Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT: None STAFF: Planners Livingstone ~ Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft lvlinutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 24, 2001. Study Session Minutes from the Meeting of November 24, 2001. OIL4I. COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public tivill be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three mimttes on matters not on this agenda The lativ generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 6, 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. DR-O1-019, V-Ol-Oll, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 &z ED-O1-001(503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road; -Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot t~vo-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 4-3, HUNTER, KURASH AND ZUTSHI OPPOSED) 2. UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road &t Farwell Avenue; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-~vay. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (TO BE CONTINUED AND RE-ADVERTISED) (APPROVED TO BE CONTINUED 7-0) 3. F-O1-005 (503-14-010) - PRIDHAM,13651 Pierce Road; -Legalize an as-built fence. The applicant requests an exception to the maximum area of enclosure permitted in the Hillside Residential zone district pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 (c). (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 7-0) 4. DR-00-059 (397-17-012) - KALKUNTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for Design Re~~iew approval to construct a new 6,048 square foot two-story residence and demolish an existing 2,000 square foot residence and 2,400 square feet of accessory structures. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 42,011 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission Mission Statement Reminder to Commissioners that December 26, 2001 meeting is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance, Re: Rear Yard Setbacks Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS Written -City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of October 17, 2001 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 9, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Tuesday, December 11, 2001- 3:00 p.m. Ciry Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER ~2; 2001 Rou CAU REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-059 - KALKLJNTE Item 4 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 2. F-O1-005 - PRIDHAM Item 3 13651 Pierce Road 3. DR-O1-019, V-O1-011 - HUERTA Item 1 BSA-Ol-001 &t ED-O1-001 22551 Mt. Eden Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site ~~isits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PUCE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 24, 2001. Study Session Minutes from the Meeting of November 24, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding 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 December 6, 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 maybe 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-O1-019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 ~ ED-O1-001(503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road; -Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (SULLIVAN) 2. UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los G~itos Road ~St Farwell Avenue; -Request fora Conditional Use Permit approval to consmxct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (TO HE CONTINUED AND RE-ADVERTISED) 3. F-O1-005 (503-14-010) - PRIDHAM, I36_`~l Pierce Road; -Legalize an as-built fence. The applicant requests an exception to thf~ maximum area of enclosure permitted. in the Hillside Residential zone district lrurs~aant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 (c). (OOSTERHOUS) 4. DR-00-059 (397-17-012) - KALKili~fTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request Eor Design Review approval to construct a :new 6,048 square foot two-story residence and demolish an existing 2,000 square foot: residence and 2,400 square feet of accessory structures. Maximum height of the structt:-re will be 26 feet. The 42,011 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission Mission Stateme:rit Reminder to Commissioners that Decerribei• 26, 2001 meeting is cancelled • COMMISSION ITEMS - Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning (~-rdinan.ce, Re: Rear Yard Setbacks - Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS Written -City Council Minutes from Regular P/Ieetings of October 17, 2001 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 9, 2002, Council (~haYnbe:rs/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • - G% D MINUTES ~ ~~ /~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~'~% ',S ~ ~~ DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 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 and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 14, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of November 14, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe 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 23, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 213, 2~~01 Page 2 Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented i:fie staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a three-part request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Design Review and Variance to allow the construction of a 4,200 squad; foot, two-story residence with a 1,500 square foot basement. The existing 6,700 square foot, two-story residence will be demolished. The new residence will have a maximum height of 26 feet. 7'he subject property is a 40,000 square foot lot in the Hillside Residential zoning district. • Per CEQA requirements, an Environmental Review wa.s prepared. The EIR was required due to the fact that grading on a slope that exceeds 10 :percent is involved. Following the EIR, -the determination was made that this project will ha~re a les;~ than significant impact due to the fact that the new residence will be constructed on the same location within an already developed area. • Stated that per City Code, any building on property .above a 30 percent slope requires issuance of a Variance. Staff can make the findings for the `Jariance because this is within a developed neighborhood, on an existing developed site. The: City's Geologist has cleared a geotechnical report. Most of the cut is for the basement and p~~ol. • Advised that the Design Review meets the criteria for integrating into the topography. Existing mature trees and landscaping will be retained. T'he riew home will be situated on the same location on the site. The mass of the facade has been broken by continual changes that reduce the bulk. The home's design protects the privacy of adjacent neighbors in part due to the retention of the existing trees and landscaping. There are limited views o:f thi;~ subject property by surrounding homes. • Informed that the roofing material is brown metal in ~i curving shape. • Stated that staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, Design Review and Variance for this proposal. • Advised that both the applicant and project architect are present and that two letters were provided as table items this evening from neighbors outlining issues of concern. Acting Chair Kurasch inquired about the setback for 'the 1;azf;bo. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda. Item No. 1 at 7:10. Mr. Stephen Clark, 14900 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Extended his clients' regrets for not being in atter-dance. Both had business commitments. • Informed that he has worked with the Kohns for the last year in designing a residence to meet their needs.. They prefer a contemporary architecture. • Said that they tried to use the existing residence but found it impossible to do so as it is larger and taller than they wanted. • Said that the key issue appears to be the impact of ore portion of the family room roof which is six feet higher than the current roof in this area, which causes concern from the adjacent neighbor as it encroaches on the views from her home office window. • Advised that this area of the roof is 10 feet bel~~w t:he 25-foot allowable limit and therefore well within the guidelines. • Replied to Acting Chair Kurasch's question about the placement of the gazebo by stating that it is 30 feet from the property line. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Clark if there is sortie design change he can make to this portion of the roof causing concern to the neighbor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Stephen Clark replied that he could change the design of the roof for the area in question. Added that his clients have agreed to trim trees in order to assist in clearing a view. Agreed that a slice of view will be blocked by new construction but well below what it could have been. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that it appears no portion of the roof is as high as the 26 feet proposed. Mr. Stephen Clark replied that at the eave of the living room, the roof height would be 26 feet. He reiterated that the family room roof runs perpendicular to the roof and is higher on the left and right but lower than the 26-foot limitation. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the result has been in meeting with the neighbors. Mr. Stephen Clark said that he hoped the results were good. Said that all but this one issue was resolved..Mr. Perata's issues can be mitigated. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that any existing fences on site must be in conformance as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Stephen Clark replied that his clients have no problem eliminating that fence. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what materials would be used for the retaining wall. Mr. Stephen Clark: • Replied that keystone is one option but the least one liked. • Said that additionally concrete or concrete block could be faced with some sort of natural stone. • Suggested that they provide three proposed types of stone and allow the applicant and neighbors to select their preferred. • Advised that this retaining wall was contentious between the former owners of this site and the current adjacent neighbors. If this retaining wall were not required, they would rather not have a retaining wall. • Reiterated that they plan to mitigate as many neighbor issues as possible as they did not want to do anything objectionable. Commissioner Zutshi inquired about building materials. Mr. Stephen Clark advised that they would love to use limestone and/or inserts but they are not in the budget. Said they would use lotted stucco in a flat monotone. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the roof material. Mr. Stephen Clark advised that the roofing is brown metal standing seam roof with a rounded top. Added that the entire house is being developed for music, with Mr. Kohn being an accomplished pianist. The living room will be a recital room. The siding of the home will be stucco. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that per the sample, the roof appears to be terra cotta in color. Mr. Stephen Clark replied that the final selection has not been made. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 4 _ Acting Chair Kurasch said that the color of the walls seems light. Mr. Stephen Clark assured that the color proposed is lighter than depicted on the drawing. Added that the Kohns would like the house as light as possible as it i.s a contemporary structure. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that visibility is considered, particularly on the Hillside District. The City prefers muted earth tones. Asked Mr. Clark if he objects to that requirement. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commissi~~n continues with the Public Hearing and discusses specific issues afterwards. Mr. Don Perata, Owner of 14146 and 14144 Perata C'oun:, S;~ratoga: • Advised that he submitted a letter yesterday and leas :since met with the architect. • Informed that he is now quite comfortable that al issues he has raised will be satisfied. • Stated that he likes the project and its architecture; anti h~~s no concerns. Ms. Julie Wise, 14180 Perata Court, Saratoga: • Stated that she provided a letter yesterday and that two issues raised in her letter have been resolved. • Said that the gazebo placement and height are still. a tit of a concern. • Added that the roof of the family room will block: out a portion of their view, which is still a questionable item of concern to her. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Ms. Wise if the proble;:n is not being able to visualize what the structure would look like. Ms. Julie Wise replied that while she has asked for a superimposed image of the proposed house on the site, the architect has not yet been able to provide it fi3r hear rc;view. Mr. Stephen Clark: • Agreed- that Ms. Wise has legitimate concerns as :.he spends lots of time in her office and the window in that room has a lovely view of which ~i wedge will be blocked by this particular design. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Clark if some sort of r~eso:lution is possible or whether he was set on this design. Mr. Stephen Clark replied that they are set with tl:~eir dessign at this point. Pointed out that he has worked with two different City Planning administration:;. If asked if the design could change, he said he did not see how. Director Sullivan pointed out that the Commission :has the option to continue this item. However, it may .want to work through all other issues, if possible, a,~d perhaps take action subject to the provision of providing the necessary visual information to Ms. 'Valise. Mr. Stephen Clark agreed that he preferred to continue the hearing. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda :[tem No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that this architecture is very different from the surrounding houses and is unique. • Advised that she was disappointed that the applicant did not work out all issues with the neighbor prior to this meeting. • Expressed support as long as the issue of the retaining wall can be worked out. • Questioned the location of the gazebo. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that he was okay with the house design. • Suggested cutting into the land to place the gazebo in a half circle so that it is straight. • Offered that perhaps the pillars could be reduced to reduce the bulk. Commissioner Hunter stated that the color of the house should not be too light in order to blend in better into the hillside. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she was okay with the gazebo as long as it is reduced in mass and bulk. • Stated that the height of the roof could be a problem. • Expressed that this is a unique house with lots of glass and wondered how the potential for glare could be reduced. Associate Planer John Livingstone pointed out that the house faces a northerly direction with no direct sun so glare should not be a concern. What might be visible are household lights in the evening. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Stated that she has several issues, including the fact that the gazebo will be very prominent and that she would like to see it scaled back, perhaps by reducing the size of the beams and posts and by using earthtone colors. • Said that there are diverse architectural styles in the area, most of them traditional. • Offered that the fact that this house is smaller than the current structure and will be nestled into the hillside.is in its favor. - • Suggested adding a condition. that the roof conflict be resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbor or brought back before the Commission for final decision. Commissioner Garakani opined that making the home darker might take away from the design itself. Acting Chair Kurasch said that it is not inappropriate to make the house darker in order to blend into the hillside. . Commissioner Hunter agreed and added that it is important to make an effort to keep the Hillside District splendid. Commissioner Garakani suggested installation of a story pole for the gazebo to demonstrate the height and location for the neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration (ED-O1-006), Design Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 2f3, 2301 Page 6 Review (DR-O1-030) and Variance (V-(Il-Ci16) to allow a new 4,200 square ffoot two- story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement on property at 14168 Perata Court with the added conditions: 1. That the applicants work witb~ th~a Valises on the roof contours as it impacts views from the Wise home, subject to approval by the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission if no consensus is reached; 2. That the applicants work with the adjacent neighbors in selecting a mutually satisfactory natural stone for facing the retaining wall, subject to approval by the Community Development Director;, 3. That a story pole for the gazebo be iinstalled for review by the neighbors; and 4. That the Community Development Iirector approves the roof and stucco's earth tone colors. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zu~tshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Rou.pe ABSTAIN: None Director Sullivan restated that if the issues at large: are: nat resolved, the item will come back to the Commission for further review and action. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day s~ppeal period before this action is final. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 *** DR-O1-042 (503-69-017) - KOHLER, 21842 Via Re;a"in;~: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,174 square foot two-story single-farr~ily residence. The existing 4,122 square foot single-family residence would be demolished. The- 113,2_`6 square foot parcel is located in the H-R Zoning District. The proposed height is 26 feet. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: • Advised that -the applicants propose to demolish a 4,122 square foot residence and seek Design Review approval for a new 6,174 square foot t\vo-story residence with a basement. The 113,256 square foot site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District. • Stated that the neighborhood has a variety of archite~~tui~al styles with rural character. While this is a departure from the Ranch style, its colors aa-e compatible with the neighborhood and natural environment. The proposed grading is consistent and the proposed use of natural materials is consistent with policy. The roofline is varied, the front door has aten-foot door, and stonework. chimneys and dormers are included in the de;;ign. This is an evolving neighborhood and the proposed colors and materials are consistent. • Informed that there are 19 significant trees on site that will be retained. Protection measures have been outlined by the Arborist and are incorporated im:o the Conditions of Approval. • Fencing will be limited to 4,000 square feet. Fencing ea;ists on the east, south and west sides while the north side is unfenced. • The proposed cut and fill is less than 1,000 cubic yards, 'which is considered minimal. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Engineer will review the con;~truction documents. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 7 • Advised that there are three proposed fireplaces and three chimneys. Only one will be wood burning. The specifics as to which will be the wood burning and which would be gas will be noted on the building plans. • Informed that the Commissioners have been provided with a memorandum from the City Attorney on the issue of Trails Access. • Recommended approval. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for more information on the Trails Access Program. Director Tom Sullivan said that the location is depicted on the Master Plan for trails. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Wilheim Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a 30-year resident of Saratoga, 25 years on this property. • Pointed out that he has many beautiful trees on his property. • Said that the impervious surfaces on his property will be reduced by about 8.5 percent with his new home while he will gain 1,000 square feet in living space. Additionally, more open space will be left around the house. • Said that the second story will be less obtrusive than the current house's second story. • Said that this will be a nice home. • Advised that he has always allowed access to the equestrian trail and has signs to that effect. However, he does not want this to become a public trail access as that would create more intense use close to his house that he could not control. He is okay with horses crossing his property with his permission and under his control. • Pointed out that many inaccuracies were included in the mailer sent out by the Trails Group. • Introduced his architect and attorney. Mr. Jun Sillano, Architect: • Thanked staff. • Said that there is minimal bulk in the structure, that it will be constructed on the existing pad with the second story portion situated behind the single story as seen from the front elevation. The roofline reduces the mass. They have exposed wood beams and corbels and undulating walls. They have used different textures and fenestration. • To satisfy Policy 2, requiring the integration into the environment, they are able to integrate this house into the environment due to the existing mature landscaping that will be retained. They will also retain the existing driveway. • To satisfy Policy 3, requiring sensitivity to privacy of neighbors, they have done so by meeting required setbacks and by providing privacy screening through landscaping. • Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sillano to identify where the wood burning fireplace would be located. Mr. Jun Sillano replied the family room. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the fireplace m the courtyard will be gas or wood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page S Mr. Jun Sillano replied gas. Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concern about the closeries~; of the garage and drive to a ravine. Mr. Jun Sillano advised that just a small sliver of the ravine is being encroached by the drive. They plan to keep the topography as it is. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Sillano if they ar~~ wi.llin.g to drain water away from this ravine to avoid runoff into the Bay. Mr. Jun Sillano assured that on-site water will be col:lecte;d. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Condition No. 10 to that :Fact. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested the use of predominately native landscape materials for any future landscaping. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a ravine on th~~ property. Mr. Jun Sillano said no. He added that this is just a sloping :;ide. Mr. Bill Sweitzer, 14151 Woodview Lane, Saratoga: • Identified his home as being on the flatlands an~i advisE:d that he owns four horses that have been . boarded at Garrett's for a number of years. • Said that he has used trails over the years without issl~e. • Cautioned that making it public could be detrimental to equestrians if bicyclists and motorcyclists were to begin to use these trails used by equestrians. These activities would spook horses. • Pointed out that an arrangement has been in place for a number of years and works well so there is no need to make a change. Ms. Jane Wilson, 14040 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Advised that she boards horses on Via Regina a~~d that 1VIr. Kohler has allowed access to the trails through his property. • Read a letter by friend, Nancy White, who could not bE; in attendance. The letter thanked for the opportunity to provide input. Stated support for t:he :new home. Expressed concern about the potential loss of accesses to trails and stated how important it is to keep this trail link open. Ms. Laura Yelavich, 1677 Blaney Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she is 10 years old and that her grandparent: live next door to the Kohlers. • Informed that she has ridden horses since she wa:, thrf;e. • Suggested that the use of the access be limited to resicien~s of Via Regina. Ms. Linda Yelavich, 1677 Blaney Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked Mr. Kohler for the continued use of his ~iccess t~~ the trail. • Expressed support for his project and said that her only c~~ncern is with future owners. M • Said that she would like to see the trail access dedicated pis an easement access. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 9 Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the Planning Commission does not have a mechanism to require a trail access easement in this application. Ms. Linda Yelavich advised that she has used trails for 40 years and would love to see Mr. Kohler dedicate it as a trail access. Mr. James Baron, 19830 Via Escuela, Saratoga: • Stated that this is a unique situation for a trail and the only people who have used this trail over the last 40 years are neighbors. This is a neighborhood community trail in his opinion. . • Expressed concern that the property will be sold and access closed off. • Said that Mr. Kohler had the public trail aligned with his property and that he has benefited financially from that fact by boarding horses on his property. • Suggested that this area has been maintained, marked and fenced as a trail with public funds over the years. • Offered that he believed the Commission can require trail access because more than a 50 percent addition is being constructed. • Said that the elevations are excessive and bulky, that story poles should be installed on all corners of the property and stabilization of the slide area should occur. • Requested a bond be required to ensure repairs to the private road that may result from construction traffic. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if there is such a provision. Director Tom Sullivan advised that such a Condition can be imposed. Ms. Teri Baron, 19830 Via Escuela, Saratoga: • Said that she boards horses and did so with the Kohlers for eight years previously. • Advised that she developed a group, Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts, and has spent a great deal of time and effort to ensure that trials were properly put in as required. • Stated that trails provide community accesses only. They are minimally marked and only used by pedestrians and equestrians. • Suggested that Mr. Kohler put in writing that access for equestrians will continue. Access can be specific and private to those on Via Regina, such as a private easement. • Stated that she believed this property would be sold soon and that this is the time to ask. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the Mt. Eden Trails were required during a subdivision. Ms. Teri Baron stated that she wants the access use in writing for permanent access for residents of Via' Regina. Commissioner Zutshi asked how Ms. Baron if she believes the City funded the trail: Ms. Teri Baron said yes. Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan if this issue is within the purview of the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied that, in the view of the City's Attorney, it is not. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Novembf:r 2f~, 21)01 Page 10 Jolie Houston, Esq., Berliner Cohen: • Said she wished to clarify for the record that they object to the allegation that the access has been used for 40 years and that it was designated a trail in. the past. Access was made available by permission only. Mr. Kohler wants to maintain :his lights. Additionally, he has the right to sell his property. He is willing to allow use by permission only. • Offered that a lot of opinions have been shared that are not relative to this Design Review. • Clarified that the City Engineer and Architect nave relied on maps for square footage and this is well within the 50 percent improvements range. • Stated her concurrence with the City Attorney's ending that there is no legal nexus for trail dedication at this time. Acting Chair Kurasch clarified for Ms. Houston that: the Commission did not hear anyone say that this trail was dedicated. Ms. Sheila Daly, 21931 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Advised that she has lived here 18 years and has been. riding in the area over 20 years. • Thanked Mr. Kohler for access to the trail for her and her children. • Said that the only access is through Mr. Kohler's p:rop~~rty and that he did work hard to have the public trail access to his property. • Stated that this is the only rural pocket left for egi~estiians. • Suggested that road dedication be given and perhap;~ locks and gates could be installed to control access such as she has seen done in Woodside. • • Said that requiring a bond to ensure the road's condition following construction of this house is a terrific idea. Advised that between $35,000 to $50,000 was recently spent by the property owners on Via Regina to put in a new road. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga; • Stated that he has been riding horses in the area fc,r 20 years and using this access to the trail, although he is not a neighbor of the Kohlers. • Said that he was sad to see that support has disapl~earc;d. • Pointed out that the access does not divide the Kohler property but is situated beneath a PG&E easement to one side. • Questioned the legal size of the existing Kohler Home, stating that he felt is important to determine whether the new house is greater or less than 5(- percent in order to see if the City does have the power to require a permanent trail access. Witli this, there is the potential of finding that a trail access is a matter of public necessity. • Urged the Commission not to allow the loss of a link. Office that link is lost, it is gone forever. • Asked the Commission to use its ingenuity. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that: if it was so disposed, they could adopt a motion suggesting that Council pursue eminent domain or purchase of easement rights. Mr. Mike Moazeni, 21781 Via Regina, Saratoga: . • Stated his full support of the construction and o:ppo:;ition to the idea of establishing a public trail access on the Kohler property. • Pointed out that Via Regina is a private road that i.s not maintained by the City. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 11 • Described that there are a lot of flies in his neighborhood as a result of the number of horses in the area and asked that Ordinance standards, which limit the number of horses, are enforced. Ms. Debra Sanfilippo, 21834 Via Regina, Sazatoga: • Said that she believed Mr. Kohler has complied with City requirements regarding any previous construction on his home. • Said that if the garage requires a retaining wall, she would request screening of that wall from her property. • Expressed opposition to the idea of a public trail access. • Explained that the property owners of Via Regina pay for the maintenance on their private road and requiring public access across private property constitutes a taking. • Stated that there are liability issue concerns with public use of this access. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Sanfilippo how long she has resided on this road. Ms. Debra Sanfilippo replied 16 years. Ms. Kathy Horner, 13857 Pike Road, Saratoga: • Advised that she has boarded her horse on Via Regina for the last 9 years and used the access on the Kohler property for the last 17 years. • Said that this trail access is a necessity. • Declared that most points made have been well stated. • Opined that this situation affects only 1VIr. Kohler's neighbors, who would have to walk or ride their horses on busy Pierce Road as an alternative to using his access to the trail. • Agreed that this should not be a public trail. • Thanked Mr. Kohler for the years he has been permitting access through his property to the public trail and stated that to let this access continue would be a legacy to him. • Asked Mr. Kohler to please allow the continued access. Mr. Wilheim Kohler, Applicant: • Said that he wants to stay nice and keep the access available for neighbors and friends. • Provided a historical background on the trail, advising that it did not exist when he first purchased the property. Riders used to simply cross his front yard so he put wire fencing 30 to 40 feet to channel people away from the house. Since that time, people just crossed since it was open although he never made an official trail. • Restated that this is a private road and there are nine signatures from Via Regina property owners who do not want the trail made public and three additional signatures were faxed under separate cover. . • Emphasized that he did not wish to establish a public trail. