-028 to allow a new single- story residence on property located at 19805 Versailles Way with the added conditions that: 1. The portico be lowered and reduced in dimension: 2. That screening landscaping be provided along the east side of the property; 3. That the pool equipment be moved to the west side of the property, closer to the pool; 4. That a detailed landscape/irrigation plan be submitted to the Community Development Director for final approval. Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the motion was amended to include the requirement to move the house back from the front property line, subject to the consent of the Arborist that to do so would not endanger the tree, and taking into consideration post and beam construction of necessary to assure the health of the tree. s The first vote on the Amendment to the original Motion was: AYES:Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None The second vote on the overall Motion for Approval was: AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 8:42 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 DR-00-056 & V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) -SOBRATO 14800 Bohlman Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,281 square foot residence, a 755 square foot garage, 1,512 square foot open pavilion (162 square feet enclosed) and a 4,598 square foot basement on a vacant lot. As an alternative, the applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The Variance would allow the pavilion to be fully enclosed and 751 square feet of open Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 12 vaulted ceiling in excess of 15 feet ceiling height. The site is 6.19 acres and located within an R-1- 40,000 zone district. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Design Review is fora 6,281 square foot single-family residence with a 755 square foot garage, a 1,512 square foot open pavilion and 4,598 square feet of basement space. • Added that a Variance is required to exceed the allowable floor area. • Described the property as consisting of 6.19 acres within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. • Pointed out that this parcel is part of the Sobrato Subdivision for which Council granted final map approval. • Stated that Code establishes maximum floor area ratios based on zoning districts and regardless of the actual size of a parcel. While there is no penalty for height of structure, the vaulted ceiling space above 15 feet in height is counted as additional floor area. The intent of this provision is to reduce bulk and mass of a project. Commissioner Roupe asked what the maximum allowable square footage is for this site. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied 7,200 square feet is the maximum under the R-1-40,000 zoning. • Advised that the Commission must make two findings in support of the Variance to allow the full enclosure of the pavilion/pool house and the vaulted area being left open above 15 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if fencing or grading require Variances on this site. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied no. • Advised that those issues are development standards and not Variance issues. • Provided the three findings required for support of the Variances: • Is there a special circumstance? The parcel is larger than normal and half the property represents a scenic easement. Additionally, there are 1,000 trees on the property. • Are special privileges being granted? There are other houses where the floor area ratio has been exceeded to allow pool houses. • Is the Variance a detriment to the public? Per the applicant, no. • Pointed out that usually a Variance is needed because a lot is too small, whereas this lot is quite large. • Informed that staff does not believe that the necessary findings can be made. • Discussed the house design. The home is a shingle type design that was designed to appear as if the house has been constructed at different stages over time. • Advised that the required findings in support of the Design Review request can be made in the affirmative. • Said that a substantial amount of grading is required, much of it for a road that lias been designed in such a way in order to save as many trees as possible. Additional grading is for the pool and the basement as well as around the house. A great deal of thought went into the grading design. • Advised that the delineation of the scenic easement is depicted on the exhibit behind the Commissioners. It represents half to site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 13 • Added that the Commission asked for a fencing plan. The proposed fencing connects buildings and a substantial amount of fencing encloses the pool area. The only enclosed area is the pool and terrace area. • Advised that staff recommends approval of the Design Review while it has no recommendation on the Variances. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the maximum allowable floor area on a three-acre lot. Director Tom Sullivan replied that he did not have that figure available. Said that they must consider one parcel at a time and not an entire subdivision. Added that this lot cannot be further subdivided. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any trails easements. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Roupe asked if grading for a property is approved at the time of recordation of the map. Director Sullivan replied no. He added that the work underway on the property is not a part of this development but rather for access to the culvert project by the Water Company. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the Public Works conditions are included. . Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Mentioned the hold harmless condition for the project based upon being constructed on a slope. • Pointed out that there is no variance needed for retaining walls. • Asked if there are any conditions for a no build zone on the scenic easement. Director Tom Sullivan advised that these are depicted on the Subdivision and Final Maps. Acting Chair Kurasch asked where the cut for the basement would be exported. Director Tom Sullivan said he was uncertain. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for calculations on impervious coverage. Director Sullivan replied that this figure is 26.5 percent of lot coverage including the driveway, which is not in excess of maximum allowable. Commissioner Hunter said that she would have to recuse herself. She left the dais to sit in the audience at about 9:22 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:23 p.m. Mr. John Sobrato, Applicant: • Said that he would limit his remarks to two key areas, grading/fencing and floor area ratio. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 14 • Regarding grading and fencing, he reminded the Commission that a letter from his Civil Engineer was provided in their packets. • Pointed out that a vast amount of the required grading is for the driveway and basement, which will impact a small portion of this site. • Reminded that they will save 1,000 trees, with only 40 to be removed. • Advised that they have 11-foot ceilings in the basement. This height is intended to give quality to a basement space without windows. There will be no visible impact from this basement. • Pointed out that 93 percent of the property is unfenced. The only fenced area is around the pool, which will be completely fenced in. • Said that while he understands the need to have limits on floor area ratios, the same rules should not apply for all size properties. • Stated that he and his wife are very involved in community and charitable activities and their home will be used for entertaining for those pursuits. • Added that he would be willing to record a deed restriction assuring that the pavilion space would not be used as habitable space. • Said that they have meet all requirements of the City and takes exception to the FAR. • Informed that he has met with his neighbors and obtained their support. • Added that his parcel is quite large and encircled by a lot of trees. • Said that the finding for special circumstance can be made due to the larger size of his property. Pointed out that he has agreed to a 3.5-acre scenic easement, which has been recorded. • Said that the finding for special privilege can be disproved since neighbors in the area have received variances in order to enclose pool houses. This therefore is not a special privilege. In fact, not allowing him to do so would be inconsistent with past approvals. • Said that other local cities to not have a cap on the FAR once lots go beyond a certain size. • Said that there is a deed restriction that would prevent him from further subdividing this property. This parcel will remain 6.5 acres in perpetuity, • Assured that the culvert grading is being done under permit with the Public Works department. • Answered Commissioner Kurasch's question about what is done with cut dirt by saying it is sold. He added that sometimes it is used for freeway projects. Other times it is used for sites that need fill. Still other times, dirt is used at the dump as part of the process to build layers. • Said that he did not believe that there is a limit to the impervious coverage on this site. Director Tom Sullivan corrected him by saying the limit is 35 percent. Mr. John Sobrato advised that he had to have the story poles brought onto his property by chopper. Commissioner Roupe advised Mr. Sobrato that neighbors are saying that work is occurring on his property at night. Mr. John Sobrato said that he could not imagine what is occurring since the culvert work was completed in three days and none of that work took place at night. Said that he had the Arborist recheck the site to assure everyone that there is no deviation. Commissioner Garakani asked Director Sullivan if the issue is excessive FAR. Director Tom Sullivan re lied es. P Y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Sobrato if he would be willing to record a deed restriction on the pavilion space. Director Tom Sullivan advised that any structure not open on three sides is counted as FAR. The Commission will have to take what the Ordinance says and weigh special circumstances. Commissioner Garakani asked if the pavilion would be enclosed by glass. Mr. John Sobrato replied yes. The pavilion would be enclosed by sliding doors. Acting Chair Kurasch declared that 4,600 cubic feet of grading for the basement is a lot and she questioned the need for such a high ceiling in the basement. Asked Mr. Sobrato for his justification. Mr. John Sobrato replied that this basement space is not simply the storage space of the past but rather is living space. Said that basements are actually encouraged because this below ground space has no visible impact. Therefore, what's the harm. Reminded that the cut will be used elsewhere in an approved way. Acting Chair Kurasch said that while she agrees there would be no visible impact, there is an impact on the environment. Said that there are other choices to meet the FAR limits. Mr. John Sobrato agreed and said that if the Commission does not approve his requests he will skim back on the design but that he sees no benefit in the Commission asking him to do that. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Heanng for Agenda Item No 4 at 9:44 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:45 p.m. Ms. Jill Hunter: • Said that she is surprised that there are no neighbors present tonight. • Said that she has concerns about the number of trucks moving dirt of the property, which will be disruptive and questioned how long this project will take. • Agreed that the house design is beautiful and that she appreciates what the Sobratos do for the community, being a parent of a Santa Clara student. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Hunter how much less the impact would be if the house is 7,000 square feet. Ms. Jill Hunter said that she is not concerned just about this house but also with the whole development. Pointed out that the nuns who previously owned this site did not adversely impact the area. Said that while she realizes change does happen, she has mixed feelings and feels that big changes will occur in the area as a result of this development. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a recorded approval for nine parcels. Commissioner Garakani said that development of these approved parcels is going to happen. Mr. John Sobrato: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 16 • Said that he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors and wants to get in and get out quickly with the grading aspect in order to minimize the disruption to the area. • Suggested adding a condition that requires the continuous operation of the grading process so as to be completed in as short a time frame as is possible. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that Code limits the hours of operation for this task. Mr. John Sobrato pointed out that trucks will have to be covered and that approved truck routes will have to be established. Added that he will be sensitive to the neighborhood but that this is a significant development project in scope. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sobrato for an estimate of how long his project will take. Mr. John Sobrato said that he would be selling the other lots, following the construction of the street improvements. His own home will commence construction by April 15`h and will take about a year and a half to complete. Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:52 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that she has no problem with the house due to the size of the 6.5-acre lot. It is not unusual to have a 5,000 square foot house on a one-acre lot. This is a fine and beautiful house. Commissioner Roupe: • • Said that this house is beautifully designed and will be a great addition to the community. • Stated that he was not sure how to make the necessary affirmative findings. While the vaulted ceiling is easy to accept, he has trouble with the pavilion enclosure. • Added that he is unclear about how other cabanas have been approved in the past. Commissioner Zutshi suggested simply using shutters to enclose the pavilion. Commissioner Roupe questioned if sliding doors really equal walls. Agreed that plantation shutters could also serve as a means of enclosing the pavilion. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that if the Commission finds that the shutters/glass doors do not represent an enclosure in this circumstance, that becomes a standard that would have be used elsewhere too. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the Commission's role is to define what legally can be applied equally and fairly for all property owners. Stated that an enclosure equals floor area. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Design Review could be approved without necessitating the Variance. However, the pavilion would have to be constructed without walls, opened on three sides, and either the vaulted ceiling would have to be reduced or the home's square footage reduced. Acting Chair Kurasch added that the pavilion could still be enclosed if the house is scaled back in size. Commissioner Garakani stated that the large scenic easement could be considered the basis for the Variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 17 Acting Chair Kurasch disagreed and stated that this scenic easement was given freely by the applicant before he came before the Commission for consideration of this application. Said that she agrees with staff's analysis. Commissioner Roupe said that he could find special circumstance due to the scenic easement as long as the pavilion is not used as habitable space. This meets the intent of Code. Added that he could make this same judgement in the future under the same circumstances. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan why staff cannot support this Variance. Director Tom Sullivan said one reason is simply that he is very hard-nosed about Variances. The Ordinances set the guidelines. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that if this property had been created as three lots, more square footage would be allowed. This large lot is special. Commissioner Garakani stated that this property is not easily accessed and there are no neighbor impacts. Acting Chair Kurasch questioned how this special circumstance could be applied to other properties. Commissioner Garakani said that the scenic easement and consideration of this property as a "community" house. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she would respectfully disagree with that thought process. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-056 to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 14800 Bohlman Road as proposed: AYES:Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: Hunter This motion passed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved V-00-022(vaulted ceiling) to allow a vaulted ceiling in excess of 15 feet in height, and the associated square footage attributed to that vaulted ceiling, in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on property located at 14800 Bohlman Road, with the findings: • This approval is not granting a special privilege since other vaulted ceilings have been approved; and • A finding for special circumstances can be made because of the large size of the property and the fact that it does not impinge on neighbors: AYES:Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 18 ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: Hunter This motion passed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission recommended approved V-00-022(enclosed pavilion) to allow the enclosure of a pool pavilion with the added conditions that: • A deed restriction be recorded that this space be non-habitable; • All enclosing elements be designed so as to present as open appearing a structure as is possible Based upon the following findings: • This approval is not granting a special privilege since other enclosed pool structures have been approved in the past and could be granted in the future; and • A finding for special circumstances can be made because of the large size of the property and the fact that this space will be deed restricted as non-habitable: AYES:Garakani and Roupe NOES: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Barry and Jackman ABSTAIN: Hunter This motion failed. Director Tom Sullivan restated that the Variance for the vaulted ceiling has been approved while the Variance for the enclosed pool pavilion has been denied. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. DIRECTOR ITEMS Planners Institute: Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has helped develop the program for the next Planners Institute set for March 20-22, 2002, in Monterey. He added that a traveling mini-institute is proposed for about five locations throughout the State. He informed that the Annual Institute would most likely return to rotating between Monterey and locations in Southern California. Advised that the City budgets for the Commissioners to attend this Conference. Housing Element Director Tom Sullivan advised that on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, he was meeting at the State HCD office going over the preliminary comments on the City's Housing Element update. The Update is about 85 percent completed and appears to be on schedule for completion by the December 2001 deadline. COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 19 Historic Preservation Commission Request to Participate on Planning Commission Subcommittees Director Sullivan advised that members of the HPC would like to be included in the activities of the PC Subcommittees. He added that it would be a benefit to everyone to have this interaction and that he will send a sign up list for their review and consideration. Confirmation of Special Meeting Availability on November 28, 2001 Director Sullivan sought confirmation from the Commissioners on availability for a special meeting to review the addition to St. Andrew's Church School, which is extensive. This special meeting will include a site visit and workshop. The proposed time is 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2001, just prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. Alternately, the Commission can meet in December. It would be possible to have dinner provided. Commissioner Roupe stated that he would not be available as he would still be on Thanksgiving travel. Commissioner Zutshi asked when this project will come before the Commission for public hearing. Director Sullivan replied that it would be some time early next year as it has not yet been scheduled. Library Site Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to look at the library site, as she is concerned about the condition of a tree on the property. Director Sullivan said that he would dispatch staff to review the condition of this tree. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS Commissioner Roupe complimented staff on the new chairs. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. to a special meeting set for Wednesday, November 28, 2001, to begin at 5 p.m. at St. Andrew's Church School. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • This page replaces Page 3, Item 1 File No. DR-01-030/V-01-016/FD-01-006,•14168Perata Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR (Hillside Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,068 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 39.55% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,260 feet. Total fill would be 136 cubic yards. Of this, 891 cubic yards of cut would be for the construction of the basement. The Uniform Building Code does not consider the area of dirt removed for a basement as counting toward the grading total. Therefore, the overall grading would be 505 cubic yards, which is below the 1,000 cubic yards that require grading findings to be made. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is subject to en~~ronmental review under the provisions of the California En~~ironmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15304 requires that an initial study be conducted for projects grading on a slope that exceeds ten percent. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from November 7, 2001 to November 27, 2001. No comments have been received by staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light tan color stucco. The window trim and doors will be painted a dark brown color. The roof will be a brown standing seam metal. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Lot Coverage: Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Terrace, Pool and Walkways Other TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Proposal Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 24.6% 25% 1,657 sq. ft. 2,549 sq. ft. 3,876 sq. ft. 1,870 sq. ft. 9,952 sq. ft. 10,017 sq. ft. C.\My Ikxumrnts\John L\Prrata Court 1416H SR.doc • C ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ~ 14168 Perata Court/DR-O1-030N-O1-016/ED-O1-006 Applicant/Owner. Stephen Clark, AIA/L.eslie and Shelley Kohn Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~ Date: November 28, 2001 APN: 503-30-061 Department 000001 14168 Perata Court A CASE HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7/1U01 8/09/01 11/14/01 11/14/01 1ll09/Ol The applicant has requested a Negative Declaration, Variance, and Design Review approval to construct a new 4,200 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story 6,712 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,068 square feet and is located within an HR zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration by adopting Resolution ED-O1-006. 2. Approve the Design Review and Variance applications with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-O1-030N-O1-016. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution ED-O1-006 2. Resolutions DR-O1-030 and V-O1-016 with conditions 3. Negative Declaration 4. City Arborist Report 5. Plans, Exhibit 'A' - • • • 000002 File No. DR-01-038;19369 Crisp Ave • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,093 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 5% GRADING REQUIRED: No new grading outside of the existing building pad will be required except for some surface scraping to remove some of the existing driveway. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light tan color stucco. The window trim will be painted an olive color. The roof will be a rustic clay mission style. The roof color will be mix of gold and the red clay color. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 35% 35% Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Patios, Pool and Walkways TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 5,479 sq. ft. 1,073 sq. ft. 7,467 sq. ft. 14,019 sq. ft. 14,033 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor and Garage 5,479 sq. ft. Second Floor N/A (Basement) N/A TOTAL 5,479 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. C \My Documcnts\]ohn L\Crisp Avc 19369SRdoc OOOOO~ File No. DR-01-030/V-01-016/ED-01-006,•14168Perata Court Floor Area: Maximum Allowable . First Floor and Garage 1,657 sq. ft. Second Floor 2,532 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,520) sq. ft. TOTAL 4,189 sq. ft. 4,206 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 32 ft. 30 ft. Rear 157 ft. 60 ft. Left Side 33 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 42 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 4,189 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story 6,712 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,068 square feet and is located within an HR zoning district. The neighborhood primarily consists of two-story residences with varying architectural styles. The majority of building heights appear to be on the high range at 26 feet with some ,possibly exceeding this including the existing residence that is proposed to be demolished. Staff had some initial concerns with the contemporary design of the proposed residence. The applicant had initially proposed a copper roof. Due to environmental and design concerns staff worked with the applicant to change the design to the proposed brown standing seam metal roof. Although the house has a unique contemporary design, it is lower in height than the existing structure and tucked into the hillside. The proposed home will be surrounded by mature Oak trees on the property. There is no consistent design theme in the neighborhood. All of the homes have individual characteristics. Due to the earth tone colors, the location of the home tucked into the hillside, and surrounding Oak trees, staff feels the unique design will not be detrimental to the character of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be primarily 22 feet in height and only reach the maximum 26 feet in one C\htyDocumcnis\JohnL\PenaCourt14168SRdoc oOOOO A File No. DR-01-030/V-01-016/FD-01-006;14168Perata Court area. The existing house is 30 to 34 feet in height. The proposed house will be integrated into the existing topography that is surrounded by mature Oak trees. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The unique design of the building breaks up the mass by having constant breaks in the facade without expansive two-story walls running the length of the building. Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature Oak trees which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the facade and roof. The proposed house will be located against the hillside at approximately the same location as the existing house. • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. Due to the location of the home nestled into the hillside most of the adjacent properties have a very limited view of the subject property. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on any of the neighbors view. The proposed residence could be viewed from Old Oak Way that is approximately a quarter mile away, but the mature landscaping with the earth tone colors should act to camouflage the home into the hillside. • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Ef ficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. variance The applicant is proposing to build a new house on a site with an average slope of 39% and a slope of 29% to 32% at the building site. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit building on a site that exceeds 30% slope unless the findings for a variance can be made. In order to appzove a variance application the Planning Commission must make all of the required variance findings in the affirmative. If any one of the findings cannot be made the request must be denied. The following is review of each of the required findings for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will be built in approximately the same location as the existing home. This is not a typical vacant hillside lot; instead, it is located in a developed neighborhood on an existing developed C.\My Documents\John L\Pent~ Court 14168 SRdoc O OOOOJ File No. DR-01-030/V-01-016/ED-01-006,•14168Perata Court site. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report and it has received cleazance from the Ciry Geologist. The proposed home would be built to the current Uniform Building Code, which has had substantial upgrades concerning seismic motion compared to when the previous house was constructed. The house will be lower in height that the existing house. There aze other new homes in the area and the strict enforcement of the regulation in this particular instance would deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other owners in the azea. 2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will replace an older existing residence. The proposed residence will be located in approximately the same location of the existing residence. The topography of the site will stay the same, with the majority of the cut being for the proposed pool and basement. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will meet all required Uniform Building Code standards in addition to the conditions required by the City Geologist. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have an attached three-car garage. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove one protected California Bay tree. The tree is listed in the attached Arborist Report as being in marginal condition and is not recommended to be retained by the City Arborist. There aze several existing Oak trees on the site that aze in close proximity to the existing house and have existing problems identified by the City Arborist. In order for the trees to survive, the Arborist has made specific recommendations including a tree bond for replacement of any trees that do not survive. The City Arborist report dated June 6, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The azborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit of $13,206 is also required as a condition of project approval. The applicant has also requested that a pine tree on the uphill side of the house be removed if allowed as indicated on the proposed plans sheet A1.0. Staff has asked for a supplemental report from the City Arborist recommending a tree replacement valuation. The tree is listed as fair m the Arbonst Report. Staff is proposng that the applicant work v~nth the neighbor C\My Documents\John L\PentaCoutt 14168 SRdoc ©Oo OOC File No. DR-01-030N-01-016/ID-01-006,•14168Perata Court and the Ciry Arborist to come up with a final landscape plan for that specific location subject to the Community Development Director's final approval. Fireplaces The plans indicate one gas-burning fireplace in the living room. Correspondence No correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim;ze the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration by adopting Resolution ED-O1-006, and approve the Design Review and Variance applications with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-O1-030/V-O1-016. • C \My Documents\John L\Penta Court 14168 SRdoc ~ 0~ 0O~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000008 • Attachment 1 i APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. ED-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LESLIE and SHELLEY KOHN; 14168 PERATA COURT WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Negative Declaration approval for the construction of a new 4,200 square foot residence on a 40,068 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15304 requires that an initial study be conducted for projects grading on a slope that exceeds ten percent slope. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from November 7, 2001 to November 27, 2001. No comments have been received by staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report; and Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Leslie and Shelley Kohn for negative Declaration approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 000009 Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other , Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~Q00~.~ Attachment C APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-030/V-O1-016 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LESLIE and SHELLEY KOHN; 14168 PERATA COURT WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and Variance approval for the construction of a new 4,200 square foot residence on a 40,068 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15304 requires that an initial study be conducted for projects grading on a slope that exceeds ten percent slope. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Based on the environmental impact assessment, a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review from November 7, 2001 to November 27, 2001. No comments have been received by staff concerning the Negative Declaration at the time of the writing of this staff report; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy I,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be primarily 22 feet in height and only reach the maximum 26 feet in one area. The existing house is 30 to 34 feet in height. The proposed house will be integrated into the existing topography that is surrounded by mature Oak trees. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The unique design of the building breaks up the mass by having constant breaks in the facade without expansive two-story walls running the length of the building. Poliry 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature Oak trees which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the facade and roof. The proposed house will be located against the hillside at approximately the same location as the existing house. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. Due to the location of the home nestled into the hillside most of the adjacent properties have a very limited view of the subject property. 000011 • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view comdor and will not have an adverse affect on any of the neighbors view. The proposed residence could be viewed from Old Oak Way that is approximately a quarter mile away, but the mature landscaping with the earth tone colors should act to camouflage the home into the hillside. • Policy ~, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solaz access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation, areas of thermal mass, and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15-45.055 and discussed in the attached staff report. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed home will be built in approximately the same location as tree existing home. This is not a typical vacant hillside lot; instead, it is located in a developed neighborhood on an existing developed site. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report and it has received clearance from the Ciry Geologist. The proposed home would be built to the current Uniform Building Code, which has had substantial upgrades concerning seismic motion compared to when the previous house was constructed. The house will be lower in height that the existing house. There are other new homes in the area and the strict enforcement of the regulation in this particular instance would deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other owners in the area. ?. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will replace an older existing residence. The proposed residence will be located in approximately the same location of the existing residence. The topography of the site will stay the same, with the majority of the cut being for the proposed pool and basement. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 000012 • This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence will meet all required Uniform Building Code standards in addition to the conditions required by the City Geologist. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Leslie and Shelley Kohn for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped November 16, 2001, incorporated by reference. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management ~0®®23 Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. PUBLIC WORKS 8. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and. secure a grading permit. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report date stamped June 19, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210): 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential 000014 dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 14. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per Ciry of Saratoga standards. 15. All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus 1-foot shoulders. Slopes form 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. CITY GEOLOGIST 16. The applicant shall comply with all conditions as ~ required in the Geotechnical Clearance letter dated October 16, 2001. CITY ATTORNEY 17. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 18. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 000015 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 000016 Attachment 3 CITY OF SARATOGA '= - ~ P `` ~ `~~ ,, ~~ ~ ~~ 1 N ITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Application No. DR-01-030/V-01-016/ED-01-006 2. Lead Agency Name 8 Address: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person 8 Phone # John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner 408.868.1231 4. Project Location 14168 Perata,Court 5. Project Sponsor's Name 8 Address: Stephen Clark, AIA 14900 Pierce Road Saratoga CA. 95070 6. General Plan Designation2oning: RHC Residential Hillside Conservation/ HR Hillside Residential 7. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or ofl=site featuries necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review, Variance, and Negative DeGaration, to Demolish the existing 6,712 square foot residence and construct a new 4,200 square foot two-story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 40,068 square foot parcel is located in the HR zoning district. 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project site is surrounded by single-family homes. The setting is in a hillside area with mature Oak trees surrounding the area. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental~factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Biological Resources ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials O Mineral Resources ^ Public Services ^ Utilities/Service Systems D Agriculture Resources D Cultural Resources D Mydrology/Water puality D Noise D Rsceation O Mandatory Findings of Sipnifiarrce D Air tZuality D Geology/Soiis D Land Use/Planning O PoputatiorVFbusing D Transporta6on/Traific ^ None ~0~0~~ 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. X 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 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 proposal 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 Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Director Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Community Development Department For 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency aces in the parentheses following each question. A'No Impact question is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, incuding off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as welt as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operations impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physipl impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Signifipnt Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Decaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a'Less than Significant Impact.' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative decaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applipble legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," deskxibe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-spedfic conditions for the project. 6. Lead agences are encouraged to incorporate into the chedklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zon' ordinances). Reference to a previous prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, indude a reference to the page or pages where statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be dted in the discussion. 8.. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance kxiteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. OOOO~S Less Than Signll"~cant Potentially N?th Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Signlfrcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source #1,3) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? (Source #3) a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source #3) X X X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source #3) X Discussion of Aesthetics Impacts: The proposed single-family house will replace an existing single-family house. The proposed house will be built in approximately the same location as the existing house and will not change the visual character of the surrounding area. The proposed house will not affect a scenic vista and is not located on a ridgeline. The lighting associated with the house will be similar to the existing house and other homes in the area. The project is proposing to remove several trees on the site. The trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and not deemed substantial. As part of the project's conditions of approval the applicant is being required to meet all of the recommendations in the Arborist Report which includes replacement trees of equal value to the trees being removed. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies my refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 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? (Source #1,3) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source #1) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source #1) Discussion of Agriculture Resources tmpacts: No discussion is required. X X X III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the sign~cance criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 0004,9 Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Less Than SipnNicant Potentially NVlth SiBnif~can! Mltipation Impact Incorporated Less Than Sipn/ficant No Impact impact • a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? (Source #9) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? (Source #9) 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)? (Source #9) X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (Source #9) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source #9) X Discussion of Air duality Impacts: The project may result in temporary dust and odor emissions during the temporary construction activities. These impacts would be associated with the construction and demolition activities. The City of Saratoga`s standard conditions for issuance of grading and building permits require that dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce emissions to acceptable levels during construction and demolition. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 Califomia Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? (Source #3) 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 Califomia Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) X X .• 000020 S Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant Mitigation Significant No Jmpact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? (Source #3) X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) X X Discussion of Biological Resources Impacts: The site does not support State or Federally protected wildlife. Grazing and migration patterns of wildlife would not be expected to be effected. The project is proposing to remove several trees on the site. The trees have been reviewed by the City Arborist and not deemed substantial. As part of the project's conditions of approval the applicant is being required to meet all of the reco~rmendations in the Arborist Report which includes replacement trees of equal value to the trees being removed. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #3) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #3) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source #3) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source #3) X X X X Discussion of Cultural Resources tmpacts: The site is not identified as one probable of having human remains. Should any remains be found during construction all activities would be stopped and the City notified, local and State Historic and/or Native American Heritage Commission would be contacted and the appropriate steps be taken. The site does not contain a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features as is demonstrated by site visits, geologic review and review of the General Plan. 000021 Less Than Signlf~cant Potentially YVlth Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Sign cant Mltigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or X death involving: (Source #10,11) -- 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 Div. of Mines and Geology Pub. 42. (Source #10,11) . X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source #10,11) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #10,11) X iv) Landslides?(Source#10,11) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source #10,11) X 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? (Source #10,11) X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source #10,11) X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source #10,11) X Discussion of Geology and Soils Impacts: The entire Bay Area is seismically active. No known faults cross the • project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. The project, if approved, would be required to be constructed to meet all the can-ent and applicable Uniform Building Code and Safety Codes standards, which would minimize seismic risk to the maximum extent possible. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report that has been reviewed by both the City of Saratoga's Geologist and City Engineer. This report has been deemed complete and Geological clearance approved. fl()(1(~22 . Less Than Signlfrcant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source #3) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1,3) g) 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? (Source #3,7) X X X X X X X Discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Activities at the site would be those associated with single- family residential use. Manufacturing or large-scale use of toxic and hazardous materials would not occur. Small- scale use of hazardous or toxic materials such as gasoline and household cleansers would occur as with all residential land use. No impact to hazardous or toxic upset would occur because of residential activities on the site. The site is located in a Saratoga Fire District designated "Hazardous Fire Area". Standard conditions of project approval identified by the Fire District are sufficient to reduce the fire risk. As an example, water sprinklering of the buildings is required, weed abatement, Early Warning Fire Alarm System, and fire retardant roof coverings. 000023 Less Than • Sign cant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): SignKcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source #3,10) 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)? (Source #10) . 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? (Source #10) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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? (Source #10) X X X X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source #10) X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water? (Source #10) 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? (Source #3,4) X X • • 000024 Less Than SipnMcant Potentially IlVlth Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Sipn~cant Mltipation Sign cant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Place within a 100-year floor hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source #4) -- • • i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding because of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source #3) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source #3) X X Discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: The project site is not located within a flood zone. There is no levee or dam near the project. Grading would be performed as identified in the Geology conditions for the project and would direct water to downspouts and storm drains. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source #3) X X X Discussion of Land Use and Planning Impacts: The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential. The proposed project conforms to all policies of the General Plan and Zoning for the site except for building on a slope that exceeds 30% slope. If the environmental document is approved the project will need a variance to allow construction on an area exceeding 30% slope. Staff feels the variance can be supported due to the new home being built in the same approximate location as the existing home to be removed and therefore will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? (Source #3) 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? (Source #3) X X nn~~.~..... Less Than Significant Potentially Wfth Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion of Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts: a) There are no known mineral resources within the City limits. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 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? (Source #1,6) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Source #1,6) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source #1,6) X X X • d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source #1,6) 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? (Source #1,3,6) X X Discussion of Noise Impacts: The site is not within an airport zone. The construction of one single-family residence would increase noise in the project area temporarily during project construction. The construction and demolition activities would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 7-30.060) which prohibits construction activities during noise sensitive times of the day and the week. Construction activities would be restricted to Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 6PM and no work on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays). Construction noise would not be a significant impact. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: 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)? X (Source #1,2, 3) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source #1,2, 3) X 000026 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant Mitigation Signtficani No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (Source #1,2, 3) Discussion of Population and Housing Impacts: No discussion is required. The proposed project will replace an existing single-family residence. XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental 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: (source # 3,7) Fire Protection? X Police Protection? X Schools? X Parks X Other public facilities? X Discussion of Public Services Impacts: The proposed project would not result in an impact to public services. Infrastructure and City services and schools are in place to serve the single-family residence. XIV. RECREATION: 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? (Source #3) X 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? (Source #3) X Discussion of Recreation Impacts : No discussion is required. The proposed project will replace an existing single-family residence. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the 00002' Potentially Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant Impact less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #1, 3) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source #1, 3) X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source # 3) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source # 3) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source #3,7) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source #3) X X X X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #3) Discussion of Transportation/Circulation Impacts: The proposed project will replace an existing single-family residence. There will be a temporary increase in-vehicle traffic related to the demolition and construction of the new house. This impact is not considered significant.and will discontinue upon completion of the residence. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water C2uality Control Board? (Source #10) X 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? (Source #10) X 000028 • Issues (and Supporting Information Services): 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? (Source #10) Less Than Sipnfffcant Potentially With Less Than Sipnlficant Mltipation Sipnlficant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source X #10) 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? (Source #10) X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? (Source #10) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source #10) X Discussion of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts: Water, wastewater and solid waste disposal are available to serve the site. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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, 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? C~ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerab~e 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 directly or indirectly? X X X 000029 SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan 2. City of Saratoga Hillside Specific Plan 3. Planner's knowledge of the project area and proposed development 4. FEMA Flood insurance Map, Community Number 060351, July 3, 1997 5. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance 6. City of Saratoga Municipal Code 7. Saratoga Fire Department 8. City of Saratoga Public Works Department 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAOMD) Guidelines 10. City of Saratoga Public Works Department 11. City of Saratoga Contract Geologist 000030 • i BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Attachment 4 • Horticultural Consultants (~08) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: " Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June 6, 2001 Job # OS-0l-l25 Plan Received: 5/24 Plan Due: 6/11 ~~~0~~~ ;,_Il ~ u JUN 1 ~ 2001 CITY U~ SARA"1"UGA 000031 TREE STIR VEY AND PRESERV. _ _ ,ON ~,C01vRv~NDATIONS AT TI B: CLARK PROPERTY. 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes l7 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree # l 0 is to be removed by implementation of this design. Trees #4, 5 and 6 are at risk of survival unless design modifications are made. Replacements trees which equal the value of the trees removed are suggested. A bond equal to 20% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are 9 trees on this site and 8 trees located on adjacent properties that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The 17 trees are classified as follows: Trees #l-6, 8, 11-17 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #7 oracle oak (Quercus hybrid) Tree #9 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Tree #10 California bay (Umbellularia californica) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text_ Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health: The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be•aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and shvcture ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: • • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTMG ARBORIST JUNE 6, 2001 000032 TREE S<JRVEY AND PRESFI2V. _ ..4P1 RECOI~NDATIONS AT THE CLARI: PROPERTY. 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA Exceptional Fine Fsir Marginal Poor S imens S imens S imens S imens S imens 16 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13- 2, 7, 9, 11, 12 6, l0 15, 17 Exceptional specimens must be retained at airy cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could'be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees #8 and # l 1-17 are located on the adjacent properties. I recommend that these be treated as exceptional regardless of their condition. Trees #4, 5, and 6 have cobblestones and soil that cover their root collars. In addition, there is drip irrigation on plants that require frequent watering uphill and within a few feet of the trunks of trees #4, 5, and 6. This combination (materials covering the root collars and regular irrigation) exposes these trees to root collar disease. Tree #5 has declined significantly, apparently from this condition. Suspecting this, I excavated a small portion of the root collar of tree #5 and encountered a decayed section of the root collar. This decay has all of the symptoms of oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea). Although it would take a laboratory analysis to confirm this disease, the existing site conditions in this area certainly are conducive to the establishment of this type of infection. Adjacent to tree #6 at the base of the existing house is an opening to the crawl space under this house. I looked inside this crawl space to observe the type of foundation of the existing house. Except for the garage, all of the existing foundation that I could see without crawling under the house appears to be done by pier and beam design. This is the reason that tree #6 and probably tree #5 both survived construction of the existing house. Tree #7 has target cankers at about 6 feet above grade. For this reason, its condition is only fair. Tree # 10 has been topped at about 8 feet above grade. One of the two main leaders is dead. Internal decay is suspected. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 6, 2001 000033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~. _. tON RECONOvtb'NDATIONS AT THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA i Impacts of Construction This house is located at the end of Perata Court. The roadway leading to the driveway of this house is relatively narrow, and the turn around is sharp and narrow for a pick up truck, which I drive. This means that the space for the stockpiling of materials or the parking of construction vehicles, and for the storage of equipment would be a premium near the entrance to this site. This circumstance frequently poses a higher than typical risk to existing trees, especially trees adjacent to the roadway. For this reason, trees # 11- l7are included If the existing driveway is to be replaced, tree #1 and possibly trees #2 and 3 would be put at risk, primarily from root damage. Section E of the Grading Plan shows that a large cut is proposed on the north side of tree #6 within a few feet of its trunk. A large percentage of the root system would be removed, and as a result, the tree would not be expected to survive. The root damage would be so severe that for the purposes of this report, tree #6 is considered in conflict with proposed construction. This grading may also significantly damage the root system of tree #5 as well, partially because of the fact that tree #5 is only in marginal condition. Virtually any damage to tree #5 would likely cause severe reaction. Grading for the proposed new entry pathway would likely cause devastating root losses to tree #5 and at least significant, if not, severe root damage to tree #4. Tree #7 would suffer moderate root damage by proposed grading for zhe entry pathway. Two rock walls exist on the north sibe of tree #8 within a few feet of the trunk. It appears that the plan proposes to remove these existing walls and to construct two new retaining walls further north. Demolition of the existing rock walls and the reshaping of the slope may cause significant damage to tree #8. It appears that the proposed retaining walls and the grading at the dripline of tree #9 would only result in minimal root damage. Tree # 10 is in conflict with proposed construction of the new house. All of the retained trees, including trees # 11-17 would likely .be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 5. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. PREPARED HY: BARRIE U. COATE, CONSULTWG ARBORIST JCJNE 6, 2001 000034 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~. _.ION RECONQv~'NDATIONS AT 4 THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA 6. Broken branches or bark in~uries as a result of construction uipment passing too J ~1 close. 7. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. If tree #6 is expected to survive: a. the proposed house foundation must be constructed of pier and beam design with the beam laid on top of the existing grade. b. There must not be any trenching for a footing (or any other purpose) and there must not be any grading within 18 feet of the trunk. 2. If trees #4 and 5 are expected to survive, the entry pathway must be constructed without a grading cut into the existing soil grade. 3. If the existin rock retainin walls on the north side of tree #8 will be remove the g g d, remaining soil must not be graded or shaped. . 4. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven l8-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTWG ARBORIST JUIJE 6, 2001 fadl~l~l ~? c TREE SiJRVEY AND PRESERVr.. SON RECONQvIENDATIONS AT THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA 1 item of 7. If the existing driveway Is to be replaced, Its replacement must be the ast construction. The existing driveway must be used throughout construction, if tree # l is expected to survive. 8. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc. under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachmertt. 10. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, telephone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. . 11. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 12. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 13. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as noted on the attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 14. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 15. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. l6. Lawn or other plants that require fiequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 17. If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 6, 2001 000036 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVE., [ON RECONItuIENDATIONS AT 6 THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA 18. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 19. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 20. Materials or equipment must not be stoned, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, l 988. Tree # 10 has a value of $838, which is equivalent to two 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Tree #6 has a value of $5,365. If it cannot be retained, an equivalent value is four 36-inch boxed native specimens. In this event, replacements are suggested Tree #5 has a value of $4,749. If it cannot be retained, an equivalent value is three 36- inch boxed and two 24 inch boxed native specimens. In this event, replacements are suggested. The total value of trees #5, 6 and lO is $10,952 which is also equivalent to two 48-inch boxed and two 24-inch boxed trees. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of penmits. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of the trees to be retained is $66,032. I suggest a bond equal to 20% of the total value of the trees to be retained ($13,206) to assure their protection. Respectfull "tted, Michael L. Bench, Associate PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTIIJG ARBORIST Ji1NE 6, 2001 00003'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOtv~vi>;'NDATIONS AT THE CLARK PROPERTY, 14168 PERATA COURT SARATOGA ~~ Ba ~ e D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map 7 • • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 6, 2001 oO~O~p ob T. _: C A r ~ t ob #05• 12~ ob dd ass: ] ~ Ferata C . J J s J tune 6. 2001 Mea surem ents Con dklon Pru ning/ Goblin Nee ds PesUD iaeas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS iild ASSOCIATES I ~ ~ I ~ - ~ I ` ~ o " ~! ~ e , ` 4 ~ I _ ' ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ' ~ I y ~ , , ~ 1 o ~ W ~ ^ W `~ ~ J ` _ M~13531052 ~ r- c~ z ~ ° = 3 W~ ~ o v o ~ ti W ® `.' I Q~ KK z ~ Z, F- p O~ Q z ~ 1 ~ D: W ~ o: G O_ lM Ggr~U l1D30 N h ~ I x Z ~ ~ LL ] ~ ~ W Z I a ~ O 0 j W ~ g Q W W o: U ~ K " ~ 3 I i ~ f- x ~ x ~ v t c o z 3 z 3 z 3 z 3 ~ 0 w i z ~ o v 3 Y v ~ ~ ~ v i h ~ ~ s m ~ ~ O x m x m ~ ~ W o: 6 ~ p o: 4 z O ~ o rc o { x o x o o: ~ ~ ~ ~ ' N z W W z ~ O O c W c W o W ~ ~ • Plant Name o ~ o 0 o x v~ x H v~ v v ° ~ v o: ~ a ~ o ~ x x z z o: r 1 Coact live Oak 18.0 18 25 25 1 2 3 Querrwa a !e . In 201 X $271sq. In. _ $ 5,428 X sp. Gass 100% = 55,428 X cond. 90% = S 4,883 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 418 Total Value 2 Coact Live Oak 22.0 x 15112 7.0 multi 40 60 2 2 4 I ~ • I . in 545 X $27Isq. in. = $ 14,715 X sp. lass 100% = 514,715 X cond. 75% = S t 1,036 X loc. 70% = S 7 725 Total Value 3 Coast Llve Oak 22.0 x 14.0 11.0 24 40 80 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . In 505 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 13,835 X sp. class 100% S 13,635 X cond. 90% _ $ 12,272 X Ice. 70% = S 8,590 Total Value 4 Coast Llve 08k 22.0 x 14.0 2511 140 35 1 2 3 . In 4S7 X $27/sq. in. ^ S 12,339 X sp. doss 100% _ $12,339 X cond. 90% ^ i 11,105 X lac. 70% ^ $ 7 774 Total Value S Coast Live Oak 19.0 x 18.0 10.0 2212 40 50 4 1 5 12 . In 4S1 X $27Isq. In. _ $ 12,177 X sp. daca 100% _ $12,177 X cond. 80% • $ 7,306 X loc. 85% ^ $ 4 749 Total Value 8 Coast Live Oak 18.0 x 17.0 33 40 30 1 2 3 . in 388 X $27hq. In. _ $ 9,938 X ap. doss 100% _ $9,938 X cond. 90% _ $ 8,942 X loc. 80% _ $ 5 385 Total Value t;~REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~S-gal = s36 . ls-gal ~ s120 W24"box ~ K20 36"box ~ 51,320 ~~"box ~ S.S,000 S2"box ~ 67,000 72"box ^ siS,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 1 of 3 Job 7._.e: Clark Job Address: ~ _~68 Perata Ct. ]ob #05 _-125 une 6 2001 Mees urem enb Cond klon Pru nlnplC eblin Nee ds P esUD lseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . I l I ~ v' h COATS BARRIE D ' o I =' I o . and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ 4 = I ~ v~ w ~ w ~ w ~ < ~ 7 ~ w ? ~ ~, z ~ , ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ _m ~, ` o ~ ~ ~ w NOS1353103Y V. v~ ~~ Z Z O Z 3 W ~ o ~ ~ Y O o ~ ~ ` ~ w d' l3f3lfnaalRd ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ = W ~ i w ~ ~ 3 ~ cai ~ ~ ! ~ < ~ °z '~ 111 ~r G !!0!1 } Z w ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ W Z ,- p ~ W J J 1 W W ~+ ~ x ~ x ~ V ~ O Z 3 Z 3 Z 3 Z 3 ~ W Z z F ~ U 3 y U U to 1 fA '~ J x x ~ ~-' ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ~ O O O O o ~ J ~ ~ W w w ~ z ~ ~ 8 ~ O 0 W 0 W 0 V a ~ o 0 i h N v ~ v v v ~ a z ~ ~ ~ i i W Key * Plant Name o x x v o o: o C 7 18.0 1 17 35 25 2 3 5 ~ ~uercue h brad l . in 201 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 5,428 X sp. loss 100% = 55,428 X Cond. 80% S 3,258 X loc. 85% = S 2 118 Total Value 8 Covet Live Oak 20.0 x 14.0 30 45 30 1 2 3 . In 391 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 10,557 X sp. loss 100% _ $10,557 X cond. 90% _ $ 9,501 X loc. 75% = S 7 128 Total Value 9 Mon Plne 28.0 28 55 40 2 2 4 Plnus redlete . In 531 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. loss 309'0 = $4,298 X Cond. 7S% ^ S 3,224 X loc. 85% $ 2,095 Total Value 10 Callfomia 17.0 x 15.0 ~18ltt3~ 10 5 1 4 5~ I 3 Um6ellulede calillDmica . in 345 X $2715q. in. = S 9,315 X sp. lass 50% _ $4,858 X cond. 60% = S 2,795 X loc. 30% = S 838 Total Value 11 Coast Live Oak 10.0 12 20 10 2 2 4 1 . In 78.3 X S271sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X ap. lose 100% _ $2,120 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,590 X loc. 80% = S 954 Total Value 12 Coeat Live Oak 15.0 x 14.0 11.0 17/1 40 35 3 2 5 12 . In 302 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 8,154 X sp. Gass 100% = $8,154 X cond. 60% _ $ 4,892 X loc. 85% _ $ 3 180 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUfiS S-gal = 636 is-gal = 6120 24'box • sl2"box = 61,320 ~ 1 =BEST, 5 = WO~ ~a"box - ss, "box - s~,ooo 79•M~ . t~ ~ IMlft Page 2 of 3 ob ;. _e: C'1'~rk ob Addre • _ _681'erata Ct. ob #05 _-1~ J ] ss. 1 tune 6.2001 Nlaa sunr mM,s Con ditbn Pro nlnpl Cablin Nta ds P"sUD lsaas " Pro bbms R aeom m"nd . BARRIE D COATS l o n o , and ASSOCIATES ~ Z ~ ~ W ~ W ~ n ` z _ ~ W G ~ ~ N _ n O G ~ W W NOS1353'IOS2 . ~ ~ V , ~ ~ O U ~~~~W u »ato t cr ~ h W Z ~ ~ x N ~ Z W K ~ 3 ~ V ~ ~ ~' ~ z ~ ., ~a+ ~ QQ ~ - - ~ W z ~ v, °~ $ 0 0 0 3 LL ~ ~ ~ ~+ _ ~ ~ ~ 0 3 3 3 3 0 ~ i ~ ~ 3 Y ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ x ~ x x ~ SZ , 4: ~ ~ z ~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ W W W Key A Plant Nams m o ~ ~ m o m o W O. O K K K Q: W ~ ~ ? W O O 0 x m x v~ ~ ~ v ~ v x ~ a ~ o ~ x x z z 4: s: 13 10.0 12 20 ~ 25 1 3 4 I . M 78.5 X 527hq. In. ^ 5 2,120 X sp. dasa 100% 52,120 X cond. 75% S 1,590 X loc. 80% = S 854 Total Value U Coast Llve Oak 19.0 x 18.0 34 40 SO 1 3 4 . In 411 X S27/sq. in. = S 11,097 X sp. doss 100% = 511,097 X cond. 75% = S 8,323 X loc. TO% = S 5 828 Total Value 1 S Coast Llve Oak 16.0 x 15.0 28 40 50 1 2 3 l . In 290 X S27/sq. in. = S 7,830 X sp. Gass 100% = 57,830 X cond. 90% ^ i 7,047 X kx:. 70% S 4 933 Total Value 18 Coast Live Oak 25.0 26 40 l 60 1 I 1 2 . In 491 X S27/sq. In. ^ S 13,247 X sp. doss 100% 513,247 X cond. 100% S 13,247 X loc. 75% 5 9 935 Tofai Value 17 Coast Live Oak 9.0 x 8.0 1019 25 20 1 2 3 . In 89 X S27/aq. In. = S 2,403 X sp. doss 100% 52,403 X cond. 90% = 5 2,183 X loc. 65% S 1,408 0 0 D REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ 5-gal ~ s36 iS-gal ~ s120 ~ 2~"box ~ K20 36"box ~ 61,320 ~ 48"box ~ sS,000 S2"box ~ 67,000 72"box ~ sIS,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 3 of 3 A . !' ~ ` ~ 6 ~~°'" ~ BARRIE D. C ~E AND ASSOCIATE '~ . \ • , Horticultural Consultants ~ f ~ •, `~' (408) 353-1052 ~ ~• 9 ~ `~ ~ ~ Fax (408) 353-1238 ~~ •~~ ~ 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 \. ~ \~ \ ` _ - ~ ~ - ~~:.-- Legend ~ K ~ l \ ~ ~~~~ Drip Line of Tree Canop~• . '~\ ,: ~ ti 4. 1 ______________ protectiveFencing ~~s;;: `j ~ 4 ~ ~ ,.~~ ~ ~~ _ •'~n, `. A \~ 10 ,. v~ ~~ _ ~~ v~ ~ '' g 6 ~, ~ ~ ~~•, .~ $. ~ ~ xisti~Q~ `~` ~ - Rock Woll: ~4'\ ~'` ~ ,~ ~. ~ ,,: ~ - ~ hF - \ 3 QRNFMAT ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ _~ i ~ ~~ ~ \~ Spa \ ~. ~ / ~. ~~, ~ ..o -;, ` ~~o ~ / ` 'Of R 12 ~ GR' ,~ , 13 510 500 490 ::a,,f... ~,s~c .unanr uc 4~~ ~ `~ ~4 ~ 16 +1s qtr cart - o~rnc u~ z~ u.l pM~trur • • • 000042 ~v~q 1:~~':`: :: ~i l _ f `i 1 i nFA 1YIYS74F.. a.~G~e. - , ~r s~e~cu~c-u AlICW1EtT 1~ 161Z p 0 ~ ((~~~ q~ HIL i`aYMw+M ~,¢~ ~Q~ p(R~gl/~1 ~ E 1~1 RIB f • VIEW LOOKING NORTH-WEST ~_ ~..i1 ~' ^ k, Li ~; VIEW a Y f __ FROM ABOVE A NEW RESIDENCE FOR LESLIE AND SHELLEY KOHN i .. E `' ~ '' • VIEW O Q C 0 N Q C, ~~ o ~ <~_ ~ ~ ~ > C~ ~ ~- z O ~ Z ~~ RESIDENTIAL • a o ~ o + a ~ ~ ° v v g N (NOfi'39'00"E 292.00) '^ o 5'~OAI( 460 8' 6' 5' SOAK 5 5' OAI( I j i 455 - -- ..._ _ . - -- 25- `SIDE YARD SEfBAC - -- - - - - - - --- • 16' DBL REMOVE 24' PI IF All. ~~ .I GAZEBO 450 18' DBL ON( ~ ®+509' o ~ //.. Z ~ V BTSO p o a ~ jo `~~ A ~ o N °~a ,~ ~~ Pq REMOVE o' ys0 _ ® 72' TRPL P 445 ^ ~ i P ~_ x h `> ~. c^a DECK ® 478'-6' x °9i- m U N Y ~ B REM04F (E) ~ m B 10 OAK g ECK OVER BASEME I ®+ 469'-6' b: ~~ r1.. 440 1 7 F N a RE~IQVE 11'-11't T FA ~ 27 SIUMF' Z PR R o A v` C~. (~y~~,~ ~~ REMOVE B° EA ® cq ~' 435 ' ~l~ x~~d• ®x x9 ~6, 40' QUAD OAN REMOVE T E 430 26' E k7" PL OAK ~ S/0 REMOVE ?' E +4 DECK ®+4 3' f yqR OS ~g~, R OVE Oj k E &IY~ I UNTE 430 I ~ 425 20 OAK i 135 ~ I 48' TRIPLE 440 _ '~~• 42` DBL OAK ' (SJS bvnn__ N~ 445 `rOOVJ I,sm m n A~9ME 6111E ~ flA01 ~ WpUTgli a,sDlfxr MFA ~~ ~ ~',~~ COMOUR ~~~ ELEVATION 1657 ~ n. S = 0.00229 1 5 x 3118 , J9.S5 525 34' f>RSr nroN uaA 92 520 68' ~~~~~~ 515 510 94' 121' 60& x40,068 S0. FT = 24,041 S0 FT. 500 t44' 495 186' 490 221' ~~~~~~~ 485 248' ~~~ ~9 REDUCED LOT SIZE _ (40,068-24,041) 16,027 S0. FT. 246' AllOWABLE FLOOR ARFA PER TABLE = 4,206 S0. Fi. 470 243' 465 253' ~~ 455 2~5' FRST FLOOR AREA = 1,651 54. FT. 450 185' SECOND FLOOR AREA = 2,532 54. FT. 445 155' TOTA1 COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA = 4 189 St7. FT. 440 122 ' , 435 9D [RRST FLOOR BASEMENT AREA = 1,520 S0. FT.] 430 S6' 425 12' TOTAL LENGTH 3,176 FT, • I~011 flONEldI -~~~UPPER DECK WN ED E%ISTING RESIDEN i0 E .., . ON( "- ~_ DRIVEWA +478' _30', ~ FROM . ~ '` ~ 8"SOAK .....,.YARD SET ~ ~ „- BACK . ~ 8' OAK ~ - STING DRNEWAY RESIDENTIAL 56' TRR-L ~ Aq/L9 36' TR QAK ~a q, ~C'yq` .0 465 CITE 1L~1 LEGfNO FlRSf F100N IfMC NifA SECOND aaaN uANC AfG pmNC ~oa+c~ YD aE REUatn nD~ ~ so EauNO4tgN rcas~rnDN er r~ Dm, n~ ~ oN us of NfcoNO swu Nro~noE ~ ~m+ cENmcruN >xAT ru 9UEOING sElauxs Avf eE9 rnE AwNam Buns. `7 14""~ AK ~ 5' OAK fi°~OA1c 6° ~ 525 40' QUAD 520 8' FIR \ r 515 510 505 8" PLUM 500 KISTING RESIDENCE TO DE EMOVED SHOWN HATCHED 495 S" MAGNOL 19' ~ ~ m a m 3 0 N i RESIDENTIAL (E) RETAINING 490 WAILS ~S" MAGNOLIA 475 AFRq Tq CQ~R T SNEET IDDE1 t1EMIENNI~DM~ A1A SDE PUN AND AREA ANALYSIS ~IN1EPjT A1.1 CRPDNlG PLAN 3 SUE SECTI011 CU1S laaa faez as A1.2 SRE SECTKIN CUTS k ORK4fU1 DMIL S(IE PUN a(~ ~~ A1.3 CONCEPTUAL VD7DSCAPE PLAN E-IIl m.aa.rw,r A2.0 FIRST BOOR PUN A2.1 SECOND FLOOR PUN pA~~ ~ ~~ A2.2 ROOF PLAN ~ A3.0 E)<TERIOR ELEVATIONS ase s m i. arr aa:.4 A).1 E)TERIOR EIfYATK1N5 Ilia 411.1 t 101 * RMC * xa eaa.s a®. Ai.2 E7TERgR EIEVATK)NS • olia o 1a x. n a o .r ual <Mn11 aas A4.0 SECTIONS ~ x ~ .~>^~ A4.1 SECilpb R rECnlcu nrnuru~ wEmrs wan luax xi>-.s-ao NIi 19fm1 mIIRf onus sr[ ImE a0 scour ~qx tnnsun ~ ~ °°K' "~ ~~~ ~{Ln p0, ~^ ~ 9/]0/02 ' to ~: aoe ~ n. ~COS1267 ti ~ awasE Naa att ua 5n n * * mono aaali ~ e1e xi n. ~a~~~noi ~i ~} CIV1~ < £ ~ lmrosts va t swa mf nave ssx Oma m uiauYns a rxs ssml OF CALK AREA 0.N LYSIS rmiw av~oa ro a imam vll sores Fm fgr rfaa vas ~ axax ~ I.e~ mwa rttr ncao naa uac am zaR wrx rm cork vas ao oaln xu um mm[ rtn 1 aver Nm - mlc uss nw1 r l~s aaa i sm sowf Jm Ta MFA 0 aR Dl.Mlm maw Miama[ au , LOT COVERAGE F16i ROa VaG 1 aYYF I [5] SOIINR iFFY 9141mfl a7A MRA &11[01 B4SflfNi i IMIC CaW BI 1A fte. Isla YrYPE REf if66allYR RI S~ osdt wo. umo, ssvs ~ a1u Neu 5,en 5ou17s RFi' OR,tMY aFA 7,519 SCWIE REI lO1N. W IDhR'¢ (i15f FlaOA OEIXS 1 OfRk11Yl 9.857 SOJNF REI SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE IYDN1g6 N1011Q 9-~ : ll.fi PERYENI W A WhP/Q ~. ~ ~ N 14169 PERA7A COUkI APN 503- JO-061 ~ lu w oo.n sxw u« m x ( > M,10l ea' `~ s ~ REYISN)NS ~ilil CAI No scut: SHEET TBLE . SI1E PLSN, SNEET INDEX ND~uIDFO~unoll LOsC!ITiOD DUP IY1i11 NNLlili JOB TITLE ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AND SHELLEY KOHN 14166PErUTACOUIT SAV1106a CA 95010 SPMA CIABN COIkIfY APiI:50330-061 VOICE: X510) 6839510 OIF>r,E:~610)651-5008 DATE 12 SEPi O1 DRAWN BY CLARK SCALE PROJECT N0. r =1o'-D' Dl.os SHEET N0. ^ FI • • ~ -- ~ -- ~ -- $ $ PROPEFIY~ UNE § ~~ ---~- [- ~ cvrmc mom Si5 y° ~ s ~~ -- ~ \ \ \ 'r - \ \ 5 ~~ \ \ ~ . 6' a1 B \ Soda ~ ~ \ \ S owc \ •. z \ a \ roK rout as ~ \ \ ~ \ sa ~ \ \ \ 21. \ \ \ \ I. a~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ \rrm o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ it 5a nR~ \ \ \ \ ,sn' \ a oun owl ~ \ ~ \ , ~ r rw \ \ \~ 55 ` ` ~ \ E ~ 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ \ a \ \ ~ ~ .:,. ~ \ \ ~ \ s~° ~ ~ \ ~ ~<~t-„z~, . m u~ xu s~ r~ ~ ~ \ \ \ iW \ ~~ \ in Haw ura saw $ \ \ ~ ~ a w' wn ow ~ \ r' wra saw ~5 - _ , ~ \ \ ~ \ x' w \ \ r P,iw \ \ 510 -- \ \ \ \ \ E sm \ ~. l ~ v ~~~ / ~ \ m ~ \ \ ~ ~~ /a ~ A ,~ \ \ \ \ ~ ~° ~ GRADING CUT AND FILL ANALYSIS ~ "5 \ ~ n° oosnis IfiANa w< \ w ~~ TOTAL VOLUME OF CUi = 1,260 CU. YA1tD5 ° \ TOTAL WLUAIE OF FLU. = 136 CU. YARDS Iw ax r ax q NEi VOLUME OF MgERIAL , 1,055 CU. YARDS \ ~vr ~ TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE 48O MA%IMUM DEP1H OF CUT IS 18'-6' '~ \ w, ` 40lUME OF BASEMENT CUi = 891 CU. YARDS ` [ ] s• naauA ru [40LUME OF SDE CUT = 369 CU. YARDS] ~ ~, ~, ~ \ 'e~ 410.... .\ \ - 46R 5I0 n n. eauc r~ort uc Ai YGI1011 M ~ ~u eudc ame° ~~~ 500 ~~~~ STEPHEN IAN ~ ~gN1ECT ~~~~ °1~ a~as° o~ ararw+r a~ ai ~ ~. i ~`/ ENGINEERS \t A$$OQATES ~. ~~~ "9/JO/Ot~ 0]51267 ~ CIV1~ ~OFCAi 110ncaswm'°"i wi 10 u °n wrwn w-wos N RTH '`F~~} '"~ W RENSIONS LEGEND ,~ - - - cmna In. ) canau° uFS quo ~~ /h qp Q FR,T4 Cp~Rr 4sD ~~ 116 = 1-0 SHEET TITLE 6NIDIN6 PUN p __ __ _ _ __ SRE CONTOUR SEC110115 ~D «Er onmp ut ~ ~ omnc awa ams[ ~ saw °ASim i;~, aow omc _ _ ~ ,~ \ Si0 Dana aea[ a w°ac uc m n. euna Hoar uc ~ Af SFLIIOn LN C; / ~ i i~,, _ ~_ ~ ~ i ~, ,, D1NlNG - l%``. ~~ ;; ,, JOB TITLE A NEMI RESIDENCE FOR LES AND sIIEUEr KoHN 14166PEPATACOUl1 SAUTOO~ CA 95010 SANfACIAflAC01811Y ~PN:503.3k-061 VOICE: (510)683.9510 OffiCE (610Ifi~1.5008 DATE 12 SEPT O1 DRAWN BY CIARN SCALE PROJECT N0. 0.S NOTED 01.05 SHEET N0. ^ I Nf . +90 46D aTD sECnoN ~ 460 ,~ . , .~ SECTION B u ,\ ! ~~~I~~ ~~ ~p~~66 ~~ ~ #, ~~g ~a~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ o .- ~ ~ v>l ~ W ~~ I '~ L~ 3NIl _ Utl3d0ild Ucai ~.aruw~ '- $ .N/ , ? .~ ~ / a ~ ~/ '• ~ / o ~~ ~ / ~ G 4~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ffi UJ / / § / 1 1 / _/~ / /~ / ~ ~ •3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~/ / / ,~,, ~ ,~~ ,~ ~ a' ~ ~~ ~... ~ ~ ~ ~P~ I / ~'' ~ ~ v to 9` ~ ~,-,. ,~ b ~ ~/ ~~ ,.., / / o a ~ / / / ~ ~ .y / ~ / / / // w ~ ~ /~ 3 I / / / ~ ~ / / ~ / ~ / / / / ~ / / r 175 / / / ~ / ~ ~ / ~ ~, / ~ 's ~ / /wala owA ~i~ll .o-.a / ~ ~ ~ // / ~ I 1A I ~ I /id / l b l l ~ ~1 I q / ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3NIl ~ A12f3d021d ,01~« >.« , yl ~ 9 9 / ~Y~ 3 b ~ ~~ a N ~ Yy ii ZNrn „ y / / }b~~3? ~ r q ~ U o o~i w/ a = ~ ado ~ ~ - Z Z ~lx / / / gw w ~a< o ~w JK UK X / / / Y1 0 F / i y~P" o q ~~ ~ J dY~ / / KZ W Z 1 / j / /~ ~ F< ~~ / U W / ~• ~ U U K; U / W ~ N U W X26 17. ~ 6 ~ o-~~~ ~` ~ ~ ~Py / h ~ ~ i ~ \~G SIO / `V+ LL p~~ x ~ x Q~'1 / 9+ 1 W o/ 1 / ~ m ~ o •. m•i ~m ~~ I / / / o N / 00 ~~ ~ / w n .)jN3 ~ •~ / / ~$- / / /moo-, rY 4 ~ w 00 / ~ 110 0 / ` Y 3 ~, b ~ / 1N(~o 3 / 2~p~ / '"wN \ y~ Y aD x X Y~ (~~ v~ 1651 ~ a~J / / k ` 0= 3 1 ~~ w/ / / J'n dWJ ~ / / ~ ~Zn JI/IW ~~ / N / ~ /~ tJ Z rWW • F /• ~ dNw U s / / / / ~ / n I ~. / / i ~ 1 iR B / a 1Y~ I N~ n ~ l I ~ ~ /s~ b' / / l ' ~ / I / ~ ~ 1 / I I l / I / ~ ~ ~. 0 .. `O~ ' I OQ I .~ c'y ~ O~l ~ b ~ ~ ~ ,~ O ~ h y: 0 I n e W .s w e O C w y y ~ W ~~ ~ ~ 5~~~ o O ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ r °z m y to = U O ~~a° oazN W 4 w N~ ~~~ygy a N H Q a 0 .• II ~, W _' V W fA 1 • • • • ~ / \ ~ - \ < ° c o / \ ~ \ -_ a ~, .n • r - - ~--~ ~ - - - - - - 'fi/ \ * a - °' / \ ~°n 1 ~°n ~NO6'39'00'E 292.D0 ~ o \ \ FXISBNG DEER WIRE FENCE ~-'- - - - - - - _ ~ ,~ ~ _ ~ i - ~ \ \ ~ \ 1 ( 5• ~ / / (STING 6' WOOD CE -- ~ \ ~ -/` 460 \ ~ \ 8 ON( \ \ \ \ \\ / 5 \ \ \ \ ~ v v - ~. l ~\ v, -(- ~ ~" ~ 5 i v I \ / - _ \ \ 1 5 Oy(- ~ 'Y All AREAS NOT S R TONBECIJ' C~ X \\ / I P ~ /~ 1 \ ~ i ES § WILDFL DS I b OAN '~ \ \ / ~ 1 ~ I \ ` / \ / \ 6' OAS- ~ ~ 45s W / \ NEW DSCAPILD AREA \ ~ i \ \ / ~ \ \ ~ ~ \ ~N / ~ / ~ ~s \ / \ Low To Eauu sHAHBS _ , ~ ~ \ ~ ~ / ~ _ - ~ 1 13 ~11D ROr~RS - LOW W USE ~) \ v/ ~ ~ / ~ N 4• PIN ~ ~ v 1 ~ ~ / ~ ~ 1 ~ E OVE 2 E ~ ~ \ to ~ ~ A V IF ALLOWED ~ ~ I~ ~ ~V A V A V A \ ~ ~ N I : I \ \ NE}y GRAN \ \ \ / o I 450 WAllf I 1a• D~ out ~ I \ so, ~/ & std \ ~ 4D' auAD aAx 8 I I A B~Yo o/ 520 Z ~ \ \~ \ Z W I~ \ + l 1 Py / -x 445 ^ \ A V Y ~ ~ F9 / °~ ~A I / ~ \ ~ \9• RR \ / _ - _ V 9 e`~- LOWER GRAN]1E DECK ~ NEW UNDSC4PED AREA ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ ' v ~ ~ ~ ~° / i \ ow To uEauu sNRUes sls 1 / ,~ ~ / v '~q GRANTE DECK AND~OWERS -LOW WA1~A USE / ' ~ / ~ \ ~ °a~ / ~ ~ srlNC~~woscAPED \ ~ ~ I ~ 6 ~ ~ \ AR~ dgRE N / 440 / \ ~ \ ~~ ~~ < - A ~ ~ ~ ~ All AR NOT SH40ED~BE NATURAL / / V ~ ~ / -~ GRASS k WILDFLOWER LAND6CAPfND ~ / \ /~ ~ II / ~~~ X510 475 ~ \ / ~ \ ~I - ~ A V ~° ~ - ~.~ ~ ~ ~ NEW UPPER FLOOR AREA I ~ 40 QUAD OAK \ - . - ~OF. ~ `\ 430 ~ ~ ~~, -~\ \ \ \ ~ \ _\~ ti~ f ~ _ SOS - - - I 26" TR ~ ~ / ~ i ~ ~/ I ~ ~~ -~ v 30" T PL~OAK V ~ \ I l- ~ 1 / A {~. \\ ~ \ ~ \ ~ r ~/ \ 8' PLUM 1--'~ ~ ~\ V -~ -- 1 \ I ~ \ i - ~-- -- v ~~STj A~ V I \ E / V / /~ ~ / / G 1E~DE~ V ~ ~ ~ /. ~ 1 ~ v~ fE / V / V ~ ~ ~?, ~~'~ / 1 \ ~IRF ~ ~ \ \ ~ v~NC ~ / V A ~ 1 / / FLOWER ED 430 / \ ry~ ~ / \ ~ ~ / ~ ~ \ ~"* ~ ..- ~. a2s \ V / s!~ \ V A ~ ~~ ~ za oaK NEw GRANREIwux 1 v ~ \ 435 / D fF \ \ ~ 1 'y ' 4 % ~ ~ ,. ~ V A / ~ f ~p ~ \ ~ i ~ ~ ~` ~.: ~~ 1 1 \ V / f ~ ~ ' ~~ i `. ~ ~ ~ KAf ~ / q~ \ i / I \ ~ ~ ~a" T 4u~~~, I , ~ 1~9" ~ I ; l ~ ~/ ~ - I • 1 - - i a~~, o - '~ \ v / ( \_ GRANITE DEGK \,,~ \4 '~~ I ~ I _ - - ~ \ V ---- -'~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ I~ ~ / / ~ vV ~ v~~ ,~ I I~ ~ I i \ ~ - ,--I-_, - C ~, . a4 /~ ~ V 1 (EJ RDGK Rf3AiNING ~ '; / ' _ ~'~ 5 \ / ~ / ~ ~ W T N\ ~.. OAK / \ ALL 0 REIAAI v ~ I • ~ A ~ ~ ~ 7 f j ~ E) RETAINING WALLS \ y 1 ~ - ~ B~OAK ~ ~ ~iINC LANDSCAPED \ _ ~~' J/,~ ~, ~ TO REMAIN 1 ~ `C - -fiesE`uuN v `~~l ,;~ ,~ ~~ 450 BYOAK ~'_ ~ v A A ., f ~ ~WNINB' ~'' ~~ . ~. ~ F' T ,~ ~ ~`NF`cRANIT ~rRr STAIRS f / ~ v \ 4 ~'~ ~_ ~ 490 / A A ~ ~ EX1311N6.DRV~C- ~. 455 ~ /~. ~ 1 ~,.'.~ /: ~ ,~ `\ \ ~ as5 \ ~~`\~ ~ \ ~ \ `// / \~ I / / ~~, \ \~ --- ~ ~ \ ~ i4 j \ ~~--'~ / \ / ~ ~ \~--~~- 11~ 11111 i[oo yea eoia a'I~ ~ F-[L atl[dib[it4 ~i ~ M[1Q 14~R111 f L~ * x[wmanR REVISIONS SHEET TFRE ~~~ ~ JOB TITLE ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AMD SHELLET KOHM 14168 PBiA1A COURT SPIGTOCA, CA 95010 SAtfdCWNCOUNPf ~:5a~-~os1 VD~E: (51683-9510 Off~:~S101651-5008 DATE 12 SEPT Ot DRAWN eY CtARK SCALE PROJECT N0. I' = 10'-0' 01.05 SHEET N0. ^ 1 H \ \ " `' I ~ \ ~% w• A -._ V ~~ ;; ~: A ~s• ~ ~ 4 ~, rnwa cads , \ \ EMOVE B' TREE 4 ' _ ; ~'; ; \ - ~ ,i/ \ \ .. - --- ~ ------- ` __.. - HALLWAY ,. ~ -.. \ \ \ I wsnn cwrn ro vnw +8' CEIUNG i -- - \ \ i own[ Wsa~n un wu E%ERCISE ROOM ~ _ y \ \ 3D' HIGH RETAINI ~ o_ -~ i!-T. ~7-5' _ FF 479 00' ~ `' __, \ ~ . k ' \ \ IW)( . S -0 HIGH RETNNRIG WALL ° +10 CEIUNCS \ V . ~.- ° ~rz wwm utt wus \ \ \ ~ °6"~ ~""' m ~"' MULiI MEDIA RODM - \ ~ b" ' "` < araaa-r +14' CEIUNG '. \ REMOV: 1' TREE ----------_ t• ,. FF = 479W \ \ \ . \ \ \ A - d , --- .. \ \ \ (_ ~P ~. ' ' 7 ~ TREE A V ~B• i gyp. LOWER DECK OEEICE _ _ , - ~ ~, ' ~; " \ V ' FIN. DECK ELEV. _ +479'-0' era sir-r __ ?, v i v v ~ ~ y. ~ \ \ A ~ T ~ '! FlN ' FLR: EI.EV~. _ +478 -0~ V A \ TREE REMOVE y. ;_ . \ is \ \ \ \ \ _ .. 'A v i ~ , -,/~ k ~ DECK ®UPPER LEVEL \ ;1 ,; - .. - . ~~, v ~ -- ~ ~,~ \ \ \ ~ ~ PLANTER ~ \ , ~' ~ ~ v ~ ,r~~ v V '~ \ ~'~ `'~• M , ER DECK ~ ~ O ~d \ ~ ~ W L ~! N DECK ELEV. _ +418'-0' ' q9 y. ~ ~ 20' OAN ~ s \ \ \ ~ ~ d g. ~ ENTRY W ALK AT UPPER LEVEL p ~ \ V~~ V ~~ ~ DRNEWAY ~ \ ~ ~, \ \ ~ A V A v ,: ," \ ~ - - --- ~o ~ \ - \s \ ti~ ~ AS ~ ~ OR1N \ ~3~ \ V A \ 0 6 0 5S'-11~' TO ~~ \ 48' TRIPLE OW( REVISIONS ~ SHEEP TITLE LOWER F100R PUN ~ JOB TITLE ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AND SHELIET KOHN 14168PEN,iA000fli SWNiOG~I CA 95010 ~~ SANUCIARACOUNfI APN:503.34-061 VOICE (510)683.9510 OEACE (S10) 651.5008 ~ DATE DRAWN BY 12 SEPT 01 CLARK SCALE PRQIECT N0. 1/C = 1'-0' 01.05 SHEEP N0. ^ F 1 V v ntF oECx ~ DEC V 0 ' ' ' v M~w \ c \ . K ELE . - +5 9 -2 YHI~II \ _ 10 - \ ) Y- 15'-5' \ \ ~ ; lam ~lF kYM \ B \ \ \ v~wq a Moro ma (bN xiaw l H/L tl btlwlf M A \ ~- e u s ''S' i \ \ - ---~ - _ \ ~__ ~ - PIANIER 0 +19i' \ \ r aa! 6 i a i \ \ \S ~ Darr aaa * l~ * eee° aa~ita° sma sat avx •_ o - ~ \ O \ <N4~ aaw~ ~ ~ LOWER DECK \ . a~~ ~ M _ +4i9'-0' FlN DECK EIfV ~ r . . 1AP POOL -- ~ 4`fq \ MIW® UY ualic wms lmrussslm ~'~! i ~ (~ \ \ I\ . ` ~ ~ _ n ~ \ ,~ ~~ ~/, , f - I ~~ \ S>, \ I i.lri ~ ~'' \ I, i ii ~~ THE DECK AREA OVER BASEMEN ATtEA \ \ i hen ~ FlN. DECK ELEV. _ +189'-9' \ I ~ UPPER DECK F,WIIY ROOM ~ pal ~~ ;, ~ FIN. FLOOR = +190'-D' i !Ir t o ~ \~ ~ ~' '. .l y; n ~ ~ , ~` ~'' d . , Ih \ i '~dl 1'~ ~ I ¢ 1 ~. \ I \ \ \ ~ • • \ REMOVE 7 TREE - + - " ~, / ~~ dy \ \ y/' r _ \ ~1UI tt llf' I ~I,i~ ~ F• 0 y (/ lr U~ V/ `~ 1 , ~ \ I IN li,q I I qp ~ ;,II 'l~+ ~ ~~ BEDROOM 3 ~~, A \ t'illl ~l~~l! 1P'i'i 15'-0' \ r/ %% ~ 1 REMOVE 8' TR \ EE -- --- r -- ~ J r i;~ ~; V I 4 ~ a \ -------- ~ ' ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ i EAI(FAS B l~ ~ /j, A I ' \ I p e, ur -e'. i ~y, `>. G \ MMUmv i \ yM - i Y \ I ~ ~ TH R~ U~ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ STAIRWELL ~ 'apOY scv ~ v ~ Ci ® \ I ~ \ ~IEII PLANTER O i _ I , \ • _______________~II i~l11E __________._ HALL °i \ - ~-- - - FlN FLOOR - 493' 6° ~ \ \ ~ -~ -- xrx/~ _ _ ~ \ V A i ~ ~ ~ i`"°" ~~ I '' '~ f \ A t ~ i f - I i 9UN .~' _______ ________ MIER IHL I ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ V \ V A Fq~ I x - t, -- ----~ - --- ---; KOI POND -- ~ sl'~- aucrtroue _ ~~> GUEST ~~lu~' ~ ~ 1~I~~~ ~ \ ~> ~ LOWER ~~DECK ~ sx~ Irr ~ ir-r rttrt ~ \ V \ b ~ FlN. DECK ELEV. _ +419'-0' ~ I •~ I :' s,aw i ~~ i ' i ~ ON ~ \ \ n ~ ~ ~i WOIf LL ENTRY CO // iiq ~// ~ ~ `~ \ \ \ DECK i~~ ~ ENf~ • U RI I sra~tu sim i wuF L ~ ,%-~~ ~, 4 wt urz atmart aua \ \ i , ~ r ~ . n-r . ~ , '4 ~ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ REMOVE 1'~iREE i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ G ~ t I ~ ~s ~~ ~ ;'s~i iltE CK AR DE FA ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ , i ~ FlN. FLOOR = +490'-0' ~ ~ ~ f ~' ~ o FlN. DECK ELEV. _ +493'-0' j V A 1 i / ~ DINING ROOM ~ ' ' ~+ ' i ti' \ i II ~ tt Y , n II ~ / hats Sttum oon5 ~ ~ ~ I \ V '. i ~ ~ i I i ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ I MYNGF MNL IMF Ff101 ~ \ INI iqq OD'M 6 N99f ~E MD 9f01 UIFA (14 ' / / / ~ , \ ~ PLYIIfA j \ V A 15, . A \ ~'V I ' nFwa aus ~u ~ 'I i II \ p \ ~ A ~M \ \ I \ I ~ ~ IMNG ROOM ~ ~ ;, I ~` ~~ V ~ A I DRIVEWAY i I~ m'-la'.It-~. ' ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' i ' ° BECK I I~ FlN. BOOR = +488 -3 ! ~ ~ 2O OAN \ ~ ~ \ i DRWEWAY E<LV, a +d78 -0 I I ~~ ~ ` j I \ ~~ ° ~ I ~ ~ \ ~ ~~ ' V \ V ~IA ~ Mrouau~uw.w>uw SfMIFSS Slm PO515 ~ ~ I ~~ i~ , \ A ~ ENTRY WALK ~ \ \ ~ ' \ I I ~/ 11C ~ ~ i ~/ I I ~ T ~ ~ \ ~ i ~~, ', i I , ~ I ~ > ~ cif \ ` ~ ~ ~ \ 'i I ~ 3 WI ~' ~ A8 \ 0 ~ ~s o ~~ ~ I I I - - ~~ -- ' \ \ ~ .v ~Q' L~~_r--, ~ --,, :~ ~~~~ I , - _J „ ~,-,- ~~ ~ ~ TRI AN 48 PLE 0 U` CY ~ u[ ~ ~, , ~, i ~ , i ~ NORTH / - -- \ \ \ SS'-I' ------' ' REVISIONS r SHEEP TIRE -~ UPPER FLOOR PUN ~ JDB TI1LE 1 ~ NEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AHO SHEIIET KOHN 14168 P6UTA COUBi SWtAi06A, CA 95010 SNNfACIAlIACOUNIY APH:50330-061 VfiCE: X510) 6838510 o~ 151o~s5r~5ooa r DATE DRAWN BY T2 SEPT 01 IXARK SCALE PROJECT N0. 1/<° = 1'-0' 01.05 SHEET N0. ^ F 1 • n ~J SNCCO BOM BF1Jl ARCN I ~ S l & SNCCO ROOF ENDS ~ ~ J/F~ WALL UNE SHOWN DASHED ' ~ ~ GUTER ,.6 ~ ~ a j"~ S STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - BROWN C DR ~ „~ t¢ t z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r ay r 1 s i 3`` w '~ ~„^" ,~~ .r BUILT UP ~ ~ ~ ~ s /~ .> OQ .~ .ROOFING Y ~~ ~ ~""~ d ~ q `~~~'s° , ~ ~' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ `~ °1~ a'3 ~ ~ ~~~,~ ,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~9 ~ .. ~~, ~°' ,~ ~ c~ e s r I BUILT UP ROOf1NG BUILT UP RGUFIAC \ ~' S~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~ q , _ ~~ _ ~ a r ~ J' °` ~' a` ,~ 9 ~c ` ~ ~ q0 ~ ,ds ~ q: ~,; ~ ,~ ~' ,~ oQ~' ~ ,_ ~ ~ ,~~ - .. ~ > ~"~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~R ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o d~ y AE Sf NDI S M ET OPEN TO ENTRY COURT STUCCO ENTRY BOR BFAM ~ SNCCO ROOF ENDS WALL l1NE SHOWN DASHED GUTTER I ~ STANDING SFAAi METAL ROOF -BROWN COLOR ', 5 IN 12 PITCHED ROOF w/BARREL TOP ~ ~ :2'-~" . r-sl' 2'-~' 4'-113" - STUCCO BJX BEAM '~` 71l~d~Yl 4NNLE55 STEEL PIPE TREWS ! \~ `~ ~ m~ u e.o oe w.e s meartwvn ' ~JC , t~ a~~l~riwr ~~~ ~ smmwsxwnwv `c~ _. M~ ~1 \ ~ .. SI~IIEM CIAIN ~ ~CINtECT ,.~~~ ,~ fiwl tlwYNMwWM REVISIONS SHEEP 11TLE ROOF Pull ~ JOB TITLE A MEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AMD SHELLEI KOHN 1d108PEItA1~000H1 SA~ITOOO,w„CA95010 ShMACWA000Nf1' APN: ~i-x-061 VOICE: (510)083-9510 Of}1Cf:I510~667~008 ' aArE DRAWN er 12 SEPT Ot CURI( SCALE PR0.JECT N0. 1/4" = 1'-0" 01.05 SHEET N0. ^ F 1 H T / ~~ ,~ / t , • n u n u l ~ r~Y 4\ nM n omn cam ~' wu ~ ~w sw amen o~c aca maa e~,~aar iwt rwr~ ~~ v ~ scw ex~ S1eH~ CUIaI ~ ~II~IIRE6T ~,~~~ tarou a taro aw¢ (ey en-aeo F-Yl tl,btldwtlieM ~~ ~~~ r awe *:~~ :: av~ai[~e ~~~ e.w~~ irr M ~ ros© ewn. 9/70/02 ~C051261 ~ a ~ CIY1~ ~~ a CAI~~~ REVISIONS SHEEP i1RE ~aaR E~r~no~ JOB TITLE ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AND SHELLEI KONN 14168P9tATRC0I~T SNUTO~, Ca 95070 S~NfAIXAAAt,000Hf1 APN: 503.3¢061 VOICE: (510~68~9510 OFFICE: (510)6615008 ~ \ DATE DRAWN BY 12 SEPT 01 CLARK SON.E PROJECT N0. 1/B' = 1'-0' 01.05 SHEET N0. ^ = 1 _0 F H . L - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - ne~naaaae~e,~n'- - J - - - - SinYK SEW ilOw itnt root - mox - wn nw toim ~c ~ wcomo wi. rofi ma ro~ooi u~r ~ ~ a - 1 _ {~ , ~;> i iNSN MOA Q 61911UII ~ M I 9[!E ACiN~IG'IYt511-Y~1---~y4[Itl161E0 • • ~~ / "m°" uMC roar ~+ oxw ~wrroa \ ~~ ux THUMBNaI PLIN THU4BNNL PIAN E~r~noM •~ uB• _ ,~-D• ~ESTElEY1TgN ~ NurEw~r• Faoor ,/a' _ ~~-a• ~iErNEN CI~I AU ~ICw1ECT ~.~~~ :ate 1~n ~-«~ ~-~ . ~ ~~~ 1®IC 6 mIP U m1Of i6•~Q t •IA * 4ew~a~i°a REVISIONS SHEET TITLE EXIERI~1 ELEY~TIONS JOB TITLE ~ MEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AMD SHELLEY KOHN 14169PEAAiACOUIi SARATOGA, CA 96010 S4NfA aARA CIXB4fY APN: SIX!-3¢061 VOICE: (6101683-~10 Of~E ~S10I661.5008 DATE 12 SEPT 01 DRAWN B1 CIARK SCALE PROJECT N0. SHEET N0. ^ F I HT . • • a N r SHEET TITLE EI~ERIOR ELEYSTIONS • uMC eoo~ THUEIBNNL PLAN YW~ '1L ~r ~~ YNIM VIII MYI~ I W I uom id¢ vn s~uau a amo an¢ I~ ~~ HIL OM~d/YIYa1 3' i~b ~ia" sce~u. ivr oa. xi REVISIONS ' JOB TITIf ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AND SHELLEY KONN 14168 PEFRIA COUBi SIWRTOG4, CA 95010 S~M~CI,UA000NIY APN:503.34.061 VVOICCE: (510)683.9510 OFFICE: X510) 6S1•5008 = t'-o' 1 ~ onrE ~RawN er 12 SEPT 01 CLARK SCNE PROJECT N0. 1/g' = 1'-0' 01.05 SHfEi N0. ^ F t HT . 1HU4BNNL PUN • r~ • 18'- 0 ---~~----------_o ---- --- -------- - _ --.. 0 ~,\ ~ it61 918 FLLNllpl 6 G1FH0 . ~ SDptw' - ' 0 i mm ~ n i -~~i-~~= DR N BE 00 - - -~ ~~~~-~~~ ~ ~ I o -~_~~~-~~ ~'n-i 'I I IJ I II I YU TI-FIEDU ROOM DICDUR SECTION j BUIiDING SECTION CUB DN 4S' ANGLE ~ ~ 400 9~MIG SLW IfDI AU ~ 16'.0. mcm uimoR rus ~o ~ woow oas ~~~ ~ mew nmrE ORIC~H+( \ suwM \(0~ C \ ~f \ I - - --- - ~' . ~ ~ \~~ uwmaido .\\\\ o~ Q - - - ___ - -- ~ J STNR/HAll e ' \ .a `n KITCHEN b DININ ' ~ '~' o ~ ~ ; I wauhn a,as I ! I ~~ woo¢m rods .l mn wwrc ~ I - ~~ ~ ~ _, ~~WC \ ORI01 W+( COT ~,.. 3C ~'~ OFFICE ~ CI ~ ~~ J .,\ ~I~ CRAWL SPACE ~~~. wow • nnm~ i PERPENDICU ~ SECTION THROUGH 51TE, BEDR00~1 ~3 AND MUFTI-MEDIA R00~, REMAINING PORTION OF THE BUILDING CUT AT AN ANGLE 0 \ .n > w[n'mwt r rus S1ErN~ CIMK tw NCNRECT ~.~~~ vnpoc~ a mio oma w) naweo t-aw `~ ~ Ae~~ oed a or u m+r ion~ws t~ * os'wQO~i~°o, REVISIONS SHEEP TITLE KY I I~~ ' JOB TITLE A NEIN RESIDENCE FOR lES AND SHEILE~ LDNN 14168 PERAIA COURT SW6ITOGA, CA 95010 SAMAI~RACaN11Y APN:503.3Q-061 gE: (510)683.9510 GA7CE:~510~65I-5008 ~ DATE DRAWN BY 12 SEPT Ot CIARK SCALE PROJECT N0. SHEET N0. ^ ~ Hr . • • • ~~ - ~ ~16'.O. \ A{n_ \\\OT \ ~'~ oanc awc a~ru[ ~ ~ ~ ~ snw Warn / I \~ i ~~ ~ ~~ • rl I ~ , (" I ~-,- I I ~~.! I FAMUY ROOM leutm ma; Mpn® 0.Y/K P0515 r/ 9MIESS 51RL 7F BY!!A aow i[ui si.uw sw da mxm mwoA rus wo e~m wav ou, ~/ ~ ~~ V \ \.. dK AOOY ffN0 ~' ~ t. aLWA51 A0011 BaaO ,~~' I ~ ~ ~ li i I ~ ~ ~'~ I 1 ~ I ~I~~ '~~ i I 9 I I Ii I ~~ i_. 11/61 RRN 'b0.m' ~ ~ _ :I i I ~.~kinwG o -1I I ~ ~'o~^~ coT .1I I MASTER BEDROOM ~ .~' ~_I I I P :III ~ ~ ~. I-III _ . ~. IJII :III 1'11111 CRAWL SPACE ~I I 5'-0~ 1161 RnnR . SSA OD' 0 i = i -_ :111111 -~_ PERPENDICULAR SECTION THROUGH SITE, 45' SECTION THROUGH BUILDING BEDROOM WING BEYOND .,~ ` I I :III- ~ .. I-11 H_TI = ~ , ~ -1 ~ I-1 I I-I ~ I-1 I I-__= ~' ~ 1 I I-II I-1T_I-III-III-111_ ~~~'~~~. , ~ - i - :III-II~~_III~II-1111 ~ ~~_.,, i l~ I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I.I I I- ~ ,, ~ _ :III_I~I-L~I~I-ICI-ICI 1=III-III-III-III-III- '~~ ~ , H~nc EQUIPMENT ROOM -1II,IIiII~III-1I- EXISTING BUILDING OUNNE ~6 ~-1 I ~ I~ SHOWN LYSHEO _ 0 ~'~VE ORIGINAL LOT G ~ ~ ~ ~`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ J r ~,, /~ STARWELL `~ EN LMNG ROOM WILL _ I I is i ,~ ~i I ~I I ~~ I I 111 ~ ~ mat nam .sso.oo~ I ~I rr a uwc . ~sazs' 11 ~' ICI ~,_., =1 I o T GRADE ~ I i IYIELL 13 CPR GARAGE ` ~I, - a - - I HI ~-_. ~ ~ '~ DRNEWAY ICI 4,, ., =III HI _ _ _ _ _ ____---~ II II -______-_= I~ _____--____-_ __-_ ---- -1 I I_ ~-1I I I~~ I1=1 ~ I=I ~ ICI ~ ~I ~ I=1 ~ I=I ~ I=I ~ 1=1 ~ I-I1 I- ~-1-1~1 ~ I-1 ~ I=1 ~ I=1 ~ I-1 ~ ~I ~ I=1 ~ ICI ~ 1=1 ~ I=1 ~ 1=I ~ I=1 ~ __ I C-III-1 I I_ 11 I I-1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 I ~I1 ~I I I-1 I I-1 I ICI 11=1I I-1 I I-1I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I~ I I-1 I i~l I ICI I I-1 I l-1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 I III III I I III III III III III-III III III .I I III_III-III-III-I I ~I I hI I ~I I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I -_ "' ~ R SECTION THROUGH SITE, LONGITUDIAN SECTION 1HROUGH BUILDING- _-_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -" I_III_III_III_III.III-i I I-III-III-I I1-III-III-III-III-III-l I I-III-III-I I l-1 _ =1 I I=III=~ ~ 1=~ ~ ~=1 ~ ~=n 1=1 ~ 1=1 n=n 1=1 a=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 n=n 1=~ a=n 1=1 11=n 1=TI=1 ~ ~TI=1 ~ I-~ i I-Ti-l ~ 1=1 ~ 1=1 ~ 1=1 ~ I-1 ~ I-1 ~ 1=Ti-I n-III __. 