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out the Mr. Kohler that people seem to be concerned about what might occur in the event that he sells this property. Commissioner Garakani said that it is important to try to reach awin-win situation. Said that while the public does not have the right to access his property, during this pending construction the neighbors will experience disturbance. Said that it would be mce if Mr. Kohler could write something that assures that Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 2f~, 2001 Page 12 if this property is sold the new owners will give the right to access until all the horses that are presently boarded on Via Regina properties die. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Kohler if he supports 'the requirement for a bond to assure the condition of the road by the conclusion of construction. Mr. Wilheim Kohler said that there is a lot of buii.dinl; underway in the area and always something going on. Assured that he would make sure that n~~ damage occurs to the roadway as a result of his construction. Acting Chair Kurasch clarified that Mr. Kohler appears to :have no objection to a reasonable bond for potential damage to the road. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner Hunter expressed confusion over questions raised about the size of the existing house. Director Tom Sullivan advised that City records are based on building plans submitted for the 1992/1993 remodel whereas the County Tax Assessor's information is different. The City is convinced the size is the same as is reported in the staff report. Acting Chair Kurasch asked why both the City and County keep records. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the County keeps it:s own records for tax purposes. Staff triple checked City records. Square footage counts anything not open on three sides. Commissioner Hunter reminded about the concerns e:Kpresse~i over the retaining wall. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commis:~ion ca~i add a Condition of Approval regarding facing the retaining wall with stone and reminded that the City's Geotechnical Engineer will be reviewing the proposed plans to ensure applicability of the retaining wall. Commissioner Hunter asked for verification of the PCT&E ea:~ement. Director Tom Sullivan said that there is such an easement. Such easements are generally for a specific use. Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan if it is po:~sible to have more than one use for an easement. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Garakani expressed concern about 1:he bullciness of the garage and questioned the function for dormers on the windows for this garage. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the dormers serve to break up the roofline. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Garakani said that it creates mass. Pointed out that the roof of the garage is much higher than the roof on the front section of the home. Also brought attention to the fact that there are four rather tall chimneys. Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a limit of one woodburning fireplace. The other chimneys will simply be venting chimneys for gas fireplaces. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is for the architect to say. Perhaps it is a design issue to provide clearance over roof areas. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested that the Commission can require the chimneys to be limited to the minimum height necessary to meet Code requirements. Commissioner Garakani suggested a reduction in the garage roofline and stated his concern over potential impacts on the root line of the Oak tree. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she too was concerned about the configuration of the garage to the slope. Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:17 p.m. Mr. Mark Thomas, Project Builder: • Assured that he has met with the City's Architectural Advisor, Barrie Coates, to specifically discuss the garage and potential construction impacts on the oak tree. Mr. Coates recommendation was to build using pier and beam construction so that no trenching activity will occur. With that, Mr. Coates is satisfied. • Stated that the height of the retaining wall is a minimal two to three feet. Commissioner Garakani asked if any fill would be required for the area around the garage. Mr. Mark Thomas replied that there will be fill inside the foundation for the garaged but not outside the foundation. Commissioner Garakani asked for the purpose of the windows in the garage. Mr. Jun Sillano, Project Architect, replied that they are necessary to bring in natural light into the three- car garage. ~ There are no privacy impacts on the neighbors. Pointed out that the roof height of the garage is only 18 feet. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Sillano if the garage can be made smaller in order to reduce its mass. Mr. Jun Sillano answered that the garage is only 34 by 21 feet in interior space, which is not big for a three-car garage. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the stone pillars between the garage doors can be reduced in width. Mr. Jun Sillano clarified that the area between the doors is stucco and not stones and that the size is necessary to provide the three-car garage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 2~>, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Garakani asked for the roof height. Mr. Jun Sillano advised that the garage roof's pitch will match the house's. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for clarification on why the fireplace chimneys are so tall. Mr. Jun Sillano advised that Code requires these ~~himne:~s to be two feet above the highest ridge. Assured that they will build chimneys only as allowed by Code. Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for A~;encia No. 2 at 9:28 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that his concerns include the questions about the legality of the square footage of the existing house, the garage height and the fiurtL~est back chimney's height. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the garage height should be reduced. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Stated that the house design is thoughtful and well-planned design of which she has no objection. • Said that she could support a modification to the roof of'the garage so that it appears less bulky and did not believe this change would harm the archil:ectu~re. • Suggested the use of native landscaping particularly iieai• the ravine. • Supported the idea of a bond for the protection oil the private road. • Declared that she did not believe the Planning Comiriissi.on hearing is the venue for consideration of trail access and could not be considered as a part of this :application. • Expressed that she did not feel that staff has rc~ade: calculation errors in the size of the existing home. • Pointed out that any decisions of the Commission care be appealed to Council. • Supported a requirement for limiting the minimum hc;igL~~t of the chimneys per Code. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has no problem with the garage as proposed and pointed out that it faces the side. • Supported the bond to protect the road. • Pointed out that Mr. Kohler seems willing to talk with his neighbors and will keep things as they are as long as he owns the property. • Agreed that one solution to limit access is to install fe:nce:s. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if Commissioner Hunter. is supportive of a requirement to reduce the roof height for the garage. Commissioner Hunter said that the roof height is right for the house and supports the chimneys' heights as long as they are to Code. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garak:~ni, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a I)esia;n ll~eview (DR-O1-042) to allow a new 6,174 square foot, two-story residence on property at 21842 Via Regina with the added Conditions of Approval to: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 15 1. Reduce the height of the garage roof; 2. Assure that the chimney heights are no higher than the minimum required by Code; 3. Submit a bond to ensure the good condition of the private road by the completion of construction; 4. Add a natural material stone to face the retaining wall; and 5. Use predominately native landscaping on the site. AYES:Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 9:38 p.m. Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 9:49 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 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. Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application seeks Design Review approval for the construction of a 5,400 square foot, single-story residence and the demolition of the existing 4,200 square foot home. The maximum height will be 21 feet and the 40,000 square foot lot is located in an R-1-40,000 Zoning District. • Pointed out that such. a project would typically be handle through an Administrative Design Review since it involves replacing asingle-story home. However, the new home's proposed height exceeds 18 feet, which requires Planning Commission review. • Stated that the applicant is seeking approval for 21-foot height in order to allow an increase in roof pitch.- The actual maximum allowable height limit is 26 feet. • Advised that all criteria are met by this project. The house will be located on the same pad and may use the same foundation, if possible. The majority of the mature landscaping will be retained. The project has a varied roofline and articulation is achieved with architectural windows and use of stone. • Said that staff is in support of this proposal. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat, Project Architect: • Advised that this project began when Mrs. Jones wanted a new cooktop. • Stated that they plan to leave the rear landscaping alone. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 213, 2001 Page 16 • Said that they came to the realization that remodeling this home did not make sense. The Jones wanted higher ceilings and walls, a more custom home:. This new design has articulation and fits better into the neighborhood. The new home vc~ill have approximately 1,100 square feet of additional living area. • Informed that they had tried to keep the house undc;r 18 feet in height but felt that the increase in height was important enough to make it worth p.articipa~ting in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. • Said that the existing home is already 18 feet and this new home will not block any views.. Overall this project is pretty straightforward. Commissioner Garakani asked for the width of the arch c;olumn. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied 30 inches. Commissioner Garakani said that it appears to be bulky. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat reminded that it is symmetrical on both sides. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the arch does not come out too far. She added that the driveway, currently long and wide is changing. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they are reducing imper•~ious surfaces by quite a bit. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if all existing trees will r,e re;tai~led. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what material is being used for the garage door. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they are looking at several ~~ustom garage doors. They are gearing toward a cedar with a whitewash stain. Commissioner Garakani asked_what material is bein€; used on the entry pillar. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied solid wall veneer faced with stone;. Commissioner Hunter asked if the roof is really speck{led. Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that there is some variation in color but the material is a beautiful natural clay tile. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the wall outside the dinin; room. • Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said it encloses a little patio and Yeas b~eer~ counted into the total square footage. This wall is two to two-and-a-half feet high. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that this house seems re:aso~iab:le, is not overly huge and has a nice quality design that will fit in well. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 17 i Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:01 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-038 to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 19369 Crisp Avenue: AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 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. Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking approval to demolish a 2,476 square foot, single-story residence and Design Review approval to construct a new 5,559 square foot, two-story residence with a 927 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 26 feet. The 615 square foot existing detached garage would remain. The 49,701 square foot site is located in an R-1-40,000 Zoning District. • Pointed out that the westerly portion of this property is heavily treed and has a creek. • Stated that staff is pleased with the selection of colors and materials. The house is to be situated on a nearly flat portion of the lot. The front portion of the house will be single-story with the two-story element situated to the rear of the home. The front entry is 60 feet away from the front property line while the existing house is 195 feet from the front property line. The existing driveway will be retained and little grading is required at about 400 yards. The conditions derived from the Geotechnical Report have been incorporated. • Advised that a woodburning fireplace will be situated on the outside patio and interior fireplaces will be gas. • Stated that staff is recommending approval as this project meets the guidelines of the Residential Handbook and the French Country design is not out of character for the area. Commissioner Garakani asked if the square footage of the garage has been counted. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the curved roof edges are called. Director Tom Sullivan replied he was unsure. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the exterior stairs are normal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of NovembE:r 28, 2~)O1 Director Tom Sullivan said they were not untypical. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the area along the driveway i:; stabile enough. Director Tom Sullivan replied that remediation will be: required if it is found not to be sufficiently stabile. This is a nice place to keep the driveway. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Age:nd<< Item No. 4 at 10:11 p.m. Mr. Andrew Barnes, Applicant: • Stated that he has resided in this home for 15 years. • Advised that a few neighbors who had come this ev~eniiig to support his application left as a result of the late hour. • Stated that he wanted aFrench-style home in recognition. of his being half French. • Described his roof style as being Peragold. Commissioner Garakani asked about whether the roof of the foyer is flat on top. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a chimney an the bs~ck of the house. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked for the roof height. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied 21-foot ceilings inside -with. a .25.5-foot exterior roof height. The added height is to accommodate the height of the foyer. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the second roof in front of the foyer doesn't appear to blend with the roof. - Mr. Andrew Barnes advised that the purpose of the element is to give style to the house. Acting Chair Kurasch asked for the height of the entry doors. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied 42 inches wide by eight feet tall with atwo-foot transom. There are double doors. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the entry roof seems ;awfully imposing compared to the rest of the house. • • Mr. Andrew Barnes pointed out that the entry featur~~ is located at 60 feet from the front property line with the remainder of the house back an additional sip: feet. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if bringing the house s~~ much closer up front is to provide a larger rear yard. Page 18 r! Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 19 Mr. Andrew Barnes said that the placement of the new house is based on where trees are located in order to maximize privacy of his neighbors. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the sewer easement on the property. Mr. Andrew Barnes: • Replied that it runs all the way across the property. • Added that he cannot go further back without encroaching into that easement without redesigning the house. • Pointed out that he planted 40 trees on his property at a cost of $40,000 and asked for a waiver on the requirement for an $18,000 bond for the protection of trees. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the north-to-south easements do not run parallel to the eastern property line. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Barnes if he is willing to change the color of the balcony railing to light gray instead of the proposed blue. Mr. Andrew Barnes said sure. Commissioner Hunter stated that she is delighted to see the use of Vermont slate. Mr. Andrew Barnes added that this slate is 3/4 inches thick and the house will last for many- years to come. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if all sides will be veneered in stone. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes. Commissioner Garakani questioned the bulk and mass of the front entry. Mr. Andrew Barnes advised .that there is a dome in the foyer so the ceiling must be higher to accommodate it. Commissioner Hunter asked about the two dormers in front. Mr. Andrew Barnes advised that one is in a closet and one brings light to the attic. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that there are a lot of details to this design. Mr. Andrew Barnes replied that this is not a small house or undertaking. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out there is not a lot of symmetry to the two sides of the front elevation. Director Tom Sullivan advised that on the left side the windows are in asemi-circle for the dining room. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 20 Mr. Andrew Barnes offered that he could move the ~c~indows on the right all the way to the floor easily to achieve more symmetry. Acting Chair Kurasch stated that there appears to be ;~ lot of transoms in back but not in front. They are a bit busy which dilutes the effect of each one. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are gas or woadburnirig fireplaces. Director Sullivan advised that this is designated on the pl~~ns. If used primarily for a barbecue, the applicant can have a woodburning fireplace outside a;s well as one inside the home. Commissioner Garakani expressed doubt that such .a big chimney is required for the outside fireplace/barbecue. Director Sullivan said that since it is situated so close: to t:he building, a chimney of that size is required. He added that a minor technical correction to the Fire Conditions needs to be noted. A few conditions from a previous project were inadvertently left when used as a template and should be deleted. Additionally reference was made to a Code Section that: should be 16-15070 rather than 16-15090 as noted in the Conditions. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for ~~genda Item No. 4 at 10:34 p.m. Commissioner Hunter said that with the use of gray rathe:r than blue balcony wrought iron railing and a bond for the trees, she is fine with this home design. Commissioner Garakani said that as long as the front v~~ind.ows to the right of the front elevation are changed to match the left side, everything else is ok~iy. He stated a problem visualizing the bulkiness of the foyer, which he believed should be thinned out and rec~iuced. Director Sullivan pointed out that there is a functional side to the foyer element in that it also contains a stairway. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Commissioner Garakani if hiis a~ncern is the size or height. Commissioner Garakani said both. Questioned if it i:> po:~sible to reduce without adversely affecting the design. Director Sullivan suggested that if this is the consensus o:f the Commission, it could give staff that direction to work with the applicant and his architect to re:duc:e as possible. Commissioner Garakani asked that it be made more mode;st ~uzd in keeping with the rest of the house. Acting Chair Kurasch agreed. Stated her support for the use of the same window features on both sides of the front elevation, which would look nice. Also supported the use of gray in place of blue wrought iron railing for the balcony. Commissioner Zutshi said that the home seems busy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 21 Director Sullivan assured that the stone will blend in together while the drawing seems to pop the details out. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-056 to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 14377 Old Wood Road with the added Conditions to: 1. Reduce the size of the entry and foyer; 2. Resize the front windows to the right of the front elevation to match those on the left of the front elevation; and 3. Use gray wrought iron on the balcony railing. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani asked if interest is paid on the bond. Director Sullivan advised that the bond is in the form of a Certificate of Deposit. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. _*** DIRECTOR ITEMS Cancellation of December 26, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting: Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next meeting would be cancelled in light of the holiday. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Director Sullivan advised he would keep this item on the agenda in case issues come up. COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from Council meetings on September 5, 19 and October 9, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, December 12, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA.P~.ANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 5:00 p.m. PLACE: St. Andrew's Parish and Schoo1,13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, and Zutshi ABSENT: Chair Barry and Commissioners Jackman, Roupe STAFF: Director Sullivan and Planner Oosterhous 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 was a study session between the applicant, Planning Commissioners, interested citizens, and staff to introduce the scope of the proposed project to the Planning Commissioners. 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.) No members of the public were present. 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.) St. Andrews staff and consultants led the Commissioners on a tour of the site. 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. The project design team explained the scope of the project. The Planning '~ Commissioners interjected with questions and concerns. Hunter inquired about the number of Saratoga residents that attend the school and noted that many local public schools and organizations utilized the current St. Andrews facility. Kurasch requested Page clarification on the proposed square foot<<ge of tYie project and expressed concern with the proposed pedestrian circulation at th~~ site. ~;utshi inquired about the presence of bell towers at other religious facilities in the (~it}'. Kurasch expressed concern with the prominence, imposing nature, and close f~roximi~_y of the bell tower to Saratoga Avenue. Garakani was also concerned with the vi:~ual impacts of the proposed bell tower and inquired if the design team considered locating the bells in the existing tower on the sanctuary. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR MEETING IN CO~UN~CIL CHAMBERS Ci~~ic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sa:rato;;a, ~~A The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. • • . . 4 .. - __ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: BSA/SDP-O1-011; DR-O1-018; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 Location: 22551 Mount Eden Road Applicant/Owner: HUERTABROWN Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: December 12, 2001 APN: 503-13-117 Department Head: ` i _~ (i~~(1~'t~l s 22551 Mount Eden Road • EXECUITVI= St~MrrIARY CASF HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published Mailing completed Posting completed ls` Public Hearing Continued Public Hearing PROJECT DESCRIPTION S/03/Ol 9/14/01 10/10/Ol 10/1U01 10/1U01 10/24/01 12/UJOl The project is the construction of one single-farruly i~esicience on one lot consisting of 1.42 acres in area (gross) and 24,742 net square feet in area. Ttie floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and would include a ]!,260 square foot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The maximum height of the garage would be lq' feet. "Che project would include remediation of unstable soil on the site. Approximately two-thirds oil the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and the G~:neral ;Plan Designation is Hillside Residential Conservation (HRC). STAFF DISCUSSION The Planning Commission continued the Octobc~r 2~E, 21)01, Public Hearing for this application to December 12, 2001. (6-0 vote) The Planning Commssion also requested that two questions be directed to the City's Geotechnical Consultant. First, "What would be involved to mitigate the southern most landslide?" and secondly, "Could native Redwood or Oaks be planted on, at, or near the slide as it exist without jeopardizing the stability of the slide and off site properties?" The Consultant's responses are attached for the Conunission's review.. In short, due to the size of the southern slide, the remediation would involve performing construction on several different properties. The proposed project does not affect the southern slide, consequently establishing a clear nexus is difficult. With regard to the question about planting trees the answer is yes, trees can be planted. The consultant does provide some warnings regarding that activity. The Commission also provided direction (5-1 vote) to the applicant that the size of the building be reduced 10 - 15%. The direction was to reciucF both the perceived and actual mass of the building. The applicant's Architect, Charles lr~rown, ]Zas amended the plans in the following manner to satisfy the Commission's direction. • 1. Reduced the first floor are by 403 sq~uarc: feet. This represents a 14.7% reduction of the first floor and an 8.3% reduction overall. 2. Has removed the guestroom and family room from the southerly side of the first floor. The kitchen, nook and: a terrace have been modified to create a ~UUU-U;~ floor. The kitchen, nook and aterrace -have been modified to create a kitchen/family room. 3: The architect has provided shaded elements on the elevations to depict area of the flat view of -the elevation that would normally not be seen in a 3-deminsional world. 4. The garage has been moved northerly, up the hill, by about 7 ft. 5. The basement and second floors have not been altered. These changes are shown on the revised plan set included in your agenda packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If these changes satisfy the direction given to the applicant by the Planning Commission at the October 24, 2001 meeting, the Commission should adopt the attached Resolution which recommends the Ciry Council grant a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the following entitlements. Mitigated Negative Declaration: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ED-O1-001 Project Entitlements: That the Planning Commission conditionally approve the tentative BSA/SDP, BSA-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016; and DR-O1-018 ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report Dated October 24, 2001 (with all attachments) 2-. Additional Geotechnical Information 3. Revised Plan Set. 000003 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK n~~n~ s~ • • ~~ :. • Attachment 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011, DR-O1-018; UP-O1-016 &r ED-OI-001; 22551 Mount Eden Road Applicant/Owner: HUERTABROWN Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Planner Date: October 24, 2001 APN: 503-23-117 Department ~C~~05 22551 Mt. Eden Road EXECUTIVE. StiMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5/03/01 9/14!01 10/10/Ol 10/1U01 l0I1U01 The project is the construction of one single-family residence on one lot consisting of 1.42 acres in area (gross) and 24,742 net square feet in area. The floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and would include a 1,260 square i:oot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached. The maximum height c•f. the: residence would be 26 feet. The maximum height of the garage would be 14 feet. The proje~;.t would include remediation of unstable soil on the site. Approximately two-thuds of the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and the Ge-Hera! Plan Designation is Hillside Residential. Conservation (HRC). An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration `were prepared for the project. As the Commission is aware, the construction of single-family residential structures is normally exempt from CEQA. The site however requires grading an slopes in excess of 10 percent and as such does require CEQA review (California Code of Regulation:, Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 153040). Upon completion of the Initial Study staff determined chat a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative; De~:.lar.ation is attached for the Commission's re~zew. Since the Building Site Approval process :requires action by the Ciry Council on the Final Building Site Plan (BSA), the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to Council along with the Final BSA for adoption of the Mitigated Cegative: Declaration and action on the proposed project. Therefore in summary, the proposed project consi:~ts of a: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (adoption oi~). 2) Building Site Approval in order to construct. on a vacant lot subdivided over 15 years past pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-20. 3) Site Development Plan in order to construct on a hillside lot pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-25.100. 4) Variance to construct retaining-walls in excess of five feet in height and within the front setback for slope mitigation pursuant to Muni~.ipal. Code 15-29.010(g). 5) Variance to build on a lot greater than 30 percent in slope under the building footprint pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.13-050(e)(~.). 6) Design Review to construct a new single-:Fami:ly residence pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. 7) Conditional Use Permit to construct an accesso~.y structure (detached garage) at 14 feet in height pursuant to Municipal Code 15-55.030. • • C~ "~~1(~UU6 i l File No. ED-O1-001; BSAJSDP-O1-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &x DR-O1-018: ZZSS1 Mount Eden Road s _ __ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council and conditionally approve the following entitlements. Mitigated Negative Declazation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ED-O1-001. Project Entitlements: That the Planning Commission conditionally approve the tentative BSA/SDP, BSA-Ol-00; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016; and DR-O1-018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018. 2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declazation Exhibit "B" to the Resolution. 3. Plans, Exhibit °A" to the Staff Report. • • P.~Plannin~Allison~Staff ReportsuvltEdcadoc r V ~% ~ V . /~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-~Oll; UF'-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 21551 Movnt Eden Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential Conservation-Single Family MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.42 acres (gross) 24,742-sq. fi:. (net} AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31.17% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill propo~;ed is 1,465 cubic yards. Of the total, 612 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of~ 18'-~6° would be required to construct the basement. The 612 cubic yards of grading to construct a basement is excluded from the total pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. "Therefore, overall project grading is 853 cubic yards for purposes of entitlement review. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An l:nitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached for the Commission's review. The proposed project would have a benefit on the environment due to the fact th<<t two l;~ndslide slumps on the site would be repaired. The slumps are also causing damage to Mount Eden Road in the form of cracking the pavement. The repair of the slumps neces;~itates retaining walls in excess of hve feet in height, the subject of one of the variances. The landslide slump repair would improve conditions on Mount Eden Road as well as on the project site. The mitigation of the slumps would abort the cracking of Mount Eden Road. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Dark Olive and Corinthian White and Cobblestone, both soft wheat/fox tail shades of beige. The proposed roofing is green slate. (This Area Intentionally Lf>ft Blank) • A:~IvitEdendoc ~ (1~~~~ ' File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 13% 25% Building Footprint 3,244sq. Ft. Carport 210 sq. ft. Driveway /Parking 2,244 sq. ft. Terraces/Porches/Light Well 1,467 sq. ft. Walkway/Steps 745 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious 7,910 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: First Floor 2,740 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor 1,586 sq. ft. Garage 504 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,260 sq. ft.) TOTAL 4,830 sq. ft. 4,830 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minunum Requirement Front (house) 30ft. 30 ft. Front (garage) 37ft. 30 ft. Rear (house) 236 ft. 60 ft. - Rear (garage) 320ft. 50 ft. Left Side (house) 20 ft. 20 ft. Left Side (garage) 103ft. 20 ft. Right Side (house) 45 ft. 20 ft. Right Side (garage)1 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. _ Garage 14 ft. I2 ft.~ PROJECT DISCUSSION ' ~~ The project is the construction of one single-family residence on one lot consisting of I.42 acres in azea (gross) and 24,742 net square feet. The floor azea of the proposed two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and would include a 1,260 square foot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The maximum height of the garage would be 14 feet. The project would include ' Measurement is taken from the carport since it is attached to the garage. 2 In absence of a Use Permit the maximum height allowed is 12 feet. P:~PlanningWlison~Staff Reports~tvltEdeadoc ,.~ ~l.l V U lJ9 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-01-011; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road _. remediation of unstable soil on the site and approximately two-thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned Hillside: Residential and the General Plan Designation is Hillside Residential Conservation (HL~C). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. _ The site contains a 31.71% slope at the building rite and an overall site slope of 24 percent. The developed area of the lot would be restricted to 24,742 square feet and 37,113 square feet would remain undeveloped pursuant to Ordinance for the Hillside Residential zoning district. The lot contains unstable soils, which arf~ netted out of the area allowed to be developed. Of the gross site area, l3%, or 7,190 square: feet, would be impervious area. Project Background The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal for geotechnical clearance and granted the clearance on April 23, 2001 with ~:.onciitions of approval. The conditions as well as the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports are included as project conditions, are also included as mitigations to t]ze project and are contained in the Mitigated 1\Tegative Declaration. A Certificate of Compliance was granted by the Public Works Department for the parcel on January 12, 2001. The parcel was-found t~:, be in ~~ompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Ciry of Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance. Buildin Site A royal g PP The application requires a Building Site Approval because it was subdivided prior to 15 years ago and has been vacant since its subdivision. Pursuant to Section 14-20.070 of the Municipal Code the following findings shall. be made in order to approve a Building Site application: (1) That the proposed map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any app:Licable ~~pecific plan. (3) That the site is physically suitable for the t~,rpe of development proposed. (4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (S) That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damagc~ or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (6) That the design of the subdivision or building site: or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety proble};ns. P:~PlanningVillison~Sta~ ReportsuvttEdendnc ~'~~l~ibl ~ f~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road remediation of unstable soil on the site and approximately two-thirds of the site would remain undeveloped The site is zoned Hillside Residential and the General Plan Designation is Hillside Residential Conservation (HRC). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepazed for the project. 3~~~ ~'~ The site contains a 31.71% slope. at the building site and an overall site slope of 24 rcent. The developed area of the lot would be restricted to 24,742 squaze feet and squaze feet would remain undeveloped pursuant to Ordinance for the Hillside Residential zoning district. The lot contains unstable soils, which aze netted out of the area allowed to be developed. Of the ~Csite azea, k2%, or 7,190 squaze feet, would be impervious azea. ~ae~ ! 3 Project Background The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal for geotechnical cleazance and granted the cleazance on April 23, 2001 with conditions of approval. The conditions as well as the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports aze included as project conditions, are also included as mitigations to the project and are contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Certificate of Compliance was granted by the Public Works Department for the parcel on January 12, 2001. The pazcel was found to be in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance. Building Site Approval The application requires a Building Site Approval because it was subdivided prior to 15 years ago and has been vacant since its subdivision. Pursuant to Section 14-20.070 of the Municipal Code the following findings shall be made in order to approve a Building Site application: (1) That the proposed map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (3) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. (4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. ,'~ (5) That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements aze not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (6) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. A:~MtEdendoc !r V V ~~1 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; IJF'-O1=016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road _ (7) That the design of the-subdivision or buil.dinf; site or type or improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public a~t large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or buildin;~, site. In this connection, the advisory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will b.. substimtially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This Subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court: of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to detern;~ine that the public at large has acquired . easements for access through or use of propea-ry within the proposed subdivision or building site. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 196_`• (Tlie "Williamson Act°) would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section X56474.4. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision or building site into an existing community sewer system would not re:~ult in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality co~ltrol board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Statf~ W;~ter Code. Evaluation ofFindings -Building Site Approval The proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The design or improvement of the proposed building sits is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The site is within the Area A - Mt. Eden planning area of the City. The Plan states (Area A Guideline #7) that building sites for new homes should be restricted to a 30. percent slope and geotechnical site investiga~tion,~ shall be conducted if the City Engineer determined that they are necessary. The l~uffciing; site contains a 31.17 percent slope. Geotechnical investigations were conducted. anti the City Engineer issued geotechnical clearance on the site Apri123, 2001. The "should" language of this guideline is ;~dvi:sory and not a mandate. The site was selected although there are areas of the parcel that: are: less than 30 percent, in order to avoid developing on more unstable areas. The geot:echnical remediation identified in the ~; geotechnical studies and required, as conditions of project approval would render the site ' stable for development. The mitigations would als~~ result in alleviating the cracking in Mount Eden Road, which is caused by the geatecluucal conditions on this site. Guideline # 10 states that floor levels of homes s]lall be stepped to conform to the natural contours of the hillside. Sheet A-1 of the architectural drawings demonstrates conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations :>te~~ from 987, 991, 9961001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to th~~ northeast. A:~IvltEdendoc % ~ ~'V 11G File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-01.011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: ZZ551 Mount Eden Road The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. Infrastructure is in place to serve the site. Conformance with the geotechnical reports for the project would insure physical suitability. The reports, incorporated herein by reference are, are "Geologic and GeotechnicaI Irrvestigation -22551 Mount Eden Road" by D &r M Consulting Engineering, April 6, 2000 and "Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation -22551 Mount Eden Road" by D &r M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. The reports were reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist and the sits obtained geotechnical clearance from the Engineering Division on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and the City conditions are included in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for the project. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. The project proposes one single-family residence and conforms as such. The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Mitigated Negative Declaration documents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. There is no fish habitat on the site. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on a state or federal list. Wildlife consists of deer, skunk, possum, raccoon whose movement, foraging and migrating patterns would not be substantially affected as over 2/3rds of the site would remain in its natural condition. The design of the building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration documents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. The retaining waIls and slope stabilization would abort cracking of Mt. Eden Road, which is caused by the unmtigated slide and slumps on the site. The design of the building site or type or improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The building site or improvements would not conflict with any easements. The parcel received a Certificate of Compliance with the state Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance on January 12, 2001. The site does not have any public easements recorded against the property. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act') would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not in Williamson Act contract nor does it involve a subdivision. This finding does not apply to the proposed project. The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board n:~ri~d~na« v v v v ~~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; iJ]?-O1-016 ~¢ DR=Ol-018:11SSI Mount Fden Road pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1.3000) of the State Water Code. The project is the • construction and eventual habitation of a sin~,le dwelling. Sanitary sewer is available to the site and would not result in overburdening th.e system capacity. Site Development Plan and Design Review Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 the' following findings shall be made in approving a Site Development Plan. The Commission will note that the findings are the findings required for Design Review and for that rE:ason the Site Development-Plan and Design Review evaluation and findings are inclu.deci within the same section of this staff report. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with ~zews and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential :structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community vie~vshe:ds will avoid unreasonable interference v<~ith views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the: natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade chanl;es will be iILnimi~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring de~~relo;ped areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of.excessive bulk The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to thf: surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) e~,asting 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) uru~easonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. ,, (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will " conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. Evaluation ofFindings Sitel7evelopmentPlan E~z~~esign Review Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privac}~. The: height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered ~+rith reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the :neighbonkoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will. 00004 A~McEdend« File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018:12551 Mount Eden Road S avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lots in the project azea aze lazge and developed with one- and two-story single family residences. The site is setback from Mt. Eden Road approximately 70 feet and the proposed built portion of the property is setback another SO feet for a total setback of 120 plus feet. The proposed building also steps up the hillside with the changes in grade. The azchitectural drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 9961001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to the northeast. Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Over two thirds of the site would remain undeveloped No trees would be removed to accommodate the built environment. Grading is required for geotechnical remediation and construction of the basement and is not in excess of other homes that have required grading for basement and site preparation. Minimizeperception of excessive bulb. Theproposed main or accessory structure 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 lot is large and the 4,830 squaze foot residence would be stepped up the slope. The proposed earth tone colors would blend softly into the hillside. The size of the lot, stepping of the structure, use of earth tone colors and 120 foot setback from Mt. Eden Road all serve to reduce he perceived bulk of the building. Compatible bulk and height. 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. The proposed structure would not cast shadow onto adjacent parcels due to its north-northeastern placement on the lot and the topography of the lot. The proposed two-story 26 foot tall structure is compazable to other structures in the area. The area is sparsely developed with one- andtwo-story residences. Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed project requires a grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division. The plan shall contain all the provisions identified in the geotecnical reports and current erosion control methods used by the City. Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #2 "Follow Hillside Contours". In particular the building is designed to terrace building floor levels. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimise Perception of Bulk, Technique #4, and "Minimize Building Height". In particular the building varied roof heights. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 2- Integrate Structures with the Environment- Technique #1 "Use n:vvtcEdcndoc a m v v iS File No. ID-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1~-011:. Ul'-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road -- Natural Materials and Colors". In particular the color palette is beige tones and dark Olive Green. Additionally the building is designed to use a limited amount of materials and colors, thereby simplifying the overall look of the stricture. Tariance The application includes a request for two variance;. One to construct on a building site with a slope greater than 30% and two, to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet in height. Pursuant to Section 15-70 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning) the Planning Commission may grant a variance provided that the following findings aze made. 1) There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoye~3 by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. 2) The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3) The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to propemes or improvements v~ the vicinity. Evaluation ofFindings- Variance There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, i~lcluding size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. The: building site area contains a slope of 31.17 percent, although the overall site slope (steerage I is 24 percent. The proposed location of the building is on a more stable portion of the property. A sheer pin reinforcement wall would stabilize the slide area, which is located u1 th.e southern portion of the site, and no development would occur in this area. This slide is what is causing cracking in Mt. Eden Road as well as the instability of the site. Th~~refare, the slide mitigation would benefit the site and the public. Building placement would be in an azea that excc~ed:s, by 1.17 percent; the 30 percent slope maximum permitted by Section 15-13.050(e)(2) of the Municipal Code in absence of a variance. A variance is requested in order to build upon this portion of the site. The location and extent of the landslides and the ~;teep topography of the site are special circumstances applicable to the property, which require development to be in the north northeastern portion of the site. A variance to Section 15-29.020(b) of the Municipal Code. This section of the Code states that 'parallel walls separated by a vertical distance of ten feet or less shall not exceed 10 feet in height, additive. Two parallel retaining v~alls to accommodate the emergency vehicle turn azound and parking required by the Fire District would total 12 feet in height both at the south and east edges of the driveway. Both areas require two stepped retaining walls ---,~ AVvlcEdcn.doc v .. ~lV.L6 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 6x DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road that measure five feet in height each plus the finish elevation in front of the walls. Total wall height would be I2 feet within a 10-foot distance. The walls would be stepped and not visible from the public right-of way. The walls are necessary to accommodate the conditions required by the Fire District. Special circumstances affect the property in that this condition is required and is further complicated by the 30.17 percent slope of the building area. The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege.inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The variance requests would allow the construction of one single-family residence with emergency vehicle access and turn around area. The variance would also allow the construction of asingle-family residence and mitigation of slide areas. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege. Other Hillside Residential lots are developed with single-family structures and some include slide repair as needed The emergency vehicle turn azound is a fairly new requirement of the Fire Department's and more properties with similar conditions may also require variances to accommodate the requirement The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance would allow the repair of the landslides on the site and construction of the residence. Soil remediation would be conducted with building and grading permits and inspections. An onsite geotechnical consultant would be required to be present during some of the grading operations and all work shall be inspected to conform to the Code and the geotechnical site clearance conditions. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear and side setback or increased in height. The application includes a request for a detached (i.e., accessory structure) garage 14 feet in height. Twelve feet may be approved administratively. Therefore a 14-foot tall garage requires Planning Commission review. According to Section 15-55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or , " welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ' 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Evaluation ofFindings-Conditional Use Permit The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Atwo-caz gazagefor asingle-family residence is a~rac~.a~ ~uoo1~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; iJ]?-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 21551 Mount Fden Road _ the minimum required by Ordinance. Detac:hin€; the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass try having the gazage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by ~~rdinance at 4,830 square feet. If the garage were attached to the residence the h~~igh~t would not require a use permit. All the setbacks, lot coverage and square footage standards acre met. That the proposed location of the conditional use ar~d the co~iditions under which it would be operated or~ maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; nor be materially injurYOUS to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Construction of a 14-foot tall garage would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 'Ihe structure would be required to be constructed with building permits and would conform -to the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. That the proposed conditional use will comply wr!th e~xch of the applicable provisions of the ~'oning Ordinance. Atwo-car garage for asingle-family re:~idenee is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the garage det~iched, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,8~~0 square feet. Additional Departmental Review No trees are on the site that would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the City Arborist did not review the application. The: Public Works Deparanent and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Comments from Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal for geotechnical clearance and granted the clearance on Apri123, 2001 with conditions of approval. The conditions as well as the rf:contmendations of the project geotechnical reports are included as project conditions by reference and are also included as mitigations to the project and are contained in the Mitigated Neg;~tive Declaration. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have a detached 504 sc{uaze feet two-car garage and aone-car carport. The site plan also includes an area that would accommodate two to three additional vehicles and that would also serve far emergency vehicle pazking and turn around. Grading Total cut and fill proposed is 1,465 cubic yards. Of the total, 612 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 18'-6" would be required. to construct the basement. The b12 cubic yards of grading to construct a basement is e~:cluded from the total pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, overall project grading is 853 cubic yards for purposes of entitlement review. The project would be required to follow the recommendations othe two geotechnical reports prepared for the al~plic:ant: and reviewed and approved by the A.\NltEdendoc ~''~if ~~8 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 8x DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road Engineering Division and the City's Geotechnical Consultant which is discussed in more detail in the following section of this report. Geotechnical Review In summary, the site contains Ps soils which aze '7elatively unstable material including landslide debris, suficial slope materials and weak bedrock. The southern and western portions of the site contain two large landslides. The Ps Soil classification mandates extensive geotechnical investigation and geotechnical clearance pursuant to Section 15- 13.050(e)(i) of the Municipal Code prior to any development. Two geotechnical reports were prepazed for the project. The reports are "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 2255I Mount Eden Road" by D &z M Consulting Engineering, Apri16, 2000and"Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation -22551 Mount Eden Road" by D &t M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. The reports were reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist and the site obtained geotechnical clearance from the Engineering Division on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and the City conditions are included in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for the project. In summary, the site is located in the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. Site slopes aze moderate to step ranging from about 1:1 to 3.5:1. Cut and fill pads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account for the steepest gradients on the property. The property is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Claza Formation. The likely-active Berrocal fault lies 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site. The San Andreas fault is about two miles southwest of the site. The ground movement potential of the site is classified as Ps, relatively instable material including landslide debris, surficial slope materials and weak bedrock subject shallow landsliding, slumping and soil creep activity (Cotton Shires 1980). The project site is in an area of abundant landslides and two relatively large landslides dominate the western portion of the site. These two landslides are a part of a larger complex directly to the west. Although the landslides are classified as inactive, the larger of the two displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in yearly formation of cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole February 2000). Harlan Tait Associates also reports the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (1977). Geologic hazards on the site are limited to: 1. Periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northeastern corner of the property. 2. Possible future shallow failures along oversteepened cut slopes. 3. Ground shaking associated with a major event of the San Andreas. A:VvftEdendoc v'V V V ~J File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-~Oll; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: ZZSSI Movnt Eden Road The geologic reports approved by the City En~;ine~er call for specific site preparation, grading and compaction, foundations, utility trealches pavement design surface drainage and erosion protection and the construction of retaining walls to reduce geologic impacts to a less than significant level both on and off site on Mt. Eden Road. All the recommendations in the aforementioned reports including those of the City shall become project mitigation measures and conditions of app:rov~tl. Trees There are no protected trees on the site and no trees within the development azea. Fireplaces Two fireplaces are proposed Sheet A-3 of the azclute~~tural drawings clearly show that one fireplace is proposed to be wood burning and one i.s proposed to be gas burning. Correspondence No correspondence was received on the project at the time that the report was distributed to the Commission. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to confirm 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; Section 15-70 (Variance:s); Section 15-55.030 (Conditional Use Permit); Section 14-20 and 14-25.100 (Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Plan) of the City Code. The residence does not interfere «~ith views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposa]. further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, set:baclzs except as requested maximum height and impervious coverage. The geotechnical mitigations would improve both site and public right-of-way conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commis;>ion recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declazation ED-O1-001 to the City Council approve conditionally the following entitlements the Building Site Approval /Site Development Plan BSA-Ol-00; V-O1-011; UP- - 01-016 and DR-O1-018. r~ ®~w 0 A:~IvtcFdcndoc _- 0 Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. ED-Ol- 001; BSA-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP--O1-016 and DR-O1-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUERTA; 22551 MOUNT IDEN ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance to the side setback to construct a 6,800 square foot tennis court, Accessory Structure review to construct the tennis court and Design Review approval to construct a new 6,850 square foot residence and garage on a 93,175 net square feet (2.39 acres gross) square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project underwent environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and noticed for public review. The mitigations measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce project impacts to aless-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Building Site Approval and Site Development and Design Re~~iew findings have been determined pursuant to Section Plan 14-20 &r 25 of the Municipal Code: • The proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. • The design or improvement of the proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The site is within the Area A - Mt. Eden planning area of the City. The Plan states (Area A Guideline #7) that building sites for new homes should be restricted to a 30 percent slope and geotechnical site investigations shall be conducted if the City Engineer determined that they are necessary. The building site contains a 31.17 percent slope. Geotechnical investigations were conducted and the City Engineer issued ' ,; geotechnical clearance on the site Apri123, 2001. The "should" language of this guideline is advisory and not a mandate. The site was selected although there are areas of the parcel that are less than 30 percent, in order to avoid developing on more unstable areas. The geotechnical remediation identified in the geotechnical studies and required, as conditions of project approval would render the site stable for development. The mitigations would also result in alleviating the cracking in Mount Eden Road, which is caused by the geotechnical conditions on this site. 000021 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-~Oll; UF'-O1-016 &t: DR-O1-018:1ZSS1 Movnt Eden Road - - Guideline # 10 states that floor levels of homes shall be stepped to conform to the natural contours of the hillside. Sheet A-1 of the architectural drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 996 1001 to 1004. The building steps to the no=rtheast .as the site slopes to the northeast. • The site is physically suitable for the type of development,hroposed. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. Infrast=ucturc~ is in place to serve the site. Conformance with the geotechnical reports for the F~roject ~~vould insure physical suitability. The reports, incorporated herein by referenee~ are:, are "Geologic and Geoteehnieal Investigation - 22>jl Mount Eden Road" by D ~ M Consulting ingineering, Apri16, 2000 and "Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 22`i.71 Mount Eden Road" by D ~ M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. The reports wexe reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist and the site obtained geotechni.cal clearance from the Engineering Division on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and the City conditions aze included in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for the project. • The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. The project proposes one single-family residence and conforms as such. The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantiall~~ and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Mitigated Negative L+eclara>j.on documents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would irr.~prove both on and off site conditions. There is no fish habitat on the site. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on a state or federal list. Wildlife consists of deer, skunk, possum, raccoon whose movement, foraging and migrating patten:ts vc~oul.d not be substantially affected as over 2/3rds of the site would remain in its natural condition. • The design of the building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration documents conformance with this finding. The geotechiucal remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. The retaining walls and slope stabilization would abort cracking of Mt. Eden Road, which is caused by the Lmmiagated slide and slumps on the site. The design of the building site or type: or improvements would not conflict with easements, acc{uired by the public at large:, foz~ acc=ess through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The building site or improvements would not conflict with any easements. The pazcel :receiived a Certificate of Compliance with the state Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance on January 12, 2001. The site does not have any public easements recorded a~;air~st the property. • That a proposed subdivision of land which is ~~ubject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1:~65 (Th.e "Williamson Act") would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as A:~IvltEdcndoc ~ V 0022 ' File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 6x DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road S otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not in Williamson Act contract nor does it involve a subdivision. This finding does not apply to the proposed project. The dischazge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. The project is the construction and eventual habitation of a single dwelling. Sanitary sewer is available to the site and would not result in overburdening the system capacity. • Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with . reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lots in the project area are large and developed with one- and two-story single family residences. The site is setback from Mt. Eden Road approximately 70 feet and the proposed built portion of the property is setback another 50 feet for a total setback of 120 plus feet. The proposed building also steps up the hillside with the changes in grade. The architectural drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 996 1001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to the northeast. • Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and TtLnimi7;ng tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed azeas and undeveloped azeas. Over two thirds of the- site would remain undeveloped. No trees would be removed to accommodate the built environment. Grading is required for geotechnical remediation and construction of the basement and is not in excess of other homes that have required grading for basement and site preparation. • Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The lot is large and the 4,830 squaze foot residence would be stepped up the slope. The proposed earth tone colors would blend softly into the hillside. The size of the lot, stepping of the structure, use of earth tone colors and 120 foot setback from Mt. Eden Road all serve to reduce he perceived bulk of the building. • Compatible bulk and height. 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 S and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed structure would not cast shadow onto adjacent parcels due to its north-northeastern placement on the lot and the topography 000023 A:UvltEdendoc File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-(111; iJP-Ol-016 tst DR-O1-018: ZZSSI Mount Fden Road of the lot. The proposed two-story 2E~ foot tall structure is compazable to other structures in the area. The azea is sf-azsely developed with one- and two-story residences. • Current grading and erosion control methods. '1"he: proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion co~itrol standazds used by the City. The proposed project requires a grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division. The plan shall contain all the provisions identified in the geotecnical reports and current erosion control methods used by the City. • Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #2 "Follow Hillside Contours". In pamculaz the building is designed to terr~ice t~uil~iing floor levels. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Miiim~e Perception of Bulk, Technique #4, "M~n;m~e Building Height". In particulaz the building varied roof . heights. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 2- Integrate Structures with the Environment- Tecluuque #1 "Use Natural Materials and Colors". In particular the color palette is beige tor.~es and dazk Olive Green. Additionally the building is designed to use a limitc~d amount of materials and colors, thereby simplifying the overall look of the structure:. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the bi~rdc_n of proof required to support said application, and the following Variance findings 1>ursuant to Section 15-13.050 of the Municipal Code have been determined: There are special circumstances, applic~cble to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. The building site area contains a :slope of 31.17 percent, although the overall site slope (average) is 24 percent. The proposed location of the building is on a more stable portion of the property. The slide area, ~vhi~:h is located in the southern portion of the site, would be stabilized by a sheer pin rev>forcement wall and no development would occur in this area. This slide is what is causing cracking in Mt. Eden Road as well as the instability of the site. Therefore, the slide mitigation would benefit the site and the public. Building placement would be in an area that excee~3s, by 1.17 percent; the 30 percent slope . maximum permitted by Section 15-13.050(e)(2) of the Municipal Code in absence of a variance. A variance is requested in order to build upon this portion of the site. The location and extent of the landslides and the steep topography of the site are special circumstances applicable to the property, which require development to be in the north northeastern portion of the site. A variance to Section 15-29.020(b) of the: Mimic:ipal Code. This section of the Code states that `parallel walls separated by a vertical. distance of ten feet or less shall not 000024 A:~IvltEdendoc File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 &~ DR-O1-018:12551 Mount Fden Road i exceed 10 feet in height, additive. Two pazallel retaining walls to accommodate the emergency vehicle turn around and parking required by the Fire District would total 12 feet in height both at the south and east edges of the driveway. Both areas require two stepped retaining walls that measure five feet in height each plus the finish elevation in front of the walls. Total wall height would be 12 feet within a 10-foot distance. The walls would be stepped and not visible from the public right-of way. The walls are necessary to accommodate the conditions required by the Fire District. Special circumstances affect the property in that this condition is required and is further complicated by the 30.17 percent slope of the building area. • The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The variance requests would allow the construction of one single-family residence with emergency vehicle access and turn azound azea. The variance would also allow the construction of asingle-family residence and mitigation of slide areas. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege. Other Hillside Residential lots are developed with single-family structures and some include slide repair as needed The emergency vehicle turn azound is a fairly new requirement of the Fire Deparanent's and more properties with similar conditions may also require variances to accommodate the requirement. • The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance would allow the repair of the landslides on the site and construction of the residence. Soil remediation would be conducted with building and grading permits and inspections. An onsite geotechnical consultant would be required to be present during some of the grading operations and all work shall be inspected to conform to the Code and the geotechnical site clearance conditions. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Conditional Use Permit findings pursuant to_Section 15-55 of the Municipal Code have been determined: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. A two-car garage for asingle-family residence is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the garage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,830 square feet. If the garage were attached to the residence the height would not require a use permit. All the setbacks, lot coverage and square footage standards are met. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Construction of a 14-foot tall gazage would not be detrimental to the public health, safety 00005 A:~IvltEdcndoc File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-O11; TJP-Ol-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road or welfare. The structure would be required to be constructed with building permits and would conform to the latest adopted Uniform 13uil~~ing Code. That the proposed conditional use will coinpl}~ with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Atwo-car garage for ,~ single-family residence is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the gaz~ige a11o~NS for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the gazage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,830 square feet. Now, THEREFOttE, -the Planning Conunissioii of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of tl:ie sate plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with rxus matter, the application of HUERTA for Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Pla~i, Variance, Use Permit and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted suirject to the following conditions: A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A', incorporated by reference. 2. The development shall incorporate all the ;mitigations contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ED-O1-001) for the ;prof~ose:d project, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", incorporated by reference. 3. The entitlements contained in this resolution shall not become effective until the Ciry Council has adopted the Mitigated Negative Decla~:ation and approved the Final Building Site Plan. 4. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cle:~rance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. The site plan shall be stamped .and sig~zed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. , ii. The site plan shall contain a r.~ote 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." 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required frc-nt yard shall exceed three feet in height. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any e+~sement:. 00~0~ s A:uvltEdendoc ' File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road i 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm waterwill beretained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management - Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 8. A preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any site grading and/or construction permits. B. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9. All driveways shall be constructed to 14-foot width m;n;mum with cone-foot shoulder. Slopes from 11 to 15 percent shall be surfaced using 2.5" o A.C. or better on 6" of aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15 to 17 percent shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Curves shall have a minimum radius of 21 feet. 10. A turn around with a 33-foot radius shall be constructed on the site. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the Fire District. 11. A parking area that is designed to accommodate two emergency vehicles shall be installed on the site. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 12. Provide one fire public hydrant that meet the Fire District's specifications. Fire hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 13. Automatic fire sprinklers are required for the new residence. A four head calculated fire sprinkler system shall be installed Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 14. Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turn azound with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1 (Note: The plans show an inside-turning radius of 20 feet). I5. Required driveway installations shall be constructed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be - delivered to the site until installations are complete. Note that building permit issuance maybe withheld until installations are complete. 16. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on al new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street and or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background ~~~~~~ A:uvltEdcndac File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road - - 17. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire protection Association Standard #13D and local ord`~inances shall be provided for the garage, workshops or storage areas which are not c:onsizucted as habitable space. Two heads per stall. To ensure proper sprutklea- operation the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The azchitec.t/designed shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of ser<~ice and meter needed to meet the fire suppression and domestic requirements. 18. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarrn System throughout all portions of the structure installed per City of Saratoga Standards Article 16-60. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be maintained and installed. 19. Early Warning Fire System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and-shall be submitted to the Fire :District for approval. 20. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 21. All fire hydrants shall be located within 500 feet from the residence and deliver no less than 1,000 gallons/minute of water sustained for a period of two hours. C. PUBLIC WORKS 22. The applicant shall apply for and secure a grading permit. 23. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall re~~iew and approve all geotechnical aspects ofd the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage rmprove~ments, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Ge~~technical Consultant also shall clarify the foundation type and ensure: that at1 appropriate capillary break has been provided for slabs (e.g., minimum 4 i:o 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). The results of the plan reviews shah. bf~ summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) artd :submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 24. The Project Engineering Geologist and project Geotechnical Engineer shall , inspect, test (as needed), and approve all. geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall inclucle, lout not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site :surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist sh~lil specifically observe and log pier holes excavated for the shear pin reinforcement wall, to verify that adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers aze achieved prior to placement of steel and concrete. ~OQ~28 P:~PlanningW lison\StafE Repoits~IvitF~eadoc File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permit. 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 26. 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. 27. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of the construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to Public Works Department. 28. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 29. Encroachment Permit shall be issued by Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Depamnent prior to any work commencing in the County right-of-way. D. CITY ATTORNEY 30. 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. 31. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation , ; ' of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due ' to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. P:~Planning~AllisonlSCaHRcportsuvitEdcndoc ~ d®'iJiV 9 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-O11;1:JP-~O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road _ 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 Plaruzir~g Commission, State of California, this 24th day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: - -- ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning ~~ommission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMIS;iION This permit is hereby accepted upon the expre:~s term~> and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, inwriting, 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 tune frames approved by the CitS~ Pl~;`nning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 0®000 P:~Planni ngW lison~S uH RepoctsV~I tEdeadoc Attachment 2 I1~TITIAL STUDY AND ENVIItONMENTAL DETERMINATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION October 9, 2001 City of Saratoga Community Development Department Planning Division Project title: Huerta Single-Family Residence 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga Department of Community Development Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Thomas Sullivan, Director Community Development 408 868-1232 4. 5 6. • Project location: 22551 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga, California Project sponsor's name and address: Armando and Barbara Huerta 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Conservation Single-Family (HRC) Area A Mount Eden Plan Area envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -1- 7. Zoning: HR- Hillside Residential 000031 • Description of project: The project is the construction of one :tingle-family residence on a lot consisting of 1.42 acres is area. The project would include remeciiation of unstable soil on the site and approximately two- thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The proposed single family residence ~woul.d c~~nsist of a total of 4,830 square feet. _ Square Footage First Floor _ 2,740 Second Floor 1,586 Garage _ 504 (Basement) _ _ (1,260) Lot Area 61,855 Undeveloped Area. _ _ 42,679 Lot Slope 31.17% The project requires the following entitlerrient review and approvals: 1) Design Review to construct a new single-family residence pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. 2) Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory structure (detached garage) at 14 feet in height pursuant to Municipal Code 15-55.030 3) Variance to construct retainir.,g w;ills in excess of five feet in height and within the front setback for slope mitigation pursuant to Municipal Code 15-29.010(g). 4) Variance to build on a lot greater thai130 percent in slope under the building footprint pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.13-050(e)(2). 5) Building Site Approval in order to construct on a vacant lot subdivided over 15 years past pursuant to Municipal Code S;ecti.on 14-20. 6) Site Development Plan in orcier to construct on a hillside lot pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-25.100. .~ 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Single-family residential on hillside lots to thc: north, east and south. Mount Eden Road to the west of the project site. envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -:2- vvV~a~z • 10. Other public 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 Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology /Water Quality Noise Air Quality Biological Resources Hazards & Hazazdous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities /Service Systems X Geology /Soils Land Use /Planning Population /Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -3- 000033 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) ]lave been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION put:•suant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier >:;IR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed ttport the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Signature Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IlvIPA(~TS: 1) A brief explanation is required for al:l answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information .sources .a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No ]impa.ct" answer 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 proje~:t falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is biased on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not: expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysi:~). 2) All answers must take account of the whole Faction involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-leve:l, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that: a particular physical impact may occur, 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 ;>ubstantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potenti~~lly ;significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigatior.~ 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 e~:plain 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 CEQA process, an effect has been adec{uately analyzed in an earlier EIR or envcheck.wpd-12130/98 -4•- 000034 negative declaration. 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 applicable 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," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated .or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria 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 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: X a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X' b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -$- 000035 surroundings? --- - d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Overall Discussion: The project is a single - family residence on property planned and zoned residential. Lighting would be that associated with asingle-family residence and similar to the other single-family residences in the area. No heritage trees are on the site and no trees would be removed due to construction. Over two-thirds of the site would be left in its natural condition or with landscaping. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? Overall Discussion: The site is not farmland or adjacent to farmland, nor is it Williamson Act lands. III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of envcheck.wpd-12!30/98 -(- • X .~ X X x~ O®0036 i the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone -- precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Overall Discussion: One single-family development would not affect air quality in a significant way. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines identifies 270 single-family units as the threshold for analysis that could represent a potential impact to the air quality of the area and/or region. The impact is clearly de min;mis, During construction standard dust abatement measures will be implemented as a requirement of the building permit. X X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ---Would the project: - X a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any. species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X:~ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -7- ~0®3'7, 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 duect removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances _ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Overall Discussion: The site does not support state or federally protected wildlife. Grazing and migration patterns of wildlife would not be expected to be effected as over two-thirds of the site would remain in open space and unfenced. No heritage trees as defined by City Ordinance are located on the site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Overall Discussion: The site is not identified as one probable of having human remains (City General Plan and envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -$- X X X X X X X 000038 • • associated documents). Should any retrains 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 feature as is demonstrated by site visits, geologic review and review of the General Plan. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. x ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -9- X X X X (~~0~39 Overall Discussion: See the discussion at the end of this checklist for a detailed discussion and required mitigation measures for geology. 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? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardou;> or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use: plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response pplan or emergency evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures~o 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? Overall Discussion Activities at the site would be those associated envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -10- X • X X X X N/A N/A X 000040 with single-family residential use. Manufacturing or large-scale use of toxic and hazazdous 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 gccur as a result of residential activities on the site. The site is located in a Saratoga Fire District designated "Hazazdous Fire Area". Standazd 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, fire retardant roof coverings, installation of one fire hydrant delivering 1,000 gallons/minute for a sustained period of two hours, emergency vehicle parking and fire truck tum-around azea is also . required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechazge 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 neazby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or azea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -11- X X X X X 000041 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or reduect flood - - flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Overall Discussion: The project site is not located within a flood zone. There is no levee or dam in the vicinity of the project. Grading would be performed as identified in the Geology conditions for the project and would direct water to downspouts and storm drains. Over two-thirds of the site would remain unpaved and pervious which would retain the percolation of the site. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Overall Discussion: The site is planned and zoned for single-family envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -12- • X X X • X X X • 000042 f residential. The proposed project conforms with the General Plan and Zoning for the site. 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? 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? Overall Discussion: There are no known mineral resources on the site (General Plan). 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?~ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -13- X X X X X X X X 000043 Overall Discussion: 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 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. The addition of one single-family residence in the area (i.e., project operation) would not add to the noise environment. Typically, traffic volumes have to double in an area (to increase noise by approximately 3 dBA - a level that is barely perceptible to the human ear), in order to perceive a noise impact. The addition of a single-family residence would be negligent in terms of additional traffic in the area, approximately nine trips per day (Institute of Traffic Engineers). Project operations would not add an audible level of noise to the project area. 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Overall Discussion: The project would add one single-family dwelling unit to the City of Saratoga's housing stock. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -]4- X X X • ~®0444 ~_J a) Would the project result in substantial adverse X physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: X Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? Overall Discussion: 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 pazks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion .of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X X Overall Discussion: The addition of the occupants of one single- family residence would not impact public pazks or open space. Additionally, approximately 2/3rds of the site would remain undeveloped per , " City Ordinance. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TR.AFFIC -- Would the project: X 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 envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -15- 000045 substantial increase in either the number of s vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a - , level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ' X c) Result in a change in aii traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazazds due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Overall Discussion: Roads are in placer to serve the site. The addition of approximately nine vehicle trips per day would be negligible and not result in an impact. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? X 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? X envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -16- X00046 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves.or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Overall Discussion: 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 raze or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does -the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project aze considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Geology: The two following reports and one set of Conditions from the Engineering Division aze incorporated herein by reference: envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -17- X X X X X X% 00004'7 1. Geolo is and Geotechnical Investi ation - 2:'.551 Mount Eden Road b D & M g g Y Consulting Engineering, Apri16, 2000. 2. Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnic,al Investigation - 22551 Mount Eden Road by D & M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. 3. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions, Ivetta H;irvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer, Apri123, 2001 (attached). The site is located in the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. Site slopes are moderate to step rangir-g from about 1:1 to 3.5:1. Cott and fill pads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account for the steepest gradients on -the property. The property is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. The likely-active Berrocal fault lies 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site. The San Andreas fault is about two miles southwest of the site. Th~~ ground movement potential of the site is classified as Ps, relatively instable material includin;; landslide debris, surficial slope materials and weak bedrock subject shallow landsliding, sl~unpi:ng and soil creep activity (Cotton Shires 1980). The project site is in an area of abundant landslides and two relatively large landslides dominate the western portion of the site. These two landslides are a part of a larger complex directly to the west. Although the landslides are classified as in~ictiv~s, th~~ larger of the two displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in yearly formation of c;racl:s in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole February 200D). Harlan Tait Associates also reports she presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (1977). Geologic hazards on the: site are limited to: property. Periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northeastern comer of the Possible future shallow failures along ov~rsteeper..ed cut slopes. Ground shaking associated with a major evem: of the San Andreas. The geologic reports approved by the City call for specific site preparation, grading and compaction, foundations, utility trenches pavement de:;ign surface drainage and erosion protection and the construction of retaining walls to reduce geologic impacts to a less than significant level both on and off site on Mt. Eden Road. All the re~~omrnenciations in the aforementioned reports including those of the City shall become project nutigation measures. • envcheck.wpd-12130198 -18- 000048 • GEOLOGIC/GEOTEC~INICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 1045 • Prepared for: MR. ARMANDO HLTERTA AH CONSTRUCTION 14225 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Prepared by: D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1365 VANDER WAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 (408) 297-6969 • APRIL 2000 000049 D&M CONSULTING EN!GINI=ERS, INC. _ :::'°~"' Geotechnica!/Environmental/Materials Testing _ :__._...,~.~ A URS CORPORA710N COMPANY Apri16, 2000 Project 1045 Mr. Armando Huerta AH CONSTRUCTION 14225 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road Sazatoga, CA 95070 Subject: Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Huerta: In accordance with your authorization, this re~pont summarizes the results of our Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation of 22551 Mount Eden Road in Sazatoga, California. Included in this report are the findings, conclusions, and limitations of our investigation. If you have any questions about this report, please cell Gordon Heingartner or Lawrence Pavlak, C.E.G., in our San Jose office at (408;) 29'7-6969. Sincerely, D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, IN(~. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY Gordon F. Heingartner Project Geologist (.V~1 ~ ~ ; Dawn Y. Kr ckenberg, P.E., Associate ngineer ~ ti :~ ~~ ,`t, ~vsuCKFy `~; m GE2406 EXPIRES 12-31-Oi ~ ;i1, ., •, C!Lawrence D. Pavlak, CEG 1187 'Senior Geologist ED G ,`~C~ c ~ ., ~, \ i ...• ' c~ ~ S N°- 11°7~ '~ ~~'{ CEP,TIF;~O ~ ~r~~sr~!~<<:~~~G ~~ GEG~GGiST J'~. ~~P 4~ OF CAL~F~~ • • • ODUU~O 1365 Vander Way San Jose. California 95112 408 297 6969 Tel 408 297 771 c^° TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................... 1 SITE INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions ..................................................................................... . . .2 Aerial Photo Interpretation ...................................................................................3 Regional Geology and Seismicity ................................................................:.......... 3 Site Geology .................................................................................................... Subsurface Exploration .............................................................................. 4 Bedrock Units .................................................................................................. 5 Surficial Units .................................................................................................. 5 Artificial Fill ................................................................................. 5 Colluvial and Residual Soils ............................................................... 5 Landslides ..............................................:...................................... 6 Geologic Structure ...............................................:.................................... 7 Surface Water and Ground Water .......................................................................... 7 Site Soil Classification ........................................................................................ 7 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS :::::::::::::: .................... _ ...... 8 Seismic Hazards .8 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................... 8 Ground Shaking ...................................................................................... 8 Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading and Dynamic Compaction ..................................9 Slope Stability .............................................................. ............................... 10 Surface Erosion ....... ....................................................... . . . . ......................... 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 11 Summary .......:...................:....,............... .:........................................ 11 Geologic Hazards ..........................:.......:...................................... 11 Geotechnical Engineering Considerations ............................................ 12 Site Preparation, Grading and Compaction .................................................... 12 Building Foundations .............................................................................. 14 Drilled Friction Piers ..................................................................... 14 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................ 15 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................... 1S Utility Trenches ......................................... ......................................... 16 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection ...................................................... 17 Pavement Design ................................................................................... 17 D K tit CONSI;LTiNG ENGINEERS. INC. P: giro\grniech\OW1045coc.4-6.00 000051 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................18 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................19 .................. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ...........................................................................................................21 TABLE Table 1 -Nearby Active Faults FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 -Geologic Vicinity Map Figure 4 -Site Geologic Map Figure 5 (a through c) -Test Pit Logs Figure 6 -Geologic Cross Section A-A' Figure 7 -Geologic Cross Section B-B' APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Results • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P: geo\geotech\000104Stoc.4-6-00 ~.Y000~2 GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huerta: This report summarizes D & M Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s (DMCE) findings, conclusions, and recommendations based upon our geologic and geotechnical investigation of the subject site located in Saratoga, California. The proposed development of the approximately 1'/z-acre subject property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road will consist of asingle-family wood- framed house situated in the north-central portion of the property on a steep, west-facing slope. The proposed driveway will follow an existing road cut along the western edge of the property for much of its length before bending sharply to the west to connect at a perpendicular with Mt. Eden Road. We understand that significant cuts and fills are expected in association with the development of the site. The objectives of our investigation were to (1)~assess the geologic setting of the site, emphasizing any geologic constraints to the proposed development of the property, and (2) explore subsurface conditions at the site to aid in preparing geotechnical recommendations for project earthwork, foundation design, retaining wall design, and pavement thickness design. SCOPE OF WORK Our investigation was limited to the following tasks: Review of geologic and geotechnical maps, consultants' reports, and any other information in our files pertinent to the site and vicinity. Review of six pairs of stereoscopic aerial photographs of the property and vicinity to look for evidence of geologic features not visible from the ground surface. Geologic reconnaissance and field mapping of the subject property. Preparation of a regional geologic map, geologic map of the property, and a geologic cross section illustrating our interpretation of the subsurface configuration of geologic units. Geologic evaluation of the information collected, identification of any potential geologic constraints to the proposed development, and formulation of geologic recommendations for addressing any constraints identified. Consultation with the City of Saratoga Geotechnical Consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) and review of pertinent information in their files. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. lNC. I P:eeo\geoiecl~UJ001045rpt.a-trW 000053 Ex loration, sam lino and classification of subsurface soils b means of nine ex loratorv • P P ..~ Y P backhoe test pits excavated in the vicinity of ttie proposed house, driveway, and remainder of the property. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to cletetmi~ie their engineering properties. Tests included moisture content, dry density, Atterbl~rg lLin-uts, unconfined compression, and R- value. Review and analysis of field and laboratory test data. Development of geotechnical recommendation, for site preparation, grading and compaction, building foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, pavement thickness design for driveways, and underground utility trench backfiil. Preparation of this combined geologic/geotechtucal. report. SITE INVESTIGATION Surface Conditions The property is located in the eastern Santa Cniz Mountains, on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. It lies within the S:~ratoga city limits and also within the 7.5- :minute Cupertino topographic quadrangle (see :Figure 1, Vicinity Map). Access to the site is gained from Mount Eden Road via arough-graded dirt: access road. Surrounding land uses are rural residential. The site consists of an unoccupied, approximately ]:'/z-acre parcel that is roughly rectangular in shape. Slope gradients are moderate to steeF-, ranging from about 1:1 to 3'/z:l (horizontal vertical). Near-horizonatal cutJfill pads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property, .the latter of which is considerably larger and is located at the southern_terminus of a narrow, rough-graded ac:ces:~ road that borders the western edge of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account for the steepest gradients on the property; the cut slope above the northeastern pad is locally as steep as 1:1, while the subjacent fill slope and access road cut slope exhibit a maximum inclination of about 1'/z:l. A rough-graded access road connects Mt. Eden Read with the northwestern corner of the property. Another, older rough-graded road, ttte construction of which involved relatively minor cuts and fills, borders the upper (eastern) boundary of the southern half of the property. Abroad, shallow, arcuate depression occupies muclh o;F the southern, more gently inclined portion of the slope, with slope gradients ranging from about 3:1 to 4:1. Topographic relief on the property is approximately 80 feet, ranging from an elevation of about 940 feet above sea level in the southwestern corner of the site to aF~proximately 1020 feet in the northeastern corner. An unnamed, south-flowing ephemeral draiinal-e bounds the western edge of the property, the upper eastern embankment of whil~h is lo~~ated within the confines of the property. D ~ ~1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. ? P:geo\geotech\OOOIQ45rpi.4-6-00 ~oo('~~ A Vegetative cover of the site consists primarily of uncultivated weeds and grasses, although several eucalyptus trees border the periphery of the site and the remnants of an orchard (a few cherry trees) remain on the central portion of the slope. Drainage of the site is by southwest- directed sheet flow into the adjacent drainage, which empties into northeast-flowing Calabazas Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Ponded water was present at the north end of the property and on the cut/fill pad in the southwestern portion of the property following prolonged rainfalls that occurred at the time of our investigation. Aerial Photo Interpretation We reviewed six sets of stereoscopic aerial photographs of the project site and vicinity in order to look for evidence of features not visible from the ground surface; a list of the photos is presented at the end of the report. Through the late 1960's to early 1970's, the property was used for agricultural purposes (fruit orchards). Site improvements were initiated in the early to mid 1970's, at which time both of the cut/fill pads on the property were constructed. The westernmost (lower) pad was built in conjunction with an unpaved road that bordered the western edge of the subject site and continued southward onto the adjacent property. The photographs also indicate that the site is located along the eastern edge of a large landslide that is characterized by undulating, anomalously gentle topography interrupted by two to three well-developed drainages, implying that the feature is old and relatively stable. The aforementioned broad, arcuate depression that occupies the southern portion of the subject slope -and which represents a configuration sometimes indicative of landsliding -was noted on aerial photos taken in the mid 1970's and more recently, after significant grading had been performed in the area. Prior to grading operations, this portion of the slope appeared as a broad, shallow, essentially linear east-west-trending swble, which suggests that the arcuate shape may have been acquired during the course of the grading. No lineaments or other features suggestive of faulting were observed crossing or trending toward the property. Regional Geology and Seismicity The site is located in the California Coast Range geomorphic province, in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 1 mile west of the southwestern edge of the Santa Clara Valley. The oldest bedrock unit in the region is the Franciscan Complex of Jurassic and Cretaceous age, which consists of weakly metamorphosed marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks, primarily dark gray sandstone and shale, dark green greenstone (an altered volcanic rock) and minor amounts of red chert and gray limestone. The property itself is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980; see Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map), which was deposited in streams, alluvial fans, and lake beds during latest Pliocene and early Pleistocene time (Cummins, 1968). The boundary between the two formations is defined by the Berrocal fault, which together with its D & M CONSI;LTING ENGINEERS. INC. 3 P:geo\geotecii\0001045rpi.4-6-0(1 O®VVSS southeastward continuation, the Sargent fault, forr.•n the Sargent-Berroeal fault zone. Santa Clara bedding dips gently to moderately toward the n~~rtheast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton a.nd Associates, 1980). Regional geologic structure is largely controlled b;y th.e San Andreas fault system, which has created predominantly northwest-southeast-trel~~ding geologic structure (faults and folds) and topographic features in the area. The San Andrea:~ system also constitutes the boundary between the. Pacific and North American tectonic plates; active faults, Consequently, are abundant in the region. The likely active Berrocal. fault, which is located approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site, consists of two primary traces in this area (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; William Cotton and Assoc.iate~s, 1980). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex have been thrust northeastward over rocks of t:he ;>anta Clara Formation along this fault. The potentially active_Shannon fault is located about 1 ~% rniles (2.8 km) northeast of the site, beneath the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. T'he ~icti~~e San Andreas fault is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) southwest of the site, in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The ground movement potential of the site is classified by Cotton and As;~oci.ates (1980) as Ps, which they define as "relatively unstable material including landslide dl:bris, surficial slope materials, and weak bedrock; commonly less than 10 feet in thickness •~n gentle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, and soil creep ac:tivity." The property is located in an area of abundant landslides, which is consistent with the steep, rugged topography characterizing much of the area and the generally poorly indurated condition of the Santa Clara Formation. ~ Much of the western portion of the site is mapped as being underlain by portions of two adjacent, r~~lativel:y large landslides (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map), both of which belong to an even larger complex directly to the west. The larger of these two slides is shown to be moving i:n a southward direction and the smaller in a westward direction. A relatively small landslide is mapped approximately 200 feet northeast of the property, an adjacent relatively large complex ,approximately 150 feet directly to the east, and another relatively small feature appr~~ximate:ly 180 feet to the southeast (Cotton and Associates, 1980); these landslides are classified a.s dormant, active, and old, respectively. All three of these slides are separated from the prl~jec~: site_by the aforementioned north-south- trending ridge. Site Geology Subsurface Exploration We excavated a total of nine exploratory test pits on th.e property in February and March of 2000 in order to investigate subsurface conditions and otltaiti samples for laboratory testing. Three of the test pits were excavated on February 9. Afternoon rains, however, prevented the completion of our work. Subsequent prolonged rainfall over the next several weeks led to saturation of the soils on the property and localized ponding of surf<<ce water. The remaining six test pits were excavated on March 20, 2000, by which time the site lead dried sufficiently. All test pits were D 8 M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. d P:geo\geoiech\0001045rpi.4-600 ®LIOSV excavated with a rubber tire-mounted backhoe and measured 30 inches in width. The excavations ranged from about 6 toll feet in depth and about 12 to 50 feet in length (see Figure 4 for approximate test pit locations and Figures Sa through Sc for logs of the test pits). Representative soil samples were taken at selected depths with aCalifornia-modified steel sampler containing a 2-inch diameter, 6-inch-long brass liner. The sampler was advanced into the ground by means of repeated blows with ahand-operated-slide hammer. A summary of the laboratory test results performed on selected samples is presented in Appendix A. Materials encountered in the test pits are described in the following paragraphs. Bedrock Units As indicated on the aforementioned geologic maps, the property is underlain by Santa Clara Formation bedrock consisting of severely weathered, highly fractured, blocky, poorly indurated bluish-gray to orange-brown claystone with lesser amounts of siltstone. It could commonly be broken apart by hand. The upper (approximately 2 to 3 feet), more highly weathered portion of the Santa Clara bedrock generally consists of pebble- to gravel-sized chunks of weathered claystone/siltstone in a silty clay matrix. Randomly oriented slickensides, likely the result of repeated episodes of shrinking and swelling, were observed in some of the more clay-rich portions of this material. Surficial Units Artificial Fill A substantial proportion of the property is underlain by artificial fill associated with previous site improvements. The fill material consists of very moist to wet, highly plastic orange- brown to medium brown silty clay and was likely derived from on-site soils. The bulk of the fill is located in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the property, on and adjacent to the-two cut/fill pads. Maximum fill thieknessses encountered in the test pits, as well as those reported in previous exploratory borings drilled on the property (Freeman-Kern Associates, 1988-Iarlan Tait Associates, 1997) are on the order of about 3 to 3'/i feet. -Lesser amounts of fill are present along the western edge of the rough-graded access road that skirts the northern portion of the western property boundary and in the vicinity of the northwestern end of the proposed driveway, directly northwest of the northwestern property corner (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, Geologic Cross Section A-A'; Figure 7, Geologic Cross Section B-B'). Based on the overall appearance of the fill material and the presence of , numerous twigs and other organic material, it is our opinion that all existing fills are non- engineered. No compaction testing records regarding the fill placement were available. Colluvial and Residual Soils In areas that are devoid of fill, Santa Clara bedrock is overlain by colluvial/residual soils consisting of highly expansive, moist to very moist silty clays and sandy clays attaining maximum thicknesses of approximately 7 feet (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, D & M CONSt;LT1NG ENGINEERS. INC. ~ P:geo\geoiech\0001045rpt.4-6-00 LOOO~~ Geologic Cross Section A-A'; Figure 7, Geologic C:roes Section B-B'). The term colluvium i refers to any loose, heterogeneous, and incoherent mass of soil and/or rock fragments transported downslope and deposited by rainwash, ;~heE;twash, or slow continuous downslope creep. Residual soil deposits, on the other hand, are formed by in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock. Unlike colluvium, residual soils sire situated in close proximity to their place of formation. The native materials on the property probably represent a combination of both colluvial and residual soils; some degree of downslope movement -particularly creep - most likely has occurred within the softer, less cohe;rerit masses of soil and on the more steeply inclined portions of the slope. Landslides Of the two landslides mapped beneath the property ~by ~~otton and Associates (1980), the larger is mapped beneath the western edge of the northern enci of the property and the smaller beneath the western half of the southern, relatively shalllow-gradient portion of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). Both oi'these i'eatures are classified as old landslides (Ols), which are defined as "relatively stable, inactive 'features with subdued irregular topography, low slope position, well-established drainage systems, and undisturbed vegetation" (Cotton and Associates, 1980). Although classified as inactive, the larger of these two mapped landslides displays a creeping, glacier-Like motion that results in the yearly formation of cracks in the adjacent portion of M:t. Eder. Road (Bill Cole, personal communication, February, 2000). Harlan Tait ,~ssaciates (1997) also reported the presence of i tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Roadwest of the site at the time of their investigation, indicating that "small amounts of movement have occurred. " Moreover, we observed cracking in a recently resurfaced portion of th.e road approximately 350 to 400 feet west of the property in February 2000 (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). The mapped location of the larger landslide essentially coincides with our interpretation based on a review of the aerial photos. It is also consistent with the findings of our subsurface investigation, in which we encountered stiff, dark gray to orange-brown, silty clay to sandy clay with abundant pebble- to gravel-sized clasts extending to a depth of at least 12 feet in the northwestern corner of the property. This material, which we interpret to represent a landslide deposit; was encountered in TP-2 and TP-9 (similar material was also encountered in Harlan Tait's Boring B-3), but not in TP-7 or TP-8. Tlius t:he eastern edge of the larger old landslide appears to underlie much of the proposed driveway :aresi, but is at least 20 feet west of the proposed building footprint (see Figure 4, Site Geologic: Map). However, we did not find any evidence of the smaller, westward-directed land:~lide m~ipped in the southern portion of the property in the course of our subsurface exploration, despite the presence of the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in this area. We did, however, note the presence of a small, shallow earthflow/slump-type failure in the northwestern portion of the property, directly east of the northern end of the rough-graded access road. The failure, which measured approximately 15 feet long, 8 feet wide, and about 3 feet deep, appears to have involved primarily till, although some native material may have D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC_ 6 P:¢eo\geotech~00016i5rpi.3-G-00 QODOvB been included near its western end. Another small failure was noted within the fill slope along the western property boundary directly west of (below) the southernmost cut/fill pad. Some cracks with horizontal separations of about 2 to 4 inches and scarplets with vertical separations of about 6 to 10 inches were noted on the portion of the slope that lies in the vicinity of the proposed building footprint; the bulk of these features were located within fill (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map). Geologic Structure Because of its highly weathered, poorly indurated nature, Santa Clara bedding was difficult to discern, and we were therefore unable to obtain many reliable bedding attitudes in our subsurface excavations. We measured one possible bedding plane that dipped moderately (about 35 degrees) to the. north-northeast, which is in rough agreement with published geologic maps of the area showing Santa Clara bedding dipping gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Fracture orientations, that we measured were for the most part near- vertical (70- to 80-degree dips). Surface Water and Ground Water As previously noted, surface runoff on the property is by sheet flow into the ephemeral drainage directly west of the property, which flows southwestward along Mount Eden Road. Aside from the ponded rainwater at the north end of the property and in the southwestern portion of the property (cut/fill pad), no ponds or springs were visible on the property or in the aerial photographs we reviewed. Ground water was not encotintered in any of our exploratory test pits, which were excavated during the rainy season to a maximum depth of about 12 feet below existing grade. However, Harlan Tait Associates (1997) reported the presence of groundwater at a depth of 2 feet in their Boring 1, located near the edge of the cut/fill pad in the northeastern portion of the property. They suggested that it represented isolated perched water in the surficial deposits overIy'ing the bedrock. Site Soil Classification Based on our literature review, subsurface exploration, and comparisons with published data, , we have classified the soil profile type as stiff soil (So) as defined by the guidelines in the 1997 , Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 1636.2 (average shear-wave velocity for the upper 30 meters (m) of 180-360 m/sec or standard penetration test blow counts of 15-50). Although the Santa Clara Formation is technically bedrock, the clay-rich consistency and poorly indurated condition of the claystone member places it, in our opinion, in the stiff soil category. D & h1 CONSCLTING ENGINEERS, INC. 7 P:eco~g~ro[ech\W01(k5rpi.d-6-(X1 ^ 000~~ GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSlDE1ltA'TIONS Seismic Hazards The site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but outside the earthquake fault zones established in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (California Division of Mines an~i Geology, 1974). Table 1 lists active and potentially active faults nearest to the site and summarizes each fault's Seismic Source Type (1997 UBC Table 16-U), distance from the site, and maximum earthquake moment magnitude. This was determined using the program I?QFAULT (Version 3.00), by Thomas Blake, and California Division of Mines and C:eology (1998). • The potentially active fault closest to the site i;> the: Sargent(-Berrocal) fault. It is a Type B fault located about 0.3 miles (0.5 km) southwest of the site. The geologic record and a record of historical seismicity suggest that the Sargem-Berroc;al fault system should be considered active (Hay and others, 1980; Cotton and others, ].994; Hitchcock and others, 1994), despite the fact that the fault is not located within any of the ~~lquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake, Fault Zoning Act (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) of 1972 (California Division. of Mines and Geology, 1974). The Sargent fault may have produced a 5.0 moment magnitude earthquake in 1964, and its southern end has exhibited an unusual concentration of microearthquakes. The California Division of Mines and Geology has classified the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault as a Type B fault for purposes of the 1997 Uniform Buiildi~ig Code (UBC). It has an estimated slip rate of 3 mm/yr and is considered capable of g~eneratirig a 6.8 maximum moment magnitude earthquake. The 1906 rupture segment of the :Ian Ancireas fault, which is the closest Type A fault, is approximately 2 miles (3 km) southwe;~t of~ thc; site. The maximum expected moment magnitude of an earthquake for this segment of~ the San Andreas fault is 7.9 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998).. A compilation of data on historic seismically induced ltround failures in northern California (Youd and Hoose, 1978) shows a concentration. of streambank landslides -mostly small ones - resulting from the 1906 earthquake in the general vicinity of the property. Because of the sparseness of the historical data, the exact location of these features was not reported, and is therefore unkown to us. Surface Fault Rupture We did not observe any topographic or subsurface evidence of faulting on the property in the course of our site reconnaissance, subsurface e~;plorati~~n, or aerial photograph review. In addition, no faults are mapped across, or trending toward, the property on any of the maps we reviewed. Therefore, the potential for surface f=ault rupture to impact the proposed development is considered to be very low. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. E P:geo\geotech10001045rpt.4-6-W oOOOVO Ground Shaking The 1906 (MW - 8) "San Francisco" earthquake, which ruptured a portion of the active San Andreas fault from approximately San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino, caused severe damage in parts of the San Francisco Bay area. Its epicenter was located directly west of the Golden Gate, approximately 45 miles (72 km) northwest of the property. The 1989 (M,,. -- 7) Loma Prieta earthquake, which is believed to have occurred on an oblique-slip blind thrust fault closely associated with the San Andreas fault, also caused significant damage in the relatively nearby cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, despite the fact that it did not rupture the ground surface. The epicenter of this event was located in the Forest of Nicene Marks State Park, approximately 25 miles (40 km) southeast of the property. Strong ground shaking associated with large-magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas fault or somewhat smaller-magnitude events along the Sargent(-Berrocal) or other nearby faults will undoubtedly occur at the property in the future. The State of California estimates the peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the vicinity of the site to exceed 0.7 g (Petersen and others, 1996). Because of its greater length and higher level of activity, the San Andreas fault is considered capable of Generating stronger ground motions at the site than the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault, despite the fact that it is farther away. The site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 4, as defined by the 1997 UBC, Figure 16-2 and Section 1629.4.1. The Seismic Zone Factor Z for Zone 4 is 0.40, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-I. The Seismic Zone 4Near-Source Factor N~ is 1.4, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-S. The near-source factor N,, is 1.9, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-T. The Seismic Response Coefficient C~ for soil profile type S„ in Zone 4 is 0.62, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-Q. The Seismic Response Coefficient C,. is 1.22, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-R. Both of the near- source factors and seismic response coefficients were determined by the proximity of the site to the San Andreas fault. It should be noted that a lower value of No may be used. for structures that meet the conditions in 1997 UBC Section 1629.4.2. -'Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction Severe ground shaking caused by earthquakes can cause secondary effects such as dynamic compaction, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction,. which is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquid state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressures, usually , in response to strong ground shaking, most often occurs in loose, saturated silts and sands. ",' Ground settlement and loss of bearing capacity can result. Because of the cohesive, clay-rich consistency of the site materials, the potential for liquefaction is judged to be very low. Lateral spreading can occur when soils liquefy beneath a slope, or even beneath level ground if an open topographic face is nearby. Because the potential for liquefaction is judged to be low. the potential for lateral spreading is likewise estimated to be low. D K !.t CONSULTING ENGINEERS, IIQC. 9 P:geo\seoirch\0001045rpt.4-600 oOOOC Dynamic compaction occurs when loose, unsaturated Soils densify in response to wound shaking. Because no such materials were encountered on the site, it is our opinion that the potential for dynamic compaction is low. Slope Stabilit~~ In the course of our subsurface exploration an~~ re•vie~>v of.aerial photos of the site and vicinity, we found evidence to suggest the presence of :i landslide deposit in the northwestern corner of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity :Map; Figure 4, Site Geologic Map); the location of the_ landslide is consistent with previous mapping o~f the area by Cotton and Associates (1980), in which the eastern edge of a large landslide is mapped in essentially the same area. Despite the fact that it is classified as relatively stable and inactive, this landslide continues to move, as evidenced by the yearly formation o1~ cracks in the adjacent portion of Mount Eden Road. It is our opinion that the proposed building footprint is outside the mass of the landslide; however, much of the proposed drivewaly appears to be located within it. The driveway can therefore be expected to experience ~periiodic creep and associated cracking that will likely require ongoing maintenance and re:pair~s. Underlyirig utility lines will likely be similarly affected. We did not encounter subsurface evidence of the s~oml~what smaller landslide mapped directly south of the larger one, the northeastern corner of which is shown to occupy the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in the southwestern porl:ion of the property (Cotton and Associates, >~ 1980; Figure 3). We did encounter relatively thick (u.p to about 6- to 7-foot-thick) accumulations of colluvium in this area, but ncr discrete slide planes at tl:e soil/bedrock interface. This area is probably experiencing ::low, continuous creep, but does not appear to be underlain by a landslide. However, because of the limited depth of our subsurface excavations, the possible existence of a deep-sc:ateci landslide involving Santa Clara bedrock, while unlikely, cannot be completely ruled out. A small slump/earthflow-type failure as well as some cracks and scarplets were observed on the slope occupying the northern portion of they situ; nrany of these cracks and scarplets are locates within the proposed building footprint ;area. T'he small slump/earthflow appears to involve primarily fill. The cracks and scarplets located within and below the building area appear to affect primarily fill, but also native colluvium to a lesser degree, indicating that both types of material on the slopes of the northern half of the site are probably experiencing some .degree of instability and downslope movement. Tliere:fore, it is our opinion that both fill and native soils should be removed from this portion o:F the slope to the depth at which competent , bedrock is encountered. The favorable dip of Tanta Clara bedding -into the slope -enhances the underlying stability of the hillside. Cracks measuring approximately 1 to 2 inches wide were also observed on the steep cut slope above the northeastern cut/fill pad. In our opinion, these cracks are likely associated with downslope creep of near surface colluvial soils. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 10 P:geo\geotech\G001045rpt.4-(gyp 000062 Surface Erosion Aside from a 2- to 3-foot-deep gully that cuts the eastern stream embankment in the southwestern portion of the property (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map), we did not observe any evidence of excessive erosion on the site. Nevertheless; the relatively steep topography creates the potential for surface erosion to impact the property. In addition, the near- horizontal cut/fill pads create the potential for ponding of surface waters. Therefore, site improvements should incorporate appropriate surface drainage control measures as discussed later in this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary From a geologic and geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed single-family residential structure on 22551 Mount Eden Road in Saratoga provided our recommendations are incorporated into its design. - Geologic Hazards In our opinion, potential geologic hazards to the proposed development are limited to the following: periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northwestern corner of the property; possible future shallow failures along oversteepened cut slopes, such as above the northeastern cut/fill pad and the upslope side of the north end of the existing access road; and ground shaking, which could be severe in the event of a major earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault. Periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northwestern corner of the property will require several maintenance issues that should be anticipated and possibly incorporated into the design of the development. The flexible pavements of the entrance roadway will likely experience differential lateral movement and cracking. Offsets may cause changes in the sheetflow of surface drainage water, such as breaks in curbing, if applicable, and therefore, should be monitored such that surface erosion and possible gullying of the downslope side of the roadway does not occur. Also, the differential movement may cause damage due to offset to the underground utility lines that cross into this landslide area. There were indications of downslope movement associated with oversteepened slopes at two locations at the site, above the northeastern cut/fill pad and east (upslope) of the northern end of the access road. We recommend that stabilization of these oversteepened cut slopes be incorporated into the site development. This can be accomplished by reconstruction of these D & A4 CO\SULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 11 P:geo\geotcch\0001045tpt.4-6-00 0000^ slopes at a 2:1 inclination and removal and recomp~icti~~n of all existing fills above these oversteepened slopes. Since laying back the existing cut slope may be space limited, such as above the northeast cut/fill pad being near the eastern property boundaries, alternatives can include installation of a retaining wall supported on a foundation system and reconstruction of the slope above to a maximum inclination of 2:1. The retaining wall foundations should be supported in the underlying competent bedrock.. The third geologic hazard, ground shaking, is comrnor.~ for this seismically active area and should be incorporated into the design of the structure. Geotechnical Engineering Considec~ati~~ns From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, thc: primary concerns for foundation design are the undocumented fill materials in the two existing cut'fill pads and the relatively loose, native colluvial soils. These fills and colluvial soils are potentially compressible under the proposed building loads and unstable at their existing slope configuration. We understand the proposed residential structure will be located at the north-central portion of the site, as shown on Figure 4. To minimize the potential for differential settlements and downslope instability of the fill materials and the loose colluvial materials, we recommend that these materials be entirely removed and recompacted as engineered fill within the envelope of the proposed residential structure and associated appurtenances. The reworkin;? should include a base keyway and benching of the entire height of the fill slope into tl-ie underlying competent bedrock. We also recommend that all structures should be supported on drilled, cast-in-place pier foundations that derive their supporting capacities through friction into the underlying bedrock. The following recommendations are presented pis guidelines to be used by project designers for the geotechnical aspects of planning and designing 'For the proposed development. We recommend that D&M Consulting Engineers, Itu. lie F>rovided the opportunity to review the grading and foundation plans prior to constructiion, anti provide construction observation and testing services during grading and foundation c:onstruc~tion. This additional opportunity to observe the project site will allow us to compare subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those that were observed during this investigation. Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction Stripping: Surface vegetation and organic top:;oil below the proposed building location and driveway should be stripped. Soils containing !more than 2 percent of organic matter by weight should be considered organic and cannot be used as structural fill. The actual depth of stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Strippings should either be wasted elsev~~here on the property or be used in landscaped areas. • D & M CO~SL•LTING ENGINEERS. INC. I:: P:eeo\ecotech'+UW 1415rp~.~-6-00 00006 Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes: As previously stated, we recommend all existing fill materials and loose colluvial materials below the proposed area of the residential structure and associated appurtenances be removed and replaced with compacted, engineered fill materials. Since engineered fills will be placed on sloping terrain, we recommend that a base keyway and benches be constructed below the structural fill. Both the base keyway and all benches should extend into the underlying competent bedrock. The keyway should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and extend a minimum of 3 feet into the competent bedrock as measured on the front face of the keyway excavation. The actual depth of the keyway should be determined in the field at the time of construction by the geotechnical engineer. The base of the keyway should be sloped back into the slope at a one percent grade. At the rear of the base keyway, we recommend a subdrain system be installed. The subdrain system should consist of a perforated pipe, perforations placed down. The perforated pipe should be embedded in either Class 2 permeable material or 3/ -inch clean, crushed drainrock where the drainrock is entirely wrapped with a filter fabric. The subdrain pipe should be connected via solid pipe to an appropriate discharge facility. The keyway should then be filled with compacted, structural fill. As the fills are placed above the base keyway, the fills should be benched into the competent bedrock. The benches should extend a minimum of 2 feet into the competent bedrock or as determined by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. Materials for Structural Fill: On-site soils proposed for use as structural fill should be inorganic, free from deleterious materials, and should contain no more than 15 percent by weight of rocks larger than 3 inches (largest dimension) and no rocks larger than 6 inches. If import is required for use as structural fill, it should be meet the above requirements for structural fill and have a plasticity index less than 15. Prior to delivery to the site, the proposed import material should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability for use as structural fill. Subgrade Preparation: Prior to placement of structural fill in building and pavement areas, the exposed soil surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. We note that this scarification and recompaction requirement is not applicable at the bottoms of the base keyway or benches. , Compaction Requirements: Structural fill, or approved import, should be plgced in layers - each not exceeding an uncompacted thickness of 8 inches -moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content, and then entirely compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 (latest edition). The upper 8 inches of pavement subQrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 13 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.4-6-00 oOOO Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 • (horizontal:vertical}. Building Foundations Drilled Friction Piers We recommend that the residential structure grid all a~:sociated appurtenances be supported on drilled, cast-in-place, friction piers. The piers should lie designed to develop their vertical .support through friction into the competent bed~~.rock below the engineered fills. The piers may be designed using an allowable friction value of 500 pounds per square foot (for dead plus live loads) in the lower portion embedded into the t-edrock. We recommend the piers be embedded a minimum of 5 feet into the bedrock, or a minimum of 8 feet, whichever is deeper. The calculated capacities may be increased by one-third for all loads including wind or seismic. The allowable uplift capacities of the caissons tnay be taken as 80 percent of the calculated capacities. The vertical capacity of the portion of the shaft in the fills should be ignored. All pier foundations should have a minimum diameter of l2 inches and a minimum center-to- center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter. Lateral load resistance for the pier foundations can be developed by passive resistance between the pier shaft and surrounding soils. A passive resiista:nce equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against t:wic:e the shaft width can be used. In general, the upper one foot of the pier should be ig:nor~ed in providing lateral resistance. Also, where pier foundations are located on or near the finished slopes, we recommend that the upper portions of the pier foundations that has less thatl 10 feet of lateral cover (as measured from the front face of the pier to the finished ground surface on the slope) be ignored in providing passive resistance. Grade beams should be designed to span between piers. The pier excavations may encounter perched waiter or ground water at the time of construction. Additional construction measures should be anticipated during the pier installation operations. Construction methods such as ~:asing of the excavations where caving occurs and using the tremie placement method if accumulated water cannot be entirely removed from the excavation at the time of the concrete pour should be considered. Alternatively, if the water can be pumped from the hole without disturbing the sides of the pier, excavation, concrete may then be placed in the dry :hole. , Settlements of the piers supported structure should ire on the order of less than an inch due to non-seismic loads. If a raised wood floor system is used, the floors should be structurally supported on the pier and grade beam foundations. D 8 ~1 CONSGLTING ENGINEERS. INC. IG P:geo\gcoiech~0001(~i5rpt.4-6-W ~~O V ~ ^ • We recommend our representative be present on a full-time basis to confirm the depth of the pier excavations and the conditions of the excavations prior to pour. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Where concrete slab-on-grade floors are used, the slabs should be constructed on compacted subgrades prepared as described in the section on "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction. " We note that all concrete slabs should not be structurally connected to the pier and grade beams unless it is designed to be structurally supported on the pier and grade beam foundations. -- To minimize floor dampness, such as where moisture sensitive floorings will be present, a section of capillary break material at least four inches thick and covered with a membrane vapor barrier should be placed between the floor slab and the compacted soil subgrade. The capillary break should be a clean, crushed, free-draining material, such as 3/ -inch drainrock, or a Class 2 permeable aggregate complying with Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 68. A protective cushion of sand at least two inches thick should be placed between the membrane vapor barrier and the floor slab. Retaining Walls • • The following soil parameters should be incorporated into the design calculations of the retaining wall. The active lateral earth pressures can be represented by the following equivalent t7uid pressures that increase linearly with depth. In addition, the following at-rest design pressures may be used for the restrained conditions where movement at the top of wall is undesirable. These parameters are based on the fully back-drained and non-seismic condition. Condition Active, level backfill Active, 2:1 sloping backfill Equivalent Fluid Pressure 40 pcf 55 pcf At-rest, level backfill At-rest, 2:1 sloping backfill 60 pcf 75 pcf The effects of~earthquakes may be simulated by applying a horizontal line load surcharge to the stem of the wall at a rate of 18HZ lb/linear foot of wall, where H is the height of the surface of .the backfill above the base of the wall. This surcharge should be applied at a height of 0.6H above the base of the wall. The retaining walls can be supported either on a drilled, friction pier foundation as described previously in this report or a spread footing foundation. If pier foundations are selected, the piers should be designed in accordance with the previous recommendations provided earlier in D ~ M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. IS P:geolgeoiech~OW1045rpc.4-6-00 00006`? this report. If spread footing foundations are selec:ted~, the footings should extend a minimum S of 12 inches into the competent bedrock and coin be designed using an allowable dead plus live load of 2,500 pounds per square foot. An incr~:ase of one-third is allowed when considering additional short-term wind or seismic loads. 7'he wall footings should have a minimum of embedment of 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade a minimum width of 12 inches. We recommend an ultimate coefficient of friction belc-w the wall base is 0.35. An equivalent fluid pressure of 300 psf/ft may be useci to calculate the passive resistance to lateral movement of the ground in front of the toe of the wall and in front of any "key" beneath the toe or stem of the wall. This value is base on a level backfill in front of the wall foundation. The lateral active earth pressures presented above :are based on a drained condition. We recommend that a zone of drainage material at least 1:? inches wide should be placed on the backfill side of walls designed for drained condition. This zone should extend up the back of the wall to about 12 inches down from the prolpose:d ground surface above. The drainage material should consist of either Class 2 Permeable: Material complying with Section 68 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, or s~-inch clean, durable coarse aggregate. If the coarse aggregate is chosen as the drainage material, it should be separated from all adjacent soil by a filter fabric approved by the project Soil Engineer. Any water that accumulates in the drainage material should be collected by a perforated pipe, perforations placed down, near the bottom of the drainage raterial. The perforated .pipe should have holes S no larger that '/ -inch diameter. The perforated pipe should be connected via a solid collector pipe to an appropriate discharge facility downslope of the residence. The upper 12 inches of material above the drainage; material should consist of the compacted, native soils. Above this native cap, a concrete V-dlitcli should be constructed along the back of wall for increased efficiency of the surface drainage. Continual maintenance and clearing of this V-ditch is essential to maintain the efficiency of tl•ie system. We recommend the surface drainage (V-ditch) and subsurface drainage (perforated pipe of the wall backfill) systems should be entirely independent of each other. All wall backfill should be moisture conditioned anal compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Heavy compaction should nor. be applied; otherwise, the design pressure on the wall may be exceeded. To avoid surcharging of the walls with construction equipment, backfill within 3 to 4 feet of the wall should be connpacted by hand operated equipment. , Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administra.tio~i) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to tr~~ncl-~ wills should be minimized and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. D K M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. !!i P;geo~geoiech~ppp~pysrp~.q_6-U() O(1oO~~i Approved on-site, inorganic soil, or imported material may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content and placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness (before compaction). Each layer should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. As stated previously, differential movement of utilities located across the existing old landslide area at the north end of the access roadway should be anticipated. Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and to promote drainage of surface water away from the building foundations, slabs, edges of pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. To minimize concentrated accumulation and surface erosion adjacent to the structures, roof downspouts shotild be connected via solid pipe to a storm drain discharge system. Water seepage or the spread of extensive root systems into the soil subgrades of foundations, slabs, or pavements could cause .differential movements and consequent. distress in these structural elements. This potential risk should be given due consideration in the design and construction of landscaping. As stated previously, the existing slopes above the proposed residence have a potential for surface erosion that can result in an accumulation of sediment at the rear of the residence. We recommend that erosion control material be placed across all areas where the slope surface was disturbed during construction. In addition, supplemental hydroseeding and vegetation growth on the- slope is recommended. The surface drainage design should accommodate the existing drainage from the adjacent property to the east. Pavement Design A representative sample of the subgrade soil sample from the upper 2 feet was obtained from the northern end of the access roadway for laboratory R-Value testing. This sample was tested in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 301. Results of the test indicated that the near surface native materials have an R-value of 9. Based on this R- value test result, which is typical for automobile traffic areas, we developed the following pavement section • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 17 P:gw\geotech\0001045rpt.4-6-00 000069 Traffic Asphalt Class 2 Index ConcretE~ Aggregate Base 4.0 2.0" _~ 8.0" 4.5 2.0" 9.0" We note that design traffic indices. were not available at the time of this report. An estimated Traffic Index of 4.0 is a typical value that may ~be used for light automobile traffic. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrade and tltne entire baserock layer should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture co~ztent and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, as described in the section titled, "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction. " In addition, both the compal~ted sul~grade and baserock layer should be proof-rolled to confirm stability prior to placement of the overlying pavement component. If instability exists, stabilization measures or addil:ion~tl drying should be performed in accordance with the supplemental recommendations of the Soil Engineer. LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on certain plans, information, and data that have been provided to us. Any ch;ang~es in those plans, information, and data will render our recommendations invalid unless we are commissioned to review the changes and to make any necessary modifications and/oi• additions to our recommendations. Our recommendations have been made in accordance v~rith the principles and practices generally employed by the local engineering geology and geotechnical engineering professions. This is in lieu of all warranties, express or implied. Our study did not include the assessment of environmental characteristics at the property, particularly those involving hazardous substancl:s. Subsrrffaee exploration of any site is necessarily confined to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between and around such locations. Should conditions different from those encountered in our exploration come to li;?ht ciuri:ng project development, additional exploration (beyond that already recommended), testin,, and analysis may be necessary; changes~in project design and construction may also be necessary. Any person concerned with this project who observes conditions or features of the site or surrounding areas that are different from those describt~d in this report should report them immediately to this office for evaluation as part of an additional scope of work. • • D $ M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. IS P:geo\gtwtech\OW1045rpt.4-b-0O O~oO ( O • REFERENCES CITED California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies (Earthquake Fault) Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998., Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials, map scale '/4 inch = 1 km. Cotton,. William, and Associates, 1980, Geologic and ground movement potential maps of the upper Calabazas Creek watershed, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to the City of Saratoga, California, 22 plates, scale 1:2400. Cotton, W.R., Cole, W.F., and Wallace, J.M., 1994, Geologic constraints on the Quaternary tectonic history of range-front deformation, northeastern margin of the central Santa Cruz Mountains, California: American Geophysical Union, 1994 Fall Meeting, published as a supplement to EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 75, n. 44, p. 682. Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2000, Preliminary geologic and geotechnical review (S4010) re: Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Larry Perlin (public works director for the City of Saratoga), 4 p. Cummings, J.C., 1968, The Santa Clara formation and possible post-Pliocene slip on the San Andreas fault in central California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, Arthur, Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of San Andreas Fault System: Stanford University Publications in the Geological Sciences, v. 11, pp. 191-207. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1966, Geology of the Palo Alto Quadrangle, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 8, scale 1:62,500. Freeman-Kern Associates, 1988, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Hamilton Stewart, 20 p. Harlan Tait Associates, 1997, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Adam Grosser, 17 p. r~ Hay, E.A., Cotton, W.R., and Hall, N.T., 1980, Shear couple tectonics and the Sargent- Berrocal fault system in northern California, in Streitz, Robert, and Sherburne, Roger, Studies of the San Andreas Fault Zone in Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 140, p. 41-49. D & h1 CO\SULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 19 P:geolgcotech\OW1045rpt.4-G-00 OOOO~~ Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C:., 1994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin oi'the Santa Cruz Mountains: William Lettis and Associates, Inc., unpublished consultant's report to the; U.S. Geological Survey, Award Number 1434-92-G-2220, 32 p., map scale 1:24,0()0. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, 7'ianging, Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.S., and Schwartz, D.F'., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: California Divi:~ion of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-Fi.le Report 96-706), 33 p., map scale 1 inch 107 miles. Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential seismic hazards in Santa-Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 107, 27 p., map scale 1:62,500. Sorg, D.H., and McLaughlin, 1975, Geologic :map of the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-643, scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, 1961, photorevised 15-80, 7.`~-Minute Topographic Map of the Cupertino, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. Youd, T.L., and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic ground failures in northern California triggered by earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional paper 993, 177 p., map scale 1:250,000. • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. '0 P:gtro\geottrh\OOOlO45rpt.4-6-0p 00002 '• U • AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Date A enc Type Frame Scale $/23/60 USGS ~ b & w GS-VACY-2-189, 190 1:30,000 2/ 12/64 unknown b & w Saratoga 14 and 15 1:11,500 8/11/71 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w AV-1006-04-16, 17 1:12,000 8/26/76 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w AV-1277-04-19, 20 1:12,000 10/13/77 unknown b & w 77811-1-1, 2 1:6,000 4/12/85 WAC Corp. b & w WAC-85CA-13-127, 128 1:31,680 D & N1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 21 P:geo\geotecM0001045rpt.4-6-00 0400'73 TABLE 1. NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS (hxs than 30 mites away) 22551 Mount Eden R:oaci Saratoga, Calii~orn;ia FAULT TYPE DISTANCE FROM SITE rniles (km) MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE (Moment) Sargent(-Berrocal) B 0.3 (0.:5) 6.8 San Andreas (1906) A 2 (3) 7.9 Hayward (total length) A 18 (29) 7.1 Hayward (south) B 18 (29) 6.9 Hayward (southeast B 15 (25) 6.5 San Gregorio A 16 (26) 7.3 Calaveras (north) B 18 (29) 6.8 Calaveras (south) B 18 (30) 6.2 Monterey Bay-Tularcitos B 24 (39) 7.1 Monte Vista-Shannon B 2 (3) 6.5 Zayante-Vergeles B I3 (22) 6.8 • • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo\geotech\OOOI045rp~.4-6-00 0000'74 _ J~~_ i- • - _`~ ,~ :;% ::!Q, e~~, •~; .~: ,.. ;; r` .= .~ . `:;:~J ~\ _:.^ ~,dr-. ;~_~ . ~ :\;: ~; ~',l• '~," ' /~ _ ~`_ , ~~-~~ .{dater \ ~ ~ rj,>~~ , ,,\~ `,mf] 600 _ ~•~ ~(~; i ~ ,. ~ ~ - ~ `~e' ~ ' ~r\/ r yL ` J\~n ~--- ~K .~~~ ~ .Y ~ 1 goo ~ ~ - _ ~. - ~'.~,~ ,4.-~^, ~ ,~ ~ . _ • , ; . •,. , "-~` -'fix ., 6 'j ' • • l ~~ \• - - --.. ". ,~ - ~~~. BASEIIQAP: CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA U.S.G.S. 7tk' TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP . -N- ~~ ~1.~ . v . G~~ p ~CC ~ ~I ~ -~Z~-'~ U",M I 1 D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ~~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 VICINITY MAP 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1 ° = 2000' FIGURE 1 PRO1 ECT 5 -- , ~ \~-. \ fmg--'-,-- -- _ ~VoT~ . -jam /(' /~ " Yg - dg :s Tus1- -~. _ / Sj'~ EXPLANATION Geoloeic units in vicinity of site - Qoal -Quaternary older stream alluvium deposits 1 Qof -Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits QTs - Quaternary/'Tertiary non-marine sedimenaary rock:, (Santa Clara Formation) fs, fg, fmg, fsh -Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Cornplex sandstone, greenstone, melange, and shale BASE MAP: ROGERS AND WILLIAMS, 1974, PLATE 1 . -- ,-7 -~~ 1 ~! . ~, - ~. , _ . .1 ~~! . ~ U SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 2:2551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ®~ FIGURE i I 2 PROJECT , 1045 - ~~~'~ • • EXPLANATION Als -Active landslide Dls Dormant landslide Ols -Old landslide QTsc - Quaternary/Tertiary Santa Clara Formation ,; BASE MAP: COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, 1980, SHEETS 2, 3 -N- SCALE: 1 " =200' I D&M CONSULTING EWGINEERS,INC: ~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 GEOLOGIC VICI1yITY MAP 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA fi~uRE 3 PR01 ECT 1045 M I i 1 F z U •' 1 `~' . -/- . ~ I ~. ~ , a 1 ~_ I ^~ ~ ~' I , a , / I ' ;} 1 ~ , ' / F r \ . ' ~ U ^^1 1••~I r r M z 3 z M ~. n 7 U W R ~ Lr ~ v .Z 0 ~ • • • • • •. ,Q. N a . ~ • F• ~ ¢ ~ ~ -- 3 ~ CS. o E" ~o a • z '~ e ~ e • ~ • • • a u~ V ~ ~ W ~ ~ > ~~ ' ^ , ^ _v v I .Z ~ ~ E"- LL {~ U Z cii v .