1/4' = I'-0' SieIEN IYA~II ~ ~1ECT iMm IQ¢ 6tl 1~ n~zo t+w: a.I.a~.nrar ~~~ v~ra4.n°~. a r aar * "iwooTia ~<aN •fOq ~s~RA [ ~~~ 11111' •oala~w REVISIONS SHEET ilTtE ~YI WIW r JOB TITLE ANEW RESIDENCE FOR LES AND SHELLEI KOHM 14168 PERATACOUflT SANfACIWIA 95070 COUNPf nrPN: 503.3Q-061 VO~E:1510) 683.951D ~ OfHCE (SID) 651.5008 DATE 12 SEPT 01 DRAWN BY CIARN SCALE PRAIECT N0. I/A' = I'-D' Dl.os SHEET N0. ^ F 1 H . • C7 • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner. Date: APN: DR-O1-042; 21842 Via Regina KOHLERCI'HOMAS Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director November 28, 2001 503-69-017 ' Department Head: 000001 21842 Via Regina File No. DR-O1-047_/21842 VIA REGINA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION 04/09/01 lon7~o1 1U07/Ol 1U07/Ol 1U09/Ol The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,222 square foot, two-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,179.87 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,393 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 24 feet. The site is 113,256 square feet and is located within the H-R zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 042. . ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-042. 2. Arborist Report dated OS/2U01 3. Geotechnical Report dated 09/25/01 4. Correspondence 5. Applicant's.Discussion of Design Guideline Implementation 6. Memorandum fiom Ciry Attorney regarding Trail Dedications 7. Plan Set, Exhibit "A' • • • 00002 File No. DR-01-042; 21842 Via Regina • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: H-R GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 113,256 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 22%. (36% slope floor azea reduction) GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yazds of cut would be996 cubic yazds to a maximum depth of cut of eight feet. Of the total, 723 cubic yazds of would be necessary to construct the basement. A total of 946 cubic yards will be off hauled. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). pursuant Section 15303, °New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. Additionally, the Geotechnical Report and associated conditions further reduce any potential impacts MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish is proposed to be stucco with random stone veneer, metal clad wood framed windows, faux slate roof material, and copper gutters, downspouts and leaderboxes. The body of the structure is proposed to be Spanish Sand in color. The trim is proposed to be faded ochre while the stone veneer is to be Carmel Country in color (similar to fieldstone). In total the color scheme seems to blend with the natural landscape of the area. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • C wlyDocumencsUcohler DR-O1-042 sr.doc O t.% o 0 o w File No. DR-01-042; 21842 Vla Regina • Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 8.5% 25% Building Footprint 3,464 sq. ft. Driveways, Walks and Patios 6,121 sq. ft TOTAL (Impervious 9,585 sq. ft. 28,461 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable s,ooo sq. ft. First Floor 3,464.33 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,844.14 sq. ft. Garage 871.40 sq. ft. (Basement) (2,393 sq. ft.) ' TOTAL 6179.87 s . ft. q Ad usted to 6 649 s . ft.* J ~ q Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 50 ft. 30 ft. Rear 60 ft. 60 ft. Left Side 20 ft. 20 ft. ' Right Side 215 ft. 20 ft. Height: Residence *ADJL~SIED FOR SLOPE AND SIZE. Maximum Allowable 24ft. ~ 26 ft. • C ~IvlyDocummtsUcohlet DR-O1-042 st.doc 000004 File No. DR-01-041; 21842 Via Regina PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,122 square foot, two-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,179.87 square foot, two-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 24 feet. Please note that the applicant has indicated that the height is 26 feet, Section 15-06.340 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that height be measured from existing grade as opposed to finish floor grade. The site is 113,256 square feet and is located within the H-R zoning district. The neighborhood is a variety of architectural styles, but can be categorized as having a rural, character. The style of the proposed dwelling is consistent with the evolving architecture of the West Valley hillsides. While the proposed architecture is a departure from the ranch style of the area it does seem to be compatible with the neighborhood principally due to the low impact color scheme. The proposed project does implement applicable Residential Design Guidelines as discussed below. • Polity 1, "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography". The lot is sloped, but the building site is nearly flat. The proposed grading is consistent with the provisions of the standards set forth in the H-R zoning ordinance and does not alter the existing topography in order to construct the residence. Policy 1, Technique #3, "Else Materials and Color to Reduce Bulh", which suggests softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of materials that create horizontal proportions. The project proposes stone to create horizontal pedimentation. The use of stone and stucco, slightly arched and rectangular window fenestration. The use of the stone veneer as part of the window fenestration further breaks up the mass of the building. Policy 1, "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height", suggests varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The roofline is varied, but not excessively so as recent applications the Commission has reviewed seemed to have. Polity 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Breah Up Massing". The front entry with its 10 foot door does make a statement; it is not the only focal point. Other elements of the front elevation are the stone work, the clay chimneys and roof dormers. • Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed i project fits with the evolving nature of the neighborhood It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. CUvtyDocumenccUcohler DR-01-042 sr.doc oo~oos File No. DR-01-042; 21842 Via Regina Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Else Landscaping to Blend , Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as much as possible. Nineteen trees of significance are noted in the Arborist Report. None are proposed to be removed. Protective measures suggested by the City Arborist are set forth as conditions of approval, The proposed 2,393 sq. ft. basement is shown to have direct access to the outside. The size and arrangement of the basement and the direct access to the outside lends itself to being used as a second unit. The applicant, through this entitlement review, should be put on notice that no conversion of the basement to a second dwelling unit shall occur in absence of abiding by the City's secondary dwelling unit process. A condition of approval is also included that addresses this issue. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have re~~iewed the application. There are no additional conditions from the Public Works Department as this is a fully developed lot. Comments from the City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 871.4 sq. ft. three-car garage. Fencing The H-R zoning District provides that no more than 4,000 square feet may be enclosed by fencing. There are existing fences along the east, west and south sides of the property. The north property line appears to be open, thus there is no enclosure. A condition has been added to Resolution DR-O1-042 to ensure that the area does not become enclosed. Grading Hillside Residential District Should the combined cut and fill of any grading in the Hillside Residential District (HR) exceed 1,000 cubic yards, inclusive of any grading required for swinuning pools, the grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (Section 15-13.050(f). Additionally, a "Site Development Plan" is required for development in the HR District (Section 15.13-050 (a)). As a part of that review, a geologic and soils report shall be required unless the City Engineer finds otherwise (Section 15.13-050 (b)). These reports, and any report for slide remediation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission review and action. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings in approving a grading permit. 1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the , property or achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and C ~2vlyDocuments~icofiler DR-O1-042 sr doc O OO o O V File No. DR-01-042; 21842 Via Regina • 2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; and 3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and 4) The increased grading is necessary in order to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and S) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as ~~iewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. The project involves only minimal site grading and complies with the provisions of the H-R zoning code. Geotechnical Review The City's Geotechnical Consultant has indicated, "The proposed development is potentially constrained by slope instability associated with reactivation of the Vaquero Court Landslide and steep headscap, active landsliding within the drainage swale, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, downslope creep of colluvial and fill materials and strong seismic shaking." As such, the project has had significant geotechnical review and is conditioned to have the grading and foundation system plan checked by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. Trees There are nineteen trees of significance near the building that would be exposed to some risk due to project construction. No trees are proposed to be removed in order to construct the site improvements. The Arborist's Report contains other tree preservation recommendations, which shall become conditions of approval and are included as an attachment to this Staff Report and will be contained in the Building Permit Plan Set as Sheet AB 1. Fireplaces The plans indicate that four fireplaces and three chimneys are proposed in the new residence without stating wood or gas burning. At the time of zone clearance the construction plans will indicate which one of the fireplaces is to be wood burning (if any) the other fireplace shall be gas burning. Trails During the review of the proposed project the issue of "trail dedication" arose. The City of Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan contemplates acquisition of trail easements in some circumstances through dedications in conjunction with new development, the City Code implements those policies. The City's Subdivision Ordinance provides that C VvlyDocumencsUcokilcr DR-01-042 sr.doc O OO 0 o1"J File No. DR-01-042; 21842 Via Regina "pedestrian or other access pathways as may reasonably be acquired" in connection with proposed subdivisions or Building Site Approval. There are no similar sections in the Design Review Ordinance portion of the City Code that provide for trail dedication. Staff discussed the issue with the City Attorney and he has prepared a memorandum that addresses the issue of exactions as they relate to Design Review applications. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbooh and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, presences the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bullz so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 042. • • C ~ivlyDocumentsUcohler DR-O1-042 sr.dac O OO O ('~ Q File No. DR-O1-042/21842 VIA REGINA Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-Ol-04~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA KOHLER/21842 VIA REGINA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Plan.-iing Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,179.87 square foot residence on a 113,256 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, titled "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures', Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that nineteen trees are in close proximity to the building site and none will be removed. Said trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. The natural landscape will be preserved by limiting the construction to an existing flat area thus eliminating any tree removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the building site is nearly flat. The proposed grading is to construct the basement not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. The proposed main structure is in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The parcel is heavily treed and can not be seen from adjacent dwellings. The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors in the light browns breakup the mass of the building. ^ The proposed structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and withui the same zoning distnct; and (u) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent 000009 File No. DR-01-042; 21846 Via Regina properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates the requirements of the City's Geotechnical Consultant. The City's Geotechnical Consultant will re«ew and approve the project grading plan and conduct on-site inspections. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1, "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1, Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", and Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of WILLEM KOHLER for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A', incorporated by reference. 2. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Title Report prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: C ~IvlyDocumenrs~icohler DR-O1-042 sr.doc OOOO ~O File No. DR-01-042; 21846 Via Regina • a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: Four fireplaces are included on the plans and. only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall only burn gas. One wood burning fireplace with a gas starter and three gas-burning fireplaces shall be noted on the drawings. All chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that the vertical and horizontal are as approved by the Planning Commission." 7. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 8. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Additionally, no more than 4,000 square feet may be enclosed by fencing. The location of any additional or replacement fencing shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to its installation. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 10. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 05/14/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. The recommendations found in the Arborist Report are to be considered Conditions of Approval. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout G~IvlyDocumrnrsUcohler DR-01-042 sr.dac 000011 File No. DR-01-042;11846 Via Regina construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $8,344 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the Ciry Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 13. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 14. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 15. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence, pool and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to trees; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 16. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 17. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 18. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders 19. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 20. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). 21. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. C VvlyDocumrncsUcohlcr DR-01.042 sr.dac (10 ~ (~ ~~ J • • File No. DR-01-042; 21846 Via Regina 22. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 23. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 24. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. GEOTECHNICAL 25. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide supplemental geotechnical evaluations and design criteria to address the following items: a. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall clarify the depths of piers supporting retaining walls and structures in the setback zone. Presumably, piers in the setback zone would need to be deeper than piers outside of the zone to resist creep loading and mitigate potential slope movement that may take place within the zone. b. The results of the Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. c. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. d. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of Grading Permit. . e. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations pnor to the placement of steel and concrete. C VvlyDocumrnts~icohlet DR-01-042 sr.doc 000013 File No. DR-01-042; 21846 Via Regina f. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permit. g. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. h. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related andlor erosion related conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION 26. That the applicant submits detailed landscape and imgation plans at the time of building permit application. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. • Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • C ~IvlyDocumenuUcohler DR-01-042 sr.doc O O~ O ~~ File No. DR-01-042; 21846 Via Reg~a i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date C ~MyDocumcntsUcohler DR-01-042 ss.doc 000015 C THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00001.6 • • • .--~. BARRIE D. C6~ i-E AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 A RECOMMENDATION FOR TREE PRESERVATION DETAIL AT THE KOHLER RESIDENCE 21842 VIA REGINA SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Certified Arborist May 21, 2001 Job #02-01-096 Plan Received 412-O1 Plan Due 5-14-01 • 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ L 1~' LJ n ' ~~ MAY 3 ~ ~'i - 2001 c~,, ,.. , 00001.'7. A 1(1;'CUMMENDA'17UN h'UK Tl(L~ ~'I~SEItVA'1'lUN llE"fA1L AT THE KUHLER RESIDENCE, 21842 VIA REGINA. SARATCX'iA Assignment • We were asked to inspect the Kohler property at 21842 Via Regina to evaluate possible conflicts between the trees and proposed construction on the property. Summary The site has nineteen significant trees in the general area of proposed construction but only six of them would be affected by this proposed activity. The trees which would be the most severely impacted are trees #6, 7, and 12 below the proposed garage location, and trees # 15 and 16 between which the drain line would be installed and tree # 17 which could be damaged during demolition. The balance of the trees would essentially be unaffected as long as the proposed fences are installed and maintained as directed in this report. ~'he value of trees # 6 and 7 is $19,648. The value of tree #12 is $7,387. The value of trees #15 and 16 is $9,720 and the value of tree #17 is $18,870. I suggest a I S% bond of the value of those trees to be sure that the subcontractors and contractors retain the fences as specified. I suggest that demolition of the existing house be done only after demolition period fences have been installed as shown. Further, I suggest that the removal of demolished materials be done only through the area which will be the site of the new home and outside the fences as defined on the enclosed plan. The only changes I suggest to this plan is the location of the 6-inch drain line which is scheduled to built on the north side of the new garage. It would require excavation so close to the trunk of tree # l 4 that, that tree would be severely damaged. I suggest that the drain line on the north of the house be redesigned with a 45 degree angle bend to direct it more precisely half way between the two trees # 15 and 16. Note that the water, electrical and telephone all enter from the south in an area devoid of trees so there will be no conflict between tree location and those services. It will be necessary to take a section offence down in order to install the drain line from the south side of the garage and the drain line from the north east corner of the house but once those drains lines are installed those fences must be re-erected and maintained during the entire process of demolition and construction. • YItI;YAKIs'D 13 Y' 13AK1Z1l: ll. C'UA"fK, CUNSUL'1'1N(i Al(HUK1S'1' MAY 21, 2001 `'OOO~S A 1[1;C'UMMENUA'17UN }'UR'lh.... NRESERVA'l'lUN U1;1'AlL AT TIIE KUFII,ER RESIDENCE. 21842 VIA REGWA SARATOGA • Recommendations 1. The retaining wall below the garage. This retaining wall should be built on a pier and beam design with the beam laid on top of grade without excavation. The 4 '/Z feet of fill soil that will go on the west side of that wall and serve as a parking area must be of a pervious material to allow at least '/cinch per hour of percolation into and through that fill material. If Urban Tree Soil' mix fits the needs of the project that would be one method of providing sufficient compacted soil for engineering requirements and still provide the environment for root production. This process uses 1'/cinch rock mixed with clay loam soil and a polymer to create an environment which is attractive to roots but can be compacted to 95%. 2. Manure has been piled over the root zone of tree #6 and against its tnunk. This is extremely dangerous since this ~is the environment in which oak root fungus is initiated. I recommend that an area within 2 feet of the trunk of tree #6 be excavated down to original grade and that a dry stone wall be installed 2 feet from the trunk to prevent more materials from silting down around the trunk. Trees #3, 5 and 7 have fill soil around their trunks to some degree as well, although certainly to a lesser degree than tree #6. Root collar cleaning should be done around those trees as well. An arborist not trained in the uses of Western Chapter ISA Pruning Specifications' has overthinned many of the trees on the property doing actual damage to them by removal of excessive proportions of the trees canopies. This kind of pruning should not be allowed on the property. No soil may be dumped down hill from construction activity which would cover existing root zones or touch the existing tree trunks. 3. Trees # I S and 16 An existing natural Swale is seen between trees # 15 and 16 leaving both of these trees on sloped land and an existing sewer system is seen in that ama. For this reason because these trees are on slopes a large proportion of their roots will be uphill from their trunks, and partly for this reason and partly because of the existing land confirmation, I feel that very little damage will be done by installation ' Urban Tree Soil Z Western Chapter ISA Pruning Specifications NRI;I'ARI;U 13Y: HAKR!!: U. C'UA'1'E, C'UNSUL7'INCi AKHURIS'1' MAY 21, 2W I 000019 A RI:COMMI;NUA'1'ION h'OK 'I'Itn~ PKIiSERVA'I'IUN lllr'l'AIL A'f THE K()HI,F.R RESIDENCE. 21842 V[A REGINA. SARATOGA of the trench between trees # I S and 16. I am not concerned about their reaction to that installation of that trench as long as areas adjacent to the trench are not unnecessarily impacted. 4. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of S feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Respec ly submitt , ~~ _ B e D. Coate , BDC/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map 1'K1iYAlt1/ll 13Y: 13ARHIl: U. CUA'1'E, C(N~ISUL'1'ING AKHUKIS'I' MAY 21. 2W 1 • 000020 BARRIE D. Ct, TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crowe -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large bumess roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches • A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. ~~ Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. 000021 ~ '~ BARRIE D. Cc~r~TE AND ASSOCIATES `-"~ Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable 'I'V and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. -Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible.at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/2') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue u~il 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plarrts beneath tree canopies. • • ;~ • 000022 ~~ I3ARRIE D. COA"1'I? _a,r ~=E' t're~ei vat_ion AND ASSOCIATES Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists .~ ~ 'i ~~~~( ~;?~~ r•~ .y _ -. - ,) `t _~ ~ , ~- ~=- _. ~S ~~ /~ ~i 0 • • Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. Top o_' fence hung with fluorescent f lagRine tape ,every 10 feet. 1 i- 6' chain link or welded wire mesh t 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-ankle post ' \ f ~ Fence p?aced at driv line t /~~ or 50% greater tan the tree ~ canopy radius hrere possib?_e Foadway ~ _ - - - - - Fence/ '~ siting t N construction is to take place beneath a / r anopy on one side, the fence should be ;it 2-3 leet beyond that construction but ~ ~elween construction and the tree trunk. ` ~ ~~~_,_ i ~ I l 1 I . '~ _ i ,__~ ff construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing` __ 1 to 8' above ground on ~I ~~~ ~ ~~ ~' trees where construction l' i,~ ~, will take place beneath __ the canopy ~" '`~ ~~• ~~ '~ n Job Title: Kohler Job Address: 21842 Via Regina Job # 04-01-096 MaV 21.2001 Measurements Condition PruninglCablinq Needs PeatlDisease Problems R ecom mend . COATS BARRIE D I I I C I ~ I I I ` o. I I I I~ I I ~ ~ I I I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ v l~ !° -- I ~ I I . and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ I ~ ! I C I ; I I ~ z ~ ~ I ° ~ ~ I ~ H ~ I ~ -- w y ~ I = I~ ~ ; ~ ; ; ~ I o °1 - HOE1353~1052 ~ ~ I I i ILL ' { I ~, I ~ I ~ I ' ~ ? Z { z ~ ~ ~ O ~ i Z I c~ I w I ° ~ Z i~ i W~ ~ ; o ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I o ~ r ~ ~ ;~ ~ : ~ ,Wy I W ~ ~ 23535f dA d ~ ~ { W ~ i i N I i I ; v Q i a' I Z ~ ; i 2 ~ l y ' O i° i O g ~ I Z ~ ~- i Q'~ i~ D W I J ~ ~ O ua a uiGe« U95roo ~ m I I ® Is I ,(, ~ w Ix Iz I ~- qa u -' ° ; I m {= I W o: I w i ; z l ~ w w z a ~ I o ; I ~, 3 ~ g g --l0 10 IW I~ IJ ~ Q w I z w ~ , } i I IW ~ ~ ~'° ~ = ~ Ig I ~ I C ' ~ ° z ~ ~ I z l z , I l z ,~ ~ I ° z ~ ~ I o ~ ~ 3 o o O i ~ 0 ~ 3 w ~ ` ~ I I "' _~~ 7 ~ c i ~ I o I I I ~ 3 l 13 ~ 3 ~ I ` ~ 3 I° z ~ w t° s I Y z {~ I~ ~ o ~ o ~ O _ -+ m ~ _ _ m m ~~ C m uw a Q u] ~ Z I~ I O ~ O z I O O m I o: O;~ a i a q o: ~ w m m~ o: III ~ ~ O O I W W W ~ 1 Key ~ Plant Name o ~ o o l o = w = I rn I v = v ; v I v U l m v i a ? 1 1- °~ ~ m a z z ~ ~ j o: 1 Coast Live Oak 12.0 = ~ i 114 30 { 30 1 1 2 1 3 ~ ~ ~ { I I i I G?uerous a rilblie I I I I i ! , ~ I . in 113 X S27/sq. in. = S 3,052 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 90°k = S 2,747 X loc. 80% = S 2,197 Total Value 2 Coast Live Oak 12.0 = x ~ 7.0 ~ i 13/8; 25 ! 20 1 ` 2 I 3 i ~ ~ ~ _ ~ { ~ ~ I . in 132 X S27/sq. in. = 5 3,564 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3,564 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,208 X loc. 80°~6 = S 2,566 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak x 26.0 8.0 28/9 40 65 1 1 2 I ! 3 i 1 ~ i ~ ~ ! . in 556 X S27/sq. in. = S 15,012 X sp. Gass 100% = 515,012 X Land. 100% ,012 S 15 X loc. 80% i 12,010 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 13.0 I ! 15 ~ 30 15 1 I 1 ~ 2 ~ I S uoia sem rvirens ~ 1 I { I . in 133 X S27/sq. in. = S 3,582 X sp. Gass 90% = 53,224 X cond. 100% = S 3,224 X loc. 80% = S 2,579 Total Value 5 Coast Live Oak 26.0 ~ _ ~ 28 ~ 40 ! 45 1 ~ 2 3 ~ 2 in 531 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. Bass 100% _ $14,328 X cond. 90% = S 12,895 X loc. 80% = S 10,318 Total Value 8 Coast Live Oak 34.0 E' I I 45 130 '' 36 2 2 1 4 = ; ~ I = I ~ = 4 1 E ~ ~ i I ` ~ i I I ~ I ~ I I . in 907 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 24,501 X sp. Gass 100% _ $24,501 X cond. 75% _ $ 18,376 X loc. 80% = S 14,701 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S3ti 15-gal = S12U 24"box = 36"box = 51,320 ~ 1 =BEST, 5 = W ST 48"box = 52"box = 57,000 Pag f 3 72"box = Sl , ob Title~ohler ob Address: 21~ia Re ina Job # 04-0~6 J J g May 21, 2001 Meaaurements Condition PruninglCablinp Needs PestlDieease Problems R ecom mend . } i i i } ~ i ' i i i i i i i i i i i i } i h } i i BARRIE D COATS i } } } i : } ! i o } } ~ ~ ~ i } ~ i~ ~ ' V i } i } . and ASSOCIATES i i i i i i i } ~ ~ ~ } ' i } } ~ } ~ i i i ' Z i } ~ } i ~' i H } i i = , i i t? i I ~ ~ i i W ~ ug i i i i i : } ~' y } ~ i ~ ~ ' } i ; i ~ o 7 NOAI3531051 i i i i i w i i i ~ ? } i I~ i v o ~ : ? ~ } ~ } ? ~ i w i i iw } t x f} 1 r? o i v, } "' } ~ O } N moo ~ } o: w : ^J i ~ ~ ~_ 235355 eeiiad ~ } ~ W} } I iw i N } i ~ i~} Q i i R' W Z ~ Z } ~ o l Z i H i m z} i }3 } i i o i N o i w i 0 x i '~ I Z I-- i } `.' , Y i o i s I 0: i 1 i 5 ~ ~ w } ~ F o u tM G>rr, CA !5030 r- rn ~ ~ ® ~ } x } ~ I ~ i ~ 1~ i z i Q I v ~ } u i I ~ ~ i~ i I i z ag i w i z } ~ a ~ -- } 3 O i v~ i l w i ~ g i -' F- Q 3 o: w w z u+ ~ N 1 ~ F- } W W ~ : ~ = }~ _ ~ ~ ~ t ~~ 0 z ~ z } 3 o~ z I z ~ 3 3 o~ o} ~ z ~ N I 3 0 ~ o ~ ( ? z y f- ~ ~ W o: v w 3 } Y } z ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ -- I~ o o v i o w v i 0 w ~ 0 v ` ~ m J ~ m m W d }~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ m K 1 W Q ~ ~ Z} w ~ ~ ~ 0 1 0 W W W ~ W Key * Plant Name o f o o } o = rn = I y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z v } a ~ ~ o ~ o: ~ o: z z o: o: 7 Coast Live Oak 18.0 ~ 20 40 135 1 ~ 2 3 ~ I } ~ I ~ ~ 2 } } I i i } i i } . In 254 X 527/sq. in. = S 8,867 X sp. Gass 100% = 58,867 X cond. 90% S 8,180 X loc. 80% = S 4,944 Total Value 8 Coast Live Oak 22.0 x 5.0 30 40 30 2 ~ 4 2 } ~ ! ` { ~ ~ ~ 1 I ! } ~ III! ' i . in 390 X S27/sq. in. = S 10,530 X sp. Bass 100% = 510,530 X cond. 75% = S 7,898 X loc. 80% S 8,318 Total Value 9 Cowl Live Oak 22.0 ~ 24 50 ! 30 2 } 2 ~ 4 i ~ } 1 . in 380 X 527/sq. in. = ,258 S 10 X sp. Gass 100% = 510,258 X cond. 75% S 7,894 X loc. 80% = S 8,155 Total Value 10 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ~ ~ 1 22 i 55 } 40 1 ~ 2 1 3 ~ ~ } } i } . in 314 X S27/sq. in. = S 8,478 X sp. Gass 100% = 58,478 X cond. 90% = S 7,830 X loc. 80% 5 8,104 Total Value 11 Caiifomia Laurel 14.0 } i 16 1 20 } 5 2 1 4} 6 ~ i 1 Umbsllularia celilbmica 1 ~ } I i i } } . in 154 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp. Gass 50% = 52,077 X cond. 45% = S 935 X loc. 80% = S 748 Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 22.0 ~ ®i 3 24 1 45 1 45 1 2 } 3 1 i } 1 I } 1 } i ~ 1 ~ I } i 1 i } ( } 1 I . in 380 X S27/sq. in. = S 10,258 X sp. Gass 100% = 510,258 X cond. 90% = S 9,233 X loc. 80% = S 7,388 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = 536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box =55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 3 Job Title: Kohler Job Address: 21842 Via Regina Job # 04-O1-096 Mav 21.2001 Measurements Condkion PruninglCablinq Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES HOf113531052 23535fnaaiRad LwG+Ur,U 95030 ey * Plant Name { '_ ' { ~ x rL p ~ i i { { l { I ~ ~ W ! i N I = } I i i ; J~ x= x p m ~ fL ~ p p i { I W { LL ~ ~ ~1 ~ x i W I~ I W i~ I p i { { ~ I ~~~ xU' ~ W d x vi ~ o i fV ~ ~ ~ c9 v 'n ~?~ O = ~ Q ? ~, ~ w ~ I ~ ~{~ ~ Z I~ ~ 7 i O ~ F I U ~ t l~ QJQ I ~7 ~ Z I W i F l 0~~ x l uJ v x { ~ I i i Z' i H i I ° : { x I r, I O ~ q~ ' ~ c7 I ~ ' Z i Z ¢ j O I~ I W I ~ _ ~ FO I ? I I ~ I ? I ~ I N ° { W J I x I W{~ I w I W V 1~;~~ { I Z~ z z z i z }~ I W ~ 0~ Q~ ~ ! I ~_~ i m~ K~ 4: i K i 4: ` W I Q I v U I U I v ~ o: v l N ~ r Q: O o: a (~ ? j ~ a { ~ i o~ i~ i i '~' fn I W ~ ~ ( , o p~ i~ i V i p I z = I ~ I a: a: ~ ! 3 I p a 15 I g ~ ~ O O i W ~~ I ~ y, a. O I p O I O -- ~ v i 3 1 Y ~ U I U W !~ W I Q pQ ~ j' O O N i 0: ~ W! K~ O ~ O ? I H p~~ a: o: I ' ~ i i~ ~ x ~ O ~. i~ I W ~ E ~ i ~ ~ ' '- i i Q~ w W ~ lL ~ ~ ~~~ W W ~ V W W I W z z I rc _ 7 } ~ ~_ J ~ ~ ~ 13 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ~ i ~ ~ i6 45 ' 20 2 ~ 2 ` 4 ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ i ; I x ; I I I I ~ ' I { I I ~ I I ~ . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. Bass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 759'0 = $ 3,577 X loc. 80% _ $ 2,861 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak 18.0 ~ 118 35 ; 20 1 ~ 3 4 ~ ~ ~ ; i , _ I ~ I I i ~ : I ~ ` i !{ i { . in 201 X $27/sq. in. = S 5,428 X sp. Gass 100% _ $5,428 X cond. 759'0 = $ 4,069 X loc. 80% _ $ 3,258 Taal Value 15 Coast Live Oak 18.0 x = 9.0 ~ 9\10 35 130 1 3 4 ~ ~ . in 286 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 7,722 X sp. Gass 100% _ $7,722 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,792 X loc. 80% = S 4 633 Total Value 18 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ~ ( ~ 22 ~ 45 ~ 40 1 S 3 ~ 4 I 1 I ~ i I i { ' . in 314 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp. class 100% _ $8,478 X cond. 75% _ $ 6,359 X loc. 80°k = $ 5,087 Total Value 17 Coast Live Oak 25.0 f x 124.0 j 20.0 , 60 45 ~ 40 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 , ~ ~ 1 { I { . in 874 X i27/sq. in. _ $ 23,598 X sp. Gass 100% _ $23,598 X cond. 100% _ $ 23,598 X loc. 80% _ $ 18,878 18 Coast Live Oak 24.0 ~ 1 26 25 { 45 1 5 i 6 ~ I ! i # I . in 452 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. Gass 1009'0 = $12,208 X cond. 459'0 = $ 5,494 X loc. 80% _ $ 4,395 Total Value 19 Coast Live Oak 19.0 ~ _ ~ ~ 21 ~ 30 ~ 35 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ E I I I I I I i ~ I I : ! . fn 283 X $27/sq. in. = S 7,851 X sp. Gass 100% _ $7,651 X cond. 90% _ $ 8,888 X loc. 80% _ $ 5,509 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"box = 48"box = 36"boz = 51,320 52"box = s7,000 72"box = sl , 1=BESTS= ST Pag of 3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Second Supplemental Geotechnical Review (S0071B) RE: Kohler, AR-01-020 21842 Via Regina Attachment DATE: September 25, 2001 At your request, we have completed a second supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: Response to Geotechnical Review (letter), prepared by Kern Consulting, Inc., dated August 29, 2001. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION . The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing two-story residence, and construction of a new, two- story residence with basement and adjacent garage south of the existing residence. No grading plan has been provided for our review. In our previous review memorandums (dated May 24 and August 13, 2001), we noted that the proposed development is potentially constrained by slope instability associated with reactivation of the Vaquero Court Landslide and steep headscarp, active landsliding within the drainage Swale, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, downslope creep of colluvial and fill materials, and strong seismic shaking. We also noted that certain proposed improvements encroach into potentially unstable areas within a setback zone designated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Consequently, we recommended that that the Project Geotechnical Consultant review the latest development plans and evaluate the impacts associated with geotechnical constraints by preparing a revised Geologic Map and an Engineering Geologic Cross Section depicting the site conditions. In addition, we recommended that certain geotechnical design criteria be reviewed and modified. I NS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION CONCLUS O 00002'7 John Cherbone Page 2 September 25, 2001 ' S0071 B The referenced response letter indicates that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the current development plan. Although some structures are located within the slope stability setback zone, the Project Geotechnical Consultant concludes that they can be safely constructed if founded on piers into bedrock. Structures sited within the setback zone include the garage, driveway/parking area, and associated wall(s). We note that specific foundation design criteria for the wall supporting the driveway have not been provided. Consequently, we recommend the following conditions be satisfactorily completed as a condition of Geotechnical Clearance. 1. Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria -The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide supplemental geotechnical evaluations and design criteria to address the following items: . • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall clarify the depths of piers supporting retaining walls and structures in the setback zone. Presumably, piers in the setback zone would need to be deeper than piers outside of the zone to resist creep loading and mitigate potential slope movement that may take place within the zone. The results of the Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review -The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, site drainage improvements and design pazameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. • 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection -The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface DDODtiB John Cherbone Page 3 September 25, 2001 S0071 B 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 geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City of Saratoga 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 geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • • 000029 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer ~~-~", SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, AR-O1-020 DATE: September 26, 2001 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. The conditions of approval, based on attached review. memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated September 25, 2001, are: • 1. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide supplemental geotechnical evaluations and design criteria to address the following items: • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall clarify the depths of piers supporting retaining walls and structures in the setback zone. Presumably, piers in the setback zone would need to be deeper than piers outside of the zone to resist creep loading and mitigate potential slope movement that may take place within the zone. The results of the Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that their • recommendations have been properly incorporated. - 1 ~0~0.30 The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 3. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should 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 geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to fmalization of Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. • -2 000031 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000032 • To the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 133777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, Nov. ] I, 2001 Attachment 4 Dear Commissioners, 1 am in full support of the Kohler's building a new home at 21842 Via Regina. 1 welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition I understand that the parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's and my property and along Via Regina, which is a private road. 1 am opposed to a public easement in my neighborhood. Delora Sanfilippo - ~~~~ 21834 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 9507() NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000033 Date: //// ~~ / Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department ~s trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / Wc; are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. Q r.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ s . /G-rk /,~/ 1~0f v, S Print ame ~~ ~ c ~ ~~~ Signature l ~ Z~ 1~, ~ e ~~ Address NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000034 • • Date: ~~/~1~~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; ~/We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / We are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. Print Name ' `~ r, ~ ~r - ~~ Signature I ~~~ I Cdr ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Address S C1 ~a,`~ It C r 1 i ~~~7_ S ~b 3. ~n ~ ~ ,, / ~ i" ~~ ~ ~~~o~~ ~ NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DE}~~QIJ~T~C • Date: ~~(~-~'~~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / We are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. ~~ ~ e ~~ Z S ~ ; ~ f's c~~ Print Name ~~ ~ l (~ Signature ~ ~ G ~ U ~/ ~ ,~ ,2 t=G ~` .-mil S,'-~'.- ,'~- `~' C n c C~ c, , Address • o ~~~o~~ • NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000036 • • • Date: ~l/~5/~ ~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / We are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. Print Name lure Address ~ ~~~o~~ ~ NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 00003'7 • Date: ~~~~~~ ~ ~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / We are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. {~ ~~ r r~ ~ a~ ~ ~ IZ I i F-I V I ~~ ~,.I Print Name r ~I P~ ~ ~t ~~~.~ ~ ~ Signat e ~i ~~.g vl~ Zrc~iN~- Address SI~IZ~ iCCir}~ C~ ~SC7C o ~~~o~~ ~ NOV 2 0 2001 • CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000038 • Date: (~ ~~. ~ (;~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition, I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation Department is trying to put a public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / We are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. ~~ -~ ' ,, ~L ( ` , ~` ~1 ~ ! l ,, , Print Name 1 Signature C / -- Address J ~ ~~~a~~ ~ NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000039 • Date: lu ~~ 7l v Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. In addition I / we understand that the Parks and Recreation De artment is t in to ut a P rY g P public trail through the Kohler's property and along Via Regina. I / Vile are opposed to a public easement in our neighborhood. Via Regina is a private road and I / we want to keep it that way. . ;~ s ~nC Print Name ~ ~~ Signature ~ 5~ ~~~ ~~ Address NOV 2 0 20U1 • CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DDDD A D • Date: ~D~~ ~~~ Planning Commissioners City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The new home at 21842 Via Regina Dear Commissioners; I / We are in full support of the Kohler's building a new home as proposed on their property. I / We welcome the improvement to our neighborhood and City. s ~~~ ; ~ ~,-~.~ ~.~ r.~ ~ ,~~ 1~~ 1, .~-', ,~- ~,-r~ ~-~ ~ r ~ ~ ~j Printed Name ~P~~' I~ ~ ~~ CZ ~, s~ C C. ~ ~'~ '7 C3= ~ig ature 21~~~C V-~ ~~Q~'jn ~, Address • Tr~~s~~ -Z`a-~! 1 -- S ~~~ k~n~~ G~ ~ SZ~ ~~~A~~ ~ NOV 2 0 2001 CITY Of SARATOGA COA1Ml~NITY ~~~'~LO?MFNT 000041 November 19, 2001 Mr. Willem Kohler SARATOGA TRAIL ENTHUSIASTS 19830 Via Escuela Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741-0954 fax 408 867-6100 e-mail tlbaron~aol.com D ~,~! NOV 2 Ct7~r or COMMUNm' ~ _ ~~~LN, RE: Acquisition of permanent hiking and equestrian trail easement on 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga Dear Willem: As you know, I have been very active in the community on trail issues. I understand that you are going to be demolishing your old house and building a new house that will be sold when it is finished. Because of your generosity over the yeazs, you have allowed public access through your property to the permanent trail easement located at the back~corner of your property. This access through your property has been allowed for approximately 40 yeazs and has enabled your neighbor's use of the connecting trails. Since you will not be living there anymore, I believe it is now time to formalize the trail access by dedicating a hiking and equestrian easement to the City of Sazatoga. This easement would be for hiking and equestrian use only and would be co-located on the existing PG & E easement; therefore, it would not interfere with any planned use. As you know, you specifically lobbied to have the permanent public trail easement aligned with the infonmal trail on your property. In the event that you do not grant a permanent trail easement on the segment on your property, you have effectively arranged for a private trail to your property and eliminated your neighbors right to use the permanent public trail located at the reaz of your property. Since many of your neighbors keep or board horses, and many of your neighbors hike, the value and use of their property may be diminished if you do not grant the easement because their horses are effectively landlocked and hikers would be unable to walk to the adjacent trails from their houses on Via Regina. Since the trail on your property already informally exists and the nature of the dedicated trail would not change, you and any potential buyer already know the exact use of the trail and its limited impact. I have attached documentation regazding several items: 1. This is a map of where I would propose to locate the easement. It would be located contiguous with the Westerly property line, past the proposed house, continuing along the curve of the property line to keep off the driveway, and then dropping down to the access road to your property and then continuing to the main road of Via Regina. I would propose to fence it where it is located on the main house site and landscape for privacy. 2. I have attached documentation regarding benefits to property values for having a trail and access to trails. In addition, I have clipped several local advertisements for properties listed for sale with trails on them to demonstrate to you that both sellers and buyers see trails as a benefit feature. 3. I have attached some azticles regazding liability issues. 000042 I realize that your voluntarily granting this easement will be based on your goodwill towards your neighbors and the Saratoga community. I sincerely hope that you will thoughtfully consider this action; whatever your decision, this will be your legacy to the community. Sincerely Teri Lynn Baron Trails Liaison Cc: City of Saratoga, Planning Commission Via Regina property owners • • 000043 BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SANFDRD 0. BERLINER' FRANK R UBHAUS A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING W0.LNM E. ADAMS FIARRY A. LOPE2 ANDREW L. FABER LINDA0.CALLON MARKMAKEWICZ JOHN F.OOMiNGUE WILLIAMJ.GOINES' JAMES P.CASHMAN PROFESSIONAL GORPORA710N5 pwL,tpgpy SETHJ.COFIEN ROBERT W. HUMPMREYS STEVEN J. CASAD TMOWLS P. Ii1RPFIV CHRISTNE H. LONG RALPH J. SWANSON NANCY J. JOHNSON 'j'EN ALMADEN BOULEVARD THOMAS M. GROSS PATRICI(uN PEGGY L SPRINGGAY JEROLD A. REITON NADIR V. MOLOBER KRISi?I GENC JOSEPH E. DWORAK ROBERT L. CHORTEIC ELEVENTH FLOOR MARK V• ISOLA ChIARMUw D. GOOKS SAMUEL L. FARB JONATHAN D. WOLF BRIAN L SHETLEIt DAVID 0. WADE ALAN J. PINNER KATHLEEN K SIPLE SAN JOSE, CALffORNIA 95113-2233 JOLIE NOUSTON BAYW K KEELEr KEVIN F. KELLEY JAMIE LEE MOORS TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 EIIEEN P. KENNEDY 'A ProlesgOnel CawraGOn Pt<r1~BAJORdc FACSIIvID..E: (408) 998-5388 of couNSEI RETV:ED www.bedina.com HUGH L Lsow• SAMUEL J.COHEN STEVB~1 L HAILGRIMSON Brands OMce - Merxd CA ERlC WDNG . NANCY L BRANDY CHARLES W. VDLPE PETA LEWIS HALLISEY November 19, 2001 VIA FACSAZII.E & U.S. MAII. Cynthia Bang, Chairperson, and Members of the Sazatoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~~~~o~~~ NOV 2 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Design Review of Residential Construction at 21842 Via Regina Road (AR-O1-020) Dear Chairperson Barry and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Willem and Sandra Kohler, the property owners of the property located at 21842 Via Regina Road., Saratoga, California (the "Applicant'. This letter is submitted on their behalf concerning Design Review application AR-O1-020. It is their understanding that this Design Review application is necessary because the proposed building involves the construction of a multi-story home and the construction and/or expansion exceeds 6,000 square feet. It is also the Applicant's concern that the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts aze seeking to have a permanent hiking and equestrian trail easement to be imposed on their property as part of their Dcsign Review process. On November 19, 2001, the Applicant met with Ms. Teri Baron and Mr. James Baron of the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts and Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director. At this meeting, the Barons proposed to locate a permanent public hiking and equestrian trail easement on the westerly property line past the proposed house to continue along the curve of the property to connect with the access road to the Applicant's property and then continuing to the main road of Via Regina. Although the meeting included a great deal of information provided by the Barons regarding equestrian easements and other trail options were explored, the Applicant. at UH1535390.1 01-111911nsool 000044 ' Chairperson Barry and Saratoga Planning Commissioners November 19, 2001 e trail easement to the Ci of this time, is not in favor of dedicating a hilung and questnan ty Saratoga ("Cit}~~. The Applicant is, however, intending to allow the use of the equestrian trail, by permission only, as they always have. The Applicant has several concerns regarding the equestrian trail easement for use by the public. Currently, the public cannot use the trail, and if it is dedicated to the City the Applicant will not have any control over who uses the trail. The Barons also suggested that the Applicant have the trail dedicated for use only by the Via Regina residents. But at this time, the Via Regina residents already may use the trail with permission. The Applicant is also concerned because of the trail's proximity to the proposed home. At this meeting, alternatives to this proposed hiking and equestrian trail were discussed that could connect trail access from Via Regina Road to the main trail system without requiring a dedication on the Applicant's property. The Applicant is still willing to explore these options. There is no legal nexus for the City to impose this dedication as part of the Applicant's Design Review approval process. The City's Design Review ordinance, the General Plan and the Pazks and Trails Master Plan do not serve as a legal basis for the City to require the dedication of the public hiking and equestrian trail easement at this time. The Saratoga City Code Section 15-45.060 governs the Planning Commission's review of the Design Review applications. Pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 15-45.080, the Planning Commission Design Review approval is restricted to the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy through placement, height and elevation. (b) Preserve natural landscapes by designing structures to follow the natural topography and avoiding tree and soil removal. (c) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to other structures on ad}acent lots. (d) Maintain compatible bulk and height with existing structures on the lot and structures on adjaceat lots. (e) Incorporate current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilize the design politics and techniques of the City's Residential design Handbook. The Applicant's position is further supported by the City's Pazks and Trail Master Plan Implementation, which states as follows: Generally, implementation of trials within future developments will be activated when a property owner submits improvement plans. Any project which increases the intensity of usage will be reviewed on an individual basis to select compatible trail alignment. In order to implement critical connective trail segments, the City may negotiate for a trail easemendaccess over property that has not yet submitted plans for development. urn~sso.~ o~-»~s»rzsooi -2- 000045 Chai~erson Barry and Saratoga Planning Commissioners November 19, 2001 For trails alread develo ed and owned b a rivate interest (i.e., homeowners' associatiopn), and for which he City desires a property interest, the City should research the feasibility and need to gain a property interest based on benefit to the City. Currently there is not an equestrian trail easement on the Applicant's property. The Applicant therefore requests that they aze allowed maintain their property rights, which includes the right to free use and control of their property. Furthermore, the design of the house as planned, will not preclude a hiking and equestrian trail in the future if the Applicant desires to dedicate it. However, for the reasons stated above, the Applicant will not dedicate a permanent public hiking and equestrian trail easement to the City. We respectfully request that this design review be approved by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, BERLINER COHEN J HOUSTON E-Mail: jh@berliner.com JH:wpc cc: Thomas Sullivan, Community Development Director Rich Taylor, City Attorney Willem and Sandra Kohler Mazk Thomas Dumont, MTB, Inc. • • u~ssso.~ -3- o~-»~s~~rzsoo~ 000046 • May 28, 2001 Pazks and Recreation Commission Planning Department Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Sazatoga, CA 95070 Deaz Sir or Madam: Laura Wilson 14040 Pierce Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 I am writing concerning a proposed legal trail easement on Mr. Willem Kohler's property at 21842 Via Regina, Sazatoga. Please reference Trails Master Plan Segment 52 and File numbers AR-O1-020 and BSE-O1-019. My mom keeps our three horses at Connie and Tom Lawrence's property that is also on Via Regina. In order to access nearby trails in public open spaces, we use the trail that passes • through Willem Kohler's property several times a week. If the trail through his property were not available, we would need to travel along about two miles of road, most of which is very narrow and unsafe for horses. I encourage the city to designate the existing trail a legal easement while a Building Site Exemption is activated for Mr. Kohler's property. Sincerely, Laura Wilson Trail User D ~C~~~~~ rvir~ Y ~ 0 20 O1 CITY OF SAkA I EGA COMA"l~`!1". '. Uf:VFLOPAiLNT s ............................ 00004'7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000048 Attachment ~ • Project Address: 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA APN: 503-69-017 Zoning: MDR/B-6-D-RES Proposed Proiect Implementation of Residential Design Guidelines Policies Policy 1 - "Minimize the perception of Bulk", Technique #1, Minimize changes to natural topography. The proposed residence would be placed on the existing flat portion of the previously graded lot. Partial grading will occur to construct the new Gazage and Motor Court; however, the majority of the grading is where much of the site grading has occurred. • Policy 1, Technique #4 -Suggest varying roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The plans incur a front elevation with a single story profile of varying levels on the ground. The second story portion is behind the first story elements of the house frontage. Articulation is also provided by the use of divided lights at windows and various methods of fenestrations, which include stone azchways, post and lintel, azbors, wooden sills and wrought iron railings Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to fit with existing neighborhood". The project site is not visible to the neighborhood, the site is accessed off a shazed driveway from Via Regina. The neighborhood is a mix of wood and stucco clad buildings. Most of the residences in the immediate project azea cannot be seen from public right of way, due to setbacks, topography and mature vegetation. The Northern boundazy of the property is backed against a dedicated scenic easement. The proposed residence incorporates faux slate roof, stucco, stone and wood into the design Policy 1, Technique #6, "Use Architectural features to break up massing". The project proposes random stone features in well proportioned and designated areas and the varying fenestrations through the use of stone azchways, post and lintel, arbors and the use of exposed wood rafter tails and corbels provide visual interest to the building. The varied roofline, use of different materials and varied fenestration break up the mass of the building. • Policy 2 "Integrate Structures with Environment". The proposed residence is surrounded by mature vegetation and natural landscape, which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The Northern portion of the property faces a dedicated scenic easement. The proposed residence siting and design respects its surrounding existing natural landscape forms and texture. 000049 Page Two • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency". The proposed residence has not altered the solar access to adjacent properties. The proposed residence will also meet the state energy guidelines through the use of wall insulation, areas of thermal mass, and high efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The proposed house layout meets Technique #1. The courtyard areas create outdoor/indoor living areas, which provide wind protection and fits structure into existing grade to reduce wall exposure, additional shading is provided through the use of overhangs, arbors and trellises. OQ~OS~ • SHL'TE, MIHALY fa V~EINBERGER LLP E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. MARK I. WEINBERGER MARC B. MIHALY, P.C. FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL 8. HOOPER ELLEN~.GARBER CHRISTY H. TAYLOR TAMARA S.GALANTER ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR SUSANNAH T. FRENCH WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT 5. PERLMUTTER OSA L. ARMI ATT~~RIJEY~ AT LAW 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 02 TELEPHONE (41 5) 552-7272 FACSIMILE (4 15) 552-58 16 WWW. SMWLAW. COM MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director City of Saratoga FROM: Richard S. Taylor~~ City Attorney DATE: November 16, 2001 RE: Trail Dedication Requirements Attachment 6 JANETTE E. SCHUE BRIAN J. JOHNSON MARLENA G. BYRNE JOHN A. HICKEY' MATTHEW D. ZINN LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP URBAN PLANNER ELIZABETH M. DODD DAVID NAWI OF COUNSEL ' NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA You have asked whether the City has discretion to require a trail dedication as a condition of design review approval. In addition, you have asked whether the existence of a prescriptive easement for public access across a property is a factor that may be taken into consideration in connection with the design review approval process. I conclude that the design review ordinance, unlike certain other City ordinances, does not establish a basis to require trail dedications as a condition of approval. For properties containing a prescriptive easement for public access, the City may consider the existence of the easement to the extent that the easement is relevant to the various factors that must be considered in the design review process. Below, I first describe the City's design review ordinance. This is followed by a discussion of the two specific questions. The Design Review Ordinance The City's General Plan establishes that the design review process is intended to ensure that development is "compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings." (Saratoga General Plan Policy LU 5.0.) Towards that end, the Saratoga City Code sets forth a detailed design review process for single family dwellings in Article 15-45. (Article 15-46 addresses multi-family dwellings and does not differ from Article 15-45 in a way that is relevant to the questions of concern.) The single family design review ordinance ("DRO") requires that new or expanded structures be designed in a manner that: • Does not exceed specified floor area standards (DRO § 15-45.030); • Is set back an appropriate distance from each property line (DRO § 15-45.040); • Is set back an appropriate distance from protected creeks (DRO § 15-45.045); • Maintains the clearance between ground floor and natural or finish grade at five feet or less (DRO § 15-45.050); and ~0~~51. Tom Sullivan November 16, 2001 Page 2 Is designed in a manner that allows the City to make six specified.findings regarding the design (DRO § 15-45.055, .080). The findings established by the DRO can be summarized as requiring that the new or expanded structure be designed in a manner that (1) avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy, (2) preserves natural landscape, (3) minimises the perception of excessive bulk, (4) is of a bulls and height compatible with neazby structures and the natural environment, (5) applies current grading and erosion control standards, and (6) conforms to the standards in the Residential Design Handbook. Trail Dedication Reckuirement The discussion above indicates that the DRO is focused entirely on factors related to the design of proposed structures. The referenced design requirements may affect the location of a structure on a site and this could have an indirect effect on a structure's location relative to a trail. However, none of the requirements imposed by the DRO relates to public access to or across the property proposed for development. Although the City's Pazks and Trails Master Plan contemplates acquisition of trail easements in some circumstances through dedications in connection with new development, the City Code implements those policies sepazately from the design review process. There are a number of provisions in the City Code that aze intended to require or encourage the dedication of trails or other forms of public access. Section 14-25.030(q) of the Saratoga City Code, for example, requires dedication of "pedestrian or other access pathways as may reasonably be required" in connection with proposed subdivisions and projects requiring building site approval. (Building site approval is generally required for major construction on unimproved lots more than 15 years old and for construction on improved lots that will increase the gross floor azea of structures on the site by fifty percent or more. See Sazatoga City Code § 14-15.020.) In the R-OS zoning district the Code contemplates voluntary trail dedications and in some circumstances allows the creation of substandazd pazcels to facilitate such dedications. (See section 15-20.060(d).) And in the Village's CH- 2 zoning district, the Code requires that twenty percent of the net site area be set aside as pedestrian open space. These and other provisions of the Code are a farther indication that drafters of the Code did not intend to require dedications as a part of the design review process. Because nothing in the DRO requires dedication of trail or other public access easements, such dedications may not be required as a condition of design review. Treatment of Prescriptive Easements As discussed above, the DRO does not reference issues of public access. However, there may be circumstances in which the existence of a public right-of--way, such as that obtained by a properly established prescriptive easement, may be relevant to a proposed design review approval. It is possible, for example, that the location of a structure on a site could affect views from the public right- of-way. In that case, the Crty would need to consider whether the design sufficiently "avoids unreasonable interference with views" from the right-of--way in making the finding required by DRO § 15-45.080(a). Of course, this determination would need to be made on a case-by-case basis based on the location of the trail and other physical conditions on the site. ~}QO~52 Tom Sullivan November 16, 2001 Page 3 As with trail dedication requirements, the drafters of the Code apparently intended that issues related to prescriptive easements be addressed during the subdivision or building site approval process. Section 14-20.070(b)(7) of the Code provides that subdivision or building site approval may not be granted if it would "conflict with easements, acquired by the public at lazge, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site." The Code states that this limitation applies "only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction." It also states that "no authority is hereby granted to the [City Council or Planning Commission] to determine that the public at lazge has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site." The Code further states that approval may be granted if it finds that the project sponsor will dedicate alternate easements that are substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. Although the DRO process does not provide the public right-of--way safeguazds established by the City's subdivision code, the public's interest in a prescriptive easement can be protected by seeking judicial enforcement of the public's rights in the prescriptive easement (e.g., an action to prevent obstruction of an established easement). This too, of course, must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis that will depend lazgely on the terms of the initial judgment establishing the public right-of--way. Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning these issues. ~Y:\SARATOGAVvIAT I Ust:.35.vni1 dedication.wpd] • Q~005~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000054 • • • a i 0 I' 0 ®Z m m ~~.,. t,' ' . ~~~ '. '''+<. ~..oJ. ~... 4 ~ ~ _'y i.is~ a f',Q ~ ~ g :. .. .. .. . ~"1 _~ ~~ ~~, <~ I g; ti. .'ar x~sq~,~, i T Y. +.."~£~ .fin .. ~ `~L. o \ \\~ ' z I~ ~ ~ ~0 - m J~ ,~1 I I I - .~---~~ i ~ \ 1 \ ~ I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \J ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I ^I 1 I 1 `T _~J~_----~ \ I I ~ \ I S ^ nn ll ~-N •'~ g ~ ~0 ; Q N~~i S> ~~~ ; P ~ 18p ~ ~ NN IC V` ~ F >1 y $ ~ ~ a. • ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~~ n~ ~~ ~SQSQ ~ ~ p ~ y Qa ~ i 4 ~ °~ ~ ~ $~ W ~ Ki q u (y.~ INJ o f~~U ~ ~ 1A4 K < K < „ „ „ „ y ? N ± (• N . ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ NQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ IR ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ f ti S~ ~{(L(ZC.l1. • ~ ~ Jf^ ~~~ ~A g 4 N 1J A q 8/ ~~ ~ I~1 ~~ V ~' ~ ~ I ~ yN y ~ yy yy a a ?' + H o ~ ~~~ ~ 2 ~~ ~~ +R(Aq ~ N J ^~ ~~~~ J O H N f. M A T T M A M i D®® D ~ ~ rn PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT' ~'Y ~~ ~~ ~ D ~ IIVTCRNATIONAL ONION OROLIP II~Y~Y~YPY~Y~Y 21842 VIA REGINA ~~ J U N /-_ i 1 L L /- N O. ~_E.~. s C 7 ~. ° 7~IC~~° T ~L a1 EY~~ 721 LI0M re0u SE AVE rACIFIC OROVE cw o~aso 21842 NA REGINA SARATOCA, CA iii l.'ie'ai.Tii PN: (!Jt) 6M-1261 FA%: (!31) 6N-12Y0 E-Y A I L ~nNybol.ean ,~ ~ • :~^k: •• •• ~~y6mo~e~a ium ~'r„ zi m 'b~GA~~44g6~ m nQ~m9 ;g•a• z ~ 4~~~+44~06~g4 ~~ ~ ~i $~~~~~ ~Y$~j~ 8 8a~8a~~9~8Ra~, ~; u~~~~~~~~~~~ r 0 m r m r 0 m Z N 0 Z "~ D r N N N r x xx m II' m ~ A ° K ~ P~p Z r r i- p z y IE D ~ N III ~~~~ r^ ~~ \\\~~ ' JOHN t. M ATTMAM! INTERNATIONAL O~lION OWOUP J U N A_ ! E L L A N O. ~_I_!_ rti l I G M T M 0 u 5 E • v C P ~ C l f l t G It o v E U 9 J Y 5 o ri ~®®~~~ os ~ ^ F ~ ~ Z~ c ~ ~ RRpRgSEG P.ESIDENCE AT~. 2 ] 84?_ VIA REGINA 21842 V1A REGINA SARATOGA, CA ~~Ri~+i', ~•~ ~ ~ ~~' r ~ ~• ~ e~I~+~~+'~~~n~~~~ ~ ~"Y~•"°~" G' U rY: (0.71) IN-1361 AML (NI) 6N-1tW E-Y ~ I l MWp~W.cam i y~ Z r r 0 2 N 0 Z ~, J T$ / I ~~~ ~~~~ I z ~~ ~ c Q b QI 6 . Z 111 ~R r u a u ~- x xx m m mA ~ ~~ Z 0 D Zf3~Tey~~867tt3``~~aF~yg6lq~6}}o{ys~~¢¢sppa¢auN¢g_ r ~N94~N~y4~49~~Qt~Oy9~p9~r4f4$~~9 Rl ~^.4'~77~TT~T~~7~T~7? ~~ 4 as ~~.. ~8~8~~~~~88~~~~~~~3~~~~ ~ D 8 ~~~~ J O M N ~_ M A T T H A M~ INTEANATION/-L OESION OgOLIp r u N s-. s E ~ ~ .e. N o' ~_~".. D ®® D~ ~ o ~ = C ~ ~ '° ~~ PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT: ~~~aC~a~~~~ ~¢~,~.,~ 21842 VIA REGINA ~~, ~'"~"° _ Tlt LIGNfNOUSE AVE GACIfIC CpOVE CA YJ950 vN: (esl) 6M-ixsi EAx: (!JI) 6~6-12x0 E-Y A 1 L /nY.bW.epn ~ ~~ MM 1~• 218L2 NA REGINA SARATOCA, CA ~«w'~ s '8.i'i::v.~ ~.~ 81'T r1MSiY~6W'w W. Yywn+..rMCR~ww~ ~: i~Py W Y+aaWb • • ~oo.+waaua~ r rn 44~4~~e~~~ m MA Y ~ ~ Ap^ ~9~~8~N~At~ ~a~vt~v~+~v+~v m r 0 _~ 0 Z ~I X 0 • ~~ ^ r u uu r x xx m m ma ~~ 0 C D s ~~~~ ~ ~ J O r N ~_ M A r ~' H w- M s INITLwNAT1oNI~L. o~~O1V oAO« .a u ~1 A. wt ~ ~.. a_ A N o, ~.~_~_ D ®®D 33ii ,~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ .~ r..aaio p;Y p PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT: ;~ ^ ",~'~ ; ••• ~ 21842 VIA REGINA .. ~ ... ~ ,~~ ~~ rn u c e r N o u s e e v c v ~ c i n c c e o v c c~. s~ a s o ~ ~ ~ vR: (asi) aK-nei rwz: (en) era-12W a-u . i is /.pu~.~~ 21842 ~lA REGINA SARATOCA, CA ~~ ~eS.rCpt"'tw.... Oiip pp u •• ~~ ~~ ~~ N• r 0 ®Z ~~~~ J O H N ~. M A T T e-e A M A D ®® D~ ~ A FRpPC$EC PE iiUE NCE ~' D ' INTERNATIONAL Ol:ION OI40ur ~ S ~ y~± IV ~ ~.~ J u N A_ s ~ ~ e_ A N o. ..E... ' $ ~ 21842 ~'lA REGINA = ~^" ,~ ~ ~ ~al:~ ~~~ 121 Li 0M TH 0u a[ • VE P ~ CIVIC CeO VE U. 9 ]ee0 g l 2 ~ ~~~ 21862 VIA REGINA SARATOCA, CA Plc (e]i> ass-Ix+ ruc: (er) aw-ixeo E-u ~ I L: /nNy1uM.<an ~~. •~ • • • • m r D o_~ Z _~ O~ 0 0 1' O N m r m D Z 0000 000000 I n i ~ r;i x x A m D N = i ~ i>~ p SpJ O O x N O = Nf T ~ O D C ~ ~ Z InO VI ~ ~ 8~ K D I A t7 ~ ~ T A Q~j D n p O ~ Z ^'~ ~ O = ~ I _ n p m~ NQy C = m F ~ y~ C ~~ ~ N r'I ~j ~ m LT i o ~ m ~ x D IIFf _A O $ ~ ~ ~, x N N ~~ ~~ O ~ D t) ~L9 FPOPOSED FE SIDENGE AT. q• ~~ JOHN ~. MATTMAMS D®®D ~ ~ ' ."' D ~ ~~IVL INTERNATIONAL OsaON oFaOUw ~ QQ 21842 VIA REGINA =~ ~^ w J V N A. s I L l_ A N O, ~_I.~. 7 G 4 Z a ~~ 0 ~~~`~ om ~ICHTwOUSE •v[ v~Clrlt GROV[ Ce. {]{so '~ 218s2 VIA REGINA SARATOGA, CA U M~ ({11) {N-~i61 i11K (0,7~) 6N-tlMl E-Y I, I ~: JnYgbd.can • • • • (~ ie'-e• N ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ m I D ~ = , o Z A L ::~a ~-, .. i:~)j:i~:{l~i~t l~~ 0 ~ i ~~ m x x~ x • ~ < ~ Q ~ o x T to p ~ I Ry ^~ O ~ Q ; r~ ~ < m l A A 2 p n IA n I 'I O ~ ~ 7iSi _ ~~ ~ A ; +1 p .11 r C >Q N N ~ N ~ n i m o ° ~ I'+ O N ~. _~ m ~ ' D W ~ O m ~' • • D 1 w HIV ~ ~ r~ ~ J O H N ~. M A T T H A M f INTERNATIONAL OQiION OAOLIP J lJ N A. 1• E L L A N o. ~.~-~_ D ®® ~ i „'y ~ I ~ 4 ~ 0 PRpa ~SE~ FE S~GEI'l~,E °T ~ 21842 VIA REGINA ^~ ~,~~_ ~~. ~..~. ~. ~ ~,~'TS°""'~".'"`• • ~ I ~ ~~ ~.~J" `~ )21 L I 0 M T M 0 u 5 E A v E o A C 1 f I C C R 0 v E CA 9 3 9 5 0 M. (!lt) 6M-tt61 fUC (iit) 6M-tlPp E-Y A 1 l ~nilp~sal.ta~ I ~° ~- 21842 V1A REGINA SARATOCA, CA y w~~~ "~^ •• • • YJ m r D o~_ 2 ~~- _ ~ ~~ 0 u 0 m D ~p_ Z V O i~_ 4 1 °. N m r m D ~ 0 Z m N m r m D 0 Z 0 ~ ?"~- 0 :: ~y ~ ~)~ O O O O O O O O O O 1(m~J N ~ ~ 888QpA>C X D m ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ x /S I c a ~ ~ K NNI w ~ (s~~ A V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Zn ~ ~ ~ N T ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I ~~IVL ~ J O H N ~. M A T T M A M~ INT~ANATIONAL O~>s10N Ol~IOUP J U N A_ s E L L A N O. ~.~-~. D®® D i ,'~ - 1 3 ~ ~ ~ 0 aRGWUSEG RF.SICENCE pT~. 218~l2 VIA REGINA r ~~ .~ N ~~~' ~:~ l~ G M T n 0 u 5 E • v E n. C I F I t G II O v E CA Y J Y S O I e I ~ 21812 VIA REGINA SARATOGA, CA vn: (esi) s.a-~1~+ rAr: (e») ea-IZSO [-r . I ~ h~Na~ceT " ~A •t •• ~^ o~ ~_ o~ N ID o~ I7/ m fl ~o Z m N' o~ .-+~ U/ m fl 0 Z D D J O H N t. M A T T N A M f ~ ®® D; I ,~ I PAG=05Efi FF ~~CEN~_r ~+t tra .~~~ r'^~ D ~ INTL~RNATIONAL OCSION OAOLIP ~Yp n if °' ~y ~ ~ ~ " (& I ~ ';18.12 ~'IA REGINA F = O ~ r`\~ ]21 ~ipMTHpUSE •vf V~C~fiO COVE U 13930 N <M ~r~~~ ~~V~ v vac (0.71) 6N-~I/t fet: (0.71) 6N-ttYO E-u ~ ~ :: ~ntepba.cam 21842 V1A REGINA SARATOGA, CA ~w •• • • P a O I I 26'-0" A1A%. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 21'-11' t 26'-0 MA%. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ~ I a 1e•-o" ~ ~ I U i L 23'-9" n ~ ~b ~ a I ~ _ I U( a p> ~ !~ rQQ y 111 -_-__.._ 0 ln I ~ 'i '. ' ~ ~' ' 1 I O .. ~ __ -1 1 ~ Z f '~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ _ _ - O ~ _._._ 0 ti ' _ ~ ~ ~ - S~ - ~-___ I Z ~ _~~ ~y11 y n0 Om ~ ___ II' ___ ~ ~ Y _ I. , ~~_. _ U 1 --T-~i I (~\ 0 0~ ~ I. I n 1 OA I ~`p~ ~ ~N/1 A i. cC L _-. _ ~( ((~~ O y ~ h p i C C ~~ Ni> = om D ¢ 7 ~ J O H N a>e- M /- T T a-a A M i INTeANAT10NAL OCS10N OFiOUP J aJ N A. / E ~ a_ ... N o, •.E... ,'~ ~ v I c ~ FR71'CSED FESIDENCE AT. ~18A2 V1:1 REGINA ~~~ ~l...e ~ „ ,~,~ ~~ ~ ~~!~~."'"~'~. ~ '' ~ ~ ~IG~~ 721 L I G N T M O V S E e v E P ~ C I~ I C C R O v E G. 9 3 9 5 0 M~ (0.71) 6M-1161 fAX: (0.71) 6N-1290 E-Y ~ i L: j~IJabW.<ern I C I 2)BS2 VIA REGINA SARA TOGA, CA _ n~.~~ '°"' • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COM Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 19369 Crisp Avenue/DR-O1-038 Gary Kohlsaat/Don and Melody Jones John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~ November 28, 2001 ~~ 397-35-Oll Department He~Cd~ i 'I ~~ I ~F, _-~ ~, I ~~ ,'~I • CRISP A~ ,i ~~ i~ L ., I, a. F__~ . ~~. `~ D J ~' . ~~ ~----L j I ~_ ' 300 ~ 0 -~ :c' 12~ T ITEM 3 MISSION 1 ~I 19369 Crisp Avenue nnnnn~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8/28/01 10/23/01 11/14/01 11/14/01 1U09/Ol The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to construct a new 5,479 square foot, single story residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 4,239 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 21 feet. The site is 40,093 square feet and is locatedwithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-038. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolutions DR-O1-038 with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. Plans, Exhibit 'A' • • 000002 File No. DR-01-038; 19369 Crisp Ave STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,093 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: S% GRADING REQUIRED: No new grading outside of the existing building pad will be required except for some surface scraping to remove some of the existing driveway. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 'The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light tan color stucco. The window trim will be painted an olive color. The roof will be a rustic clay mission style. The roof color will be mix of gold and the red clay color. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 35% 35% Building Footprint 5,479 sq. ft. Driveway/Parking 1,073 sq. ft. Patios, Pool and Walkways 7,467 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 14,019 sq. ft. 14,033 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor and Garage 5,479 sq. ft. Second Floor N/A (Basement) N/A TOTAL 5,479 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. C\My Documents\John L\Cnsp Avc 19369 SRdoc 000003 File No. DR-01-038;19369 Crisp Ave Setbacks: Height: Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garage PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 30 ft. 180 ft. SO ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 21 ft. 26 ft. N/A 12 ft. The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,479 square foot, single story residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 4,239 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 21 feet. The site is 40,093 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural steles. The majority of building heights appear to be on the high range at approximately20 to 26 feet. Typically, a new single story house replacing an existing house would require only an Administrative Design Review approval. In this particular instance, the applicant is exceeding the 18-foot height limit allowed for an Administrative Design Review approval, therefore requiring Planning Commission review. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. Policy 1,"Minimi.ze Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be only 21 feet in height, 5 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain in place. The proposed house will also have varying hip roof lines that will break up the elevation of the building. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows and stone accents around the main entrance. Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature trees which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the facade that help the structure blend in with the surrounding environment. • C • C `~~ y Documents\iohn L\Cnsp Ave 19369SRdoc 000004 File No. DR-01-038;19369 Crlsp Ave • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed home will be located in almost the exact same location as the existing house. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views: • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have anattachedthree-car 876 sq. ft. garage. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove two protected trees. Both of the trees are listed in the attached Arborist Report as hazardous and have been recommended by the City Arborist to be removed. There are several existing Redwood trees on the site that are in close proximity to the existing house. In order for the trees to survive, the Arborist has made specific recommendations including a tree bond for replacement of any trees that do not survive. The City Arborist report dated September 13, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit of $4,643 is also required as a condition of project approval. Fireplaces The plans indicate two gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace in the family room. Correspondence No correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's . Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will tTLnimize the perception of bulk so C VN y Documents\John L\Crisp Ave 19369SRdoc O OO n O r File No. DR-01-038;19369 Crisp Ave that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-O1-038. • C Vvty Docurrcnts\John L\Cnsp Ave 19369SRdoc O oOO O V Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-038 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DON and MELODY JONES; 19369 Crisp Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Re~~iew approval for the construction of a new 5,479 square foot residence on a 40,093 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be only 21 feet in height, S feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain in place. The proposed house will also have varying hip roof lines that will break up the elevation of the building. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows and stone accents around the main entrance. • Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature trees which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the facade. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed home will be located in almost the exact same location as the existing house. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. ~~000~ Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficienry" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solaz access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high- energyefficiency heating and cooling appliances. Novv, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Don and Melody Jones for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A' date stamped October 23, 2001, incorporated by reference. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Di~~ision for the building permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. Based on the City Arborist report the applicant shall investigate the roots in relation to • the proposed foundation for trees #3, 4 and 5 as recommended prior to submittal for a building permit. A report giving the results of the investigation and recommendations DDDDOB shall be submitted as a sepazate plan page. The plans may be required to be reviewed by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. PUBLIC WORKS 8. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated September 13, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. The roof covering shall be fire retazdant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepazed or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Sazatoga Code 16- 20:210). 000009 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 1~. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the ~zolation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 17-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • 0~00~~ • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 000011 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000012 • J BARRIE D. COn ~ E AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE JONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist September 13, 2001 Job # 09-01-198 Plan Received: 9/4/01 Plan Due: 9/28/0 • D ~~~~I~~ OCT 1 1 2001 CITY ~~~w~ ~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA'i ~ RECOMivvlENDATIONS AT 1 THF. JONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE.. SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing one-story residence and the construction of anew one-story residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes fourteen trees to some level of risk due to construction procedures. Trees # 1 and 6 are hazardous and their removal is suggested. Tree #7 would be so severely damaged that it is not expected to survive. Replacement trees equal to the value of the trees removed are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected of retained trees. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are fourteen trees on this site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The fourteen trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1-5 coast redwood (Sequoia semperv~renc) Tree #6 evergreen pear (Pyres kawakamri) Tree #7 no common name (Trisrania laurina) Trees #8-12 European white birch (Be[ula pendula) Trees # 13, 14 Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensic) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to S (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 000014 TRGE SURVEY AND PRESERVAI. _.~ RECOMIvSENDATIONS AT THF. 3ONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE.. SARATOGA Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: 7 Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S imens S imens S imens S imens 2,3,4,5,7, 8 6 l 9-14 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The buttress roots on the east side of tree # 1 have been removed, apparently to provide a clear path to the back of the house. Unfortunately, this has compromised the stability of this tree, which is at risk of falling over. I consider this tree hazardous and recommend its removal regardless of construction activity. Tree #6 a I S-inch diameter evergreen pear tree, has a serious fungus disease of the lower trunk that will one day cause this tree to fallover or die. The disease is Artist's Conk (Ganoderma applanatum), for which there is no treatment. There is no way of knowing when this will fallover. I recommend its removal regardless of construction. Impacts of Construction Demolition of the existing house is proposed, and the proposed new house is planned for all practical purposes at the same location. The redwood trees #3-5 are located approximately 8 feet from the building. Whether or not significant roots may be severed during trenching for the new footing construction for the house cannot be determined without excavation to inspect the root systems. Bear in mind, that it is not only the preservation of the trees that are a concern in this case, the long-term integrity of the foundation of the proposed new building is also a concern. The coast redwood species has a buttress structure just above ground that can displace the foundation of a building if the buttress comes in contact with the building. Investigating the root structures of these S trees by root collar excavation with an Airspade® near the existing foundation should provide an estimate of the potential for damage either to the trees or to the new building. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 ~~~~1 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATI..=~ RECOIvW~'NDATIONS AT THF. JONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE.. SARATOGA Trees # 13 and 14 in all probability have sigtificant root systems under the existing driveway. There are no doubt important quantities of absorbing roots directly under the existing surface. These roots must be preserved during and after demolition. Preservation requires that a few simple procedwes be carefully followed. Tree #7 would suffer significant root loss on two sides from new driveway construction, and from construction of the house. It also appears that a significant quantity of the canopy would have to be removed to construct the house. The total damage would be severe, and tree #7 would not be expected to survive. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. ?. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I recommend the removal of trees # 1 and 6 because they are hazardous. 2. I suggest the existing driveway be removed as late in the project sequence as possible. Any portion within 10 feet of trees # l3 and l4 must be removed by hand. Immediately following removal of the driveway surface a 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the newly exposed area Spreading of the chips must be by hand. Immediately following the spreading of the chips, the newly exposed PREPARED BY: NIICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEI~ER 13, 2001 ~~~01~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7,.,N RECOIvIIvlENDATIOIJS AT 4 THF. )ONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE.. SARATO(iA area must be thorn irrigated to wet the soil to 12 inches deep. Immediately ~Y following the spreading of the chips, the protective fencing must be installed. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the amval of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the canopies of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 5. 1 recommend that an Airspade or a hydro-jet spray rig be required to expose the roots adjacent to the foundation of trees #3, 4 and 5. This would likely be helpful in judging whether any changes in the foundation or the footprint would be warranted not only for the protection of these trees but for the protection of the integrity of the new building. 6. Trenches for an utilities water hone TV cable etc. must be located be and Y (g~> > P ) Y the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the footprint and the protective fence for root protection of trees #2-5. A platform buffer' consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) bespread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. ' platform buffo PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTF.W®ER 13.2001 nnnn~ ~ TRLE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7 ~.~N RECOIvQvfENDATIONS AT 5 THF. !ONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE._ SARATOGA 10. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as noted on the attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. ] 1. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture! certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 12. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenchesZ may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than l0 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 13. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 14. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must~be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 15. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may • result insignificant root damage. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1992. Trees # I , 6 and 7 have a total value of $3,551. Two of the many possible equivalent values of this amount are: 1. two 36-inch boxed native specimen and two 24-inch boxed native specimen, or 2. Eight 24-inch boxed native specimens and one 15 gallons native specimen. Replacements are suggested. Z radial mooches PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 ~~~1~4 TRL•'E SURVEY AND PRESERVA?1ON RECOMP~NDATiONS AT 6 THE JONES PROPERTY 19369 CRISP AVE., SARATOGA Acce table native tree re lacements are: P P Coast live oak - Quercur agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervireJZs However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the tnyes are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. The combined value of the trees is $18,573. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($4,643) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection. Respectfully submitt_e~ Michael L. Bench, Associ/at^e- B oate, ~ n 11Sa~ MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing (I ) Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies (2) Platform Buffer Map • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST SEPTEN®ER 13.2001 nn~~~ Job Title: Jones Job Address:19369 Crisp Ave. Job #09-O1-198 9/13/01 Mea surem enb Con dlUon Pru nlnal Cablin q Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D COATS ~ v . and ASSOCIATES O ~ ~ _ ~ N ~ J w ~ Z ~ ~ W o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 110113531052 ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ? ~ ~ ~ p ~ O , ~ _ y U 0: s q: K ~ J ~ a O I3s75 Suuil la1 ~,~ ~ N ® ~ v w ~ F w Z N y Z w o: ~ Z 3 ° v 5 5 ~ ~ _ LO Cta,CA ~~ Vl ~ ~ 0: 2 ~ J 2 W Q W Z d `. O O w J J < W W i r ~ w < ... ~ O f- ~ U Z F Z ~ 2 Q Z W O Z fn R O 3 O O U O U 3 LL ~ ~ ® W ~ S ~? H U ~ W U W U O Y y N 2 ~ = 2 K a < tY Z N O O O O ~ m 7 w O O O w w Key N Plant Name o ~ o o v i v i i u~i v i v v v v z v a ? ~ o ~ z ~ i i ~ 1 Coasl Redwood 30.0 32 85 20 3 5 S uoia sem revs . in 707 X;27/sq. in. _ = 19,078 X sp. dass 90% _ =17,188 X cond. 15% - ; 2,575 X loc. 80% = S 1,545 Tdd Vdue 2 Coast Redwood 30.0 32 70 20 2 2 4 in 707 X;27laq. in. _ S 19,078 X sp. dass 90% _ ;17,188 X cond. 75% = S 12,878 X loc. 80% _ ; 7,728 Tdd Vdue 3 Coast Redwood 13.0 18 50 15 1 2 3 In 133 X i27lsq. In. = S 3,582 X sp. dass 90% = 13,224 X cond. 90% _ ; 2,901 X loc. 80% = S 1 741 Tdd Vdue 1 Coal Redwood 20.0 22 BO 20 1 2 3 In 314 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 8,478 X sp. dass 90% = 17,830 X cond. 90% _ = 8,887 X loc. 8096 = i 4 120 Tdd Vdue 5 Coast Redwood 22.0 24 80 20 1 2 3 in 380 X i27lsq. in. _ = 10,258 X ap. dass 90% _ ;9,233 X cond. 90% S 8,309 X loc. 80% _ ; 4,988 Tdd Vdue 8 E teen Pear 15.0 17 25 30 3 4 7 4 X s kawalcamii in 177 X;27Isq. in. _ ; 4,789 X sp. dass 50% _ ;2,384 X cond. 30% _ ; 715 X lac. 80% _ ; 429 ' Tdd Vdus 7 TAstenia laurina 8.0 X 718 4.0 1018 20 25 1 2 3 ~Q 818 s . in 50.2 X;271eq. in. _ ; 1,356 X sp dass 90% _ ;1,221 X cond. 90% _ ; 1,099 X loc. 75% _ ; 821 Tdd Vdue REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S-gal ~ S36 15-gal ~ 5120 2! box ~ S!2 box ~ 61,310 l a BEST, 5 ~ f !8'bmc ~ sS,O~•box :7,000 S 77"I~nr ~ tiR Iw-n Page 1 of 2 Job Title: es ob Address:19369~s Ave. ob #09-O1~ J p J 9n3/Ol Mea surom enbti Con ditlon Pru nlnd Cablin a Nee ds PesUD iseas e Pro bNms R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS ~ N = -- and ASSOCIATES 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ q" z z ~ ~ } F ~ ! + ~~ ` ~ N0113531~t ~ ~ w ~ ~ o _ O c~ z 3 w ~ ~ ' ~_ v o ~ ~ ~ I3S7Sfineilt~d ~ N ® v> .r_. W Q K z ~ Z i W o o W U Z 3 . .. ° ~ v o: o: ~ W lsGlra,G!lOAI ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ W a ~ o g g ~ ® W O v ~ O O Z Z Z Z > to 2 H U ~ O U U 3 LL ~ ~ = w ~ ~ o ~ 3 3 3 3 0 ~ z ~ w o i ~ ~ o o 2 ~ 2 2 ~ ~ ¢ a i y Z ~ O O O O >: m O ~ rwq W ~ O O O W W Key / Plent Name o ~ 0 0 0 = v i v v v v v ~ v a ? ~ o ~ o: o: z z o: o: 8 .10.0 x 8.0 19 25 20 2 2 4 Betide ula . In 78.5 X =27fsq. in. _ = 2,120 X sp. doe. 50% _ :1,080 X cond. 75% - = 795 X loc. 75% S 598 Told Vdue 9 Eu WhNS Blrah 9.0 x 8.0 7.0 /9 25 25 1 3 4 st1' . In 108 X 127/sq. in. _ : 2,918 X sp. rise 50% _ =1,458 X cond. 75% _ = 1,094 X loc. 75% = i 820 Totd Vdue 10 Eu While Birch 9.0 x 4.0 115 25 15 1 2 3 . In 70 X i27lsq. in. = i 1,890 X W. doss 50% 5945 X cond. 90% i 851 X loc. 75% i 838 Told Vdue 11 Eu While Birch 7.0 x 5.0 1018 25 20 1 2 3 . In 48 X i27lsq. in. _ i 1,298 X sp. daas 50% 5848 X cond. 90% _ = 5B3 X loc. 75% _ = 437 Totd Vdue 12 Eu WhMe Birch 11.0 x 10.0 9.0 22 25 20 1 2 3 d 1' In 187 X S27/sq. in. = i 4,509 X sp. dose 50% _ =2,255 X cond. 90% _ = 2,029 X loc. 75% = i 1 522 Told Vdue 13 Chlnees Plstache 11.0 12 25 20 1 1 2 Platada ehinends in 95 X 127/sq. In. = i 2,585 X sp. daas 90% 12,308 X cond. 100% S 2,308 X loc. 80% i 1 847 ToUI Vdue 11 Chinese Pleteche 11.0 12 25 25 1 1 2 in 95 X S27/eq. in. = S 2,585 X sp. daas 90% = 52,308 X cond. 100% = = 2,308 X loc. BO% _ _ • 1,847 Told Vdue REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S•gal ~ f36 19-gal ~ 5120 2!'box ~ Sl20 36•box ~ 61,320 ~8'twx ~ sS,000 S2"trox ~ f7,000 72'box ~ !19,000 1~BEST,S~WORS"T Pa Re 2 of 2 CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ fob tf09-O1-lyb Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. ~~ All dimensions and tree locations ~ ~ ~ are approximate. •- i - ;13 ~ - - _ ~ ~--~ _ ~ _ S C 1~/ I ^rC _~ \ t ~ ~`~ _ ~ . I ~ ~ li ,' ~ -- .,r ~ ' ~ ~ GONG. WALK ' ~. G Q ?' --~_~`-_ ~ _ _ _. • ~t I ;'. -~ ~ f n 1 1 LL jc a _ag5 ~ ~~ ~ ~y ~~ti f r "o ~ - - ., LA ~~ V~~®`' -~ . I ~ -~ `~,,- - ~ ' ~ ! : is 4~ :F,~ ~ ' ,:i. ' ~ ia';3i 4 ~ ~{/ ~ i • =,z. ,., . _r ~ -.,~ r• "~~.. - 1 '. ~. ' / ~ t' ~ I• C) r ~:: .~ ~ ~ ~.i 'V " / ri :. ,._.J, ~~.~ prO~QCfIVQ FQAGiAQ 1 ~ _ ~ Plotform SuffQr ~~ ~ ~- -345-,~~. ~ 3 s"ti~~ ~ - ,~= -- -- S"'` 000022 r'-~'_rS • • • • G ~,~ ~~ ivmDU . i'b. l Q F ~ U ~ aI~ o x ~- ~ o~~ u xi ~ U ~ ~, ~ r~ Q V I • I I I !i, 'i ~~~~ !~', ~ i ~IIi~JO ~ I ~ ~ Iii '~I ~' ~ I ii ~~I li ~ ~I~ III ~ I ~ i~~ ~ ~~ I I ,~ ~ , ~~ -{- ~ III _ i_1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_' 1 ~~ ~~~_I'- _,_ _ _ t ~1 A ti~ ~ ~ - - II --, _ ._ J Iii ---~ NOTES NO NEW GRADINOOUTSIDEOP BUBD010 PAD IS REQVIREDOTHER TNAN VERY NBHOR SURFACE LANDSCAPHIG. FOUNDATION LOCA710N CPATiFICATION' PRKM TO FOUNDATION OJSPECf10N BY 7HE CSIY.iHER.C.E OR LlS. OF RECORD SHALL PROYmE A W RlFIFl~ CBRTD7CATgN 1HAT ALL BUODVVG SETBACKS ARE PFR THE APPROVED PLMS. n The Jones Residence VICIMTY MAP CONSULTANT LIST a.:_~va.ePF ARCHTTEC[: , GARY KOHLSAAT. ARCHITECT I PO.HOX 1500 ~y ~~ ~gE I LOS GATOS.CA 930)1 D~ ~ v "I I EGE TF1..(gB1395.2333 COLL ~ p ~ka a • E I I ..no DGV-'~ i / l ---_- DJ6~~ :A~ A ~1IE ~~~ PROJECT WFORMATION OWNPAS WNdIffL00YlONP3 19769 CROP AY@lllE SARATOOACA 91070 Ipls7eel6 PRNE('I ADIIRESS IYk9CROP AVPNCE SARATOOACA 9107D A.P.N: J91d3011 AiIEARG~ gA77 fP ZONP+G RIJO SLOM Ai RIDO SRE 19• AVERAGE SLOPE OP SIJE'. 7Y ALLOWABLE p1PEERVx7U3. 774.11117! SF REfRH1LE 171v SP I,WJ SF GAIAOB 7D SP_ _L76 ff. tOrALt 7 .R. S f. ~Ip lIL1 ID~Q1GL ®ilSrpq~RgSmE•UF 1,J79fF. IOM DRNRWAY dtARYA'G IlO15P 10016 pIO1Dl0f001..PATIOS.WALRWAYS rmu O~ SIAK ALLOW.UIEROOR ARlA 6JOOSP. pR0t01®WmPllc7 517vfP. IlM tRp06®1)AIVEWATd PAAR1NG IA773P' Sr;• RKOIWO POOL, PA710S WALKWAYS rmu 1 Js . 'ARPA OPORIVBMAY OABRMEABB1rT NAS BPLN RPDUCHI BY A FACrOR OF6076PER PAVFA ASSWOLYDELIIAA: Q U a U ~ QW A INDEX ° ~~ Ai. COVER SHEET W~A/ f.c~6 P A2. SITE PLAN z Q ~ A3. EXISTING FLOOR PLAN W A4. NEW FLOOR PLAN R FLOOR AREA CALCS. 0 AS. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ELEVAT]ONS O F~ 0 O ~ A6. EXTERI R A7. AS. SECTIONS ROOF PLAN z W a Q ~ ! yy D ~~~D ~L~ DG a OCT 2 3 2001 IL1TE. vaa CITY OFSARATOGA ScAIE caws:': COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JORlq fxeET Al W • • A c~o~ ~~~~ ~~Z~_ ~~ ~~~w~p w~o~~ ~~~~p~ m~Ag ~ ~~ ~ wp ,a Z O t fi~m3 ~O °~ p~p~ 0 7~+~n • ~j. Dm -a~"° O~~O D ~i' D~~pmm Z~p~ ~{ m < p 3DD~ ~ Q~7m i o ~ 0 0 sv , _ , d ~ ~ ~ k ti Gig ~' v r~' m ~ n m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ N m m p ~+ ~ ~ T i m m O D ~ A < zp~ O ~ 3 D O z C C . o~~ 7 v ~ M~,1 3R v i. 06 "~u °_ u '-i ~,pap 4~ UU ~L ub A r T ~6 h 3a• 0 ?~s .~,'9~ CRISP A VE. nWp~A p N r"I' I 7C m p p Np~ Om0 ~~n NIIIAII mNm ~^ ~ ~~ ~~. n ~~ L ik ~ / ~>~ I AN ADDIT[ON AND REMODEL TO: ~ I GARY K O H L S A A T' I R q~ T~ ~, i THE JONES RESIDENCE i A R C H I T E C T ~:+ ~ N ~ ~ o ~ 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA L- r~~ nux i.5w • uh<an*. i~n . wni . ~aisw-me ~JJ ~J • • . i kkF ~.I+rlr a;,,lakaR ERMI. Earw eaern a Tre Ealavr ~YNrr~~ lool rWlk acrd w. a ~ o. rer a J.ww. .+rdrowiadr ir/f511ai I rwdlar Iwaelk.U etlli MllRe lw. laaYwlWwny,rR M dMHa ~roae _.. _ I~~i I ,I~~ , I ~ ~ i ~ Ilia 'i'ii ` ~ ~ ~ API I I I ,ills li~il'~ ! 4 I i~l i.• ~ I~~i ~~j'0~I'!h lis lil ~~ I III t .L . ii i 1 ]Imo i ~ x a .w.1sf ~' I M1.P r~. ~ i...r.nwr lY1rrM MaaawelolrMM M ~W ~~~ racolle i II : 1 1 ~ ' I ~ e IIIl ~ ~~I { I + i j's I f ll i ( li i I I y. e.w w . la~ay au.s. ew :cAli :' I'a >r ~'~ I r, r r11r1frryulerpr,rr wj74L4Vi/tl: ~wwNES Ir~if+MMa• IrMlrrr rw+Iwl ~ . (41:~iM~rrrpa4Ypal3• Milli Fe ;~:. ~Il~i~l~{yjii~lrr+iiarlaRwwsw>ri rady..ewwNr..w r r (r,w..+. eY,lr-lweuw alrr ..ewbr. ddewrrrr ArcrnJren t rrrswwwr... yw.n lF.arrwdwr..~xdyrarwwrk wr. r r dr waen rw r.. w a r. r• r rey r~aYlrawrrwlaf-e-Yw+.r Yrn+r~dleww horerrrdrknaam I~aelreN bTraY1W rr.r+r..r.ar./k~rr IIwWeWnF' IRaI 1 ~ +I.w r MwrwM rbsrw.IwWr.u.r-... ~W l.d Irdrml~+lis w a~ Ix ,~I~.N.v lrw rrwc.wf ~ w IYRE O.CMi[NO A{SO[MTF! {Y 1MIYlluaka~~1RM«wWl i frMYYafMraretYRWllra/rY '... ll ll ipRl~Yif fa sEr irr d~ w ~~ ~ rrrr+rrl.s Pr131Rlri Ir(f1OIflliH ~ n M ~ ~ ~r Ir lY.r. rR.lr ~ i ' xlflyd[aLlwferGlftll lMlikawwealMayW rillar W4Yalr'bialYWYW'R .•`~ i j -I l r. bapwllir~rl l ~'!~ ~~ i-~.r.:.~. R.rr+.r.~.. r'..rN. ~ ii:M 4 ~drMiIllYan •. ~ ~' . r.,,.Iw.w.rd...rr..JkrgrrrRr. ' 1~ - ~~ tklw~a~llrbrabrwwrdrwwaYradrwr ~~-~i wr_.~+r..rWr_ .Sr n r.r-•rr.rr.r...rre.W..alr.yarb , w+ew.arrrrwWwyyr~yMwwlrrr ~ ~~ inM•rwrrrerw Nywr. r..r ra ~ h 4.r I "1 ~~ r .rn.ra.r rw++wwwdNRwr + r YW r1.rWarWldhweMlwi.N+wwwe~ eerrywa.l Y.awaarbWreaeeewlaN ra : ' w ~yy.~ \. . oadr.. ww•aF.wlYlayrnlrrwrrN.wkkr .prrr ;'~ ~ ? rr.d.+..r.d...rrrtir J r.p.lrrrreefer+rrlew.rrrrrrwa 1 ~ ,. . ,~r,~~~ Y Arekblb.rleww'. +Yr klrr.r tll - fy.lrrrws lr-trrryr+rr+rrerdelrn++yrrwrrf I .. r Y 1~ 9 - n-•rrr..rr.rr.r..rwrr+. rrwYrRrreea+wllwWr rrrrw4rr pa+e~dbrw+rwr ~. 1) _, .. _. RaelTemxw txw 1~. an lk d19a ~laesan n efti T6, `, 4,~•~ Inr~ekn ak M Yr bey r nderJ (li rcMt rp) n Fn/ iy hrn M• x mn IeN;.nl+iYee w,krpr,v I rlnrcr ea Nrlal +^IM r vd n wpvdl+rwtnRwm.M x.l k.lla rcM.Jnl)mntM 14d x lM SM r.l prr k.kel+n n .xI M•~Ih.r.r sFr vn nrh n S t rv.IM hnl hxnr r~ i IFr lrud . ~ ~+~r~.wrrRwlrrrr+dyr rrr~ar,e.wrrrrrr~rr.+r.... W-e eele•ewrH r ,reew.wrw.r..Yara r.r .raRwrr.eyr ~~ r ~ *e~-....rrrr.xr ~~. 4 _ F ~, uh~ek.l+ehe.+rer M~ h -7 Ir yi r ~i.ri111~L~Yli Rlli t ` . ai ~ >fygM11.71W Iy~~j'`y ~ r'In 4f1 .:~ ,yirp~ryy~•~rarlll ~ ~~N fhrNlw l3 nMS Y.p ~ ~~ deY ~ rY(ii ~ _YYWrw. . r rw,a ,~^ ~ ^ c xali Nw ~ 1 3i~ . ` 7 \ aq Z ` ~ - pi I ~ `I s r. \ ., ~~ ~ y ~ I ~r ~' 9 z n ti~ J ~ e, F' ~ Z 6 r ~. ~~-~ f ~ p' 1 1 ~ ! ~+ t• Sa~ I I S ~ t CRISP A VE \, ~ ~ .. ' p,. . . 1 , • +. 3 . F .~I SIR 1 1MKY '' M1ealKiirYrwa eylb f N 1 _ M 4 r Wg1erW4~R~•~4ilrYff1,11GY1ryr~' _' ~aiFL~YfIMMYY . ;arrR+ p ~ . « ....!•~Ir. ial rl II r+ M ulv rr11ri1,M:•Y•elrR.e.w..:. ~ jRafrM M. y : S r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ARrwYral~YaR 71W ~ u ~ • •) . o W~ Rlallaal ILYI Mar 1!~ .'~.. WS3 4 z ~ G ± yaar111YerMM ~. ~ I6-, - ,~, a~',.tirwalrlr ;, ~ ~ ~ ~ i°~' ,err }raiwWr I f r e€i p ? ~ i~ ~ + ,par wwtl 'Y ~ ° ~ i yl ~l ~ v ~ 3 { ~~ ( .. to ..r e ~ } ; 4 ~ ~ rrnl Nb.wwbwn.ar•rwer. r.+.W yewarbwrYrauwl iwawYreeaiar rwwrre.aw~ewwr rr....rrryr arwrr.~rr-ndr rlrwYreNr~./war.lra lrrir..rlr .e.e,rwn.rrr.ae.aw.dw drarrlNwYN Ywa•w ~uNr ~en,bws^ . ~w-adrwrad~~r.rrww ra W d wave-wrby. waYl! rsY. ed I ~a+~.rtcd+Rk..t..irm.rr AkNdr.r.e.W-ererrww 1 rrrdrwasraa.ww raawndrowwn rN `w-.r.l.w.rr rrYrwrwrrsywswlr . hraeasrearrwndrwwrrrP.-w + Ir.a,pdr.rrwaWr~.++-rw+r+W Irrrrrr.w-...wlldr..e..w.r+r+W Y 1~ ~Y Ri ~WmwrY~1 sPti•~ Isa+..rs lareti•-r•rwer.e..n rdw. r h rr W~e+r.s~...r.,a.. r... dn.... ~.a-aar.rrrawwrry k..e++..r +~ aw,rpbr.MmrWw.o. rry..r .~ d. I Ir.~rrwwad..l1 r.r>.rr.r•r• le~ermaelr-rwwrwr.rR-wme Prb Ma+ark NYdralrlerrsadk V r.ry(Ye.W rbwrb drrwweare I.earv+c.. erna..rwmwrwheor.w IwrWdr.Mr rkw Iarl+W rwwrwrW+ra..r.d.nr rraw-rnablbwYrb t.r.b rrrrr I.MW r-ra+rdb. rnnen•awy.nk ~eWSd Irlwrl.wlraNww a..wrrr.w.rwdd 1 lra-rddW .+r-dfr.rl.+d Irr.l4+rrRw1 frWkkbyvprbrmr+d r.w.nAerr ardlr.lYwewion .~rr.ar~r.` re~.Whrr~l~.ranr rw~e.+r r f irwaee/elYNwrgsrrmaWyvarmas abel la.Irn Mw w 1r r mores ar bna n wrM s wn+r RleereeW alk eraF~.daiWkwiaoedrw -4rawlal. I rwwra r. aeM w e yr/+Inl W M r. W b cps r neb f WobrrY-+-el,lrf 1rrYkrrkal+e rry ekan q dwp w r Ywlaw w r fwrr avid k w-d e+l Y r /rr drw r r r r aerya+Y wwq f r ryrkW e Irrrw rwlM.+.lfea.rv sar.albakywd rlwl r aalw dear an •krnaYwlf rrw a rwblllw Ne mo w dw r r• r erwl l gRJ.ITa Nww k sJ b Mwa mIW ka A 1L w-+W Yeel efeen b nl w awerrrwewyrwdr i raw'an ~~r+~.m14••a lu~arMrrd~a d~..tl~krsd.neMe~rrrR ^w1.llnaek 1 ayr.ayaYr/rrereewedadr rrrrr e+s dw Ib1 YRe Irelald wlrl b r as W e r r pW s r uw/errllk-IwwrrrRaer.erl erslrr k aaYlr IraldlydrlrWr.rdwwe.w Yam lydnwe,Mk.rwr.rrWyrarw r e Mwrwlrrrrlr.4rwbwawihlarranwd .~..... W.xr....,..,.w, .,..,wn.... a r.rrer.aaw.rrrrrpwawf~..r.r rr- r.wr.rrarr.rwdrrr awedul II MrwW-kr F.rwr.is+W+rwelr mefY dwwrawaNknf ar.(rrerr IA I! ,r~ We Yww.Ik.JwYeri W Ilirrrl~m leee r mob. Ikwy, r+awYr r r wa a r wr as w M r l r r ar r.r a.i.a abR r rr -b d.a. y..drr nr-wra.ew+rra u s,rkenraeewrra.R.l.rer.r.r..kd~ laa M. w r aran a Yawl heal r mow. dr aw. If ww~/aarn-4-eN~fe V k V yeweo•J ar+r.ya r s r e~ r- r.r. r r ti r.rrrarde+w. IfrrrlwryYlrrW -rkrrwarw}ed ra~abn.banRry nreaaraYaa ala.lYw1 le Irafewwr(oar,r~nrRaY fwlW w lbwpk rM.m•n.rrkndewr.rwl da- It IYYYweNwww-rrrd.aYRldrWelwrrrlyud rhwrrww MesrnrlW Wa.-r.M Ts.a.arf ralrre AO,al. TwYr-Jara WnYw r.drw. I 3Fnty Iee+.+M 11r+r In Kwa Iwl rw ,.... i 5y uwarY.r~rrwu/wr. www. ~x.~,~.,.wM .nx.,x_ wRE O.can aoamans wwh•r.+r...ew (aaal ls.lol! f =,. (lullf flla u~waYnra.wn IrR aanruWlaWnalslnurllrmWar }aYR1alIYlf awlt•Frt ~ YMaG ra.rwra-r i ~aea.~lr M+rwa ~ Imlwrdeaw rw. raww leybl~ry rrllYwe ry+nusl ~la/ wal ~FO'ill' +I II mn 1 mel r M r qeR d r r.arl ra. W lalrw. (a d!k.s r ww .. wr.,rw. mde-Yreeab+rM.wnd nr nb r rra ~s~.lr M.IJ ri k hn a k renuol.r I.e.wnaawal.yb rr.~awarr.rW.awrrrkgwdmc.. rrn.n b ao.e ww..a a.e.Nr lnxrl n r /w w..+d rra I rlwrrrr-r.•aw+ ha h wr k w aea.h ravel r o a r upsM w rx•e awrw.rwdor.r Mrlsbiw+weefrl Iwdenaewwlwraarrl~.r rrreyNdwwlea .4M br b if a r ed. d r w.k r a rrrwl n a.er. eA r rre w 1s - w r w r w w r+rwa H rrr rm•••° hrr-+wr yea.+r..rrwwnaaaea ! Iyawb fdwrrfla+rewrkW rslawanl .e.yn i hreor.eY.rr.ry.. Tn~l anw= 1wlA. Wb Irer Mrl fwlL ik r+e^e.Ir1n111YnYpY,1 _ (rwarrlrnu Ae..ml 1 Irwrr-dwaa-enWYnedYl wSSV.Aa h..r rrdrrlirr plrrrsl-aarn MIW~II.blbr hwswWeerdeyrwdslwsl+h r..rWrww..wr.ra.rw•+w- Ike~+rwrramrwa,wwrrlr Ir,row eea• .ra r.. w r r. e.wllw..r.r a wew~h k ewrk ~..~w .., ,,..r w....,. ..rc.. Rsrwr.rr.drrrawarrnw rae.wrtrwa.+k+arrrr. rrwewwwl wrJelagw4warw I{ ~Iw ` ~ K IIwMd Rr ~- Ii )W41~ I ~~ ~j ~ I q!Iww I ~ lrtTlr•erlkrdllr•~e~YwlPrr..r'^ Irla„wwae.r-errarr.urs.r n+ bkir+frri.ark.ealrr ~ ~awrwwewaw,war-rr.-rawwr r~ra nnx. rrrr a.ye+,N~.lnrr.r~..~rwwr~.er.....r. ~sn. Irawws/rlrwrrrlwwwr Webs MWwl~raf'awwh+-nT+w+r iww ekkw< ~i araeelk.r•.ew...wwsldN4rrl.eY..e1. tr WkF.rw hrrre.rr.rdrnr.rw...awr+r•we~a• ,raabrudrrw IYee-arrn..~.e+rwnd rw..kabwr+arR IrYrrlrrwrn~awlw r-dearwdrrwrwW Iwae I3wY arrllwRrRYRre wefla p~errd r se.o ~ xrrr_Mr.r ar.wr harr.Marr i r;wd ~werer r.karn.ra.. hee..n+kn-W ~ firer ak.en lbY.rl.ar~+4b1/rrr. i i u.~"n..dir~l.ae~rrnrrr.eef..ar Yw-apna.e r-r- hrry.nlw brY ralrr.rlerWarwr W,Irr,r,wlrww a+wp wry r r r aeey rarw r r rw a- k rnwel '. erfewwaww+-rreaarr rwrY rx•rwar aafaw+r r r a e owse w r o. Y I~f A ewwry+r Inear+r w-+rrlrlbremwe ha.bMlwwnr r e yaw rew wa dbw pl r a rd.. r ewrw de ydrl x ~hrswr dk-rr1YkN rwarlW rawrweYaen '~ ywddk.w+awy..kWrrbrWarwrr w.w . monk d! wawd~ r~ nr b r we..ma.~ ~~a~ F dl~ ~ a I v] 6 x ~- ~ O~.n xx? U a ~ ~ /~ Q U Q U~ ryz~, ~ eIQ A V7 G 41 a z Q 0 Q a Q LU a ~. a V M i MTE' Io.~R'C Rcu.E mroN, i1i NO 7NEET TS1 • • • ~~.._~ ~> -~-~ ~___ ~ , ~: .... ,... ~, ~~ ~~~, ~ r J. 1 I ~ 1 __ -~ I ~ F ~ ~~i i i _ i ~ ~ ~ i i~ i i i _, ~, , , , ._, A fl ,_ `l D m P O z n 3 Y i __ --.x:.Q - -- --- - ----- r~ ~~~ ,~~ ,~~ ,~~ a ;~~ ~~~ ,~~ ~~~ r LJ I 1 I I I --.--s ~. ___-___. __._ ~'~~`1 1.~ --,~ T ~' . it .'~(o r .,~: i _ ~~ ~' i _ J ~ I~IUIIL - , ~ ! I ~ . I ~~~ ~~~~j+j5 L _ , \, Y~ _ \~ ~. ,.- - - ~ ; ~ i AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO: ~ GARY K O H L S A A `I' ' ~ m~~~ ~ THE JONES RESIDENCE ', A R c H i T E c T W~ ~ ~ r, L 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA • • • ®oa®®~©© zm y r ~ ' 9 ~ ~ 3~ ~ F Q 9 p i Em p P l~ Y my 4, Z f. R ~~ ~ ~ ~4~ m L~`~ ~ ~~~ z z ~~ ~ ~~ f j ~ E y-, ~ i' $ -- ---- ~1 ~ ~ ~ iI h 7 it (y ~~ ~ j, ~~~ T,, ~. I ; , ti ~ -_= n ~ _. =saw 1___ ~" I ~ - Z -, - ~ . !i ~ ~ I V ,y ~ -. 4 ~ bl -' ~ ~1 r - =Y' ~ ~_ ~ ~ ' i ;, s ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~ L _ _ _ _ _ J ~ ~ ~. __ _.._ .~ Q ~. '-~ ,_ --- ,~. ~i ~ _ y ~' ~ -~ -, 1 1 p 1 __~ --- .R .. __ y_ 'L ,T ,_._. ,~_ _ ._j I '' ~ ~ -- ~ _ ----_ i ---, 'r -- pp ~. i ._._-_- ~ •i e- M ~ li M __.__ _ III IFSR a.s.. - ~-~ III i~. I. ,~ ro i ;~, !i i!I ,i i,:l ~~ ~~ E ~" LGl "--~~ ~ -_ K r 1- 8' 0 i~ ~ ~ ~ AN ADDr1•tON AND REMODEL TO: GARY K O H L S A A T' S m~~ ~ u THE JONES RESIDENCE I .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s i A R C H I T E C T 4 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA J Itb1:A Rl1. l'A. • • Nb11M1Nf • t • . ., 'r~r="dj I! ! ~'~ ~, i~ ~1 ', G N ~ 1, - g ~ ~ II"~ ~~ ~~ .~ J~ a- "' <~ ~i ~ Jl/ry / ~ i ~ ~~. IIL I I ;~, , _ ~w ~'~, q' ~y ----~- a-- ,; £ ~ ~ ~_, ~~1_'J ' ' ~ i( i Ir y_-__ A y l V \n/4 ~ V 6 i , n ~,. ~' ~`~-~-~ ,u' \ ~~ ~r ~ --- -- ~ ~,': ~i ~' ~ ~ r .~~ > r n i ~ ~ - _ ;< ~~~ ~ ~~ oo~~~u a~®~~a© k}( g~O 4a ~ (4i~ 6~~ ~ ~ Sp w~~ dam ~ Q~ N~n 4 ` c~~';~F"~ ~o ~~o uric ~~ '~'~~?~ me rq . ~~4 _~ ~ a>EE ~ ~ o O p ~ c,o r- i F p Amin j ~~ ~~~ Odin A`e~ D ~ r.,D ~g~r BtCr 1 ~ 8 T. ~~~ F' ~ ~ ~ m i~~ ~ a ~o" n ~y h no~ ~o ~~om ~a cNbar~I o i N~ ~~^~~ ~~ 3 ~~ ti° ~ m I ' A m r 7c~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ N z ~ D i~~ ~ n zm ~ ~~ ~ , `, ~~ ~'=~! ~ ~ ~~ 8 x~ AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO: GARY K O H L S A A T' o P m~~ THE JONES RESIDENCE ~ A R c r1 i T E c T Q `° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19369 CR[SP AVE. SARATOGA, CA _ `--___-_ rn x~x imp . ~.nwras. c~ . anm . awn rwx~ ~ t , -r_ _~ I I ~= --'^) -L _-r_ ,- - _ _i=- I i 1.. N n 1 to A n f~ -~ Qt" ~_~ Y- ! ~ _. fi'~ < . z.-.-.-_. 4 _-1 Iw i ',yl u 'rmi ~~ ~ ~ ~ n I~ n U WC (]U~ F AY•in ll? L ~ LlF. f / ~p 4{.p ~j~ ~O A u wt] ~' `~ ` ~~'" c ~q ) ~n~ Zo~ A~ b '~~o nt ~ o n ;n ~o U U( ' c> A pinp n fS i cl mOE t ~~ ~:~ ~~ tt-- j y`~ N 11 ~ tl \ N~z ~~ R R ~ er.A tS~C i\ir ^Il () Dar A ~-~T ~_ ~ Z( ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ a , n ~ 1 tc ~ o { , ~~ G m A o~ aN p A ~ 4 '^ G_ A ~~~ A ~ t' A In t ~ A 0()(1 t-AP A A~ - ~. - AA n AD xpp U ~ "~ IF t ' .w ~ iWW1t V, ` ~ 1 - -~ ~ J~ ww~ ~u( ~ i1.lt,ii! _ yt~. ' '" ~ rn -, , r- ,- I ~ j - ~'% uur ~y~ ^ . t ~ ~ a w., ~ ~~; - f -^T ~ } ~' I ~ ~' "' 1{r'~ ~ - ~MI I I ~_.. u ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~'~ ` .... L...i._..... _..~. i 4.N4N.4at Ntu,W1W4 .rN4t~44~4 ~~~ W>34W~ . _. -.. y W114M4 1 ~.. ..W~W,N w1 4W4t14 W4 H// N,v~ I.t4:iuW4~.441 44,4„,44u~u •.,W4tWNN4 N~W4G,W !W 4 W4~ Hw.yt tU 4w, r444W ~ W„ u.yl~~~~.ll~..w u4~iWwWuN 41444 ' ,_._{. - - (41 WY ,~INi4 WN 141 Watt 4WWty4444t ' ~ t~W44y~ IN ~ 4 f ~N~I~~NN ~1~4W}4!! ~ 1 11 {{WN kyM!, ~ I i .~~ W tt~1. NuW i."" N ' 1..: ~ i ~ I ~ ~ }~"~! y 4u G14NW.,4 41,1~ ul.... 4,4y __ _- _ - __. .. twW1~IM~ 414 A W441WW441y44WV44 4 4 4444W, }44 u Yl41414W4W1W,y11 W{ 1[41 i NN~uwW144Wt4t4,w444 ~ IW~M4 IW44.4 ,1utWU,44 41141 ~ ;(1„4444uu1 ulu, i W14W ~..4~41W i17iY'44 W W ®;I t~,4 WW 144 )ir W i r ~ > ~ r AN ADDTI"ION AND REMODEL TO: ~ GARY K O H L S A A ~' ~ „ , ~~°~; i. THE JONES RESIDENCE A R c H i T E c T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA rn xltx trn. un..nnF. 1 • I~I.wxx. ~ • • .~_>,_ -_ ~., ~ 1 j pU~ DG- _'j'tl' u~P~ NPR IY~~ nU ) 1. nl )~, <~<11 TTY {. `~ LAp Nlnl 1(11 p ~ ~bq P h 'A `' I" d '~o° G~';n non I~~L°;~ ;?~ i I~ ~ ~~ Wt. e. r. ~ m < ~_p A 1 ~ 1 ,^ ~n', ~t ~ wN7~ s~~ ~a mn ~~ ~:L1 ~7i O ICI@u~ {ii (A1 i~l f ~~`nl ~e t'p p-t r~~~ 111 S~~ ~ - p'4 1 u~ p I ~~ % ~1 ~ ~ Z ~ AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO: i, ~ GARY K O H L S A A T' m° ,4 r l THE JONES RESIDENCE A R c x i T E c T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA ~~ tl N(IY IW Lori I:A ltb t' •'Mnl • 11M1 N41X' • • • v ~, \ ,,.,..,..~ % I ,. ~~. ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ I ~ A b; i7 I ~ ' I %/ ~~ ~ i T , v I N. ~`fi ~ T I a N I -- - I ~ __ \ I ~~ _ I I ~\'~~.\ _I_ 6/17 i ____ ~~/ D (_ i ^ m ~,LJ\r r. N I \. I ~ 6/11 O S r\ ice:; I~- 60;17 I,%~I V ~= - - --- ~ __ ,~~ w.p~..R`, yh~ ~Q'A ~~ ~ i~pA ~~~ ~~" 2oriTJ l~f5 gwm i n ~ I ~n :n ~x~ ~f3~ ~~N ~~~ ~ I ON~~ g4,~ ~L,i V A m I L ai a~~ A ~ ~4; .v ~ .~ uu.'~o ~;A m ~ " I 8 __ ~~ s~ ~ / ~I~ I 6~ `\ ~ / \~%~ ~ ~ I 6f /1~2 \ I V ~ ~ I ~- --------\I . .~~ ~ .. I ~ U. N ~.~ ~. ~' o ; ~ , -\ I , v, i~ i ~- rn -ice \ ... i ~\\ \ I I i~ \ m +n ~ ~ ~ 6/17 \ ;' ~ ~ - _ _ - \ i ~ \ ~ ;i ~~ ~ ~~ ~-- ~, rr, ~ ~ ~~ __ ~, _ ~~ 6.;17 ~ ~ I -- ~~ \ „t: I ~ ~~ „ I ~ \ ~ I I 17 ~.V ~~~~~ li \ I ~V ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~. '`~ i ~ ~- .~ \ ~, ~~ ~I N rr' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ nN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO: GARY K O H L S A A T' • ~ m e e i THE JONES RESIDENCE A K C H[ T E C T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19369 CRISP AVE. SARATOGA, CA r~~ nik i~ui • n . ~Mwnsnse ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR-O1-020;14377 Old Wood Road Applicant/Owner. BARNES/4 QUARTERS INC. Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: November 28, 2001 APN: 397-OS-055 Department Head: • • -~' 4 ~~ W ~, O ~0 ~ S o N ROAD ~I ~'~ OLD OOD RD. ~+ ~ ~,?, O 0 O 400 800 Feet I 14377 Old Wood Road 000001 f File No. DR-Ol -020; 14377 Old Wood Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed Application deemed incomplete: Application complete: Notice published Mailing completed: Posting completed: o5ns/ol 06/05/01 Est 08/08/01 10/23/01 1U07/Ol 1U07/Ol 11/09/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 2,476 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,559 square foot, two-story residence with a 927 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The existing 616 sq. ft. garage will remain. The westerly portion of the parcel is heavily treed, has a creek and a sanitary sewer easement. The site is 49,701 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-OI- 020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-020. 2. .Arborist Report dated June 5, 2001 3. Geotechnical Report 4. Plan Set, Exhibit 'A` • Q~000, File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 49,701 SC{. ft.. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 9.3%. Slope at Building Site <l% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut would be 400 cubic yards to a maximum depth of cut is 7.5 feet. Of the total, 300 cubic yards of would be necessary to construct the basement. Total cubic yards of fill would be 400 cubic yards. There will be no off hauled soil. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish is proposed to be stone veneer of either limestone or sandstone which will be square cut and have rough split face. The roof is proposed to be Vermont slate in asemi-weathered in a gray-black tone. The windows are proposed to be white vinyl. The gutters are proposed to be copper while the fascia and trims will be in a Kelly-Moore Peninsula blue (a medium blue that complements the slate roof material) The wrought iron railing is proposed to be a denim blue. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The wrought iron railing is ornate, but it is on the rear elevation. C UvlyDocuments\4 quactens me DR-O1.020srdoc 000003 Y File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 32,7% 35% Building Footprint 6,037 sq. ft. Driveway 1,609 sq. ft. Walkway 804 sq. ft. Covered Patio/Carport 919 sq. ft. Pool and Patios 3,740 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 13,109 sq. ft. 14,021 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable 7,200 sq. ft First Floor 5,348 sq. ft. Second Floor 0 Garage 689 sq. ft. (Basement) (3,209 sq. ft.) ' TOTAL 6,037 sq. ft. Ad usted'" 6,194 s . ft. J q Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 60 ft. 30 ft. Rear 206 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 59 ft. to P.L ~ 20 ft. 25 ft. to creek bank 20 ft. Right Side 20 ft. 20. ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 25 ft. 6 in. 26 ft. '" AD)[~STED FOR LOT SIZE • C UvlyDocumencs\4 quartos Inc DR-01-020 sr.doc 000004 File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 2,476 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,264 square foot, two-story residence with a 927 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 49,701 square feet and is locatedwithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood is a mixture of architectural styles. Unlike many Saratoga neighborhoods, the area is not predominated by ranch style houses. The greater Sobey Road area has many large custom designed dwellings. The architecture of the proposed structure is palatial in terms of the detailing, mass of the roof lines, use of auto courts, and the "statement" that the entry-way announces along the front elevation. Predominate building materials used in the neighborhood are a mixture of stucco, wood and brick. Meaning no disrespect to the project architect, Thuyen Q. Nguyenphuc, the drawings do not do the selected building materials justice. The stone veneer is very soft in appearance. The mortar lines are very understated. The blues selected for the trim colors can be found in both the stone veneer and the slate roof. The proposed project does implement applicable Residential Design Guidelines as discussed below. Polity 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography". The pomon of the lot where the building is to be constructed is nearly flat with an average slope of less than one percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Policy 1, Technique #3, "Else Materials and Color to Reduce Bulh", which suggests softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of materials that create horizontal proportions. The project proposes stone columns to create vemcal pedimentation and window trim and an eave line with corbels which provide horizontal detail. The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and light browns to break up the mass of the building. • Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height", suggests varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The roofline is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. • Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Breah LIp Massing". The front entry portico is 60 feet from the front property line. The roof element of the front elevation slopes back from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 195 feet from the front property line. C VvtyDocuments\a quacte:s me DR-01-020 sr dac OOOOO~ File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road The proposed entry structure is identified by the use of arched transom windows and double doors. The entry protrudes from the face of the front facade by six feet. The front elevation roof design allows the building to duninish in mass or "importance" as it slopes away from the street. • Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as much as possible. Twenty-eight trees are on the site and none would be removed in order to construct the project. Tree #20 may have its root system damaged if mitigation is not enforced. Conditions have been added to address this issue. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privary'", which suggests the use of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. The existing site conditions reflect this technique. The proposed 927 sq. ft. basement does not have direct access to the outside. The limited size of the basement and the lack of direct access to the outside limits the concern that it may be used as a second unit. The Ciry Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have re~~iewed the application. There are no additional conditions from the Public Works Department as this is a fully developed lot. Comments from the City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 689 sq. ft. three-car garage Grading The project involves only minimal site grading (total cut is 400 cubic yards) as it is a flat lot. The vast majority of the grading is for the basement. The basement involves 300 cubic yards of cut to a depth of 7 U2 feet. All cut material will be used on site. Geotechnical Review The Geotechnical review has indicated that the project is constrained by adverse drainage conditions, shallow groundwater, slope instability along the creek banks, liquefaction during a strong earthquake, and the susceptibility to strong seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Consultant's recommended conditions have been included in the resolution. G\IvlyDocumencs\4 quartc[s inc DR-01-020 st.doc 000406 File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road Trees There are twenty-eight trees on site that would be exposed to some risk due to project construction. However none would be removed in order to construct the project. Tree #20 may have its root system damaged if mitigation is not enforced Conditions have been added to address this issue. Fireplaces The plans indicate that six fireplaces and three chimneys, with multiple flues are proposed in the new residence. The fireplace located on the first floor covered porch will be wood burning. All of the interior fireplaces will be gas burning only. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-OI- 020 • C \MyDocumcnrs\4 quutcrs inc DR-O1-020 sr.rloc OOOOO~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C, 000008 File No. DR-O1-020; 14377 Old Wood Road Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-020 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA BARNES/14377 OLD WOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Re~~iew approval for the cons~uction of a new 5,559 square foot residence on a 49,701 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, titled "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that twenty-eight trees are on the site and none will be removed in order to construct the project. The proposed entry is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The front entry is 60 feet from the front property line. The roof element of the front elevation slopes back from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 195 feet from the front property line. The proposed entry structure is identified by the use of arched transom windows and double doors. The entry protrudes from the face of the front facade by six feet. The front elevation roof design allows the building to diminish in mass or "importance" as it slopes away from the street. ^ The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and >~nimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is • nearly flat. The proposed grading is to construct the basement, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. 000009 File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road Additionally, twenty-eight trees are on the site and none would be removed in order to construct the project. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minim~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors. The project is conditioned to implement the recommendations of the City's Geotechnical Consultant. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1, "Minimise the Perception of Bulk", Technique #1, "Minimise Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1, Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique #6, "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique #4, "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of ANDREW A. BARNES for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on ,Exhibit `A', incorporated by reference. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: C \IvlyDocumcnrs\4 quaztets inc DR-01-020 sr.doc oOOO~O File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road • a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. Six fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplaces shall be gas burning. One wood burning fireplace with a gas starter and five gas-burning fireplaces shall be noted on the drawings. All chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that the vertical and horizontal are as approved by the Planning Commission." • 7. No Ordinance-size trees shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 10. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 06/05/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. The recommendations found in the Arborist Report are to be considered Conditions of Approval. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. C \MyDocumcnts\4 quutecs inc DR-01.020 st.doc 00001 File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $17,959 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. e. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released f. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. g. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence, pool and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to trees; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 14. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 15. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the i proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. C \MyDocumcnts\4 quartets Inc DR-O1-020 sr.doc oOOO~~ File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road • • 18. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. PLANNING COMMISSION 25. That the applicant submits detailed landscape and irrigation plans at the time of building permit application. 26. That the applicant revises the site plan so that the pool equipment is relocated to the opposite side of the house, closer to the pool. 27. That subject to the review and approval of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director the front setback shall be increased by five feet. GEOTECHNICAL 28. These conditions are attached in a Memorandum from Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from, the date of adoption. C \MyDocuments\4 quartets inc DR-O1-020 sr.doc 00003 File No. DR-01-020;1437701d Wood Road PASSi=nn AIVD ADOPTF~ by the City of Saratoga Plaruling Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms-and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • C UvlyDocuments\4 quutccs inc DR-O1-020 sr.a« 000014 • BARRIE D. COA i~E AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 l" Attachment TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS INC. PROPERTY 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 93070 C~ J Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June 5, 2001 Job # OS-Ol-l20 • ~~~0~~ ; u ~~N 2 .;zoo, CfI~Y Of S,1ftA'fOG.A ~.,,...., ,p~~~~5~~~ r TRF~ SURVEY AM) PRESERVA7 RECOMMEIdDAT10NS AT THE 4 QUARTERS WC. PERTY 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGn Assignment At the request of Community Planning Depardnent, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing house and to construct a new two-story residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to than can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes twenty-eight trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree (# 16) is hazardous and its removal is suggested. Tree #20 is expected to be removed by implementation of this design. Replacements for trees # 16 and 20 are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage to retained trees that would be expected. A bond equal to l 5% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are twenty-eight trees on this site that are risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The twenty-eight trees are classified as f Tree # l Trees #2, 8 Trees #3-7 Trees #9, 1 l -13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26-28 Trees # 10, l 4, 15, 17, l 8, 20, 21, 23, 25 ollows: pin oak (Quercus palustris) Monterey pine (Pines radiata) coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the four trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: PRf~~I'ARED BY: NIICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBCNZIST JUNE 5, 2001 ~~00~6 TREE SUKVEY AND PKESERVA',. .J RECONIIvIENDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS IIJC. _JPERTY ~ 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA C~ Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S imens S imens S imens S imens S imens 1, ]0, 12-15, 3-5, 9, 11, 17, 2, 6, 8 7 16 18, 22-24, 28 19-21, 25-27 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Tree #9 has been used as a fence post fora 4-foot chainlink fence. Portions of this fence are now buried in the bark. To prevent further injury and weakness of the trunk of this tree fencing must be cut away from the bark. Between trees #23 and 24 two valley oak trees measuring 18-inches and 16-inches in diameter at grade have been recently removed. Trees # 12 and 13 have been excessively pruned in the interior of their canopies. This frequently results in branch breakage after 3-5 years. The root collars of trees #9, 10, 1 1, 21, 27 and 28 are covered by fill soil. This exposes these trees to root collar diseases that have the potential of killing them individually. For long-term health, it is essential that this soil be removed without injuring the bark or roots. Tree # 16 has suffered the loss of approximately 70% of its vascular tissue around the circumference of the base of the tree. This appears to be the result of old bark injuries and root collar disease. Although this tree does not appear to be an immediate threat of failure, it will develop interior loss of strength in time. I suggest that this tree be removed. Trenching for a new water line has been done inside the driplines of trees #1, 21, 22, 23, and 24. A trench has been cut 8 feet from the trunk of tree # 1 and 6 feet from the trunk of PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE ~, 2001 00001'7 7'kFF'. SUKVEY AND PRESERVA. 1 RECO~NDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS INC. ~PERTY 3 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA tree #22. This represents a severe absorbing root loss to these trees. The absorbing root loss to trees #21, 23 and 24 is less severe, but nevertheless significant. All of these trees now require 3-4 inches of mulch and regular supplemental irrigation in order to prevent decline. Impacts of Construction The existing driveway is to be removed. The soil beneath this driveway must not be disturbed during demolition, because of the potential loss of absorbing roots of trees #2- 7. The existing driveway must be removed without scooping, ripping, or scraping of the soil directly beneath the existing paving. Proposed construction of the new driveway would result in such severe root losses to tree #20 that it would not be expected to survive. Trees #17, 18 and 19 would also suffer significant absorbing root losses by construction of this new driveway. These root losses can be minimized, if the proposed driveway were to be constructed on top of the existing grade without a soil cut. A cut of even 4-inches into the existing soil would result in significant absorbing root loss. This must be avoided. An area drain is proposed between trees #20 and 21. Trenching at the proposed location would result in severe root loss to tree #21, a 24 inch diameter valley oak, a species that is highly sensitive to root damage. If the trench and the energy dissipator were relocated to the opposite side of the bridge (north side), tree # 19 would suffer some root damage. However, tree # 19 is a 9-inch diameter coast live oak, a small specimen that should be able to tolerate the root loss. This alternative is much preferable than significant root damage to the large valley oak tree #21. A 10-foot sewer easement is located under the canopies of trees #9-27. If the existing sewer line to the existing house is located in this easement, the attempt to remove the existing sewer line would be highly damaging to the root systems of all trees # 12-26 depending upon the exact location of the existing sewer line. In this event, it would be essential to cut and cap the existing sewer line at appropriate locations and leave it in the ground. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the pazking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bazk injuries, broken branches, or root loss. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 5, 2W I 00008 ' 'IRE:E S[JIZVEY AND PRESERVAI . RECOMWI>-TIDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS INC. ~PERTY 4 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA • 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature installed inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and erected as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. If the existing driveway is removed during demolition, the protective fencing must be located adjacent to the existing driveway during demolition, but must be relocated to the driplines of the canopies as shown on the attached map immediately following demolition. In this event, the exposed soil after the demolition of the driveway under the canopies of tree #2-7 must be covered with 4 inches of wood chips immediately following demolition. Also, trees #2-7 must be given supplemental irrigation (recommendation #5). 3. An alternative is to leave the existing driveway in place during construction while providing protective fencing adjacent to it until all construction is completed. Then remove the existing driveway after construction. 4. 1 suggest that the proposed area drain be relocated to the opposite side of the existing bridge (i.e. to the north side near tree #19) to prevent significant root loss to tree #2l a 24 inch diameter valley oak. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office • must be consulted. PREPAKED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIVCi ARBOR7ST JUNE 5.2001 00003.9 TREF. SURVEY AND PRESERVA7...~ RECOMMEi`1DATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS INC.. _.JPERTY 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 7. As a result of recent trenching for a waterline, supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #1 and 21-24 during the dry months (any month receiving less than l inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree. I recommend that trees #2-8 because of their species, be provided with supplemental irrigation as described regardless of proposed construction. 8. As a result of recent trenching for a waterline, trees #1, 21-24 must be mulched with 4 inches of coarse wood chips over the entire area inside the driplines of these trees. Spreading of the chips must by done by hand. 9. Remove the existing chainlink fence from tree #9 by carefully cutting the fence as close to the bark as possible. 10. I recommend that at least a portion of the concrete driveway under the canopies of trees # 17, l 8 and 19 be constructed completely on top of the existing grade except where it would be necessary to match the elevation of the surface of the existing bridge. 1 1. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. 12. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 13. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 14. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 15. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. . Only drip or soaker hose imgation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JiJNE 5, 2001 QOODtiO r TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAI _ .+ RECOA9vtENDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS WC. _ _JPERTY 6 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA • 16. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 17. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 18. If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 19. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 20. I suggest that the root collars of trees #9, 10, 11, 21 and 28 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an ISA certified arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with the procedure. 21. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Tree # 16 has a value of $1,231, which is equivalent to one 36-inch boxed native specimen. An alternative replacement value is three 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Tree #20 has a value of $608, which is equivalent to one 24-inch boxed and one 15- gallon native specimens. Replacements are suggested. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. The combined value of all of the other retained trees is $119,726. I suggest a bond equal to 15% ($17,959) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection. • Acceptable native tree replacements are: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 5, 2001 000021 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA', . .J RECONI1uvIENNDATIONS AT THE 4 QUARTERS INC.. _.OPERTY 7 14377 OLDWOOD ROAD SARATOGA Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submi • .V Michael L. Bench, ~ cia e Ba .Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JUNE 5, 2001 000022 ob Titl~ uarters Inc. ob Address: 1437~Idwood Rd. ob # OS-020 J Q J J 6/5/0] Measurement Condition PruninglCablinA Needs PesGDisease Problems R acom mand . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES I I i ' I ~ ' o ~ Z ~ i I i H i i ~ ~ ` i ~ W i i i ~ ~ i N o W i ' W `Q~ i ~ l i J ' 108 3531052 ~ s ~ i i W i W i ~ ~ ~ I O i ? ~ (7 i (~ ' ~ i !~ i ! ~ ~ i w l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ~ ~ v fA ~ ~ ~ W ~ ) 1 i W I i ILL i I , , ~ ~ i I ~ s q o 2 ? z i t o l ~ p ol 3 i W I I o: Q i i o i ,, I ~ ~ l ~ I ~ i ~ o: ° o: v ~ y ~ w o: ~ rixls SM~I Ratd i (' >iM U ~0 I F~ i i N i® i i i i 'n I W z I Q ~ i z ~ ~ ~ Q W ~ Z f- i i N i i i x w ~ i ~ p ~ I W i Z~ w Q n. ~ i ~ Z R i p `I o Q U i g g 'u ~ a r- o: G z a o. ~ i , } = i ~ i ~ i ~ i 0 i U i H i~ i ~ i W i Z l `~ O O I W i o I W W ~ i i~ f.. t o x -- C o z z i z l z ~ ~~ I z F i o: ~ 3 1 U o i ~ 3 LL M ~ 2 1 I ~~ -~ ~ S x ' W ~ ~ x i ~~ U_' ~- I ~ QQ i V ~ i ' i o Z' ~ 3 O i I I 3 3 I O 1 O' i 3 O I i W l o ,~ ~' 00 z ~ , ~ I U s w W W ~ I ~ Y I z ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ O y c W fA o W o U m ~ ~ m i m W = d W i f i O ! ~ i Q: ; Q: i K I W i Q~ d' ~ Q: ~ i O O W W W Key • Planl Name o ~ o 0 o x~ U x~ y ~ U ~ x U ~ U U~ v o: U a ? ~~ o ~~ ~ s z z rc 1 Pin Oak 19.0 ~ 21 i 50 ' 60 i 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ~ x i ~ i ~ i , ~ I Auercua ustris i i ~ ~ i ! 1 . in 283 X S27/sq. in. = S 7,651 X sp. Gass 50% = 53,826 X cond. 100% = S 3,826 X loc. 80% = S 3061 Total Value 2 Montere Pine 15.0 i ~ I 18 40 125 1~ I 4 5 I i , I I Pinus radiate 1 i i = I I I i I j i I i . in 177 X 527/sq. in. = 5 4,769 X sp. Gass 30% = 61,431 X cond. 60% S 858 X loc. 70% = S 601 Total Value 3 Coast Redwood 20.0 = 22 70 25 1 3 4 I uofa sem revs i . in 314 X S27/sq. in. = 5 8,478 X sp. Gass 90% 57,630 X cond. 75% = 5 5,723 X loc. 70% = S 4 008 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 24.0 ~ ; 26 70 25 1 ~ 3 4 I 1 i ~ I ~ i . in 452 X 527/sq. in. = S 12,208 X sp. Gass 90% 510,987 X cond. 75% = S 8,241 X loc. 70% S 5 788 Total Value 5 Coast Redwood 14.0 x 10.0 ! 22 ~ 70 ! 25 1 ( 3 ~ 4 ~ i i i i : . in 194 X 5271sq. in. = S 5,238 X sp. Gass 90% = 54,714 X cond. 75% S 3,538 X loc. 70% S 2 475 Total Value 8 Coast Redwood 25.0 x ` 6.0 ~ 29 ~ BO 30 1 4 5 ~ i i I ~ I ~ i i = ` I ~ ~ i i : i ~ ~ . in 505 X E271sq. in. = S 13,635 X sp. Gass 90% 512,272 X cond. 60% S 7,363 X loc. 70% = S 5 154 Total Value r~ W REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = S120 24"box =5420 3i5"box = 51,320 48"box = 55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 1 of 5 Job Title: 4 Quarters Inc. Job Address: 14377 Oldwood Rd. ,Job # 05-O1-120 6 O1 Meaaurementa Condition PruninplCablinp Needs PeatlDiaeaae Problems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES 408 3531052 ! ! ! ~ ~ ! W ~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ i Z { ~ ! 4 { ~ ! ~ ! I I ~ ~ ` ' w I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ! '~ ~ W ' ! ~ ! ! I ' I "' ! I ~ ' w I p " w ~ ~ „'' w ~ ! ~ { ~ '' 1 ) ~ a 2 ~ ' ~ W ' ,,; O i ! '~ i I ~ ~ ~ w x1538 SM~i flood w a ~ i ~ I '~ I ! ~ W ! e: i~ i i z H QQ W ~ i Z~ x i w y ! ~ i W { ! z w{ O a ~ I ~~ _ Z! v! ~~ ~ Q I U ~ i i g! C g W Q ~ ~ ~ z a Ls Cola, U 45U30 ! i r ~ ~ o: ~ !~ ! o ~ v ! ~ ~ ~ ~ w l ~ z -- ! 1 0. ~ o w i o ~ ~ ~ w N ' ~ ! I W ~ F ; F ~ x i V ~ ; ~ I O Z I Z! Z Z W l o !>! W I Z H I U 3 i f V 0 U 3 ~ ~ ! I w ~ x! ~ !~ o m 3 ~ 3! 3 ~ 3 o ~ I z v ! w o Y z ''- ~ N o V) 0 ~ 0 0 m ~ ` m ! m i i ~ w ! a u~ ! ~ ~ O I ~ ~ _ ~ t ~ _ ~ ! w m ~ ~ Z ! w ~ ~ ~ ! O O w w I t~ ~ Key ~ Plant Name o R o t o I o x ~n x l ~n ~ I x v ` v = v = v I m v a I ~ o ~ !~ ~ z i ~ ~ 7 Coast Redwood 17.0 I ! ~ i 19 i BO 125 2 I 4 6! I i in 227 X S27/sq. in. = S 8,125 X sp. Gass 90% = 55,513 X cond. 45% = S 2,481 X loc. 70% = 5 1 737 Total Value 8 Montere Pine 12.0 { I i 14 ~ 40 3 25 1 ; 4 ! 5 ~ ~ I ~ _ ~ ! E I in 113 X $27/sq. in. = S 3,052 X sp. Gass 30°k = 5916 X cond. 60% = S 549 X loc. 70°Ao S 385 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 14.0 ! 16 ~ 30 ! 20 1 ~ 2 3 j ! 4 t]uercus rifdia ~ 1 I! . in 154 X 5271sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 90% = S 3,739 X lac. 85% S 2 430 Total Value 10 Vail Oak 14.0 x ! 12.0' 6. 0 , 27 ~ 60 ! 40 1 ! 1 ~ 2 ! 4 Quartos lobate ! ! ! ! ~ ~ I ! 3 in 225 X 527/sq. in. = S 6,075 X sp. class 100% = 58,075 X t~nnd. 100% = S 6,075 X loc. 85% S 3949 Total Value 11 Coast Live Oak 16.0 ! x ~ 16.0 (' ' 26 = 50 150 1 i 3 ~ 4 ! I ~ ! ! ~ 3 ! { i ! t ~ ( ! . in 302 X 527/sq. in. = S 8,154 X sp. Gass 100% 58,154 X cond. 75% = S 6,118 X loc. 70% = S 4,281 Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 38.0 ! ~ ! ! 41 ! 50 ! 55 1 ! 2 ! 3 ! ~ ! I ! ~ i I , I ! ! { ! ! I I I ! ! i ~ i ! i . in 1134 X 52715q. in. = S 30,606 X sp. class 100% = 530,606 X cond. 90°~ = S 27,545 X loc. 75% S 20 859 Total Value 0 0 O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 ~ 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box = 52"box = S7,000 72"box 1 =BEST, 5 = W RST Pa f 5 ' ob Title'."4 uarters Inc. J Q ob Address:14377TSldwood Rd. J ob # 05-0~0 J 6/5/01 Measurements Condition PruninglCablinq Needs PeatlDisease Problema R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES I ~ , ~ ~ ' o ~ ~ ~ ~ z{ ° i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ` ' ~ w ~ ~ ~ I ~ o j w I ~ ! ~ W ~ ~ ' < o 7 = ~ , w ~ ; z ~ U ~ Q ~ , W E o ~ N ~ I v~ ~ O !/) ~ W ~ r C NOB) 353 tD52 I ~ ~ ~ LL i I N I ~.. O Z i ? i O ~ i ~ 3 W z I ~ '~ ~ I ~ I V ° ~. ~ ~ W ~ p~ O 2.1l3! SMwI R07~ W ? i N ® i v i w l ~ ~ Z f- ¢ l ~ Z l~ l C ~ i 0 i ~ i W Oa, ~ i Z I v i Q 4 ° ~ g K g W ~ O lr G>~, U X5030 -- I fA I i I i D: j ~ ~ I ~~ l i Z I ~ LL J U I I I = W~ , H- 12 4R z I I w W 1 2 a I ~; ~ O U I O~ W i J J f- Q I W z W y i 1 ~ i ~ i F ~ f.. i 0 ~ _ x ~ i F'" ' ~ U I O t ~ 0 ~ Z i Z ~ 2 , ~ 2 i ~ ~' V1 ~ ~ 2 H' ` B U ` O { Y i ~ I U U N V7 ~ ~ m ~ ~ m ~ m I W ~ x l u~ w aQ I~ I f o O s 3 ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ w ~ z ~ U w z a ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O o w 0 w 0 U ~ ~ a W F I ' d ¢ ~ I ~ W i u Key * Plant Name o ~ o l o o x~ x l rn U I x U v U U o: U a ? I F o -- o: a: z z iY 13 oast Li 24.0 ~ j 25 ! 40 50 1 1 2 ~ li I ~ I ~ ttt ~ _ ' . in 452 X 527/sq. in. = S 12,208 X sp. Gass 100% S 12,208 X cpnd. 100% = S 12,208 X loc. 75% S 9 156 Total Value 14 Vall Oak 26.0 x 10.0 ~ 30 ~ 60 ~ 50 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 i f . in 571 X 527/sq. in. _ $ 15,417 X sp. class 100% 515,417 X cond. 100% = S 15,417 X loc. 80% = S 9 250 Total Value 15 Vall Oak 16.0 ~ 118 (45 ~ 30 1 ~ 2 3 I I fI I ~ . in 201 X S27/sq. in. = S 5,426 X sp. Gass 100% = 55,428 X cond. 90% = S 4,883 X loc. 80% = S 2 930 Total Value 18 Caast Live Oak 22.0 124 50 ~ 40 3 1; 4 I 7 I ~ ~ I in 380 X S27/sq. in. = S 10,258 X sp. Gass 100% 510,258 X cond. 30% S 3,078 X lac. 40% = S 1 231 Total Value 17 Vel Oak 9.0 I i i ~ 10 = 25 t 25 1 ~ 3 ` 4 I . in 83.6 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,717 X sp. Gass 100% 51,717 X cond. 75% S 1,288 X loc. 80% = S 773 18 Vail 08k 18.0 ~ ` t 7 60 40 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ! ~ s i I , ~ I . in 201 X S27/sq. in. = S 5,426 X sp. Gass 100% = 55,428 X cond. 90°k S 4,883 X loc. 80% S 2 930 Total Value 0 0 r~ Vl REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"box =6420 36"box = 51,320 48"box = 55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 3 of 5 job Title: 4 Quarters Inc. Job Address: 14377 Oldwood Rd. Job # 05-O1-120 6/5/0] Measurements Condition PruninplCablinq Needs Peat/Diseaae Problems R ecom mend . ARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES I , , ' i ' ; i i ~ , I I I z° i i ° ' ~ i i i = ' I I ~ v ` ' ~ " W ~ i '' ! ~ i ' ' i ! i ~ , --i ~ ' w I ~ ' e ~ w ~ ~ I ~ I I , i ' < > ~ s i i ~ ~ F- ~ w I ~ i n I C7 Iz v c7 ~ i ¢ i ~ i C7 ; ~ I w ~ I ul y i i h i > ~ O h „' ~ D: i w o ~ _ Z 1408) 3531051 , i ILL i , I rs= o z I? I~ I I Z 3 i °w i o: t o I l ~' l ~ ~ ~ l o: o ~' ~ ~ y~ J ~ 23535 SM~R Road ~ W ~ ~ i ~ i~ ~ i ui i W I l `~ i i F W ~ i Z i~ i l= w l ~ i l ~ i W 1 W l w i 0: s 'Q I 1 Z 3 i 0 i I I Q V t g ~ g W ~ I ~ i ~ z d Lr Gala, fA 950!0 v i > i ~ I = ~ I~ z o I I ~ v i F- ~ I ~ I z 1 0 v i O ~ O O 4 1 w l p O < w l ~ ! l i i iF w ~ i° ~ x x i~ It 1' ~ z 3 iz !z l 3 3 z i 3 ~ hl Z ~ i c i 3 E Y i V v w ~ ~ l i t I i ~ i i i~ I u w ~ ;~ I o I O i ~ ~ ( i i~ I~~ ~ o ~( w z v ~ i w o ~ ~ z I I ~ O ~ O o o ~ O w O Key N Plant Name m o ~ l m m o l o l o ~ a x v~ ug x ;~ l va I v I x v ¢ v I v ~ I o: v ¢ a ~ ? I F ~ ~ o r- i~ ~ w z w z D: or 19 Coast Live Oak 9.0 i I i 10 i 25 ~ 20 l i 2 i 3 i = I ~ I i i I i I i I ~ ~ i ~ I , i . in 63.8 X S271sq. in. = 5 1,717 X sp . Gass 100% = 51,717 X cond. 90% = S 1,545 X loc. 60% 5 927 Total Value 20 Valle Oak 8.0 ~ ~ i ~ 14 ~ 25 ~ 25 1 i 3 ~ 4 I i ~ ~ ` i ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i i i i i i i ~ I i I i . in 50.2 X 527/sq. in. = 5 1,356 X sp . class 100% = 51,358 X cond. 75% = 5 1,017 X loc. 60% 5 610 Total Value 21 Valle Oak 24.0 I ~ ~ 26 i 60 i 45 2 i 1 i 3 E ~ ~ I i 3 II I I ( I , . In 452 X 527/sq. in. = 5 12,208 X sp . Gass 100% = 512,208 X cond. 90% = 5 10,987 X lac. 75% = 5 8 241 Total Value 22 Coasl Live Oak 12.0 ~ x i 10.0 ; 4 0; 18 i 45 125 1 I 2 ~ 3 I I ?~ i I i ~ j s I in 166 X 527/sq. in. = 5 4,482 X sp . class 100% = 54,482 X cond. 90% = 5 4,034 X loc. 85% S 2 622 Trial Value 23 Valle Oak 18.0 = x ~ 16.0 ~ 126 ~ 65 50 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ~ i i i ! I I . in 355 X 5271sq. in. = 5 9,585 X sp . class 100% 59,585 X cond. 100% = 5 9,585 X loc. 70% = 5 8 710 Total Value 24 Coast Live Oak 19.0 I x 17.0 ~ ~ 32 i 60 50 1 ~ 1 ? 2} y = , i i ! I in 398 X 527/sq. in. = 5 10,746 X sp . class 100% = 510,746 X cond. 100% = 5 10,748 X loc. 70% 5 7 522 Total Value 0 o REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES r~ 5-gal =Sib 15-gal = 5120 24"box = 36"box = 51,320 48"box = S 52"box = 57,000 7Z"box = Sl , 1=BESTS=W ST Page of 5 Job Title: Quarters Inc. Job Address: 14377 ldwood Rd. Job # 05-O1- 20 6 O1 Measurements Condition PruninplCabllnq Needs PestlDisease Problems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES j ~ , ~ o ~ ; ' ' _ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ` ~ w ' ; ` ~ I o I w ~ y i E ~ ' ~ ~ , 3531052 408 ' I I I ~ I ~ I (9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ C7 ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ 1.. ~ w O W 1 ) ~ I ~ LL ~ ! ~ ~ ~ c7 i o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ °w ~ I o ~ 'r' ~ I ` I c i I J ^ rc 23S3S fwd Rand w ~ I N I ~ i a ~ i z H Q i z I r ? i A i ? N t o; i O I ' I z~ i ... ~ > z a' Q o: Q o: + w i ~ _ C ' tD Giaa G 95030 H i fn I i I® i I ~ I W i~ I Z l ~ W U i f x i K ~ i ~ Z i W W I Z i ~ a n ~ i 0 O i p~ W J J < I F W w ~ al , H' I~ ~ ~ x l~ O i C1 Z ~ Z ~ Z z l ~ ~ fn i Z - - ~ I tr p 3 ~ U U 3 LL ~ 1 a- I ~ w x ~ ~ I U ~ ~ t ~ o ~ 3 i 3 3 i 3 1 I 0 ~ z 1- i v l C) w i ~ -- o o O m ~ ~ m ~ m ~ w a u~ = r O l qs d z ~~ z z l w, Q ~ ~ N j ~ ~ ~ O O w w w ~ Key * Plant Name o ~ 0 ~ 0 o x uJ x~ rn ~ v I x v~ v I v v o: v a ? ~ F o ~ o: o: z z rc 25 Veil Oak 19.0 at 3' i 20 ' 45 ~ 60 2 t 3 I j ~ . in 283 X S271sq. in. = S 7,651 X sp. dass 100% 57,651 X cond. 90% = S 8,888 X loc. 75% = S 5 165 Total Value 28 Coast Live Oak 16.0 at 3' ` 17 40 35 1 ; 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . in 201 X S271sq. in. = S 5,426 X sp. dass 100°k 55,426 X cond. 90% = S 4,883 X loc. 85% = S 3 174 27 Coast Live Oak 14.0 18 30 20 1 2 3 . in 154 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp. dass 100% 54,154 X cond. 90% = Z 3,739 X loc. 60% S 2 243 Total Value 28 Coast Live Oak 15.0 17 30 25 1 1 2 3 ~ ~ } ~ i f I ~ ~ S ~ I ~ I . in 177 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,769 X_s . dass Gass 100% 100% = = 54,769 54,769 X cond. 100% = S 4,769 X lac. 75% S 3 577 Total Value 0 r~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =Sib 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = S1,320 48"box = 55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 5 of 5 .1 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. CWtivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entvely encvcles the trunk and/or large bumess roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark - Bazk which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary brancbes - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches aze kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Brancblet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ODOOtiB O O Q O N CD Guidelines for Tree Protection , 1. Closest location for a trench on one side. 2. Closest location for a tunnel at 3 feet below ground. 3. Atrophied tRp root. 4. Absorbing root tip. 5. 3-inch layer of organic material covering one-half canopy radius and equal distance beyond dripline. 6. Root protection zone margins. 7~. Ideal, location of tree protection fence. 8. Florescent flagging 9. Minimum location of tree protection fence. C Br~Dar~d by: BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES 23535 Summit Rd Los Gstos, CA 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants • Consulting Arborists ,~ BARRIE D. COA ~T AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must~read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. • • 000030 ~~ Barrie D. Coate £r Associates (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 10RTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Radial Trenching The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Tre„thing Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone 1 % times the Dripline Diameter -~ ~a/h~~h e l8~hch es d eeP • - - -- - ~'P Cin _ ~\ ~' • '~' _, lam` - _ r:,_ _^~~T+~+' --_~ ~ .. i T~~r/ r ~ j~_~ .; / _.. :%:~ -- : _ -f--~~ - ~ .._ _.~ -e i ~ 3 ..~ - ~~ ~. _ - ~~,_ j ~. ,.; ~,- ~ ot~ ,_.~ ?~' - ~-' _ `~ ~ Shallow trot ~~~ absorbing . ~ . O -~ root ti s - day ~ ~` ~_~`: ~,._` -~ -~-1 ..•-. `-~~~ Imes trunk diameter ~:>~,;; -_ -•-- . [rrigation lateral lines may be installed ;12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk ~s opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside Jf the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. O O O O w .. ~ - ;, ~! - , f;f",;~~ .' t_ateral line 12-inches deep ;,... /~ in E 20i•30" -------------I ~- ., ~_ _- I I \\ ----~ i\ \_~s~9B ~- \~ ~ O 10 20 1 ~`. /°~ ,~- ~ ---~ ~s,a REF \ A C -~ --~ ~_\~ - 96 ~ ffilN11 iP~f/L ~ -~ `-~ \\` l~ -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ d'a~,r • ~ ~ SKr --~j•~~f _'_~ •~p ~_ __ ~~ - i \ ~ /r'GilrC oaf cH.t' ~,.._- "~ \~~~ O F~ .O I o \ F. s,nso i y ~ 1 ~6mas O / / ~' / ~ ~ 0 ~~ \ ~ s Relocate ~ _ ,~ Drain To ---------~ \~-~~~ ~ Here ~ ~ ~ ` ~ i - `~ I / -~ ~, I 1------------I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~,a~ I I \ ~ ~ ~E~ PL~L I ~ ~ I ~E) if/O!/s~c' TO .BE .1JEMOL/SHED I \ BARRIE D CO Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the . ATS and ASSOCIATES 4 ears Inc. Property, 14377 Oldwood Rd. ~~os135}ios2 TlS35 Siw~il Aead Prepared for: le Cfes, U 95Q10 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: June 5, 2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # OS-01-120 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. ~ ~_ ry Ss~~ilL E ~~ F4, ~ . %o,~. O . ib3.S J. •.bi o A.D L AR/N ~ ~ I ~ / ~ , /I~ I ~ I C i I ~ - J \ ~ // \ // i \ / \ ~ \ --___, ~ - ~~~ -~~ ~_- ~~~ ~3/~ ~-- __ ~"~~n" i _1 ~~ 9 • t • l(!~ ~ III ~ Tn,: Survey ar ~ °reservauon Recommendations at the .ARRIE D. COATE f --- and ASSOCIATES I 4 Quarters Inc. Propern', 14377 Oldwood Rd 110 81 35 3 1 05: nsrss~..lar I Prepared for i. c+., a sstr-o City of Sarato¢a, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date June 5, 2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # OS-01-120 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. S4' / ~ ~ ~p ? J 1 ~/ ~~ V"~ ~/~~ it W t !' O ~ NI ~l ~~ ~w ,; ~s ~~ C~ ~~o '~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r~ • 000034 Attachment 3 • ~oRA~~ TO: Community Development Department FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer ~'~~ SUBJECT: Geotechnical Review for Barnes, located at 14377 Old Wood Road DATE: July 31, 2001 Refer to attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated July 30, 2001. Applicant must submit Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria as per recommended action No. 1. Please submit two copies of the report for further review. • • 1 000035 i^ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: July 30, 2001 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review (SO101) RE: Barnes Residence, DR-O1-020 and BSE-O1-025 14377 Old Wood Road At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 1 inch = 20 feet), prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., and dated May 1, 2001; • Geotechnical Investigation (report), prepared by Geoquest, Inc., and dated June 21, 2001; and • Engineering Geologic Investigation (report), prepared by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., and dated June 29, 2001. In addition, we have conducted a recent site reconnaissance, and reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION According to the referenced plan, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-story, wood-frame house on the back third of the property and build atwo-story, wood-frame house with a partial basement on the front half. The new development will retain the existing pool and detached gazage on the back half of the property and improve the asphalt concrete driveway entering from Old Wood Road along the west side of Sobey Creek. In addition, a concrete loop driveway is proposed along Old Wood Road to access the front of the residence. The existing 1.14 acre residential development is approximately 200 feet east of Sobey Road and is located on a rectangulaz pazcel, which extends and narrows northerly toward the back of the property. Sobey Creek is anorth-draining creek situated on the west side of the property. SITE CONDITIONS 000036 ' -John Cherbone July 30, 2001 Page 2 SO101 The subject property is chazacterized primarily by valley floor and stream channel topography. The proposed building site is centered over a broad, gentle (less than 10 percent inclination) slope inclined from the east side of the property westwazd to Sobey Creek. The stream banks are 6 to 8 feet high and vary from steep to precipitous (60 degrees to vertical) on the east side to moderate to steep (30 to 60 degrees) on the west side. A terraced (cut and fill) slope along the east side of the property, and near the back of the parcel, slopes moderately (10 to 20 percent inclination) towazd the existing residence. Drainage of the parcel is characterized by uncontrolled sheetflow from east to west that is intercepted by north-flowing Sobey Creek. In addition, the parcel receives sheetflow from the neighboring property to the east. During our site reconnaissance on July 10, 2001, water was observed to be flowing in Sobey Creek. However, the ground surface was dry in the vicinity of the planned partial basement at the front of the pazcel. The subject property is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation (semi-consolidated sandstone, siltstone and potentially expansive claystone). The associated ground movement potential map designates the pazcel as a "Sari' zone, which is defined as "level ground and gentle slopes underlain by thick unconsolidated granular material (alluvium and colluvium). Subject to settlement and soil creep. Liquefaction is possible in low areas during strong earthquakes. Stream erosion may trigger shallow landslides along creek banks". Three small diameter test borings drilled by Geoquest, Inc. extend to a maximum depth of 24 feet and reveal that these bedrock materials aze overlain by unconsolidated older alluvium consisting of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Artificial fill consisting of dense, dry sandy silt was observed to a depth of 1.5 feet in boring B-3, located at the northeast corner of the new residence. Stacked concrete rubble lines much of the creek banks. Groundwater was observed in all borings at depths of 15 to 17 feet below the ground surface. Furthermore, the static groundwater level in boring B-1, neaz the planned basement, and boring B-2, near the northwest corner of the new house, registered at approximately 13 feet. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed residential development is potentially constrained by adverse drainage conditions, shallow groundwater, slope instability along creekbanks, liquefaction during a strong eazthquake, and the susceptibility to strong seismic ground shaking. The applicant's geologic and geotechnical consultants have performed geologic and geotechnical investigations, chazacterized and evaluated apparent site constraints, and provided geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development. We note that the referenced reports provide recommendations for a 25-foot building setback from the east bank of Sobey Creek to reduce the potential for damage due to creekbank instability. However, mitigation 00003'7 John Cherbone July 30, 2001 Page 3 SO101 measures to address potential bank instability have not been established for the proposed driveway access along the western portion of the property. A discussion of the long-term impacts of creekbank instability on the driveway is not included in the referenced reports. Repeated episodes of creekbank instability are indicated by areas filled with concrete rubble and local spans of vertical to neaz-vertical banks (scarps). Consequently, we recommend that the following condition be satisfactorily completed prior to Geotechnical Clearance: 1. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall perform supplemental evaluations including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: • The Project Engineering Geologist shall inspect the creek and characterize the creekbank failures. Following the creekbank chazacterization, the geologic and geotechnical consultants shall evaluate the long-term impacts of future channel widening and potential for damage to the driveway located along the edge of the channel. Mitigation measures shall be provided to ensure long-term stability of the driveway. i • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide recommendations for the demolition and removal of structures and facilities on the property. • The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review the proposed development plan and ensure that site drainage improvements are properly located from a geotechnical standpoint. For example, drainage outfall structures may be better located downstream (north) of the bridge, rather than upstream, in order to reduce the potential for bridge scour. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria shall be summarized in an addendum report with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to Geotechnical Cleazance. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnica Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final subdivision im rovemen~ P plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for 000038 r ' ~ John Cherbone July 30, 2001 Page 4 50101 building foundations, driveways, and the swimming pools) 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 Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechrucal Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the-City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechrucal 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 fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval S prior to Final Project Approval. This 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 geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • 000039 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000040 • r~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: September 19, 2001 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S0101A) RE: Barnes Residence, DR-01-020 and BSE-01-025 14377 Old Wood Road At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Supplemental Recommendations-Geotechnical Investigation (report), prepared by Geoquest, Inc., and dated August 28, 2001; and • Supplemental Geologic Letter (letter), prepared by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G., and dated August 31, 2001. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our files. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing one-story, wood-frame house on the back third of the property and construction of atwo-story, wood-frame house with a partial basement on the front half. According to the Grading and Drainage Plan (dated May 1, 2001), which was submitted along with the original Geotechnical Investigation, the proposed development will retain the existing pool and detached garage on the back half of the property and improve the asphalt concrete driveway entering from Old Wood Road along the west side of Sobey Creek. In addition, a concrete loop driveway is proposed along Old Wood Road to access the front of the residence. In our previous review memorandum (dated July 30, 2001), we noted that the proposed development is potentially constrained by adverse drainage conditions, shallow groundwater, slope instability along creekbanks (particularly the west bank of Sobey Creek adjacent to the western driveway), liquefaction during a strong earthquake, and the susceptibility to strong seismic ground shaking. The previous Geotechnical Investigation (report dated June 21, 2001) addressed most of the geotechnical constraints and provided 000040 John Cherbone September 19, 2001 50101 A ` Page 2 for the ro osed develo rnent. However, creekbank failures along Sob geotechrucal recommendations p p p Creek had not been characterized and mitigation measures to address potential bank instability had not been established for the proposed driveway access along the western portion of the property. Evaluation of long- term impacts of channel widening and potential driveway damage are needed to fully characterize creekbank instability issues and for the evaluation of long-term stability of the western driveway. Consequently, we recommended that the Project Geotechnical Consultant perform supplemental tasks, including inspection of the creek and characterization of the creekbank failures in order to evaluate long-term impacts to the western driveway. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on our review of the referenced response letter, it appears that the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Consultant have addressed our previous concerns. We note that the geotechnical consultant has provided a creekbank improvement plan depicting the current creekbank conditions and recommended improvements. Consequently, we recommend that Geotechnical Clearance be granted with satisfactory completion of the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final subdivision improvement plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for building foundations, driveways, and the swimming pools) 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 Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Engineering Geologist and 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 fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. • 000041 September 19, 2001 John Cherbone 50101A Page 3 The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. This 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 geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • • 000042 • • • 1 ~~ , ~~ 1 ~ ~ _,.- ,= ~ % ~ D ~ ~~ is ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 A~ i~~ \ ~ ~ ~S i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ 1 < N ~ ~ / / / ~ i ra' a -~~- / `~ ~~ 1 c~~~ R ~' / S / C~ y A / < C.~.Q44\` < L ~ G ~ /~}J~,~p~ p Y I s ll 4 M S/ ~ ' O W b»'''~~~FFF`"```(((((( N ~O C7 ~~' ~ ~ ~.~ ~-< b ~ ~, U ~ \ N ~~ ,~ .i5 ~, O~ 1 96 K, 5 / ~ s a, 55~ ~ g 0~ ~~ 5~ J~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~`~s w. ~s / ~ ~ ~ s ,~ ~ ,, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ x n ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ f~ 0 0~ i ;~~ 1 ~ / i' ~ i ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ,,~ m > / / / ~, / ~' ~ ` ~ S p, / 3S ~ ~ cis ~, _ \ \ ~~x n ~m ~~ pp \ pD~ \\~ ~ ~OZ ~+\ \ ~ _ ~\ pp I\ N T~ Q,C~ \ \ m _~- ~~~~ ~ ~~ \~~~, '1 ',/ Dm i+ ~ ~p ~ _ ~ y \~~ ~, / ~ ~~ ~ \ \ __- ~ ,~ ~\~~ v D ~~ F~ ~ 'p' ~~ ~ C ll ~ • `~_ 2 O \ _`O, ` ~ `` 2 ` ~ ~~ ~-~ m _ I I __.. _..__.,- N V VI VI D ,,..GG `8 I -- O m m y - V' m m • G o I f ro L ° p O IL _ Z j Y u o ^~ _ ~ T maA m_>„ "'~ o -"1 ~ ~~ r I o ,/, "~ T7 ~ rUi ~~ T_ N ~ ~^ ~ N D Q a ` V ^ m; l/1 i i i <~ C,9 Yuu s : ~ ~ _ a ~ x ~ r m ~gj O ~-'' cz7 ~ Q D~OOm ~o%f0000~ ~ ~ ~ ~a o~ vm~~ z m ~~ s ~~ ~e~ ~ z I 7 "' ° C7 ~ ~ _-_-- - ~ . ~ ,., „ y Y C~ --- '^ I~ -, z~ `~ m r s z A z_ ~ ,L ~ ~~ p A ti ~~ o °z _z ~ n o A Z z ~ %, i n -i z "' n ti "£ 8 K m ~ ~ ~ a A TOPOGRAPHIC AND ~ } 1 ~ m g AND BOUNDARY SURVEY 14377 OLD WOOD ROAD L~ LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC. 1.oT 15 TRACT N0. 4569 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA L~1 ~~~~ ENGINEERS NANO S~R,~YORS a- ~ o T 8 SOBEY ACRES 2495 INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY W[ST ~ g M HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 BOOK 257 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 10 SANTA c~ARA couNrv APN: 397-os-oss (s~o> say-aoee FAX (510) 887--3019 • • ENGi Nf6F ~A NI'N 'tlE R ixe w;E TRafeN STANDARL GRADING FLAN NCIES N:TE '.Hi3 DFAV;NG .S APPROVE:. 5'.~R,;E~'I :Y- 6. Ali knorn yell locacians on the site have been an~l_ded and such cells shall be msin[ained or abandoned accordilw ce current regulations ad,lrnistered by [he Ssnta Clara Val ley Na;=r District. Ca.. ia061 16E-1600 Co arrange for dietr:c• obser. a'.~.. of all cell abandolren[s. ?. this plan dws mot approve the removal of cr ee Appropriate tree refroval pezmits and methods of treeepreservat: o:. should be ob4ined from the Cfty Cassfunity DevelopRmn[ Dept B. the [lull kTglAker, Nsstfall GAgineeze, Inc., 14583 e:g Yasin wy, Saratoga, Ca. 95070. 1Hs designed chie project ;. comply ritA the gradrnq recosscadat ions In the project gwtechnical report, 1f requf red, prepared by , and dated - 9. All grading aha con ors [o approved spec if icatlors presented hereon cr attached hereto. All grading vork ahai: t= aDserved and approved by [he soil engineer. the soil engines: --~shaTl ~e mti red ate least 6A hours before beginni a ' gradfng ac te]ephone number .Unobserved and rappuv_,: grading cork shall be remove~pl aced under obeervauor, o' [he projcet soil engineer. 10. Grading permits rill nor De issued becveen October Isth u,d April 15th of any year rithouc approval by the Director cf Public Abrke. NJTES ~. S GPFS F 'k '.R SREATER ANA1 FR~Yt THE F^L'MJAT~~.N PHALi 9E MA~NTAih A.,,,S EM1.:PE PER IMETE. FDF A .IS?AN F :F ~ FEE' MIh MM SNAll NE 9EN, NITNIN BU::'-RG lNEAS ^F 4AItU5CAPE AREA NJSt c: AENrvE" AN RECCMPArE= • ALL UK:AY: I.CLY _^.FLAAN [tlAtLP SSIL SMALL aE ETP:4FfiC T: A LEFT OF ABIXR ! ::MMES ANp PFIaCVeU PROM Iffi GAWfv CNtFAiE' UPJM N.'N FOIMO,AT:CNE STPIICT111.V. f[C1. OR PAVFl1On ARf m BE PIACE[ N • TX[ LM. ^,91PE[ XAtUAAL SUPFA:~ ErFOSFE S ".NG cMA PLOYLC OP >J1F: F[CI m A OPPrN OF A801.T e'R M'MaE :Hi .WT . SURFACE Is EE VF PVK. XIMOCxS, OR C11fEA JMEVQI FEATVR rH MY Iplief. '.MImNX 90IL Ctl11PARIDX, Axc n¢x a:AD6D JA::. IT :- UNIPNU :a 'fITVPE ANC HIEE IROI LAFIE CUJDE • TXF APPP:VEr itLl uTFnI:M SMALL BE PU.-4" .M LAYERS N TNIiRFR TA.. Ixl1ES it PEdIT A0ep1ATC REN'1 iA'f:.n EAa ureR NE PREU' Evfr+Lx AND slue > n L. xuFf MIxRD Dnp1\ 'Xf ,PREAL; fK tt~ ENSUA¢ UXI POPMI Y i MATE6. A:. is LL M'~~:At- APPR'NED FOR CEPTAIN PURPOSE MAt :MCLL9E P%F~ SAW,ISN Tt IMCME IA UTANEtEP R :IA~S .AVEi 60. M, fi M IN CIAMP'f MC NUPE iM1J1 5 PE rC1rt ~1AGE TN E± A MIN IMLW N MES Of 1 POATEL. W-6r PAN T i NF PLAfCC REF UXiREi[ L1eE-ONGRADE P EMC AN NARDSCAPE 0.~. u IMPNt FILL NA1EA[A15 SNOLLL BE i/A„ATE. Rr -., sol ENr IN PR.~a r eLI LRV m E s'- • ALL Fr- JY P" 0.GT6 TaAa 6 ~ SNA.. - X'. f A: BFNCTIFC IA ni H L3 E RATE ALL ' ~bE "J S ~ x AE PXCAVATFE A R A.F. AE CN^INCPRF I . -JNTENI RC b.+ 'x SPPCIFIET~r_. t- PIM.INFCA. A f.N XNA_ `li lH1:'. N! w eF rxex ,u 'v a rxTH T of rxE n n Ae v` ':Xn, PE IF "L E 4 EtA; IMEEA IMt IL TEP I NA L :a1 N.A F 5 SF NF Rya VF ' P N A L M f" 04 HAL I - P ~. CWF rY1OA A T! Nf Y AS1M E 1 5r NOM ERPANS E I 00. MPOATLU FI ~ L P A?F ~'. .~ MI MlM :] J 6L ;ONPAR A S f ALL BE MADE f f X A JMPA I %: Pi ! E TNLSE iE5 T HA' f EENS.TY . 4N1 Ef ,. FILL OP POIITI'M TNFP•^F Pt WM - pPWTIVC . PA TIIX! TXE PAATINLAR GYER OP GORT IOM rNEA ,t 9NALI. Rf PEApNXF R! i. E RepIIPED 06X5 TTY XAS REfi4 09T NCI' ALL EARTH NG AXO AOpAIMO OP[PATIUYS SMALL RE CONI'R I.Er. ': PRPVRNT RATER iP(RI PUm1MG TIRO 6aGVATLG AREAS ALL EXiE : NATEA SMALL BE PRbIP'LY 0.ENOVEU AND THE SITE X6PT CRY. • THE CONTRACN0. SMALL C<NagMf AL1. GPADING PER.ITIONS IN SICI! A MAm1ER Ae TO PNECUJDE WINO BWN DIPT ANC DUST m DANRiWE N¢IGNeOP[M: PROPERTIES. • NO MAOING PEU ORS SXALL LCMHNQ OV0.1W UNP YORAFLE NRATNIn (tlNDiTIDNE. FILL OPLPATIONS SMALL POT pESU6 UNTIL TNF MDIenmB NMTPNT AM' SITY OC THP FILL MPfT TXL SPEr ilI El. RPW SRBNEN'S. ' ALL 9V PE.' I. PC :. i NACIMUN ttA FrL AMC :VI GWPE • NURDRI:INS _ PE 1N6iRL..Ef IX NPPVA~E Ap J, As VeR DINE I,H ,. SOIL fNOf NE R ^LEA4 FIXF A NET. SAM: ~: UNIPOmN CPAIA EIZF .AN ' BE .FT:Er Ott ..A ~. OVIURD 1ME EXCESE. 'A,eF 1., eMVE' FF W. T 'H A .' MnrfzlMS IN ^NE' au M r: aED INC ?ICU 1 ! ~.A:HU !~ LYa1PACTEU STPU`lVPM it L : iM'u: iHe SAHE NA k INTENC. AXU p6XSiTt RS M PPCVI 51 4[ M IMP :Oh'tPA~ to nAl .lsi. ANY MEANE Of tYMPAt-1')N MS l.L AESJ ~' IN X¢EDE[ • DURING T EAS ~N SNF SITE 9XALL BE MAIM' PREVENT SED EHi E' PIN1at1 TO PNTFP AU.lOiNIN- OPE i+ 5 AH eT'(IPN DRA[A Y T IDE SILT PONCE OF 9TPA L P IAPV x EE ED 4 t] TNECr: A XIER tt NE rCYEPM.XP C F... R .. .N I PA/ ,u AI. I. vT t.- A e 4 .-R. AN ..... :uJ1 t, PNI A a oPF.. . Aii grad: na s,:t; ect r cDServa[iDn by the City. E Yenr:ECee cr repress a -hat otFy h amity of Earato3s ac a_R Refi-,e: ur tar. Df any grading Appr.v .•of tts p'an app..es on., [a the ex~avatlcr., placement, an oompact.or. of nature: earth matertale. This approval does not roofer any rrghts of entry to er[her public prGperty or the pr.vate props: [y cf ot.".ers. Appreva: of this p~:ar. ago does nc _. ;:ru-e approra: ~f ar.y improvements. Proposed : R,pmvemenc a sstl e^c tc e and approval Dy .he reepors: Dle .:_r;[ies and a other req'ired permits shat` De obta med :[ ! she:: Fe 'he re sions.t::;.y Cf :he Pe rm.[Cee Dt aoe::t t~ .de [ify, 1 t p tect d gro a t cll[ es. 4 h pe-. .. _h t- tr e s s dev puDl-c -Na'i -lean, sa!R. aai eaDie d t.:Pir A- .-_ ~ CJnat [UG[icr. ']eD:.s -k o .. -. v» f 1 = p b.:~ , r props:; v d/nr: .. - t,en a•Id „p -c nF:e_:or -- the pre,ec[ A;_ ad-. areL' F- - .. .ra.. ~ a~ .. a~. 2.: ~ --a .. a.. - F tad: rg L~:' Le pr 'ompli 'Wi _t. the s[a 3a. d: _s~al-l,shed ~Cy'rch A -DalLtyas na.^[enance °.s, ;-_, ,-, a:rL-.I ne oa r[!rula[es I 1 . r-----_..---- - -- -- -- ri+ PI e ... t. i 2. ALL ROOF DRAINS :J BE DIS'-'XARGED INTO CLOSED NNDUIT SYSTEM ANC CONVEYED TD THE GRAVITY STORM DRALN EYST@1, INSTALL S~JB-DRAIN AR'1UN0 THE PER iNETEk FOr1NDAT'JN AND RETAIN iNG NA;.L [N ACMRDANCE KITH SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMNENDATI')H ANC [INDEP HIS DIRECT?ON. THE SUBDRAIN TO BE DISCHARGED INTO THE SURF. THE Di ECHARGF T;~ 8E F.QUIPFEC N[iH A BACNFLOM PREVENTER. 4 F?NA.. SL4"A"F LAA; NAOF GRA IEh~ SHAL:. PE P:.A.NNED ANC BU::.' S: AS T.O C'RE.. NATEF ANA1 FROM THE. E'.I LDI NCS AND YOUNDATI OHS. SLABS CA... A!:;'A:EN- FOL'NDA?:JNS SHAD SLOPE AWAY FROM THE F:_'N A. IONc. •\ ~~~ .+ ~ • ~ `'` ~ T^~ . my v a ` \ 0 10 ZO 30 4G I ~ ' I ti k ` z:: e~ w sxu. I ,,\•~ I 2:a, 1 I o r, r 9 l lY 'o R 8'w:r ~..,'rh,~ r .. rev ~ 6e j _ _ a ~~~ B ° ' a' ~, Y.' mac + ~ - ~' ~ ,~ P' . 1 f .:-~ .. _.. f ~_ -~~ ~ .. _ ~y. -e _ i J~P_.r __ k _ , 9 ,~ fb ~ ~, - K, ,o/.' ~ 1 ,~ _ a'~ .~. I -er , rs 1 aE 'b: f .. ~ vs I rr 1 b ' 'y m3 ~ t \ / __ _ 1~ rj V, L: o W n 4 ~ h Of0 b Bn rFM ,e R ~E~1 R +mnw vve M AJR ) ~s~ u:02.0 ~x / I j I 1 ~ ~ r. Ner,>E ere ..t vc. 1..~A .a.^ c ,e. A ~~ rW ~ 1' 4. C ~~ n ~ - ro ! SIB S o5a ' p I a N / N I cROri - - I N 00 -ASr.E -. I I lMUY - .X T ~ V ~ 1 I 1 ~ II y IA~ ~~ I r ~~ ' C R ~ J _, .vrs I Q I - ~ E bMRAb~ • ~ i r - 'O RF:vA rv ~ :C/ M1 I. } / Fb ~ • /02 z i OW . r. ..~ 1 R l NY " _ _ 'A'yrr 1 ,n.v xveo ~ee.rw~ ~. --.. ~ ~ I." ~" . v f y- ~ " _ 4 ~ ,~ ~ :~ 6P Atr ~ c ,.,"25 E dN lD __. _. ~.__~. .__~ Y I I ~ , ,r , , ~, , ~ t , P ':~ ~ /e uu 1 w. 'A IST- 2' rtNTOUR --_ - _- - PaoPOSeD y' coxtauR - I[f ~I _ ~, 2I I e I PROPERTY L[NE - - EASENENT LINE -- -- - -- PROPoSED S'IT)RM DRAiN - t - exoPOSeD GRADe W ,~, , ABBAEV 1T ONS SSMN SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE. SDMH STORK DRAIN MANH(iLE FH FIRE HYDRANT AD AREA DRAIN FF FIN. FLOOR FS FIN. SWe FG FIN GRADE ~.E~ EAISTING GRADING (NIANTITIES_ BASiNNN'P CUP .. ~Ll c.v 8UIIDING PAD CUT .... 1 0 ..Y BACICFILL AND SITE F[LL 9 !' Y BAPDRT .. '.'. Y. ~~~~ ~E7M Op GAT ~.. .._ .~-__ .L-.. : I.SFYET~, . __.--./ v't .~ V R • E R Icy fiN' ~ ~_ ~~ J f.-. I. N 1 a ~ ~. y/C/N/TY MAP _- _ . II ~ pr ~ ICI ~ { f. '.. d ~ •r'fy 1 17 u' 1 ~r:-=~ _.. ~1~ .~ Fop _' ~~'-. ~ ~ ' I 11i f ~~p ' ~l; .. 1 m~ ~~a_ ~ - ; °~ /~., to .. II AI. N' "a~~, TOP,' ~ifl'"; ',J OB ND ~_ ~~0 _ - moo? ~ - 20 ~I= GRACING .~~ti'D DR.t INAGi: PLAti - -- WESTFALL ENGINEERS INC. t I Nrc ,~ f 14377OLD WO(ID ROAD gMFFI -- - - - - iA5AS 6~~~ PASIV ~A~. SAR A'OG'A, CA 95070 ;X007 d6: -024A OF vN:. frv;;R ~. f (P • C ~, ~ ~ ~ . i ,; ~', ~~ -_ POOL EQUIPMENTS PROJECT INFORMATION REFERENCE DRAWING INDEX COMPLIANCE NOTES A.P.N. 397-05-055 LOT SIZE 49,701 S.F. GROSS, 48701 S. F, N[7 ZONING DISTRICT R-1-40,000 FLOOR AREAS ExISTING 1476 SF !TO 9E D"_MOL.SHED; New 1ST FLOOR 3,800 5F. 21' CEILING AREA 285 S. F. 2ND FLOOR 1,464 S.F. GARAG[ eXISTINGI 616 5.F TOTAL 6,175 S.F. TOTAL ALLOWADLe FLOOA AREA • 6,180 SF. DASEMENT AREA 827 S. F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT 4487 616 5087 S. F. BUILDING COVtRAGE 10.25% OP TOTAL SIT[ PAVED AREA B,B60 S. F. I SEE LALS SHEET At.a) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AA[A 5097.8860 13,957 5 F. IMPERVIOUS COVERAG[ 2B X OWNER CIVIL ENGINEERS ANDREW A. BARNES WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 14377 OLD WOOD ROAD 14589 BIG BASIN WAY SAAATOGA, CA Bb 070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 TEL :408-741-8545 rEL 408-867-0244 ARCNIT[LT GEOLOGIST THUYEN 0. NGUYENPHUC STEVeN F. CONNELLY C.B G. LICENSE LOnN1 REN. 1.31-03 , 1080 HOM[STEAD ROAD 3173 PERIVALE COURT SANTA LLARA, CA 05050 SAN JOSE, CA 05148 TtL 408-243-3031 TEL :408-811-3118 FAx 408-243-2)51 PAX :408-5)2-0371 SURVETORS GE07ECHNICAL ENOINE[R LEA 6 SUNG ENGINEERING, INC G[DOUEST INC. 10720 FOURTH STR[ET ~ 17 1405 INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY WEST SARATOOA CA 95070 HAYWARD, CA 84545 , TEL 408-868-0768 TEL 510-BB7-4086 FAX 510-887-3010 FAX 408-888-9068 ARDORIST DARRIE D COATeD AND ASSOCIATES HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS 2)535 SUMMIT ROAD LOS GAT05, CA 85033 TEL 408-353-1052 FAx ~. 408-359-1238 Ci- TOPO 6 DOUNDARY SURVEY C1- GRADING 8 DRAINAGe PLAN Ai- 517E PLAN Ala-1M PERVIO'J5 AREAS A2-1ST FLOOR PLAN A3. 1N0 FLOOR PLAN A4-BASEMENT PLAN A5- PRONT 8 REAR EL[VATIONS A8- SIDE EL[VATIONS A7- ROOF PLAN-SECTION ALL RECOMMENDATIONS DY THE FOLLOWING CONSULTANTS WILL BE COMPLItD WITH G[OLOG397 STEV[N F. CONNftLY, C.G.G. ENGINEERING GEO! OGIC INVEST!OPT!ON JUNt 2001 GEO7ECHNICAL ENGINt[R GEOOUeST, iNC. GeOT[CHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT N0. 01-116 21 JUNE 1001 ARBORI5T: DARRIE COATES 8 ASSOCIATES TREE SURVEY AND PR[SERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS JOB 106-01-120 JULY 30, 2001 GRADING NOTt MAXIMUM DCPTH OP CUT 7.50 F[eT R[YISION N0. DATE ~ ~~ p• 5.,,.-O1 oL 2800 ~oL ~~~_ U •° z ~oe~ 00 ~~;, ~ o oW. V ~~u R••d Y ~2 4 ^IAL x U W ~dd G~ D U U d W V W W Qz ~ ~o ~ oa W 3U Z ~ LO,_ OQMr IL rN DA T[ 5-7-01 PAOJ[CT NO.. SHEET TITLE SITe PLAN SCAL[ 1" 20' SHEET NO.: Al R[VISION H0 DATC e• ran U .. z ~a~n ~•N <tf ~uee • • / / ~ / ' ~ 1 ~ '~~~ ~ / /. ~ / /. / E%ISTING GARAGE. / 616 S.F. FRONT DRIVE, / ' 2548 SF /' / / / / / 1 /. /./ / / MAP OF IMPERVIOUS AREAS srRUCruRES MAIN MDUSE 4481 S.F. GARAGE 616 5087 S F PAVED AREAS PRaNr DRrvewar xs+a s.F ReAR DRrocwAr 3eox WALKWAY 600 Pool AReA 1e1o BB60 S.P. TOTAL 13,857 S.F. 1 ' o 0 om+~ IFu z ~I •JZQ fj ~Fal x w U d W U W W Qz ~~ OQ W 3U Z ~o Hof MQ ~Q W ~~ DATt PROJECT NO. sHCeT nrL[ ~. IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATION SCAL[ 1" 20' _.. _.. 9H[tT NO. A1.a • • • FIRST FLOOR PLAN .. ~ ~. scALe uv , I-o" AREA OF OVER 75' CEILING HEtGHr . 105 G.r A• I1)` N e'-19 - 1Y%)' 1/31- • bB er c• Ir-,o vz" % lei-sq - v x 4~n o• ..Ise H• )'-4117XY IO a 1!)'-v" % r~e"I-val)'%!1- . ez.De L• xr-a" x la-a vz" . zu.~ )eoo e.r. H• ro~ % ,e~-4" zee rIRDT rL00R MEA 40D6 Sr FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM scALe vte^ . r-o" REVISION NO DATe er tar._ o ~ooa z ~~°a F•""I ~ ~ e e pmii U sru ICI i~zi r~ ^Ial U W ~dd L~ U U d W U Z W W az ~ ~o ~ pa W ~" Z ~o ~ o~ Q ~~ m ~~ Dnre 5-7-01 PROJECT N0: eHEET TITLE 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE :1/4" 1'-0" DHRr NO.: A2 • • TR[LLIb ppLOW_ ~. - ~, SECOND FLOOR PLAN ,~e~. scALC v1~~ . v-D" ~,~~ ~_ WROUSHT IRON ~~~~,~'~ RAILIIN3 . ~~ .\ ,~. 1161 5 F FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM scALe inp° , v-a~ R[V7510N N0 DATC pY T , r~~~ V OaO z ~~°< r~:' ,~aa D~,• V I~u 1~1 ~'il !'Fee x U W 1R; U U d W U Z W W ~z ~ ~~ GJ pU W3' Z ~0 0~ Q ~~ m ~N DAT[ 5-7-01 PROJ[OT NO.: bH[eT T{TL[ 2ND FLOOR PLAN 5H[[T NO.: A3 A . ].~0 1/r X u~-fo v.. eu bF. e . n-n v]• X u~1 v]• ]oon D . fe-s yr X ]a-e vx^ sls.]e o . s~-s v]^ X 1!'-v - Yxv e!n ]ND FLOOR AR[A . uH S.R. ~ N 2 tl n y n i A Z O N n D O J D n ~ ~ Z 1 o' - D Z • =9O A 0 -~ 1 n n ~ O _ 1 i'Z n o N ~V, 0 N n D r n e 0 BARNES RESIDENCE 14377 OLD WOOD ROAD SARATOGA -CALIFORNIA • ACCURA MECHANICAL INC. 174Y HOVR[T COVRT MIL PITAB - GA YJO J6 PRONG 408-i48-J84] SAX 40l-i48-J 881 • '~ '~ z i~ J a ~ ~ i ~ I ~. O n )' i N o 1 I ~ I to • N0. OAR 07 r~.' 6-17-01 PL /~ ~ 17-10.01 PL --. ~ j---_ ~ __~ io~~ n+e oee 0000 VUOe •~ i G 04~! S :u z ~D~{ SILL .] • SECTION B-B vv . too" SECTION A-A 0 W U Z W W Qz ~ ~o OJ pU W3~ Z ~o 0 Q ~~ m ~~ ogre ~ ea-ot PROJ[OT NOa eHeeT rme R00~ PUN SGOTION BOALG :A4 4HOWN BHG[T N0, A5 ROOF PLAN 1/8" h0" • • • REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) ewLe : i/M . ita BvLAT[ R001' WALLS No. i DAR_ er P. Y.~ N-10-01 ~ R __ -A _ _ U Oe~e z ° ~' gas? ~ :,:: _<_~ U :;~ rr :ds .:AL d x U W d U U d W U Z W W az ~ ~~ ''^^ CJ v, O U W; Z ~0 0 Q ~~ m ~~ DAT[ 6-7-01 _.______ iI10J[R N0: eaeer nn.e FRONT 8 R[AR [L[VAT10N9 ecALe : t/v . tea !M[[T N0: A6 • L' • [10~T[ND BRAG! LEFT ELEVATION (WEST) BWL! : 1!4• • ri0' sure Wool' AD! KEY PLAN lXT. PINI9H GRAD[ Ho:~, DATe ~ eT ~ n-so-~ P~ ~- - --- ~_- -- - ~ ~""_ Cn~O z 'sere .a H~ .~:: a o'YY Q ~Z-- ~ e~ .~ ~.. .~~ z .:.~ d x w x U U d W U Z W BBB W Qz Q ~~ OJ pU W3, Z ~o ~ oQ Q ~~ m ~N DAR i ~-T-01 PROJlLT N0: BH!!T TRL[ i aID! [L[VATIONa BLAL! ~, I!4' P-0' BH!!T N0: A7 FF ~ c~er ors.ROOs. comrnmiry Development Dep~rtrnent MEMO COMMISSION ITEM TO: PLANNING CONIlvIISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: November 28, 2001 RE: Planning Issues Committee Assignments Please find below a table showing which Staff persons have been assigned to the various planning issues raised by the Commission a few months ago. You will note that two of the "Issues" do not have a Commissioner assigned. Is there any interest among the Commission to work on these issues? If so please let me know. Planning Issues - Committee Assignments ~~ LJ • ISSUE COMMISSIONER STAFF Basement Standards Rou ~ 7adcrrtan Vasudevan Streamline Review of ~ Huntier & Barry t)osberhous Develo meat Pro acts Study Sessions for Garakani & Kurasch Livingstone Advance Planning Actlvitles Standards for Sfiory Hunter Sullivan Poles Balloons or Models Landsca Plans Rou & Zutshi Welsh Neighborhood Design ? ~ Vasudevan & Guidelines Oosbetfious Energy Efficient Alfiemathres Garakani & Kurasctt Livingstone Expanded Crifieria for Hunfier ~ Kurasch Welsh Landsca Zoning Barry & ]ackman Sullivan Ordinance/Conflkt Resolutlon Land Use Element ? SuNivan U ./ • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. to interview one applicant for the Public Safety Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:15 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Vice Mayor Streit to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator t City Council Minutes September 5, 2001 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 5, 2001. Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 5, 2001 was properly posted on August 31, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, thanked the City Council for passing the pesticide ordinance. Ms. Jensen requested assistance from the City under the Fair Housing Act and/or the American with Disability Act to repair the roof on her house. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Bogosian requested that Ms. Jensen be referred to Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Bogosian. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Mehaffey announced that there are five vacancies available on the Board of Directors for the Saratoga Community Foundation. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-057 C City Council Minutes 2 September 5, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHYLIS BALLINGALL TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION _ COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 3-0 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. Deputy City Clerk Sullivan noted that Ms. Ballingall was unable to come to tonight's meeting and would make arrangements with the City Clerk to take her Oath of Office. Mayor Mehaffey requested that the City Council move to Item 4. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 4. OLD BUSINESS 4. AZULE PARK MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve master plan. John Cherbone Director of Public Works resented staff re ort. > >P P Director Cherbone explained that the City Council directed staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a master plan for Azule Park at the March 27, 2001 Joint Meeting. Director Cherbone noted that the development of the proposed master plan for Azule Park was a successful collaboration between Azule residents and the City. The plan incorporates a broad spectrum of amenities: • Tennis Courts • Children's playground • Horseshoe Facilities • Volleyball Area • Open Play Area • Picnic Facilities • Perimeter Pathways • Attractive Landscaping Director Cherbone noted that staff is requesting that the City Council approve the Azule Park Master Plan. • City Council Minutes 3 September 5, 2001 Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, noted that he fully supports and approves the Azule Master Plan and thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City staff for all of their time and hard work. Laura Gloner, 12649 Lido Way, noted that Azule Park has been waiting 30 years to be developed. Ms. Gloner urged the Council to approve the Azule Park Master Plan. Katie Alexander, 12340 Goleta Avenue, thanked the City Council, City staff, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their hard work in the development of the Plan. Mrs. Alexander noted that the Master Plan represents the consensus of the neighborhood. Vibha Goel, 12262 Goleta Avenue, thanked the City Council for the development of Azule Park. Jim Schindler, 12302 Goleta Court noted that the development of the Azule Master Plan has been a very positive process. Mr. Schindler noted that his only concerns are traffic and safety. Mr. Schindler noted that he submitted a petition with 200 signatures in support of the Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit commented that he has been involved with this project for a long time and fully supports the Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the process was very positive and productive. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Master Plan should be added to the CIP and fast tracked. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the RFP for construction drawings could be done separately from the CIP. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, responded that the Council could amend this year's budget to include funding out of the CIP budget to go ahead with the construction drawings. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the Council could direct staff to go forward with the RFP process tonight. Director Cherbone responded that staff would have to come back with a resolution amending the budget. Vice Mayor Streit suggested that the budget amendment be agendized for the next meeting when there is a full Council. City Council Minutes 4 September 5, 2001 Consensus of the City Council to direct staffto prepare a resolution amending the budget and return for City Council approval on October 3, 2001. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AZULE MASTER PLAN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: REGULAR MEETING -JULY 18, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the minutes be continued to the next meeting because a motion cannot be made without Councilmember Baker or Councilmember Waltonsmith. Consensus of the City Council to continue Item 2A to October 3, 2001. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. Councilmember Bo osian ulled Item 2B from the Consent Calendar. g P Councilmember Bogosian requested an explanation of the entry on page 5, General Electro Dynamics Corp. for the amount of $4852.20. Councilmember Bogosian asked why the City does not go to public scales for free or at a nominal cost. Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor, noted that he would investigate this entry and report. back to Council. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this check register be continued to the next City Council meeting. Consensus of the City Council to continue Item 2B to October 3, 2001. 2C. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. • City Council Minutes 5 September 5, 2001 STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2D. AUTHORIZATION TO MAYOR TO EXECUTE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2E. CLAIM OF JOHN YFANTIS; CLAIM NO. GL-052558 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize settlement. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT TO JOHN YFANTIS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2I. SARATOGA PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase and adopt resolution appropriating funds. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-061 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $22,145 FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF PLAY STRUCTURE. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EOUIPMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2J. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) City Council Minutes 6 September 5, 2001 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION STREITBAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2K. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-059 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR-O1-006, UP-O1-001 &TUP-Ol-003; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE APPLICANT: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT /APPELLANT: F.AC.T. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-060 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING DR-O1-006, • TUP-Ol-003, AND UP-O1-002, FOR A FIRE STATION TO BE LOCATED AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE. City Council Minutes ~ September 5, 2001 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the applications that the Planning Commission considered were for Design Review and Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing Fire Station and construction of a new 13,325 squaze foot facility at 14380 Sazatoga Avenue. The Use Permit was also to allow the deviation from standazds as provided in the City Zoning Code. The Saratoga Fire District also requested a Lot Line Adjustment so that the entire facility could be placed on Fire District property, as designed, a portion of the facility encroaches in to the Memorial Plaza by 529 square feet. The District also requested approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow fire operations to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The Planning Commission also granted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. This has not been filed with Santa Claza County. Director Sullivan explained that the Fire District property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. This zoning district allows as a conditional use, police and fire station and other public buildings, structures and facilities. Director Sullivan briefly explained the basic zoning standards. Director Sullivan noted that the zoning standazds presented in the City's code is typical standards that one would expect to find and use for professional office development, particularly in a community, such as Sazatoga. Through the use the provisions in Section 15-55.030, the Fire District requested that these standazds be set aside so that the squaze footage of the Fire Station could be maximized. The existing station could not be replaced in its current configuration without setting these zoning standards aside. Director Sullivan noted that many issues were raised during the two public hearings; many did not have direct relation to the land use jurisdiction the Planning Commission could consider. The number of parking spaces and the number of employees was raised as an issue. In the end the Planning Commission made their determinations based on their land use jurisdiction which involved the following: • Architectural Design -Planning Commission requested that project azchitect work with staff to revise the tower to better capture the Julia Morgan style of adjacent Federated Church. Setback requirements of the P-A Zone District -Planning Commission used the discretion found in Zoning Ordinance Section 15-55.030 in order to approve the project with zero setbacks. Maximum height allowed in the P-A Zone District -Planning Commission used their discretion found in Zoning Code Section 15- 55.030, in order to approve the project as proposed. • City Council Minutes b September 5, 2001 • Maximum coverage allowed in the P-A Zone District -Planning Commission used the discretion in Section 15-55.030, to approve the . project as proposed. • Land trade between the Fire District and the City -Planning Commission approved the Lot Line Adjustment conditioned upon the City Council agreeing to the trade of real property. • On-site parking requirements -Planning Commission conditioned the project in a manner that required that the pazking be revised prior to the Temporary Use permit expiring. • Temporary Use Permit to allow the Contempo Building to serve as the Fire Station during construction -Planning Commission had jurisdiction in this matter, but felt that having the Fire Station in the same general azea better served the public. • Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration -Planning Commission determined that there would be no environmental impact of rebuilding the fire station in the same location. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, noted that he is the Chair for the F.A.C.T. committee and a candidate for the Fire Commission. Mr. Dolloff noted that the F.A.C.T Committee does support a new fire station, but this proposed station design is wrong for the following reasons: • The proposed station will not even meet the present needs let alone future ones. • The Saratoga Firefighters strongly oppose the proposed design. • Too many code requirements have to be waived. • Traffic and firefighter safety problems will continue to exist. • Parking is grossly inadequate by Sazatoga standards. • The design and mass on the comer doesn't fit with its surroundings. • The citizens did not overwhelmingly approve this design. Mr. Dolloff explained with the recent Boundary Drop Agreement two new pieces of equipment has been mandated; a ladder truck and a brush patrol. The new pieces of equipment will not fit in the proposed fire station. Mr. Dolloff noted that the Sazatoga Firefighters were not consulted on the current design; in fact, they were kept out of the process. Mr. Dolloff noted that ten code requirements would have to be waived in order for this project to begin. • City Council Minutes 9 September 5, 2001 In regards to parking, Mr. Dolloff explained that there are 22 spaces for 35 full- time employees. In addition Mr. Dolloff stated that a civil engineer's report on the seismic safety was published in July 1994. The Commission has done nothing for seven years. Mr. Dolloff explained that the voters approved a replacement station. The current design has increased the size of the current station from the 7,500 sq. ft. to 17,575 sq. ft. Mr. Dolloff noted that out of 8,067 registered voters only 2,101 voted for the approval of the bond (26%). Mr. Dolloff noted that the F.A.C.T. Committee request the following: • Maximize all public safety and service for Saratoga o Fire Safety o Police Protection o Emergency Medical Services o Postal Services • Allow the Public Service Plaza Committee time to fulfill its mission as directed by the City Council. Chris Ford, 1704 Union Street, San Francisco, Architect/C3 Design Alliance, noted that he would be showing the facility needs, project background, review planning and design, and answer City Council questions. Mr. Ford explained why a new facility has been proposed: • ~ Structural age • Traffic and site lines • Facility age • Space to operate effectively • Bunkroom only sleeps eight • Women's restroom is a trailer • Exercise facility is next to rigs • Not enough parking Mr. Ford explained what a new facility would achieve: • Double deep apparatus bays • Turnout storage room • SCBA refill mask repair • Medical support and walk-in aid • Individual firefighter workstations • Overall expansion of the firefighters living space • 21 parking spaces at the Contempo Property • Improved public access to Memorial Plaza City Council Minutes 10 September 5, 2001 • • • Mr. Ford noted that after the public hearing with the Planning Commission on June 27, 2001, the Commission approved the project design, existing building demolition, and use permit for the Contempo Building. Councihnember Bogosian asked how a fire truck would get into the bay with the proposed design. Mr. Ford responded that the trucks would continue to back in, but the bay is further from the comer of Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way. Vice Mayor Streit noted that under the new Boundary Drop Agreement two more vehicles have to be added. The proposed design has only enough bays for five vehicles. Mr. Ford noted that Option B lays out the configuration of the bays with the new mandated vehicles. Councilmember Bogosian noted that there are 21 dedicated parking spaces. Councilmember Bogosian asked what is the maximum number of people that could be on the site at one time. Mr. Ford explained administrative personnel, on duty firefighters, and perhaps visitors and volunteers would be at the station at one time. Robert Peepari, 19600 Scotland Drive, Heritage Preservation Commissioner and architect. Mr. Peepari noted that he did not comment at the Planning Commission meeting about the architecture of the building. Mr. Peepari noted that at its June 27, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission approved the architectural design only after the tower was reduced at the request of one Commissioner. Mr. Peepari noted that he could not understand how this insignificant change, of slightly reducing the size of the tower, that the building design was now dramatically improved, improved enough to have the Commissioner change her vote. Mr. Peepari noted that the current design is a mediocre building design. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Drive, noted that although Mr. Ford provided a good history of the Fire Station he failed to answer questions brought up by the F.AC.T. Committee. David Ritter, 15600 Belnap Way, noted he supports the new fire station. Russell Perry, 21846 Via Regina, noted that he has been a resident and business owner for over 25 years. Mr. Perry noted that he supports the new fire station and urged the Council to deny the appeal. City Council Minutes 11 September 5, 2001 Marc Hines, 660 West Dana Street, Mountain View, noted that he represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District. Mr. Hines noted that the District wants to cooperate with the City and urged the City to deny the appeal. Erna Jackman/Planning Commissioner, 14515 Oak Street, requested that the Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and grant the appeal. Commissioner Jackman noted that she was the Commissioner that moved to approve the project based on the information the- Planning Commission had at the time. Ms. Jackman noted that several things have come to her attention since the Commission approved the project. Ms. Jackman noted that the District told the Commission that Caltrans would not allow the fire trucks to enter via Highway 9. Ms. Jackman explained that the City Manager's Office recently talked to Caltrans and they said Highway 9 could be used. Also, the District said that the Post Office would not sell their property. Recent talks with the Post Office prove the opposite. They are willing to sell as long as they get to keep a small retail space. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, explained the insufficient spaces to park the emergency vehicles in the proposed three bays in the new fire station design. Mr. Farrell urged the Council to grant the F.A.C.T. Committee's appeal. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, commented that through a use permit loophole the Fire District has requested the most extreme set of variances for zoning standards that anyone has ever asked for in this City. Mr. Whetstone noted those types of variances should only be considered if there is a compelling community interest at stake or no other way to achieve a desired result. In this case the Fire District had other options available to them when the District approved this plan. Mr. Whetstone urged the Council to grant the appeal. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, 19281 San Marcos Road, noted that this appeal presents a unique situation to the City Council for two reasons: 1) The Planning Commission was restricted to issues within their purview. The Planning Commission was prevented from considering the larger parcel of land that is potentially available for the development of a fire and public safety center complex and were forced to confine their deliberation to the small parcel of land where the fire station now sits, 2) Planning Commission based their decision on inaccurate information such as the unwillingness of the Post Office to sell their property, Caltrans refusal to allow trucks to exit on to Highway 9, and the feasibility of an underground parking facility. Chair Barry urged the Council to grant the appeal. Aaron Katz, PO Box 116, noted that his interest in this issue is as a property owner with three properties within the Saratoga Fire District. Mr. Katz noted that the size of the proposed building is unbelievable; no other fire station in City Council Minutes 12 September 5, 2001 this azea is 17,000 sq. ft. Mr. Katz asked that if the Council approves this project, which he hopes they do not, that added use restrictions be added. Bill Sousa, 13830 Sazato a Avenue, noted that he concurred with the g comments made by Mr. Dolloff. Mr. Sousa noted that he has concerns regazding parking. Mr. Sousa asked that the Council deny the project and grant the appeal. Frank Lemmon, 20652 Woodward, noted that he is the Chair for the Citizens Oversight Committee for the bond measure. Mr. Lemmon noted that the District is required to expend 5% ($4,300,000) of the $5,000,000 bond proceeds within six months, 45% ($2,700,00) within one year and 85% ($5,100,000) within three yeazs from the bond sale. Mr. Lemmon noted that unfortunately the delays in gaining approval to proceed with the project construction would cause the District to miss the 45% amount due in September 2001. This can be averted if approval is granted at once to proceed with the project. Mike Gazakani/Planning Commissioner, 19061 Austin Way, noted that when the decision was rendered at the Planning Commission meeting there was applause from the audience. Commissioner Gazakani noted that this is not a win/lose situation. Mr. Garakani noted that we are all here tonight to make sure that Sazatoga has the right fire station, the right planning and the right place. Mr. Gazakani noted that Mr. Whetstone's safety complex is an excellent concept. Mr. Dolloff noted that tonight three out of seven Planning Commissioners have asked the Council to reverse the Commission's decision. Mr. Dolloff noted that it is up to the City Council to take into consideration all the information that has finally been made public and make a decision so that the residents of Sazatoga have services they deserve. Mr. Dolloff urged the Council to grant their appeal. Hugh Hexamer, Fire Commissioner, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that Mr. Ford has akeady reviewed the need, the azchitectural design, community compatibility and regulatory compliance of Sazatoga's a new fire station. Mr. Hexamer noted that the Fire District respects the City's planning process and has made every effort to adhere to that process. Mr. Hexamer briefly explained the history of the Saratoga Fire District~and mentioned their accomplishments over the years. Mr. Hexamer reminded the Council that in the Spring of 2000 voters in the district approved a bond to build a new station and purchase the adjacent site for the interim fire station. Mr. Hexamer noted that every effort has been made to address the City's concerns. Mr. Hexamer stated that delays or postponement of the project would have the following repercussions: • City Council Minutes 13 September 5, 2001 • Increase the cost to the 20,000 residents and property owners who passed the bond • Increased construction costs Mr. Hexamer noted that if the schedule is not kept the District must forfeit to the IRS the difference between interest earned and bond interest paid. Mr. Hexamer noted that the Negative Declaration was approved on June 27`h, a period of more than 60 days ago. Provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act located in Gov. Code Section 65950(a) 3 and (b) would imply that this legislation deems this project approved. Mayor Mehaffey asked City Attorney Taylor if he had knowledge of this. City Attorney Taylor noted that it would be his understanding that notice of the fact that it has been deemed approved would have to have been filed. City Attorney Taylor noted that without that knowledge of what has been filed, he cannot comment. Councilmember Bogosian asked what authority does the City have over this project. Attorney Taylor responded that the Government Code does allow school districts the ability to override city zoning decisions under certain circumstances and the code also allows districts override local zoning authority when it pertains to water or transmission facilities, but there are no exceptions he is able to locate for other districts. Vice Mayor Streit asked Mr. Ford if there were no property line constraints would the design of the station be different. Mr. Ford responded no, the design would stay the same, although if more land were available the design would be spread out more. Vice Mayor Streit asked if adrive-through garage would be considered. Mr. Ford responded that adrive-through might be considered. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit stated that he needs to keep in mind when looking at this fire station that he is not determining a station best for the District, firefighters, or for any other specific group in Saratoga. • • City Council Minutes 14 September 5, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit stated that he is looking for a station that would serve the citizens of Sazatoga and hillside residents for the next thirty yeazs, not something that will last for only four or five years. Vice Mayor Streit pointed out that the Fire District's property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. The basic zoning standazds for the P-A zone azea aze: _ • 25 ft front yazd set back • 10-25 ft interior side yazd setback • 15 ft exterior side yard set backs • Height of 30 ft • Structure site coverage 30 %. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Fire District has requested that these standards be set aside so that the square footage of the station could be maximized as follows: • Zero front yazd set back • Zero interior side yazd setback • Zero exterior side yard set backs • Height of 35 ft • Structure site coverage 100 Vice Mayor Streit noted that in June when the Planning Commission heard the application, the District's requests seemed reasonable, under the assumption the District had no other options. However, after several meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee, which he is a member of, have found other options. The United States Post Office has been participating in the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and noted that they would consider selling their property. Vice Mayor Streit noted that parking is also an issue. The Federated Church has joined the Ad Hoc Committee to help elevate the insufficient pazking. The Church reported that approximately 40 people from the Sheriff's Department and Fire District pazk in their lot. At a recent Committee meeting the Fire District requested 20-25 spaces for firefighters and staff, yet there are only 21 spaces at the Contempo building. Vice Mayor Streit stated that it is his belief that the current design of the station is not in the best interest of the citizens of Sazatoga as a whole. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he sees parking, the lot line adjustment, and the structure site coverage as major issues. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would be voting tonight to grant the appeal and deny the project. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Commissioner Gazakani for his comments. Councihnember Bogosian noted that we can work together to make a great fire station for Saratoga. Councihnember Bogosian stated that Sazatoga does need s City Council Minutes 15 September 5, 2001 a new fire station; the current station is outdated and unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the inadequacies of this building are visible to everyone. Councihnember Bogosian noted that tonight his job as a Councihnember is to make the finding necessary to sustain the Planning Commission's decision. After reviewing all material that he has been provided he believes that there are inadequate parking and safety concenas. Councihnember Bogosian asked why were the bonds sold when the District did not have an approved plan. Councilmember Bogosian noted that tonight he would grant the appeal and deny the project. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues that the station needs improvements. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Fire District has done a good job working with the City. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the concept of a Public Safety Plaza. Mayor Mehaffey noted that if the City were to build a Public Safety Center, it would have to be placed on a ballot. Mayor Mehaffey stated that he agrees that there are not enough bays in the current design. Mayor Mehaffey noted that tonight he would grant the appeal and deny the project. At the public hearing the City Council considered the action, gave staff direction and continued the matter until a point later in the meeting to consider a resolution to be prepared by staff in the interim. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone for their input. Mayor Mehaffey called aten-minute recess at 9:28 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR 2F. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO NATIONAL GRANT SERVICES FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councihnember Bogosian pulled Item 2F from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the $1,000.00 retainer fee cone-time fee. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the $1,000.00 is a one-time fee. City Council Minutes 16 September 5, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey commented that he thinks the $1,000.00 retainer fee is a reasonable amount. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he cannot support this item. He would prefer if the City did not have to pay upfront and would rather pay a contractor a percentage per grant. Vice Mayor Streit suggested that City Manager Anderson meet with National and try to negotiate a new contract. Vice Mayor Streit noted that if the City Manager cannot renegotiate the cost, he would support the $1000.00 retainer fee. Consensus of the Council to direct staff to try and negotiate with National Grant Services to eliminate the fee. 2G. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO HIGGINS ASSOCIATES FOR SPEED ZONE SURVEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councihnember Bogosian pulled Item 2G from the Consent Calendaz. • Councihnember Bogosian questioned if the $29,870.00 included all the streets that radars are used on in Sazatoga. Director Cherbone responded that it is just the streets on the list. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH HIGGINS ASSOCIATES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2H. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO -SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR STORM WATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2H from the Consent Calendaz. • Councihnember Bogosian asked if Central Fire serves the entire City of Saratoga for this particulaz service. " City Council Minutes 17 September 5, 2001 Analyst Bloomquist responded that Central Fire serves just the properties located in their district. 2L. Director Cherbone added that this agreement was negotiated before the Boundary Drop Agreement. Director Cherbone stated that the Saratoga Fire District does not have the personnel or technical capability to perform this type of services. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that staff contact the Saratoga Fire District and see if they could contract with Central Fire District to serve the rest of Saratoga. Director Cherbone responded that he did give Chief Kraule a copy of the agreement; he has not received any feedback on whether or not he would have any of his staff trained for this type of service. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH SANTA CLARA CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. MOTION PASSEI? 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT TO PACBELL FOR SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR THE TEMPORARY LIBRARY AND APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DURAN & VENABLES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize payment and amend agreement. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2L from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian questioned if the $18,000.00 to hook up utilities would come out of the contingency fund. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that the funds would come out of the temporary library funds. BOGOSIAN/STREIT-MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO PACBELL AND APPROVE AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH DURAN AND VENABLES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. City Council Minutes 18 September 5, 2001 • • • OLD BUSINESS • HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve master plan. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that in order to ensure the long-term health and character of the Heritage Orchard, the Heritage Preservation Commission has been working over the past few months on a comprehensive Orchard Master Plan. The Master Plan provides guidelines for renovation of the existing orchard and for a well and irrigation improvements. • Director Cherbone briefly explained the goals for the Heritage Orchard: 1. Preserve the orchard as a functioning agrarian use. 2. Provide educational opportunities to learn about agricultural history in the area and orchard management and operations. 3. Maximize views of the orchard from the surrounding area to insure the orchard is an important part of the community's image. 4. Minimize intrusions of site improvements into the orchard that may disrupt orchard maintenance operations or impact the "natural appearance" for the orchard. 5. Ensure the orchard is maintained in optimum health by implementing necessary orchard maintenance and replacement programs. 6. Implement a tree adoption program. Director Cherbone noted that the Heritage Orchard Master Plan would occur in phases over a number of years. Phase I of the Master Plan is estimated to cost $272,100.00 and includes the following improvements: • Remove existing dead orchard trees • Plant new orchard trees • Irrigation system • We1UBooster Pump • Electrical • Orchard Monument Sign • Design/Construction Contingency Director Cherbone noted that the cost of Phase I is included in the proposed five- year CIP. Future improvements would include: • Adopt a tree program development • MaintenanceBarn construction • Ongoing orchard planting replacement as required Ciry Council Minutes 19 September 5, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that staff is requesting the City Council approve the Heritage Orchazd Master Plan. Robert Peepari/Heritage Preservation Commissioner, 19600 Scotland Drive, stated that the HPC fully supports and approves the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would like to implement Goa12 as soon as possible. He noted that it is important to teach the children the importance of an orchard. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the Orchazd needs better signage and suggested installing three signs instead of one. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the construction of a barn be included in the CIP program. In regazds to Vice Mayor Streit's comment, Commissioner Peepari responded that the HPC has had many discussions regazding educational programs. In regazds to signage, Commissioner Peepari noted that a wood sign with white lettering would be placed in the Heritage Orchard; the sign would coordinate with the new library sign. Councihnember Bogosian concurred with Vice Mayor Streit that the educational opportunities of the orchard should start immediately. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the HPC obtain estimates on the possibility of removing the mature oak trees and relocate them somewhere else in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosai asked if a trail could connect the pazking lot to the barn. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supports the idea of a trail to the barn but also throughout the entire orchard. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he also supports a trail through the orchazd. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the more people aze involved with the orchazd the longer it will last. Commissioner Peepari noted that the HPC is still discussing the details in regazds to implementing an adopt a tree program Mayor Mehaffey read a letter from Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Pazks and Recreation Commission, who could not stay for this portion of the meeting. Mayor Mehaffey noted that Commissioner Clabeaux stated that the PRC thought that the Heritage Orchard Master Plan was to be aninter-commission project. Commissioner Clabeaux noted that the PRC would have appreciated an opportunity to review the proposed Master Plan before it went to Council. Commissioner Clabeaux noted that although the PRC did not review the plan, they would support Council's decision. City Council Minutes 20 September 5, 2001 • • In regards to the construction of a well, Mayor Mahaffey asked if the City has a geologist report indicating if it is feasible to construct a well in the Heritage Orchard. Director Cherbone responded that prior to the actual construction of a well a geologist report would be obtained. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 6. SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-058 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that on August 15, 2001 the City Council voted to establish a commission to promote and support an increased emphasis on the arts of Saratoga. Director Pisani noted that recommended names are either City of Saratoga Cultural Arts Commission or City of Saratoga Arts Commission. Director Pisani noted that the number of members of this group be set at seven. Consensus of the City Council to call the proposed commission "Saratoga Arts Commission". STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 7. ~ LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VOTING DELEGATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend voting delegate appointment. Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, presented staff report. • City Council Minutes 21 September 5, 2001 Deputy Clerk Sullivan explained that at its August 15, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council appointed Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development, voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference. Unfortunately staff was unaware of the fact that Councilmember Bogosian would be attending the conference and has requested that the Council reconsider their appointment and delegate him as the City's voting delegate for the conference. STREITBOGOSIAN TO AMEND VOTING DELEGATE APPOINTMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 8. SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REQUEST FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor stated that the City Council has two options 1) take no action 2) direct staff to prepare necessary paper work for land transfer. Mayor Mehaffey noted he feels it is premature to take any action on this subject matter. Vice Mayor Streit stated that the Council could delay or deny this item; either way he is not willing to give up land until the Ad Hoc Committee finishes their feasibility of a Public Safety Center. Consensus of the City Council to defer all requests for a boundary line adjustment until a report from Ad Hoc Committee is received and resume discussion of Item #3. City Attorney distributed copies of the resolution and announced that copies were available to the public in the reception area. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING DR-O1-006, TUP-O1-003. AND UP- 01-002, FOR A FIRE STATION TO BE LOCATED AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. • City Council Minutes 22 September 5, 2001 9. VILLAGE DECORATIVE LIGHTING GUIDELINES AND FUNDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve guidelines and authorize funding. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that in 1994 Village merchants decided to try and improve the downtown area by purchasing pole-mounted holiday wreaths for the downtown light poles and commercial grade decorative lighting for the Village street trees. Since that time Ms. Donna Collins, a local Village merchant, has purchased, maintained, and installed the lights and wreaths that are currently in the Village. Ms. Collins has done this through merchant donations and personal finances. Coordinator Surdin noted the City has supported merchant efforts to improve the downtown by covering electricity costs for the decorative lights and assisted Ms. Collins during the holiday season by installing the wreaths on the downtown light poles. To date the City of Saratoga has no official decorative lighting guidelines for the Village, and local merchants have funded the lights and wreaths that currently exists. Coordinator Surdin briefly explained neighboring cities seasonal guidelines for decorative and/or holiday lighting. Coordinator Surdin noted that on July 31, 2001 two decorative lighting options were presented at the Saratoga Business Development Committee (SBDC). Option 1 consisted of the purchase and installation of commercial grade lighted wreaths to adorn the city light poles at all four major intersections along Big basin Way, and the first two light poles entering the Village. Option 2 included the replacement of existing tree lights with "Mini- Lights" purchased and installed by the City of Saratoga through the Economic Development Program. Option 2 was the choice preferred by the SBDC and the following guidelines were proposed: • Lights will be utilized year round during evening hours o Regulated summer hours 7 p.m. - 11 p.m. o Regulated winter hours 6:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. • All lights will be connected to the City timer • Lights will be purchased by the City of Saratoga • Lights will be installed by lighting vendor and maintained through cooperation of the vendor and City staff • The City of Saratoga will assume the cost of electricity as is the current practice Coordinator Surdin noted that there are 98 village trees located along Big Basin Way the cost for "Mini Lights" would be $12,251.12. The overall project cost including tax, installing and shipping would be $21,500.00. Ciry Council Minutes 23 September 5, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian asked if the seasonal lights could be purchased for less than $12,000.00. 10 Coordinator Surdin responded that $9,000.00 of the total is installation costs. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the Business District and supports the use of decorative lights during the holiday season, although he does not want the lights on all year round. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with the Mayor that the lights in the Village need improvements. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he supports the use of lights only during the holiday season and only if staff can reduce the cost. Councihnember Bogosian requested that this item be brought back to the Council with lower costs. Mayor Mehaffey suggested that staff bring this item back as a consent item. Vice Mayor Streit suggested the lights go up right after Thanksgiving until the middle of January. ' Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Consensus of the City Council to agendize Item 9 for the next meeting. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that public safety agencies in Santa Clara County have been confronted with a number of performance issues over the past years associated with the inefficient and untimely exchange of information, a lack ofinter-agency field communication, and unnecessarily long call processing times. These limitations severely impact the delivery of timely and quality law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services throughout the County. City Manager Anderson noted that in 1998, at the direction of the Santa Clara County/City Managers' Association, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs and Communications Managers formed two working groups to study interoperability issues for two projects: voice radio and data communications. The working groups identified a number of potential solutions that could assist a single agency, or agencies that bordered each other, but none of the solutions City Council Minutes 24 September 5, 2001 • i..~ provided for a comprehensive approach that could meet all the collective needs to share information and communicate with each other regardless of jurisdictional boundary. City Manager Anderson noted that in June 2000, the City of Mountain View issued a RFP on behalf of the participating agencies soliciting professional services for Public Safety Data Communications Network's portion of the project. This network would virtually link all the public safety agencies in the County and provide the capability for information exchange and dispatch monitoring capability. Nine proposals were received and after careful screening William L. Doolittle & Associates was selected for the project. City Manager Anderson noted that in October 2000, the Radio Interoperability Work Group completed its conceptual design for a system that would patch radio equipment between agency dispatch centers and enhance radio communication. The final design connected audio from any radio channel or frequency to other agencies via high-speed phone lines and data connectors and allowed field users to communicate without requiring them to change radio channels in the field during an emergency incident. It was at that time the discovery was made that the conceptual design for the proposed voice network could also serve as a data network. Discussions were held with William Doolittle & Associates and the Managers Association regarding the efficiencies and economics of integrating both projects. City Manager Anderson noted that the decision to merge these two projects and form a single Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications project was approved by the Managers Association. A Communications Steering Committee was established to serve as an oversight committee for the project. City Manager Anderson noted that participation on the Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications Network Project provides a great benefit to the citizens of Saratoga. Ensuring that the Sheriffs Office and Fire personnel can communicate in the field during an emergency, without interpretation and regardless of jurisdiction, has a profound public safety benefit. City Manager Anderson explained that these agreements cover the first two phases of this project. During Phase I of the project, Doolittle & Associates will collect information on existing public safety systems, mutual or automatic aid relevant data from each of the participate agencies. Using information gathered in Phase I, Phase II will provide recommended solutions for the Radio Interoperability and Data Communications Network issues. At the end of Phase II Doolittle & Associates will provide each of the participating agencies with a final report detailing the recommended alternatives. After the review of the Phase II report, decisions can be made regarding the funding and implementation of Phase III of this project. City Council Minutes 25 September 5, 2001 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS No reportable information at this time. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Mehaffey requested that the staff investigate hiring a full time City Attorney and report back to council on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Streit and Councilmember Bogosian both concurred with Mayor Mehaffey. Vice Mayor Streit noted the new sod at Congress Springs Park is going in and so far looks great. OTHER City Attorney Taylor noted that he would not be attending the meeting on September 19, 2001; Attorney Wittwer would be attending that meeting. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson reported that recently the Parks and Recreation Commission met with the neighbors of El Quito Park and received great input on park maintenance, public safety issues, and enforcement issues. Also four or five neighbors volunteered to help start a neighborhood traffic management program. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, Deputy,~ity Clerk ~" G~L~1'~' ,~'~'a~ ~,1.t'/~%l2~' City Council Minutes 26 September 5, 2001 • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on October 9, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Mehaffey called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Joan Pisani, Recreation Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 18, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 9, 2001 was properly posted on October 4, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Waltonsmith read an email from Terri Baron requesting a representative from the City Council attend a meeting with her at the County's Environmental Resource Department on October 19, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Baron has been pursuing the enforcement issue of the use permit for the Mt. Winery. Councilmember Bogosian volunteered to attend with Ms. Baton on October 19, 2001. City Council Minutes October 9, 2001 Consensus of the City Council to send Councihnember Bogosian to meet with Ms. Bazon and the County's Environmental Resource Department. City Manager Anderson suggested that Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director accompany Councilmember Bogosian. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with City Manager Andersons. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN Director Pisani introduced Christopher Knoll, Partner/Knoll & Tam and Elizabeth McLoad, Architect, and explained that they would present six Civic Center Master Plan alternatives. Mr. Knoll explained that tonight he and Ms. McLoad would present six Civic Center site plans in conceptual form. Four of the options use a combination of existing and new buildings and two options in which the existing buildings are demolished and new facilities aze built. Mr. Knoll stated that one request was to relocate the Corporation Yard, but after looking at several sites, realistically there is no other site available. Mr. Knoll briefly explained each plan and answered questions from the City Council and audience. Scheme 1-A Mr. Knoll noted that what distinguishes this plan from the others is that the Warner Hutton House and Civic Center is left intact. The Civic Theatre has additional space in the back providing new additional dressing rooms and bathroom facilities. Also, a Council Chambers is added on to the back of the Civic Center. The pazking is reconfigured and the Community Center now is a two-story structure. A gymnasium has been added next to the Community Center. This addition of a gymnasium would increase the parking requirement to 335 spaces; a three level pazking structure would have to be added between the gymnasium and the Corporation Yazd. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Community Center also served as the Senior Center. Mr. Knoll responded that the Community Center would be the Senior Center, Preschool, and Adult Day Care Center. City Council Minutes 2 October 9, 2001 Scheme 1-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Warner Hutton House and Civic Center is also left intact. A Council Chambers had been added off of City Hall facing the Fruitvale/Allendale corner. Theatre and Community Center additions aze the same as in Scheme 1-A. The parking is also reconfigured in this scheme. Councilmember Baker asked what the proposed renovations to the Civic Theater include. Mr. Knoll explained that the addition to the reaz of the theater provides additional dressing rooms, bathroom facilities, an orchestra pit and other accessibility issues. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the front of the Civic Theater would be renovated. Ms. McLoad responded that in some of the schemes the front is renovated and others it is left as is. Scheme 1-C Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is an independent building facing the Fruitvale/Allendale comer with the same renovations to the Community Center and Civic Theater. The pazking is reconfigured extending along Allendale to the Corporation Yard. A path winds along the backside of the Civic Center. Scheme 1-D Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is attached to the end of the Civic Center (facing the Fruitvale/Allendale corner) with the same renovations to the Civic Theater. The Community Center moves back towards Allendale and the pazking is reconfigured with more pazking towazds the Corporation Yard. Scheme 2-A Mr. Knoll explained that this scheme represents total demolition of all existing buildings on the site. This scheme establishes a plaza that extends from the corner of Fruitvale/Allendale to the creek. The Community Center is moved closer to the Warner Hutton House. The Civic Center is a partial two-story building with dedicated drop off zones. The Corporation Yard stays where it is. A one-way road is added that would connect the pazking lots and the back of the Civic Center. Mr. Knoll noted that there was talk about adding a playfield at Civic Center but unfortunately it is not feasible even with a completely new Civic Center. ' Mr. Knoll added that there is not enough land to accommodate everything. Scheme 2-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Community Center is built in the same vicinity as its current location with the addition of a gymnasium. All other buildings aze single Ciry Council Minutes 3 October 9, 2001 story with a central plaza that would connect all of the facilities together. Under the plaza a • single story parking garage would be built. The Plaza would provide a facade to the parking garage. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the only way to add a gymnasium is to add a parking structure. Mr. Knoll responded that a gymnasium would increase the parking requirements and the only way to comply would be a parking structure. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that her concern with adding a gymnasium is that it would increase the night activity at Civic Center, which in turn would create more traffic flow. Mr. Knoll responded that they have estimated the parking liberally. Councilmember Bogosian stated in order to preserve the character of Saratoga, his preference is to try and minimize the visual effects of parked cars from Fruitvale and Allendale. Mr. Knoll responded that parking is a difficult situation at this site due to size and preserving certain buildings and trees. Mr. Knoll stated that there are several ways to mitigate Councilmember Bogosian's concerns regarding parked cars; additional landscaping could be used. Edward Hand, President/West Valley Light Opera, thanked the City for the continued support and allowing them to use the theater since 1965. Mr. Hand stated that he welcomes any improvements to the theater. Mr. Hand noted that in his opinion the theater is in pretty good shape, although new dressing rooms, bathroom facilities and an orchestra pit would be very appreciated by all the user groups. Marianne Swan, Saratoga Preschool Coordinator, noted that she schedules her classes in conjunction with the dismissal times of the surrounding school. Mrs. Swan noted that it helps parents, who have older children in other schools, with pickup/drop off schedule. Mrs. Swan noted that Redwood School already has existing problems with traffic before and after school, adding a one way road, as shown in Scheme 2-A, connecting the parking lots would only increase the traffic in the Civic Center area. Mrs. Swan noted that it is necessary to locate the preschool close to the seniors and the creek because the children have programs that involve both. Tim Reynolds, Treasurer/ Saratoga Drama Group, noted that after reviewing all of the proposed schemes he did not see any access road behind the theater. Mr. Reynolds noted that it is important for large trucks to be able to deliver sets to the rear of the theater. Scott Peters, Director/Saratoga MJB, noted that he has been involved with this program for a long time and has seen the participation drop due to the lack of gym space in Saratoga. Mr. Peters noted that if a gym cannot be built within the Civic Center than perhaps the City could add a gym to Redwood School. City Council Minutes 4 October 9, 2001 Director Pisani read an email from Mike McErlain, 18353 Clemson Avenue. Director Pisani noted that Mr. McErlain could not attend tonight's meeting but wanted his comments read for the record. Mr. McErlain urged the Council to include a gym in the Civic Center plans. Pat Bortle, Chair/Adult Day Care Center, suggested that the Council keep in mind that if and when the renovations take place the seniors would need to be relocated. Ms. Bortle noted that there is no way that they could stop their program. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she likes pieces of Schemes 1 B and 1 D. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she supports atwo-story Community Center but prefers it back towazds the Corporation Yazd with pazking between the two buildings. In regards to a Council Chambers, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she prefers it to be attached to City Hall. In regazds to the Theater, Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she would like to see the foyer enhanced and perhaps connected to the rest of the buildings. Councilmember Waltonsmith could support a story and a half pazking structure. Councilmember Baker asked what atwo-story Community Center entails. Ms. McLoad responded that their scope of work did not include programming the use of space. Director Pisani responded to Councihnember Baker that in 1999 a Needs Assessment Report was done on the Community Center with all of the user groups. Director Pisani explained that atwo-story Community Center would gain a few classrooms, the preschool would be moved back to the Center, and would give the Senior Center and Adult Day Care Program more space. Councilmember Baker asked for a description of the proposed Council Chambers. Mr. Knoll noted that as Ms. McLoad stated eazlier details of the proposals were not included in the scope of work, but stated that it would be a large room with a raised platform and a few small conference rooms. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Councihnember Waltonsmith that the Chambers should be attached to the offices. Councihnember Baker noted that when reviewing the plans he did not like any one in particulaz. Councihnember Baker noted that he could support parts of Scheme lA and 1D. Councihnember Baker noted that the gym connected to the Community Center and a pazking structure realistically is needed for future user groups in Saratoga Councilmember Baker noted that he does not support the Chambers in the back by the creek. Councihnember Baker stated that the traffic problem at Redwood School needs to be addressed immediately. Ciry Council Minutes r~ October 9, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit noted that completely demolishing Civic Center is out of the question due to financial constraints. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he supports connecting a Council Chambers to the corner of the existing offices and refurbishing the theater to blend in more with the rest of the Civic Center. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he preferred the placement of the Community Center in Scheme lA and 1B. Vice Mayor Streit reminded the group that there aze a few structures in the Corporation Yard that would be very hard to move, such as the CNG tank. In regards to completely demolishing the Civic Center, Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Mayor Mehaffey commented that his top priority would be the theater with the Council Chambers at the bottom of his list. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he wants to keep the Community Center by the Corporation Yazd and the theater needs access to the back of the building. Council discussion took place on where to move the CNG tank if it had to be relocated. Councilmember Baker asked why the ~ Warner Hutton House was excluded in all of the plans presented to Council tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that the request came from her not to do anything to the Warner Hutton House. Councihnember Baker noted that it is a very beautiful house but its use is the least efficient. Mr. Knoll noted that it can be moved, but questioned an alternative location. Councilmember Baker commented that perhaps the Warner Hutton House could be moved to one of the City's pazks. Vice Mayor Streit added that the Warner Hutton House was not built with the intention of it being used as a teen center and the teens have destroyed it. Consensus of the City Council that they would consider using the space that the Warner Hutton House occupies and relocating the house, if a creative and useful plan was presented to them. Ms. Mcload noted that an additional factor that had to be considered when designing the parking on the site were the lazge oak trees. Pazking was designed azound them. Mayor Mehaffey stated that the oak trees have to stay where they aze; they aze too lazge to move. Consensus of the City Council that the large oak trees would not be removed. Mr. Hand asked the Council why none of the Heritage Orchazd has been used. Ciry Council Minutes 6 October 9, 2001 The City Council explained to Mr. Hand that the Heritage Orchazd is preserved in its perpetuity. Mrs. Swan noted that she would be willing to take the Warner Hutton House for her preschool and suggested the eucalyptus orchazd behind the Historical Museum as an alternative location for the house if it were to be relocated. Verda Keenan noted that she was representing the Senior Center and felt that thru traffic through the Civic Center would create a potential racetrack. Mayor Mehaffey asked Mr. Knoll and Ms McLoad when they could return after incorporating Council's comments into new plans. Mr. Knoll responded in approximately 6-8 weeks. Councilmember Baker requested that the new plans be provided to the Council, members of the public, the user groups, and placed on the City's website many days prior to the next meeting. Director Pisani asked if the Council would like cost estimates. Mayor Mehaffey responded cost estimates in phases would be appropriate. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone for attending tonight's meeting and providing input to the Civic Center Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey declared the meeting adjourned at 845 p.m. ;~tespectfully C'"athleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 7 October 9, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:20 p.m. to interview applicants for the Finance Commission, Citizen Oversight Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:35 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 Existing Litigation; Name of Case: Marcinkowski v. Saratoga MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 6:35 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey requested a moment of silence in the memory of the victims of September 11, 2001. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and requested Mr. Francis Stutzman, former Mayor of Saratoga, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Jonathan Wittwer, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst • • City Council Minutes 1 September 19, 2001 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 19, 2001 was properly posted on September 14, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Francis Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, reported after installing an alarm system he has had three false alarms and fined $75.00 each time. Mr. Stutzman admitted two of the occasions the alarm company was at fault but the third time it was not appropriate. Mr. Stutzman asked the Council for a clear definition of a "false alarm" and suggested the Council reconsider the ordnance. Ester Kim, 3287 Fowler Avenue, noted that she is concerned about several safety issues at the bottom section of Parker Ranch Trail. Ms. Kim pointed out that the following safety issues: • Closure of trail forces bicyclists to ride up a dangerous section of Prospect Road to get to Fremont Alder Preserve • Bicycle traffic on Prospect Avenue is dangerous to riders as well as others • Inconsistent signs on trail Ms. Kim requested that the City Council investigate this trail section. Henry Pastorelli, Vice President/R.O.M.P., 1207 Lisa Court, Los Altos, noted that he was representing R.O.M.P., the largest bicycle group in south bay. Mr. Pastorelli noted that the group takes weekly rides to Fremont Alder Preserve and have seen Ms. Kim's concerns first hand. Mr. Pastorelli urged the Council to investigate the lower section of the Parker Ranch Trail. Debra Briggs, Director/Silicon Valley Animal Control, noted that she was present tonight at the request of Councihnember Bogosian to update the Council on the recent incidents involving cats. Ms. Briggs noted that on last week two cats were found tied up and City Council Minutes 2 September 19, 2001 burned on raikoad tracks in Saratoga. Ms. Briggs reported that a resident, who immediately called the Sheriff's Department, spotted a third cat in the same situation. Ms. Briggs noted that this resident was able to get the license plate number, which resulted in the arrest of two juveniles who reside in Campbell. Ms. Briggs noted that the cat is severely burned, but still alive. Captain Bacon added that the two juveniles were in custody. Captain Bacon noted that both boys were extremely close to turning eighteen, which may help to prosecute them as adults. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like staff to look at the definition of false alarms. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Animal Control keep the City informed in regards to the prosecution of the two juveniles and suggested that the City write a letter to the District Attorney supporting prosecuting the boys as adults and sentencing them to the maximum sentence allowed. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the resident who helped arrest the boys be presented with a commendation from the City. Mayor Mehaffey requested additional information on the safety issues pointed out by Ms. Kim on the bottom section of the Parker Ranch Trail. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Mehaffey reported that there were two positions to be filled on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Public Safety Center, four vacancies on the Finance Commission, and five positions available on the Sazatoga Community Foundation Board of Directors. Mayor Mehaffey announced at the Sazatoga Fire District would be holding BBQ on Sunday, September 22nd at the Farmer's Market to benefit the victims of the September 11 `h attack. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-063 City Council Minutes 3 September 19, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Ronny Santana. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING RONNY SANTANA TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Mehaffey declared that it was the appropriate time to begin the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reported that at the CIP Study Session in June and at the meting in August, Council discussed 39 proposed new CIP projects that totaled . $13,130.00. Currently the Council has identified 23 projects, which are proposed to receive full or partial funding for a total of $8,220.00. Director Cherbone explained the total funded amount by funding source as follows: • General Fund: $4,190,000 • Park Development: $1,505,000 • Grant Source; $1,900,000 • Other Source: $425,000 Total: $8,220,000 Director Cherbone explained the City's Fund Balance Reserves available for the above sources: • General Fund: $6,4971,782 • Park Development: $1,000,000 ($425,000 fund balance, $375,000 park Bond Act, $200,000 Anticipated Park-In-Lieu Fees) Director Cherbone explained the balance of the City Reserve Funds after project funding: • General Fund: $2,101,782 • Park Development Fund: $505,000 City Council Minutes 4 September 19, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that the next steps in the five-year CIP aze: • Study Session with the Finance Commission • General Plan and Environmental Public Hearing with the Planning Commission • Final Public Hearing with the City Council. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Frances Colletti, 12185 Terrence Avenue, requested that the City Council reconsider funding landscaping on the medians on Prospect Road. Mrs. Colletti reported that she has collected 270 signatures supporting this project from residents around Prospect Road. Mrs. Colletti noted that it is one of the gateways into Sazatoga and should look nice. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lazdo, stated some of the surrounding neighborhoods have not had an adequate opportunity to review the Azule Park Master Plan that is listed on the CIP. Ms. Wyckoff requested that this item be continued to the next meeting. Ms Wyckoff requested funding for adequate maintenance at El Quito Pazk. Ms. Wyckoff noted that she visited City Hall and requested a copy of the CIP and was told it was not available to the public. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Pazks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City Council the Pazks and Recreation Commission top four CIP projects: 1) Playground Safety, 2) Pazk and Trail Repairs, 3) El Quito Park Improvements 4) Azule Pazk Improvements. Chair Clabeaux commented that • it is still a goal of the Commission to find a home for the Pony League. Judy Alberts, 20747 Lowena Circle, reminded the City Council that they promised the Pony league that a field would be provided to them for practice and games. Mrs. Alberts also noted that practice fields were promised to AYSO and CYSA. Mrs. Alberts noted that she did not see anything in the CIP that indicated any space or money for these user groups. Sheila Ioannou, 13624 Vaquero Court, noted that she is disappointed with the City for not backing their promises to the various sport organizations. Mrs. Ioannou noted that these organizations provide a safe environment that our children can participate in. Karen Murphy, 12590 Paseo Lardo, noted that El Quito Pazk needs money for general maintenance and an upgraded irrigation system. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Councilmember Baker noted that he is disappointed that when requested members of the public were not readily provided with a copy of the CIP. • City Council Minutes ~ September 19, 2001 City Manager Anderson noted that the CIP would be made available on the City's website and at the Public Works Department. Vice Mayor Streit commented that several speakers commented on the inadequate condition of El Quito Pazk. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he recently walked through El Quito Park and noticed several safety hazards - a new imgation system and new sod is desperately needed. Vice Mayor Streit noted he supports adding El Quito Pazk to the CIP process and funding it through the General Fund. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City has deferred maintenance on many parks for a very long time. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if there are any temporary solutions that could be done without spending a lot of money. Director Cherbone noted that there are a few things that could be done temporarily but El Quito Pazk really needs a new irrigation system. Councihnember Baker noted that he feels that one of the most important jobs of being a Councihnember, in a minimum service city, is to maintain and support the infrastructure. In regards to Ms. Wyckoff comments, Mayor Mehaffey noted that tonight the Council is not approving the CIP. Mayor Mehaffey stated that on October 17`h the public will have another opportunity to make comments and Council will consider the final approval of the CIP. Vice Mayor Streit noted that improvements at El Quito Park have to happen, even if the project is not funded unti12003. Director Cherbone noted that staff would monitor the budget every year and if the opportunity presents itself funding adjustments would be made. Consensus of the City Council to put El Quito Park Improvements into the CIP. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she supports a feasibility study on the medians on Prospect Road. Councihnember Baker asked if the City of San Jose and the City of Cupertino been contacted. Director Cherbone noted that he already contacted the City of San Jose but has not received any response. The City of Cupertino responded and would be • City Council Minutes 6 September 19, 2001 interested in a joint project. Councilmember Baker suggested that Saratoga and Cupertino send the City of • San Jose a proposal to jointly fund this project. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports Councilmember Waltonsmith request to fund the conceptual design for the medians on Prospect Road. Director Cherbone noted that he would recommend approximately $25,000 for this project. Consensus of the City Council to put funding in the CIP for the conceptual design for landscaping the medians on Prospect Road. Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked the members of the audience for coming tonight and providing input. Mayor Mehaffey declared aten-minute beak at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. and requested that the City Council move to item #5. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item #5. OLD BUSINESS . 5. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan that the draft Housing Element is the result of direction given at several City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Director Sullivan explained that consistent with the City Council direction, the draft Housing Element has been crafted so as to not delineate particular parcels as locations for higher density below market rate housing projects. A multi-prong approach was developed using projects already in the pipeline, an amnesty program for existing second dwellings, new second dwellings, a mixed use zoning overlay for all Commercial, Quasi-Public and Public land use designations. The other housing Program mandated by the state statute to be part of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan reported that the City's Consultant, Jeff Goldman, has identified about 45-acres that could be developed in mixed use projects over the next five • City Council Minutes 7 September 19, 2001 years. The map included in the draft Housing Element does not individually depict the areas expected to be redeveloped in a mixed-use project. Mr. Goldman strongly suggests we identify the areas that make up the 45 acres. Staff would suggest that we submit the draft Housing Element without individual sites identified and see how HCD responds. The Housing Element is as a stage that now requires a preliminary review by HCD to know if any additional items or more specifically is needed in any of the existing programs. Director Sullivan noted that his would not be their final review. Director Sullivan reiterated that fact that the City's responsibility to provide a setting in which housing maybe constructed in compliance with the income distribution provided by ABAG. It is not the City's responsibility to construct any housing. It is further the City's responsibility to submit an annual report to HCD, which measured the success or progress of each of the programs found within the Housing Element. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends the City Council review the draft Housing Element, provide direction to staff regarding any adjustments to the document and authorize the Mayor to sent the draft Housing Element to the HCD and the State Department for their preliminary review. Director Sullivan noted that this is not a formal hearing for the Housing Element; this is just the authorization to send the draft to the HCD. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he feels this draft document creates expectations from the HCD. Director Sullivan responded that HCD would look at the City's draft Housing Element as a preliminary document. Councilmember Bogosian noted asked if the City could make changes after HCD reviews the preliminary document. Director Sullivan responded that the City would have to justify the changes. Councilmember Baker stated the City has developed the best possible Housing Element possible. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has to send the draft to HCD and gain a corporative relationship with the assigned State staff member. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has to get an approved Housing Element by December 31S` deadline - no matter what. Councilmember Bogosian questioned page 9, Program 5.2 -Homeless and Transitional Houses Facilities and Services. Councilmember Bogosian asked if this overlay is ever enacted, that spreads these types of units all over the City of Saratoga, are there any set standards for such establishments in the City of City Council Minutes 8 September 19, 2001 Sazatoga. Director Sullivan noted that the City has given itself until July 1, 2002 to establish such standazds. Councihnember Bogosian stated that he is a resident on one of the areas identified for this type of overlay and speaking for a number of people who feel it is inappropriate because there are no set standards to protect.and guarantee their quality of life and safety. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the City could narrow the zoning after HCD approves the Element to a smaller azea. Director Sullivan responded if the zoning were changed the Housing Element would have to be amended. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive noted that if previous City Councilmembers acted on this issue in the past, the City would not have such problems today. Ms. Mahrer noted that she supports inclusionary zoning, density bonus, and amnesty programs. Jeff Schwartz, San Mazcos Court, stated that prior City Councilmembers ignored low-income housing. Mr. Schwartz commended City staff, Jeff Goldman, and the City Council for all of the effort that has gone into the Housing Element. Mr. Schwartz commented that as it stands now, the Housing Element does not threaten the chazacter of the City. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the Housing Element maintains the character of Saratoga. Mr. Monia thanked City Staff for all their hazd work. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lazdo, requested that the City do a better job educating the community on issues such as the Housing Element, she personally did not know what is was until tonight. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Drive, fully supports the draft Housing Element and concurred with the points Muriel Mahrer brought up. Mayor Mehaffey Closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he is uncomfortable with the whole process and he noted that he agrees with Ms. Wyckoff that the citizens of Sazatoga aze not sufficiently informed in regazds to the Housing Element. City Council Minutes 9 September 19, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would be voting against sending the draft Housing Element to HCD. Councilmember Bogosian stated that it is not the Housing Element that he is uncomfortable with but the process. Councilmember Bogosian stated that guidelines should be in place before agreeing to have them in a particular neighborhood. Vice Mayor Streit asked how long it would take to get a response back from HCD. Director Sullivan responded approximately 60 days. Mayor Mehaffey asked what the penalties would be if the City's Housing Element was not approved by December 31 S` Director Sullivan responded that the City would be out of compliance and if someone sued the City it would take a judge to make the determination. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she was one of the Councilmembers that went to Oakland to try and prove that the numbers given to the City by ABAG were unrealistic. Unfortunately AB~G told the City that those were the numbers set, and the City must comply with them. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports sending the draft Housing Element to HCD. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith on sending the draft Housing Element to HCD but also noted he agrees with Councilmember Bogosian that we cannot change the character of Saratoga. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has had three years to act on this issue and unfortunately the staff at the time chose not to do anything about ABAG's projections. Councilmember Baker noted that the City must have an approved Housing Element that does not destroy the character of the City, preserves the quality of life, and provides for all the necessary elements that need to be included. The City Council thanked Director Sullivan for job well done. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SEND THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. NEW BUSINESS 6. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TRAFFIC OFFICERS i Ciry Council Minutes 10 September 19, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Kevin Bacon, Captain/Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, presented staff report. Captain Bacon reported that on November 1, 200 the City Council voted to exercise the option in the Law Enforcement contract to increase Supplemental patrol hours to provide two additional deputies to address traffic issues. The additional enforcement has helped to address many of the traffic concerns relating to schools and neighborhoods. The Cities current traffic unit consists of four full time officers. Captain Bacon noted that staff is recommending taking the next step to transition the focus from enforcement to one community oriented policing to traffic issues. Captain Bacon noted that he would give a brief presentation outlining the statistics and accomplishments resulting from the additional traffic coverage. Captain Bacon noted that numerous complaints received from Saratoga residents regarding traffic issues. The complaints were forwarded to the Public Safety Commission who in turn recommended that the City Council approve two additional traffic Deputies. Captain Bacon reported that following statistical information: • Traffic citations have increased by 175% from 1558 to 4277 • Speeding citation increased by 320% from 671 to 2815 • Driver education via warnings increased 365% from 68 to 316 • Overall accidents decreased by 8.5% from 333 to 305 • Injury accidents decreased by 17% from 77 to 64 • Fatal accidents decreased by 100% from 1 (with two victims) to 0% • Accidents in which the primary factor was speeding decreased by 40% from 65 to 39 • Back-up assistance to regular patrol units increased by 112% from 249 to 539 responses • Traffic units first on the scene to alarm and 911 calls increased 135% from 63 to 148 responses • Directed enforcement ability and efforts (radar and monitoring) increased 215% from 962 responses to 3026 Captain Bacon briefly described the Sheriff's Department plans for the future: • Active involvement with Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) • Establish School Traffic Safety Liaison Officer • Liaison with Department of Public Works • City Council Minutes 11 September 19, 2001 • Liaison with businesses to address downtown traffic concerns • More community oriented policing projects S Ca tain Bacon thanked the Ci Council for their continued su port and stated that P h' P the City of Saratoga is one of the safest cities in the county and the state. Councilmember Bogosain complimented the efforts of the Sheriff's Department Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has seen the difference in the City's traffic and speeding. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like to see the Sheriff's Department move forward with the child safety seat program. City Manager Anderson noted that one officer will make the transition to more community oriented projected. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the extra Deputies have done a great job and commented that school traffic is still a problem. Vice Mayor Streit noted that it is not a speed issue, but parents dropping off and picking up kids. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he fully supports the continued use of a bike officer in the Village. Mayor Mehaffey thanked the Sheriffs Department for coming to tonight's meeting. 7. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paul Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported that the Neighborhood traffic Management Program (NTMP) is intended to provide the public with information and a Tool Kit to help identify appropriate traffic control measures to address neighborhood traffic problems. It illustrates the types of traffic management measures that can be used to control traffic on residential streets, and identifies a process whereby residents can work with the City to solve neighborhood traffic problems. Analyst Reeve noted that he NTMP document is designed to educate and empower residents with the tools to evaluate and become actively involved in the decision making process to find traffic management solutions in their neighborhood. Analyst Reeve noted that the NTMP is the culmination of several years of work by the Public Safety Commission, City Staff, and CCS Planning and Engineering. s City Council Minutes 12 September 19, 2001 The Public Safety Commission reviewed the final draft at the July 2001 meeting. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, stated that her neighbors have submitted suggestions to the Public Safety Commission to tackle issues on her street. Ms. Wyckoff noted that the additional Deputies have made a difference. Ms. Wyckoff noted that the NTMP should have been posted on the City's website. City Manager Anderson noted that if the City Council accepts the NTMP, staff would begin scheduling neighborhood meetings. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone who participated in the process in preparing the NTMP. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. SCHOOL SAFETY SUMMIT REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported that staff was directed to form a subcommittee to evaluate solution to growing concerns about school traffic and safety issues. The Schools Transportation Task Force was formed and Bridgette Ballingall, Public Safety Commissioner took the role as the Subcommittee Chair. Analyst Reeve stated that the School Safety Summit Report is the second component of the Tool Kit. Analyst Reeve explained that the Saratoga Schools Transportation Task Force is a collaborative effort comprised of representatives fro the school districts in Saratoga, law enforcement, the City, the community, and transportation agencies. As an outcome, the Task Force developed the School Traffic Calming Program, which provides a structure to manage school traffic and ensure implementation measures. Analyst Reeve noted that Commissioner Ballingall would give a brief presentation on the history of the Schools Transportation Task Force. Commissioner Ballingall reported that the Subcommittee was formed over a year ago to evaluate solutions to the growing concerns about school traffic issues and safety. Commissioner Ballingall explained that site evolutions of all the schools where performed and representatives from all schools met throughout the year and mapped and discussed all relevant problems and brainstormed for short-term and long-term solutions for each school. City Council Minutes 13 September 19, 2001 Commissioner Ballingall noted that short-term solutions were implemented immediately and long-term solutions are outlined for further development by the SSTTF. Commissioner Ballingall explained the contents of the School Traffic Calming Program: 1. Enforcement and Monitoring 2. Signing and Striping 3. Rides to School Program 4. Site Improvements 5. Bussing 6. Pedestrian Safety Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Commission Ballingall if all of the school support this program. Commissioner Ballingall responded that 12 schools from three different districts have participated in the subcommittee and everyone supports the program. Councilmember Baker asked if Saratoga union School District started a bussing program yet. Commissioner Ballingall responded that a pilot program has been started using one bus at Redwood Middle School. Unfortunately, Commissioner Ballingall commented the bus subscription is under funded; only twenty families are participating in the program so far this year. Commissioner Ballingall noted that bussing programs are extremely expensive to operate. Commissioner Ballingall noted that ALTRANS recently was awarded $36,000.00 in grant funds and purchased one clean airbus. Councilmember Baker strongly suggested to Commissioner Ballingall that the Task Force work on solutions to solve the traffic congestion at Redwood Middle School. Councilmember Baker noted that it impacts City Hall and the Post Office. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Commissioner Ballingall noting that the Subcommittee did a tremendous job. Councilmember Bogosain noted that his concern is the subscription-bussing program; he does not want to lock the City into a financial commitment to pay for the program in the future. Councilmember Bogosain noted that a bussing program has to be funded by cooperative efforts between all of the schools. A discussion took place in regards to how other districts pay for bussing services. City Council Minutes 14 September 19, 2001 Commissioner Ballingall noted that none of the districts in this county have a comprehensible bussing program. Commissioner Ballingall noted that one of the main objectives of the Task Force is to promote a comprehensible carpooling program and to continue the collaborative efforts of the Task Force. The City Council commended Commissioner Ballingall and the rest of the Task Force for all of their efforts. WALTONSMITHBAKER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -JULY 18, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councihnember Waltonsmith pulled the minutes of July 18, 2001 and requested the following be corrected. On page 18, 4`h paragraph, the statement should read, " Councihnember Waltonsmith asked if people opposing this project attended the Planning Commission meeting". WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINiJTES OF JULY 18, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. FINANCIAL REPORTS -YEAR END JUNE 30, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Financial Reports and adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-064 City Council Minutes 15 September 19, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAI~NG APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-065 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE ORDER AND RELATED APPROPRIATION CARRYOVERS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 INTO FISCAL YEAR 20001/2002 STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORTS AND ADOPT RESOLUTIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREITBOGOSIAN NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ., ~. 2E. APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY -JOINT POWERS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-066 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDED AND RELATED JPA AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY -JOINT POWERS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO DURAN & VENABLES FOR 2001 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. • City Council Minutes 16 September 19, 2001 STREIT/BOGOSAIN MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH DURAN & VENABLES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 2001-02 BUDGET - AZULE PARK MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-067 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2001/2001 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $80,000 FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AT AZULE PARK AND TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #0110 "AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENTS" Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, requested that the City Council remove Item 2G from the Consent Calendar and continue it to the next meeting. Ms. Wyckoff noted that she feels it is too premature to approve this amount of money to improve one park in the City of Saratoga. Ms. Wyckoff asked that the City perform a comprehensive analysis on all the parks in the City and try and meet all the needs of the residents not just one group. Ms. Wyckoff requested a complete line item breakdown of the Azule Master Plan project. Jim Schindler, 12302 Goleta Court, noted that he has waited 30 years for this park to be developed and finally the City has made Azule park a priority. Mr. Schindler noted that the neighbors of the park worked very hard to get to this point. Mr. Schindler requested that the City Council approve this project and fund it appropriately. Katie Alexander, 12340 Goleta Avenue, agreed with the Mr. Schindler that the neighbors worked very hard and the process has taken months.' Mrs. Alexander noted that over 150 people were involved in the planning process of the proposed Azule Master Plan and requested that Council approve this project and add it to the CIP. Mayor Mehaffey read a letter for the record submitted by Mark Linsky, 14240 Barksdale Court. In his letter Mr. Linsky noted that the basic needs of the residents of Saratoga should be met before investing large amounts of money into one park that only serves a specific group of people. City Council Minutes 1 ~ September 19, 2001 STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING BUDGET TO INCLUDE CIP # 0110 - AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CONCERNING QUITO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING QUITO ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0 2I. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY -PROPERTY TAX SETTLEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Mayor Mehaffey pulled Item 2I from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey noted that after reading the agreement he thinks the City is giving up our rights and not getting anything in return. Mayor Mehaffey noted he does not support this agreement. Mayor Mehaffey requested that the city write a letter to the County stating his objections and see what there view is. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would support Mayor Mehaffey's request. Attorney Wittwer noted that the release language in Section 4.1 is very broad; it would be in the City's interest to try and negotiate that particular language. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to write a letter to Santa Claza County regazding the Property Tax Settlement. OLD BUSINESS 4. PRESENTATION BY SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY -HIGHWAY 85 UPDATE • Ciry Council Minutes 18 September 19, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Director Cherbone announced that Mike Evanhoe/Valley Transportation Authority was scheduled to present the feasibility report on the grinding on Highway 85. Unfortunately, Mr. Evanhoe contacted the City and reported that some issues with Caltrans have not been resolved. Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Evanhoe indicated that he would report to Council sometime in October. NEW BUSINESS 9. CITY ARBORIST REQUEST FOR FEE INCREASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Director Sullivan presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the City entered into a contract with Barrie D. Coates in July 1992. Under this contract the rate chazged was 20% less than what Mr. Coates chazged private clients. The rate charged to the City has not been changed even though the rates to private clients have changed significantly over the past nine yeazs. Mr. Coates has requested that we discuss bringing fee they charge the City of Saratoga closer to what they chazge their private clients. Currently, Director Sullivan noted that the rate charged to the City of Sazatoga is 35.7% less than what he charges to private clients. Director Sullivan explained that a summary of revenues and expenditures for City Arborist activities in fiscal yeaz 2000-2001. The deposit or fees aze taken in at the beginning of a development project and the expenditures are spread over the life of the development activity, sometimes for years. The Planning Department tracks each deposit and wither refunds monies not spent or request additional payment if cost exceed the original debt. Any additional payments aze required to be made prior to "Final" approval of the project. Director Sullivan noted that staff has identified five alternatives that the Council could consider and provide staff with direction. Director Sullivan briefly described each alternative: 1. Negotiate a contract amendment that is satisfying to both parties 2. Submit a "Request for Proposals" to all qualified azborist in the Santa Clara Valley region and bring back report and contract proposal to the City Council. 3. Require development applications and others who wish to remove "Ordinance" size trees to submit an Arborist Report at the time the applicant r~ City Council Minutes 19 September 19, 2001 is submitted to the Planning Commission. 4. Create an in-house City Arborist position. 5. Decline to amend the contract. Vice Mayor Streit questioned if it's normal for a city to have a single source provider. Director Sullivan responded that the City of Sazatoga has many single source contractors for specialty professions, although most cities review the contract after a few yeazs. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City of Saratoga is very proud of its trees and has worked hard to obtain a competent azborist. Councilnember Bogosai noted that he has been very satisfied with the work Mr. Coates has done so faz. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Mr. Coates knows the history of Sazatoga. Councilmember Bogosian noted he does not support an RFP process for this service. Mayor Mehaffey noted that it is the consensus of the Council that Mr. Coates work has been appreciated and well done but he feels it is his fiscal responsibility to proceed with a RFP and would encourage Mr. Coates to submit a proposal. Councilmember Baker noted that he is uncomfortable negotiating with Mr. Coates without gathering compazable data of what the mazket place could offer the City. Councilmember Baker noted that he agrees with his colleagues that Mr. Coates does have a qualitative value and knows the history of Sazatoga, but other options need to be investigated. Vice Mayor Streit and Councilmember Waltonsmith stated they support Alternative 2. Councilmember Bogosian noted he could support the RFP, but does not support hiring any more staff members. Consensus of the City Council to prepare a RFP for City azborist services. 10. SEPTIC ABATEMENT HARDSHIP PROCEDURES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. s City Council Minutes 20 September 19, 2001 Analyst Reeve briefly provided the background of the ordinance adopted by Council in February 2000 in an effort to improve the quality of underground and creek water in the region. The Ordinance requires septic systems in the city to be abandoned, and properties to be connected directly to the public sewer by August 21, 2000. Analyst Reeve noted that as a result the Community Development Department developed procedures to track and manage the process of implementing the new ordinance. Homeowners who met certain criteria set out in the code were granted exemptions or extensions. Analyst Reeve reported that to date 156 exemptions have been granted by the Community Development Department for various reasons Analyst Reeve noted that at its Apri15, 2000 City Council meeting, Council allocated approximately $87,270 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide assistance to property owners whose financial circumstances prevented than from complying. Staff processed requests for financial hardships into the CDBG funding process because it would result in installation of sewer connection for those who qualified under the HUD income limit guidelines. After two candidates were qualified, the Council asked to approve the sewer lateral connection contracts. Analyst Reeve noted that Councilmembers questioned why staff made the determination to process the applicants through the CDBG program, rather that invoking the hardship extension provision of the code. As a result, staff was directed to return to Council to receive direction regarding the approach to be used to process cases of financial hardships. Analyst Reeve briefly described the City's options as follows: 1. All Financial hardship requests for extensions/exemptions to be received by a City Council subcommittee for eligibility, Council subcommittee to provide staff direction concerning whether to process applicants through hardship extension beyond 50 year timeframe outlined, or through he CDBG program. 2. Application for financial hardship is processed according to income eligibility guidelines. Those applicants meeting CDBG income guidelines would be processed through the program. Applicants exceeding CDBG income guidelines would be processed through exception/extension process outlined in the ordinance and brought to City Council for review and approval. Analyst Reeve noted that to date Council has not granted any extensions beyond a 5- yearbasis due to financial hardships. Councilmember Baker stated that he does not believe that anyone has been informed that they have the option to go to the Council directly and ask for an extension past the five years. Councilmember Baker stated that as far as he is aware any person who has come to the City to request an extension or defenral due to financial hardships have only been referred to the CDBG process. • City Council Minutes 21 September 19, 2001 Councilmember Baker noted that under no circumstances was it the City's intention to craft an ordinance that would force a person to sell their house in order to be in compliance. Councilmember Baker noted that it was his understanding, as described in the ordinance that the Council was to determine hazdships. Councihnember Baker asked how much of the $87,000.00, that the Council set aside for hazdships, has been used. Analyst Reeve responded that approximately $50,000.00 has been used for five connections. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the CDBG process is appropriate process but concurred with Councihnember Baker that forcing a person out of their home, if they aze not qualified for CDBG funding, was not Council's intention. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supports a subcommittee and questioned if two Councilmembers are sufficient for a subcommittee. Attorney Wittwer noted that ultimately the final decision has to be made by the Council but atwo-member subcommittee could review applications and make recommendations to the full Council. Consensus of the City Council to appoint Councilmember Baker and Councilmember Waltonsmith to the subcommittee to review applications for hazdships to comply with the sewer ordinance. Consensus of the City Council to for a subcommittee review septic abatement hazdship requests. MEHAFFEY BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER BAKER AND COUNCILMEMBER WALTONSMITH TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR SEPTIC ABATEMENT HARDSHIP REQUESTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Manager Anderson noted that currently there aze four homeowners who have applied for assistance and have been approved~by CDBG and requested direction from the Council. Councilmember Baker pointed out that all applicants should be aware of their options, either through CDBG or come before City Council. Mayor Mehaffey stated that the four applicants who have akeady qualified through the CDBG process should be released, but any new applications should be given the choice to come before Council or go through CDBG. Consensus of the City Council directed staff to process the four applicants who have already qualified through CDBG. • City Council Minutes 22 September 19, 2001 AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Mehaffey announced that he had no reportable information at this time. Vice Mayor Nick Streit noted that tomorrow night at the JPA Solid Waste meeting the discussion would be the potential extension of the Recycling and Yard Waste Contract, which expires January 2003. Vice Mayor Streit noted that after the JPA thoroughly discusses the issues he would ask the Mayor to agendize the options of the contract. Councilmember Baker reported that the new station manager at KSAR is working very hard to establish a budget. They are also in the process of replacing their assets, actively seeking grants and donations, and expanding their operation. Councilmember Baker noted that he attended the California Cities Association meeting and reported the following information: • Executive Director and Recording Secretary resigned. • Approved budget. • October 19, 2001 -coordinated by the City of San Jose "Walk for Domestic Violence". Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Library JPA: • Library JPA -approved changes in the JPA agreement. • Discussed staffing issues. • Next meeting in October. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Silicon Valley Animal Control: Up and running successfully for over a month. Almost fully staffed Drafting a Mission Statement. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following: • Chamber of Commerce's last two meeting have been closed to the public. • SASCC made $25, 0000 at their annual fundraiser on August 25, 2001. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that SASCC would also be hiring a part time social worker to come in 5 hours a week. • Sister City Committee would be holding a Moon Viewing on August 28, 2001 at Hakone Gardens. • Valley Transportation PAC -nothing to report. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS • City Council Minutes 23 September 19, 2001 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she recently read an article in Western City magazine describing various city programs for recycling monitors, keyboards, etc. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the City would be interested in considering a similar program. Vice Mayor Streit responded that that type of recycling program is on the agenda for discussion at the next JPA Solid Waste meeting. _ Councilmember Waltonsmith requested information on the current Peach Fruit Fly issues. Councilmember Bogosian noted that as a resident of the Saratoga Fire District he received a letter today, not signed by any individual but printed on Fire District leatherhead, entitled "Saratoga City Council rejects fire station plans". Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff contact the District and ask them who paid for the publication of this letter. Councilmember Bogosian noted he received an email regarding the noise at the Mt. Winery and requested an update on the noise mitigation and the County Planning process. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would be attending a tour of Mt. Umunhum sponsored by Mid Peninsula Open Space. Councilmember Baker asked when City staff would be returning to Council with a follow up report to consider aconstruction-recycling program. Councilmember Baker reminded staff that when Council discussed the proposed construction-recycling program a few months ago he requested that City staff contact three prominent contractors to come before the Council and explain how these new proposed regulations would impact them. Councilmember Baker noted that he has never seen this many American flags displayed in Saratoga. Councilmember Baker stated that everyone should be saluted for it. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted on Monday, Curtis Jewell Postmaster, called him and reported that he recently spoke to his regional postmaster and was informed that he was not interested in selling the post office property on Saratoga Avenue. City Manager Anderson noted that after he reported this new information to the Ad Hoc Committee, he City Council Minutes 24 September 19, 2001 and Vice Mayor Streit met with the regional postmaster. After a long discussion, City Manager Anderson noted that the postmaster was quite corporative, offered a few potential options, and offered to work with the Ad Hoc Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in the memory of the September 11`h victims. Respectfully submitted, i een Boye , C ~• City Clerk ~ -- :, ~ . City Council Minutes 25 September 19, 2001