~ ~Qz °°o y ~ {~ z~ ~oQ U Q E-' ~ ~ C7 O ~ F"" N n V~ VI O Z ~y N ~] W Z a Z ~ ~~ a 0 i g J Q ~ ~ t/1 Q 0 ~ cU G H K t nn II F L' h II U Z fi7 ...1 Q U W ~ I V ~ oc i ~ V v / O ~ ~ ~ G. °z '°o ~~~. ~ w .~ ~"QU H W ^-+ O LL C~ N Q H~ U Z W > W Z Q ~ ~ Zp W v ~ Z Z O J Q ~ ~ Z 0 cV C ~ 0 L O N ~_ Or Q [~1 H 1 U ~ .` . I~ " 1 "~ , i h 1 ' ~~ H .~ c 1 w ~ H, z 1a ~ , "~ ~. 3, _ h C ~ _G n c °' ai "' II o-~ ' _ :n .~. % 7 v .: ~.~~~ ~ z ~ U v ~0 o e 3 ` _ ~ V cL U Q U >_. Z ..+ o" ~ F ~ U ~ ~ vL _ ~~ T ~ H v 0. 4', OD h u ~ {:~ CJ Z U H s ~ W '7 3 ~ Z S ' a s a Q , ,o U1 ~3 a - v~ N i\ VJ ~ V: ~i ~ ~ v ~ y ~~ = C ~ v H p V.. ~> E 'ai ~ F ~ ~, U = ~ _ y ~ __ ` ~a ~' v v. 7 > `r F - J >> V 33 C~0 ea '" v S ` :~ L ... :% .U.. T ~ _- U ~ ec u c E £= ~ ~ ~ _ v v _ N .'~ 07 ~ ~ _C - ~ R - V ~ c 'o f~ ~ ti c h > c F• ~? R _ 3 e L ~ vi `O ~ p v. O v C ~ u cv ~ 3 .a LL' y E~ ~ ~ ~ •G ~ ~ ~ " u c7 ` t~ O ~ ~ C ` G = y v >, W ea d' E~ ~: O_ ~ E Y •o_ y v G >' '+ C cv 7 ~_ A H F i~ U C C~ '.' y ~ R O Y U d T~ C C C 'b - U T C C N ~ v C ~ ~ Y v' 7 U ca ~ " u 3 v, C ~ C r+ C >. '... ~ F N F y > > Y .7 7 v. L C >• 'fl ~ ca :J ~ ~ Y 'U U G >. u. T O ~ ,r, ~. '~ G ~ ~ ~. T tO C e0 d U v ~ F .. >' eO O F U 1r >+.C U ~ U C.0 U T .rT U ..>'. O C~ ~ T ,T, >> h >' ~ .CI ~1 ._) V .CI U 'CI.O ,CIS ,CI , ~ " ~ ' ` I ~ ~ 1 ` \ ~ ~ " w •a ' ~' ~ 1 ~, I , 1 " ` ~y " 1 w ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` a 1 " F U 1 • ~.. i W ~ ~ W V'f ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q r".n O I.OI• J ~ W z~ ~ Q Q ~ U Q E-' a ~ h y N Q U Z N vi J W Z ~ Za a Z~ w o z o J i o U ~ ~~~ O < ~OLl • APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo~geoteeh\0001045rpt.4.6-00 -000081 ~, D~i~f Consulting Engineers, frsc. S~I~.S REP'~DRT' (83:1:}372-37tG Project: 22551 Mt. Eden Road Date: 03!31!0() Project #: 1045 Lab #: 3997/L5322 MOISTURE-DENSITY A-S7,M D2216, ASTM D2937 ~ B~~rin~ Density' Moisture Liquid Plasticih• Passing Soil Description Hule ~~~. (pct) (%) Lu~ut Index #2UU, (%) TP 1-1 a. 2.0' 114.0 18.1 Lean CLAY. light brown TP2-1 r. 4.0' 103.3 22.9 's Fat CLAY with Sand & Organics. dark brown TP4-1 r. 4.0' 124.8 25.2 Lean CLAY with Sand, light bro~~•n TPA-] (a 3.5' 120.9 24.1 32 11 <` Lean CLAY, medium brown _, TPb-I ,a~ 4.~ 121.4 27.7 ~ ~~ Lean CLAY with Sand. gra~llight bro~~•n TP8-2 ~. 2.0' 119.8 25.2 Lean CLAY with Sand, medium brown __ _ __ _ ___ _ __ - - ._ __ . .. __ -- Boring Resistivity' pH Chlorides sulf:~tes Soil Description Hole \o. (oluiu/cm) (PPn~) (PP-~~) Comments: B~ A. Bomberger. Laboraton• Mana~cr CET ~~ 085601 • nnnn~~ • • i~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH REPORT v~~ce ASTM D2166 (831)372-3716 Project: 22» I Mt. Eden Road Date: U3/.i l /U(- Pro~ect #: 1U4~ Sam le #: TP4-1 De the 4.0' Lab #: 3997/L5322 Location/Source: Refer to borin to Sam le Date: Refer to borin to tilaterial: Fat CLAY, rav/brown 2500 2000 c v 1500 w o' w 1000 500 0 i ~ i i i i ~ i ~ ~ i ~ I I ~ j I ~ i i i ~ j I ~ i .' i , i i i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i I I I I ~ I I I ; ~ i i j i ~ l ~ i i ~ i l ~ ~' i ~ i i. ~ I ' I ~ i i a ~ d' j ~ i ~ ! ~ I ~ i --- Q i O O O - I i i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dry Density, cf 124.8 Initial Water Content, % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 i Comments: FAILURE DATA Strain, % 16.0 Peak Shear, sf 2027 Peak Unconfined, sf 4053 A. Bomberger, Laboratory Manager CET #085601 ~ ~'~'_ _ ~J ~_ nnnnQ~ ~~ ® ~? >o ,w w' c i ~ 3 ~ g o ~ A a~ o ., $~ R s~ . Z = ~ ~ T 8N _ Z A ~ O n -- ~ Elevation (feet) d y ~ N H r o n a~0 a°~ rxm oon -~ ~CO a z a a o. o ~G ~G ~G ~G O p x O <.: O O O p z ~ ~ Y m 0 0 O T_ O -, N ~ O O 0 y w a ~o ~o N O O+ O A a r m z n x i 0 m 0 Cy 000084 =x .~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ' ° I '~ ~i ~ C o i 9 a~~ ~ A 5 Z LZf n ; ~' R ~ > _ ~ ' ~ _ ~ s ~ t ~ o T 8N ~ C _ f~"i ~- i d a 0 k d m I II " ~ ANC ~U ..~ . f o~~ ~~~ av~ rz~ oo~ ~v~ a n a r m z n s m U~ m -j ~ _ u pA ~ J c ~ {A T A n T v Elevation (feet) ,c ~ - o p ~ ~ O O O O o bd Z A O 0 ', o O ~ o y ~ O1 i N f~D .~-. ~ O~ O O O a 0 ~' ~ ~I' r, ~,. I I. I~ i ~I ~I i ~' II - __. 1 ' I ~ ~ ' ~ I I ~, ,~ ~ I . ' . ° o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ 'r ~ ~ . / ~ j ~ - -. -- - . 1 i ~ / / 1 I ~ , ~~p 1 i I . i i ~ I I I I i '1 ; . ..j ~'Cl 1 ~ O~ i ` 1. 1 i 1 ~. ~ ~ p N 1 1 '. to cn O ~ROOv V r. • THIS PAGE H~~S BEEN INTENTIONALLY I_EI~T BLANK • On(l(1~~ f SUPPLEMENTAL GEOLOGIC AND GEOTEC)EINICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 1507 Prepared for: MR. A-ItMANDO HUERTA 14225 SARATOGA-SI:INNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Prepared by: D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3194 DE LA CRUZ BLVD., SUITE 19 SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054 (408) 297-6969 NOVEMBER 2000 2 ~ ~00$~ r j -~ D&M CONSULTING ENGINI=ERS, INC. ~°1'" Geotechnical;Em~ironmental/Materials Testing A URA CORPOR4TIOti COn1PAN1' _ January 10, 2001 Project 1045 Mr. Armando Huerta 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Supplemental Geologic/Geot~echnical Investigation 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Huerta: In accordance with your authorization, D&IVi Consulting Engineers (DMCE) has completed supplemental field work for our Ceologic;/Geotechnical Investigation of 22666 Summit Road in Santa Cruz County, Califonnnia. This report include a comprehensive summary of these findings, conclusions, revised engineering recommendations, and limitations. If you have any questions or require additional i:nfo:rmation, please call us at your convenience in our Santa Clara office at (40f;} 297-E~969. Sincerely, D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INt~. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY v~ Lawrence D. Pavlak, CEG Senior Geologist ~~ ~; ~ :,f~ 1187 ~~ J .. ~_ ,, _ :,G ~~ _ ~~ :~ v~,;~vuiST 4~ OF CAUF~ r 0 Glenn A. Romig, PE .PC~t,~rE',,~ ~,' ~ Ol~2iJr~ W f l~ .. .,. - ~~ . ~_ 12 Thomas Owens Way Monurey, California 93940 . ~ n • T, T , r-.- DL.J c..:.,, i n c......, rl"., r-,:c.,....:., nrnc:~ 831 372 3716 Tel 831 372 7481 F.~00088 eno 10'7 ~O~n •r~t .no ~n-r +„ ~ ,- - - • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................1 SITE INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................... .2 Surface Conditions .........:.........................................:.............................................. .2 Regional Geology and Seismicity ........................................................................... .3 Subsurface Exploration ......................................................................................:... .4 Subsurface Conditions ................................:........................................................... .4 Artificial FilUColluvium ..................................................:............................... .4 Bedrock ..................................................................................................5 Landslide ............................................................................................... .5 Geologic Structure ................................................................................. .6 Surface Water and Ground Water ..:...............................................................:......7 Site Soil Classification .......................................................:.....................................7 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ............................................7 Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................7 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................. 8 Ground Shaking ...................................................................................... 9 Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction ................. 9 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................... 10 Surface Erosion ........................................................................................................ 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 11 Geologic Hazards ..................................................................................................... 11 . Geotechnical Engineering Considerations ............................................................. 12 Site Preparation, Grading and Compaction ...................................................... 12 Strippit~g ................................................................................................. 12 Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes ........................................... 13 Materials for Structural Fill .................................................................... 13 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................. 13 Compaction Requirements ..................................................................... 13 Permanent Slopes ................................................................................... 14 Temporary Slopes and Excavation ......................................................... 14 Retaining Wall Backfill .......................................................................... 15 Building Foundations ........................................................................................ 15 Drilled Friction Piers .............................................................................. 15 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ....................................................................... 16 ` Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. 17 D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo~geotech~0001045cpt1-10-0I Q-00089 . f Active Earth Pressure .......................... ....................................................17 Drainage and Backfilling................ .........................................................17 Foundations ............................................................................................ l8 Utility Trenches ......................................................................................18 Surface Drainage and Erosion lProlection ..............................................19 Pavement Design ....................................................................................19 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................:..............:..............................20 REFERENCES CITED ........................................,...............................................................21 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................................---.......23 TABLE 1 -Nearby Active Faults ...........................................................................................8 TABLE 2 -Compaction Specifications .............................................................14 FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map . Figure 3 -Geologic Vicinity Map Figure 4 -Site Geologic Map Figure 5 -Test Pit Logs (a through c) Figure 6 -Geologic Cross Section A-A' Figure 7 -Geologic Cross Section B-B" APPENDIX A -Logs of Exploratory Borings APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Reports • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo~geoteehW001045rpt.1-10-01 ~~~~'"" v EMENT I D SUPPL AL GEOLOG C AN GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA This supplemental report summarizes D & M Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s (DMCE) findings, conclusions, and recommendations based upon the results of our multi phase geologic and geotechnical investigation of the subject site located in Saratoga, California. The proposed development of the approximately 1 %z-acre subject property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road will consist of asingle-family wood-framed house situated in the northern portion of the property on a steep, west-facing slope. The proposed driveway will follow an existing road cut along the western edge of the property for much of its length before bending sharply to the west to connect at a perpendicular with Mt. Eden Road. We understand that significant cuts and fills are expected in association with the development of the site. The objectives of our supplemental investigation were to (1) further define the boundaries of a landslide located on the southern and central portion of the lot, and (2) explore subsurface conditions at the site to aid in preparing revised geotechnical recommendations for project earthwork, foundation design, retaining wall design, and pavement thickness design. SCOPE OF WORK Our investigation was limited to the following tasks: Review of geologic and geotechnical maps, consultants' reports, and the Geologic/Geotechnical Investigation report for the subject site prepared by DMCE, dated Apri16, 2000. Additional geologic reconnaissance and field mapping along the western (lower) portion of the subject property. Preparation of a revised geologic map of the property and geologic cross section illustrating our interpretation of the subsurface configuration of geologic units. Geologic evaluation of the information collected, identification of any potential geologic , constraints to the proposed development, and formulation of geologic recommendations for addressing any constraints identified. Consultations with the City of Saratoga Geotechnical Consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) and the City of Saratoga Planning Department. Exploration, sampling, and classification of subsurface soils by means of two large-diameter, exploratory borings and one hand-dug shaft excavated in the vicinity of the landslide and proposed house. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. I P:geo\geotechW001045rpt1-10-01 ~~1~V~1 Laboratory testing of supplemental, selected soil samples to determine their engineering properties. Tests included Atterberg Limits, particle si:ae distribution, and torsional shear. Review and analysis of field and laboratory test data. Development of revised geotechnical recommendat:ion:~ for site preparation, grading and . compaction, building foundations, concrete slags-or>-grade, retaining walls, pavement thickness design for driveways, and underground utility tr•encla b~ICkfill. Preparation of this combined geologic/geotechnical supplemental report. SITE INVESTIGATION ;Surface Conditions The property is located in the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains, on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. It lies within the Sa~-atol;a city limits and also within the 7.5-minute Cupertino topographic quadrangle (see Figure I, Vicinity Map). Access to the site is gained from Mount Eden Road via arough-graded dirt access road. Surrounding land uses are rural residential. The site consists of an unoccupied, approximately 1 %2-acre parcel that is roughly rectangular in shape. Slope gradients are moderate to steep, rangir.~g fi-om about 1:1 to 3%z:l ,(horizontal:vertical). Near-horizontal cut/fill pads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property, the latter of which is considerably larger and is located at the southern terminus of a narrow, rough-graded access road that borders the western edge of the property. -The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account for the steepest gradients on the property; 'the cut slope above the northeastern pad is locally as steep as 1:1, while the subjacent fill slope and access road cut slope exhibit a maximum inc;lina.tioti of about 1 %z: l . Arough-graded access road connects Mt. Eden Road with the northwestern corner of the property. Another,-older rough-.graded road, the construction of which involved relatively minor cuts and fills, borders the upper (eastern) boundary of the southern half of the property. A broad, shallow, arcuate depression occupies much of ~rhe southern, more gently inclined portion of the slope, with slope gradients rangin€; from about 3:1 to 4:1. Topographic relief on the property is approximately 80 feet, ranging from an elevation of about 940 feet above sea level in the southwestern corner of the site to apl~roxima.tely 1020 feet in the northeastern corner. An unnamed, south-flowing ephemeral drainage bounds the western edge of the property, the upper eastern embankment of which is located within the confines of the property. Vegetative cover on the site consists primarily oi.'unc;ult:ivated weeds and grasses, although several eucalyptus trees border the periphery of the site ;ind the remnants of an orchard (a few cherry trees) remain on the central portion of the slope. Drainage of the site is by southwest- directed sheet flow into the adjacent drainage, which empties into northeast-flowing Calabazas Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Pcmde:d water was present at the north end of the property and on the cut/fill pad in the southwestern portion of the property following prolonged rainfalls that occurred at the time of the investigation for our earlier report. • • • D S M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2 P:geo~geoteehW001oa5rpt.1-10-01 J0~092 • Regional Geolo~v and Seismicity The site is located in the California Coast Range geomorphic province, in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 1 mile west of the southwestern edge of Santa Clara Valley. The oldest bedrock unit in the region is the Franciscan Complex of Jurassic and Cretaceous age, which consists of weakly metamorphosed marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks, primarily dark gray sandstone and shale, dark green greenstone (an altered volcanic rock) and minor amounts of red chert and gray limestone. The property itself is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; -Cotton and Associates, 1980; see Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map), which was deposited in streams, alluvial fans, and lake beds during latest Pliocene and early Pleistocene time (Cummings, 1968). The boundary between the two formations is defined by the Berrocal fault, which together with its southeastward continuation, the Sargent fault, forms the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone. Santa Clara bedding dips gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Regional geologic structure is largely controlled by the San Andreas fault system, which has created predominantly northwest-southeast-trending geologic structure (faults and folds) and topographic features in the area. The San Andreas system also constitutes the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates; active faults, consequently, are abundant in the region. The likely active Berrocal fault, which is located approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site, consists of two primary traces in this area (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; William Cotton and Associates, 1980). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex have been thrust northeastward over rocks of the Santa Clara Formation along this fault. The potentially active Shannon fault is located about-1'/. miles (2.8 km) northeast of the site, beneath the floor of the Santa Clara Valley.. The active San Andreas fault is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) southwest of the site, in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The ground movement potential of the site is classified by Cotton and Associates (1980) as Ps, which they define as "relatively unstable material including landslide debris, surficial slope materials, and weak bedrock; commonly less than 10 feet in thiclEness on gentle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, and soil creep activity." The property is located in an area of abundant landslides, which. is consistent with the steep, rugged topography characterizing much of the area and the generally poorly indurated condition ; of the Santa Clara Formation. Much of the western portion of the site is mapped as being underlain by portions of two adjacent, relatively large landslides (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map), both of which belong to an even larger complex directly to the west. The larger of these two slides is shown to be moving in a southward direction and the smaller in a westward direction. They are both classified on the map (Cotton and Associates, 1980) as old landslides. A relatively small landslide is mapped approximately 200 feet northeast of the property, an adjacent relatively large complex approximately 150 feet directly to the east, and another relatively small feature approximately 180 feet to the southeast (Cotton and Associates, 1980); D & M CONSULTING ENGMEEILS. INC. 3 P:geo\geotxh\oooloa5rpt.1-10-0I 000093 these landslides are classified as dormant, active, and I~ld, respectively. All three of these slides are separated from the project site by the afore~rnentiorled north-south-trending ridge. Subsurface Exploration DMCE excavated a total of nine exploratory tes~i pit:> on the property in February and March 2000, in order to investigate subsurface conditions andi obtain samples for laboratory testing. These excavations ranged from about 6 to 12 feet in depth surd about 12 to 50 feet in length (see Figure 4 for approximate test pit locations). The subsurface materials encountered in the excavations were described in detail in our previous report dated Apri16, 2000. . On June 26, 2000, two large diameter borings were drilled on the site with struck-mounted drill rig for the purpose of allowing down-hole logging cif subsurface materials in the area of the projected landslide plane. The borings were 24~ inches in diameter and 39 and 44 feet below ground surface (BGS). They were designated I)M-1 alzd DM-2 and their locations are displayed on the Site Geologic Map, Figure 4. A DMCE geologist entered the bore holes and ]togged the subsurface materials encountered there. Mr. William Cole, representing Cotton, Shire acid Associates, also observed the sidewalls of the borings at that time. A landslide shear zone was identified in borings DM-1 and DM-2 at depths of 28 to 29 feet and 23 to 25 feet BGS, respectively. The DMCE geologist collected samples of landslide plane materials for laboratDry ,analysis. In order to further define the boundaries of the l.and:slide, a hand-dug shaft, designated DM-3, was excavated on the site on September 15, 20C-0. 'Che vertical shaft was 2 feet wide, 3 feet long, ..and 25 feet BGS. The shaft was logged by a D1vICI's geologist and observed by Mr. Cole. No landslide shear zone was observed in the excav~itiorl but some sub-vertical fractures, identified at an approximate depth of 10 feet BGS, may be related to movement of the nearby landslide mass. Subsurface Conditions ,. Artificial Fill / Colluvium A portion of the property is underlain by artificial fill associated with previous site improvements. The fill material consists of very moist to wet, highly plastic orange-brown to medium brown silty clay and was likely derived from on-site soils. The bulk of the fill is located %~ in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the prclperiy; on and adjacent to the two cut/fill :pads. Maximum fill thicknessses encountered in the test pits, as well as those reported in previous exploratory borings drilled on the property (Free:magi-Kern Associates, 1988; Harlan Tait Associates, 1997) are on the order of about 3 to 3%i :feet. Lesser amounts of fill are present along the western edge of the rough-graded access road that skirts the northern portion of the western property boundary and in the vicinity of the northwestern end of the proposed driveway (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, Geologic: Cross Section A-A'; Figure 7, Geologic Cross • • D& M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 4 P:geo~geotech~0001045rpt.I-10-01 ^ Ooo w Section B-B'). Based on the overall a earance of the fill material and the presence of numerous PP twigs and other organic material, it is our opinion that all existing fills are non-engineered. No compaction testing records regarding the fill placement were available. In areas that are devoid of fill, Santa Clara bedrock is overlain by colluvial/residual soils , consisting of highly expansive, moist to very moist silty clays and sandy clays. They have attained maximum thicknesses of approximately 7 feet. Based upon the laboratory testing performed during this and previous investigations at the site, the near-surface soils and weathered bedrock have a relatively high potential for expansion. Liquid limits ranging from 63 to 65 percent and plasticity indices ranging from 37 to 40 percent have been established. Bedrock As indicated on the aforementioned geologic maps, the property is underlain by Santa Clara Formation bedrock consisting of severely weathered, highly fractured, blocky, poorly indurated bluish-gray to orange-brown claystone with lesser amounts of siltstone. It could commonly be broken apart by hand. The upper (approximately 2 to 3 feet), more highly weathered portion of the Santa Clara bedrock generally consists of pebble- to gravel-sized chunks of weathered claystone/siltstone in a silty clay matrix. Randomly oriented slickensides, likely the result of repeated episodes of shrinking and swelling, were observed in some of the more clay-rich portions of this material. Landslides Of the two landslides mapped beneath the property by Cotton and Associates (1980), the larger is mapped beneath the western edge of the northern end of the property and the smaller beneath the western half of the southern, relatively shallow-gradient portion of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). Both of these features are classified as old landslides (Ols), which are defined as "relatively stable, inactive features with subdued irregular topography, low slope position, well-established drainage systems, and undisturbed vegetation" (Cotton and Associates, 1980). Although classified as inactive, the larger of these two mapped landslides displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in the yearly formation of cracks in the adjacent portion of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole, personal communication, February, 2000). Harlan Tait Associates (1997) also reported the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road west of the site at the time of their investigation, indicating that "small amounts of movement have occurred." Moreover, we observed cracking in a recently resurfaced portion of the road approximately 350 to 400 feet west of the property in February 2000 (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). The mapped location of the larger landslide essentially coincides with our interpretation based on a review of the aerial photos. It is also consistent with the findings of our subsurface investigation, in which we encountered stiff, dark gray to orange-brown, silty clay to sandy clay with~abundant pebble- to gravel-sized clasts extending to a depth of at least 12 feet in the northwestern corner of the property. This material, which we interpret to represent a landslide D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 5 P:geo~geoteehW001045rpt.1-10-01 (~OOOJa~7 deposit, was encountered in TP-2 and TP-9 (similar material was also encountered in Harlan Tait's Boring B-3), but not in TP-7 or TP-8. Thus the eastern edge of the larger old landslide appears to underlie much of the proposed drive:wa}• arc;a, but is at least 15 feet west of the proposed building footprint (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map). DMCE also identified evidence of the presence: of the smaller, westward-directed landslide mapped in the southern portion of the property during the course of our investigation. A shallow, arcuate-shaped surface depression is located in this area and a-landslide plane was identified in the two large-diameter borings. The northern tloundary of the landslide mass intrudes into the original building envelope for the proposed residence ;~s shown on Figure 4, Site Geologic Map. The landslide material observed in the two large-di,amc;ter borings was identified as completely to moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation. It co~zsisted of silty, lean, and fat clays with minor sand, pebbles, and gravel. This was overlain by 2 feet of fill (fat clay) in DM-1 and 3 feet of colluvium (silty clay) in DM-2. The landslide sliear~ zone was described as slickensided, fat clay. The materials observed underlying the landslide shear .zone consisted predominantly of :moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation. 'his w~ls described as widely fractured, moderately weathered, gray claystone and light to dark gray silty clay, silty sand, and clayey sand. We also noted the presence of a small, shallow eartliflo~w/slump-type failure in the northwestern portion of the property, directly. east of the northern enci of the rough-graded access road. The failure, which measured approximately 15 feet liong, 8 :feet wide, and about 3 feet deep, appears to have involved primarily fill, although some native material may have been included near its western end. Another small failure was noted v~~ithin tale fill slope along the western property boundary directly west of (below) the southernmost cu11fi11 pad. Some cracks with horizontal separations of about 2 to 4 inches and scarplets witl,l vertical separations of about 6 to 10 inches .were noted on the -portion of the slope that lies in the vicinity of the proposed building footprint; the-bulk of these features were located within fill (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map). s Geologic Structure Because of its highly weathered, poorly induratc;d nature, Santa Clara Formation bedding was difficult to discern, and we were therefore unable to measure many reliable bedding attitudes in our subsurface excavations. One possible bedding plane dipped moderately (about 35 degrees) to the north-northeast, which is in rough agreement •witli published geologic maps of the area showing Santa Clara bedding dipping gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, ].971; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Fracture orientations that we measured were for the mo;~t part near-vertical (70- to 80-degree dips). D & M CONSULTING ENGMEERS, INC. 6 P:geo~geo[ech~0001045rpt.l-IO-OI oOOOJV • Surface Water and Ground Water As previously noted, surface runoff on the property is by sheet flow into the ephemeral drainage directly west of the property, which flows southwestward along Mount Eden Road. Aside from the ponded rainwater at the north end of the property and in the southwestern portion of the property (cut/fill pad), no ponds or springs were visible on the property or in the aerial photographs we reviewed. Ground water was not encountered in any of our exploratory test pits, which were excavated during the rainy season to a maximum depth of about 12 feet below existing grade. However, Harlan Tait Associates (1997) reported the presence of groundwater at a depth of 2 feet in their Boring 1, located near the edge of the cut/fill pad in the northeastern portion of the property. They suggested that it represented isolated perched water in the surficial deposits overlying the bedrock. Site Soil Classification Based on our literature review, subsurface exploration, and comparisons with published data, we have classified the soil prof le type as stiff soil (SD) as defined by the guidelines in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 1636.2 (average shear-wave velocity for the upper 30 meters (m) of 180-360 m/sec or standard penetration test blow counts of 15-50). Although the Santa Clara Formation is technically bedrock, the clay-rich consistency and poorly indurated condition of the claystone member places it, in our opinion, in the stiff soil category. GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS Seismic Hazards The site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but outside the earthquake faultzones established in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974). Table 1 lists active and potentially active faults nearest to the site and summarizes each fault's Seismic Source Type (1997 UBC Table 16-U), distance from the site, and maximum earthquake moment magnitude. This was determined using the program EQFAULT (Version 3.00), by Thomas Blake, and California Division of Mines and Geology (1998). The potentially active fault closest to the site is the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault. It is a Type B fault located about 0.3 miles (0.5 km) southwest of the site. The geologic record and a record of historical seismicity suggest that the Sargent-Berrocal fault system should be considered active (Hay and others, 1980; Cotton and others, 1994; Hitchcock and others, 1994), despite the fact that the fault is not located within any of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) of 1972 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974). The Sargent fault may D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 7 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 00009' have produced a 5.0 moment magnitude earthqua)':e iii 1964, and its southern end has exhibited an unusual concentration of microearthquakes. The California Division of Mines and Geolog~~ has cl;issified the Sargent (-Berrocal) fault as a Type B fault for purposes of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). It has an estimated slip rate of 3 mm/yr and is considered capable of g:enerati~ig a ~6.8 maximum moment magnitude earthquake. The 1906 rupture segment of the San Andreas fault, which is the closest Type A fault, is approximately 2 miles (3 km) southwest of the site. The maximum expected moment magnitude of an earthquake for this segment of thc; Sa.n Andreas fault is 7.9 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). __ __ A compilation of data on historic seismically inducted ground failures in northern California (Youd and Hoose, 1978) shows a concentration of strE;ambank landslides -mostly small ones - resulting from the 1906 earthquake in the general vicinity of the property. Because of the sparseness of the historical data, the exact location of these features was not reported, and is therefore unknown to us. TABLE 1. NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS (Less than 30 miles away) 22551 Mount Eden F:oa~~ Saratoga; California FAULT TYPE DISTANCE FROM S:[TE miles~km MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE Moment Sargent(-Berrocal) 0.3 (O.:i) 6.8 San Andreas (1906) 2 (3)- 7.9 Hayward (total length) A 18 (29) 7.1 Hayward (south) B 18 (29) 6.9 Hayward (southeast B 15 (25) 6.5 San Gregorio A 16 (26) 7.3 Calaveras (north) B 18 (29) 6.8 Calaveras south B 18 ~ 6.2 Montere Ba -Tularcitos B 24 ~ 7.1 Monte Vista-Shannon B 2 ~ 6.5 Zayante-Vergeles B 13 (22) 6.8 Surface Fault Rupture We did not observe an too hic or subsurf~ice e;vid.ence of faultin on the roe in the Y P SmP g P P rtY couFSe of our site reconnaissance, subsurface ex:plo~ation, or aerial photograph review. In addition, no faults are mapped across, or trending toward, the property on any of the maps we D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. lNC. @ P:geo~geotechUm01045rpt.1-10-01 ~OOOJ^ a t th ro osed devel ment reviewed. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture to imp c e p p op is considered to be very low. Ground Shaking The 1906 (MW--B) "San Francisco" earthquake, which ruptured a portion of the active San Andreas fault from approximately San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino, caused severe damage in parts of the San Francisco Bay area. Its epicenter was located directly west of the Golden Gate, approximately 45 miles (72 km) northwest of the property. The 1989 (MW-7) Loma Prieta earthquake, which is believed to have occurred on an oblique-slip blind thrust fault closely associated with the San Andreas fault, also caused significant damage in the relatively nearby cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, despite the fact that it did not rupture the ground surface. The epicenter of this event was located in the Forest of Nicene Marks State Park, approximately 25 miles (40 km) southeast of the property. Strong ground shaking associated with large-magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas fault or somewhat smaller-magnitude events along the Sargent(-Berrocal) or other nearby faults will undoubtedly occur at the property in the future. The State of California estimates the peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the vicinity of the site to exceed 0.7 g (Petersen and others, 1996). Because of its greater length and higher level of activity, the San Andreas fault is considered capable of generating stronger ground motions at the site than the Sargent-Berrocal) fault, despite the fact that it is farther away. The site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 4, as defined by the 1997 UBC, Figure 16-2 and Section 1629.4.1. The Seismic Zone Factor Z for Zone 4 is 0.40, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-I. The Seismic Zone 4Near-Source Factor NQ is 1.4, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-S. The near-source factor Nv is 1.9, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-T. The Seismic Response Coefficient CQ for soil profile type SD in Zone 4 is 0.62, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-Q. The Seismic Response Coefficient C~ is 1.22, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-R. Both of the near-source factors and seismic response coefficients were determined by the proximity of the site to the San Andreas fault. It should be noted that a lower value of NQ may be used for structures that meet the conditions in 1997 UBC Section 1629.4.2. Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction Severe ground shaking caused by earthquakes can cause secondary effects such as dynamic compaction, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction, which is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquid state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressures, usually in response to strong ground shaking, most often occurs in loose, saturated silts and sands. Ground settlement and loss of bearing capacity can result. Because of the cohesive, clay-rich consistency of the site materials, the potential for liquefaction is judged to be very low. Laterals readin can occur when soils li ue beneath a slo e, or even beneath level ound if P g q fY P Sr an open topographic face is nearby. Because the potential for liquefaction is judged to be low, the potential for lateral spreading is likewise estimated to be low. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 9 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.i-10-01 000099 • Dynamic compaction occurs when loose, unsaturated roils densify in response to ground shaking. Because no such materials were encountered on the site, it is our opinion that the potential for dynamic compaction is low. Slope Stability In the course of our subsurface exploration and. review of aerial photos of the site and vicinity, we found evidence to suggest the presence of a landslide deposit in the northwestern corner of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map; Fil;ure 4, Site Geologic Map); the location of the landslide is consistent with previous mapping of th.e azea by Cotton and Associates (1980), in which the eastern edge of a large landslide is mapped i.n essentially the same area. Despite the fact that it is classified as relatively stable and iinac~tive, this landslide continues to move, as evidenced by the yearly formation of cracks in the :adj~~cent portion of Mount Eden Road. It is our opinion that the proposed building footprint is outride the mass of this landslide; however, much of the proposed driveway appears to be located ~>vithin it. The driveway can therefore be expected to experience periodic creep and associated cracking that will likely require ongoing maintenance and repairs. Underlying utility lines vrill likely be similarly affected. We also encountered surface and subsurface evider.ICe of the presence of the somewhat smaller landslide mapped directly south of the larger oiie, tl~e northeastern corner of which is shown to occupy the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in the southwestern portion of the property (Cotton and Associates, 1980; Figure 3). DMC'E geologists observed a landslide plane in two large-diameter borings drilled into this feature. The; landslide plane was logged at depths of 23 to 25 feet and 28 to 29 feet in the two borings. A small slump/earthflow-type failure as well as some cracks and scarplets were observed on the slope occupying the northern portion of the site; matny of these cracks and scarplets are located within the proposed building footprint area. Th,e small slump/earthflow appears to involve primarily fill. The cracks and scarplets located within ,and below the building area appear to affect primarily fill, but also native colluvium to a lesser degree, indicating that both types of material on the slopes of the northern half of thl~ site aze probably experiencing some degree of instability and downslope movement. Therefore, it is our opinion that both fill and native soils should be removed from this portion of the slope to the depth at which competent bedrock is encountered. The favorable dip of Santa Clara bedciin~; -into the slope -enhances the underlying stability of the hillside. ~ , Cracks measuring approximately 1 to 2 inches ~~vide we:re also observed on the steep cut slope above the northeastern cut/fill pad. In our opinion, the;>e cracks are likely associated with downslope creep of near surface colluvial soils. Surface Erosion Aside from a 2- to 3-foot-deep gully that cuts the eastern stream embankment in the southwestern portion of the property (see Figure: 4, Site Geologic Map), we did not observe any ~ D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 10 P:geolgeoteehW001045rpt.1-10-01 ~~~~~0' evidence of excessive erosion on the site. Nevertheless, the relatively steep topography creates the potential for surface erosion to impact the property. In addition, the near-horizontal cut/fill pads create the potential for ponding of surface waters. Therefore, site improvements-should incorporate appropriate surface drainage control measures as discussed later in this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From a geologic and geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed single-family residential structure on 22551 Mount Eden Road in Saratoga provided our recommendations are incorporated into its design. Geologic Hazards In our opinion, potential geologic hazards to the proposed development are limited to the following: • Possible periodic movement of the old existing landslides underlying the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property and the small, active landslide at the northwest corner of the recommended building envelope; • Possible future shallow failures along oversteepened cut slopes, such as above the northeastern cut/fill pad and the upslope side of the north end of the existing access road; and • Ground shaking, which could be severe in the event of a major earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault. Periodic movement of the old existing landslides underlying the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property will result in several maintenance issues that should be anticipated and possibly incorporated into the design of the development. The flexible pavements of the entrance roadway will likely experience differential lateral movement and cracking. Offsets may cause changes in the sheetflow of surface drainage water and therefore, should be monitored to prevent significant surface erosion and possible gullying of the downslope side of the roadway. Also, the differential movement may cause damage due to offset to the underground utility lines that crass into this landslide area. The proposed residence should not be placed on either of the two old landslides. We recommend that the building be located within the building envelope designated on the Site Geologic Map, Figure 4. The small active landslide at the northwest corner of the recommended building envelope should be excavated and repaired prior to construction of the proposed residence if it is not removed during the grading process. All excavation and landslide repair work should be done at the direction of the soil engineer. There were indications of downslope movement associated with oversteepened slopes at two locations at the site, above the northeastern cut/fill pad and east (upslope) of the northern end of the access road. We recommend that stabilization of these oversteepened cut slopes be D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 11 P:geo~geotechW001045rp~1-10-01 ©0410 • incorporated into the site development. This can be accomplished by reconstruction of these slopes at a 2:1 inclination and removal and recomp,action of all existing fills above these oversteepened slopes. Since laying back the e~:isting cut slope may be space limited, such as above the northeast cutJfill pad being near the e:aste:rn property boundaries, alternatives can include installation of a retaining wall supported ors a foundation system and reconstruction of the slope above to a maximum inclination of 2:1. 7"he retaining wall foundations should be supported in the underlying competent bedrock.. The third geologic hazard, ground shaking, is common for this seismically active area and should be incorporated into the design of the structure. Geotechnical En~ineerin~ Considerations From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the primary concerns for foundation design are the high expansion potential of the near-surface soil and bE:drock; undocumented fill materials in the two existing cut/fill pads; and the relatively loose, rlati~re colluvial soils. These fills and colluvial soils are potentially compressible under the proposed building loads and unstable at their existing slope configuration. We understand the pnaposed residential structure will be located at the north-central portion of the site, as shown on Fi;gurl~ 4. To minimize the potential for differential settlements a;nd downslope instability of the fill materials and the loose colluvial materials, we recommend that these materials be entirely removed and recompacted as engineered fill wilthin the envelope of the proposed residential structure and associated appurtenances. The reworiang; should include a base keyway and benching of the entire height of the fill slope in1:o the widerlying competent bedrock. We also recommend that all structures should be suppon~ed on drilled, cast-in-place pier foundations that derive their supporting capacities through friction into the underlying bedrock. The following recommendations are presented ~~s guidelines to be used by project designers for the geotechnical aspects of planning and designing for the proposed development. We recommend that D&M Consulting Engineers, Iric. be provided the opportunity to review the grading and foundation plans prior to construction, and provide construction observation and testing services during grading and foundation c:ons~truction. This additional opportunity to observe the project site will allow us to comparE; subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those that were observed durilig this investigation. Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction Stripping • Surface vegetation and organic topsoil below thl~ propo;~ed building location and driveway .should be stripped. Soils containing more than ~ percent of organic matter by weight should be considered organic and cannot be used as struchiral fill. The actual depth of stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Strippings should either be wasted elsewhere on the property or be used in landscaped areas. D 8 M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 1:7. P:geo\grntech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 °' 00iO`- Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes As previously stated, we recommend all existing fill materials and loose collu~~ial materials below the proposed area of the residential structure and driveway areas and associated appurtenances be removed and replaced with compacted, engineered fill materials. Thick fills should be avoided. - Since engineered fills will be placed on sloping terrain, we recommend that a base keyway and benches be constructed below the structural fill. Both the base keyway and all benches should extend into the underlying competent bedrock. Subdrains-will be required in the base key and benches as directed by our representative in the field. The keyway should be a minimum of 10-feet wide and extend a minimum of 3 feet into the . competent bedrock as measured on the front face of the keyway excavation. The actual depth of the keyway should be determined in the field at the time of construction by the geotechnical engineer. The base of the keyway should be sloped back into the slope at a 1 percent grade. At the rear of the base keyway, we recommend a'subdrain system be installed. The subdrain system should consist of a perforated pipe, perforations placed down. The perforated pipe should be embedded in either Class 2 permeable material or'/<-inch clean, crushed drainrock where the drainrock is entirely wrapped with a filter fabric. The subdrain pipe (schedule 40 PVC) should be connected via solid pipe to an appropriate discharge facility. The keyway should then be filled with compacted, structural fill. As the fills are placed above the base keyway, the fills should be benched into the competent bedrock. The benches should extend a minimum of 2 feet into the competent bedrock or as determined by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. Materials for Structural Fill On-site soils proposed for use as structural fill should be inorganic, free from deleterious materials, and should contain no more than 15 percent by weight of rocks larger than 3 inches (largest dimension) and no rocks larger than 6 inches. If import is required for use as structural fill, it should be meet the above requirements for structural fill and have a plasticity index less than 15. Prior to delivery to the site, the proposed import material should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability for use as structural fill. Subgrade Preparation Prior to placement of structural fill in building and pavement areas, the exposed soil surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to the optimum"moisture content and relative compaction as indicated in Table 2, below. Compaction Requirements The scarified surface soils and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform lifts, no thicker than 8-inches in uncompacted thickness, conditioned to the appropriate moisture content, and D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 13 P:geo~geoteeh~0001045tpt1-10-01 OOOi03 compacted to the specifications for structural fill, listeci in Table 2 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in T'ablc; 2 ins relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. TA:BLF; 2 COMPACTION SPI~CI:FICATIONS 22551 Mo>:Int Eden Road Saratoga, Caaifolnia Relative Com~acaion* Moisture Content* General • Scarified subgrade in areas 90 percent 3 percent to receive structural fill, above optimum general structural fill. • Fills thicker than 5 feet. 95 percent 3 percent above optimum Pavement Areas • Upper 6-inches of soil 92 percent 3 percent below baserock. above optimum • Aggregate baserock and 95 per~;.ent At optimum Subbase. Utiliri trenches • On-site soils -upper 3 feet. 90 perl;ent 3 percent On-site soils -below 3 feet. 85 percent above optimum • Imported sand -upper 3 feet. 95 percent At optimum Imported sand -below 3 feet. 90 percent _ At optimum * Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. Permanent Slopes All permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Exposed slopes maybe subject to minor sloughing a.nd erosion which may require periodic maintenance. We recommend that the slopes be pla~ateci to minimize erosion. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The cantractor should be responsible for the design :irtd construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including ithe current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Those excavations less than 5 :feet high maybe cut vertical. In our opinion, if space allows, the upper 5 feet of higher unshoreci slopes up to 10 feet deep may be cut at 1:1, with the lower portion vertical. Because of the variable nature of the existing soil, field • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 P:geo\geotech\aooloa5rpt.1-10-01 000104 modifications of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations. Retaining Wall Backfill Where retaining wall backfill is to be constructed on natural slopes having an inclination steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, the backfill should be benched into the underlying competent native soil or bedrock. Building Foundations Drilled Friction Piers We recommend that the residential structure and all associated appurtenances be supported on drilled, cast-in-place, friction piers. The piers should be designed to develop their vertical support through friction into the competent bedrock below the engineered fills and native soils. The piers may be designed using an allowable friction value of 500 pounds per square foot (for dead plus live loads) in the lower portion embedded into the bedrock. We recommend the piers be embedded a minimum depth of 16 feet into the bedrock, or extend to a minimum of 20 feet below the bottom of the grade beam, whichever is deeper. Piers should also extend a minimum depth into bedrock equal. to 1.5 times the combined thickness of the fill and native soils at any pier location, even if this requires a deeper embedment into rock - The calculated capacities may be increased by one-third for all loads including wind or seismic. The allowable uplift capacities of the caissons may be taken as 80 percent of the calculated capacities. The vertical capacity of the portion of the shaft in the fills and native soils should be ignored. All pier foundations should have a minimum diameter of 16 inches and a minimum center-to-center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter. Piers should have minimum reinforcing of four No. 5 bars. We recommend that grade beams be provided between piers supporting the house and garage. Grade beams should be designed to span between piers and should contain minimum reinforcing of at least two No. 6 bars, top and bottom. The perimeter grade beam should extend at least fl- inches below the crawl space grade or subgrade soils below the slab areas. A 4-inch void should be provided below the grade beams. Due to the potential for lateral creep of the near surface soils, we recommend that the piers and grade beams be designed to resist an active soil pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 125 pounds per cubic foot, acting upon the portion of the piers within native or fill soils, in the downhill direction. The active pressure may be assumed to act against 1.5 pier diameters. The active load and other lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot, acting on 1.5 times the projected area of the pier in bedrock. The passive resistance of the portion of the piers within native or fill soils should be neglected. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. IS P:geo~geotxh~0001045rpt.1-10-01 OOO1Q5 Pier excavations should be observed by our representative, to establish that they are bearing in competent materials, extend the required depth into weathered bedrock, and that the pier excavations are properly cleaned. The pier depths recommended above may require adjustment if differing conditions are encountered during drilling. Pier excavations should be poured as soon as practical after drilling. While we expect that :moderate sized drilling equipment can obtain the required depths, due to the hardness, of the rock present at the site, a drill bit .equipped with carbide or other teeth maybe required. The pier excavations may encounter perched vratel- or ground water at the time of construction. Additional construction measures should be arlticipate:d during the pier installation operations. Construction methods such as casing of the excava~tio~is where caving occurs and using the tremie placement method if accumulated water carmot: be entirely removed from the excavation at the time of the concrete pour should be considered. Alternatively, if the water can be pumped from the hole without disturbing the sides of the pier excavation, concrete may then be placed in the dry hole. Settlements of the pier-supported structure should lbe an the order of less than 1-inch due to non- seismic loads. We recommend our representative be present an a .full-time basis to confirm the depth of the pier excavations and the conditions of the excavations Flrio:r to pour. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Where concrete slab-on-grade floors are used, the slab, should be constructed on compacted subgrades prepared as described in the section on "Site: Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." We note that concrete slabs should not be structurally connected to the pier and grade beams unless it is designed to be structurally supported on they pier and grade beam foundations. We recommend that slabs-on-grade be underlain b~~ at least 24-inches ofnon-expansive fill material (soil with a plasticity index of 15 percent or less) due tea the potential for relatively small movements of the near surface materials. A reinforced slab is expected to perform better than an unre:irtforced one. Even with the recommended. norl-expansive fill section, some movement and maintenance of the slabs may be required due tl) the: severely expansive conditions. Alternatively, the garage slabs may be supported shucturally over the pier foundation. In areas where floor wetness is not desired, 4 inches of free draining gravel such as 1/2-inch crushed rock with no more than 5 percent passilig the ~-STM No. 200 sieve, should be placed beneath the floor slab to serve as a capillary barrier between the subgrade soil and the slab. Pea gravel should not be used. To minimize vapor 1x~ans,mi:>sion, a vapor barrier should be placed over the gravel. The vapor barrier should be covered with a 2-inch sand buffer to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. The sand and crushed rock may be considered as the 6-inches of the non-expansive fill recommended above. If it is desired to reduce the amount of exterior slab :maintenance, they may also be constructed with anon-expansive fill section similar to that ,discussed above. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 16 P:geolgeotech10001045rpt.1-10-01 DOD i ~s • Retaining Walls Active Earth Pressure Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure from the adjoining natural soils andlor backfill. We recommend that walls with level backfill which are restrained from lateral movement with level backfill be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot, plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of SH pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the backfill above the top of the wall footing in feet. Retaining walls which are not restrained from lateral movement, should be designed.to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot. Retaining walls with sloping backfill, up to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pounds per cubic foot for unrestrained walls, with 8H added as discussed above for restrained walls. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half of the surcharge load for restrained walls and one-third of the surcharge load for unrestrained walls. These parameters are based on the fully back-drained and non-seismic condition. Drainage and Backfilling Retaining walls should include a subsurface drainage system behind the walls to prevent any buildup of water pressure from surface water infiltration. The drainage system should consist of a 4-inch (Schedule 40 PVC) perforated pipe (perforations placed down) located below the adjacent, lower grade elevation. The pipe should be embedded in a 12-inch width of 1/2-inch crushed rock. The remaining backfill may consist of 1/2-inch crushed rock, extending to within 18- to 24-inches of the level of the outside finish grade. A filter fabric should be wrapped around the crushed rock to protect it from infiltration of native soil. Alternatively, the drainage material may consist of either Class 2 Permeable Material complying with Section 68 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, and the filter fabric may be omitted. The upper 2 feet of backfill should consist of native soil. The subdrain should slope to a free draining outlet. Cleanouts should be provided. Damp proofing of walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be undesirable. Above this native cap, a concrete V=ditch should be constructed along the back of wall for increased efficiency of the surface drainage. Continual maintenance and clearing of this V-ditch is essential to maintain the efficiency of the system. We recommend the surface drainage (V- ditch) and subsurface drainage (perforated pipe of the wall backfill) systems should be entirely independent of each other. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, using light compaction equipment. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced. The backfill behind the walls should be placed on level benches, rather than directly on the sloping grade. D K M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 17 P:geo~geotcch~0001045rpt.1-10-01 OOO~O~ • Foundations Retaining walls structurally connected or part of the residence should be supported on a drilled pier foundation as described previously in this report. Retaining walls along the downslope side of the driveway and/or founded in native soils ;should ~~lso be supported on drilled pier foundations. Once the layout of these walls is c:om;pleted, we can provide supplemental design criteria as needed. In our- opinion, it may be possible to support rel:aining walls not connected to the house and founded in cuts into weathered bedrock on spread footing foundations. Once the layout of these walls is completed, we can provide supplemental design criteria as needed and comment on the appropriateness of shallow foundation support. On a preliminary basis, the following design criteria may be considered. Retaining walls approved ley the geotechnical engineer may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated :spre;ad footings, bearing in undisturbed weathered bedrock. Footings should have a mi~limtim width of 15 inches, and extend at least 24 inches below exterior grade. Footings may be~clesi~meci for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, with a gone-third increase allowed for total loads including wind or seismic forces. The weight of the: fo~atings can be neglected for design purposes. All footings located adjacent to utility lines or other footings should bear below a 1:1 plane extended upward from the bottom edge of the u~tilit}~ trench. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel to provide ,struc;tural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. Our representative should observe the footing eaccavatians prior to placing reinforcing steel to see that they are founded in suitable materials acid have been properly cleaned. Thirty year differential movement due to static load:> is not expected to exceed 1-inch across a 50 feet long section of the retaining wall. Lateial loads may be resisted by friction betwee~;z the: footings and the supporting subgrade. A frictional resistance of 0.3 can be used. In addition to the above, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat in the footing excavations. We recommend that an equivalent fluid pressure of :300 pounds per cubic foot be used in design. Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be excavated according to ac~;,ep~ted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should ibe <<voided. D & M CONSU4TING ENGINEERS, INC. 113 P:geo~geotahW001045rpt.i-10-01- OOO~~V S v - trench bac 1 Appro ed on site, morgamc soil, or imported matenal may be used as utility kfil . Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content and placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness (before compaction). Each layer should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. As stated previously, differential movement of utilities located across the existing old landslide area at the north end of the access roadway should be anticipated. Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and to promote drainage of surface water away from the building foundations, slabs, edges of pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. To minimize concentrated accumulation and surface erosion adjacent to the structures, roof downspouts should be connected via solid pipe to a storm drain discharge system. Water seepage or the spread of extensive root systems into the soil subgrades of foundations, slabs, or pavements could cause differential movements and consequent distress in these structural elements. This potential risk should be given due consideration in the design and construction of landscaping. As stated previously, the existing slopes above the proposed residence have a potential for surface erosion that can result in an accumulation of sediment at the rear of the residence. We recommend that erosion control material be placed across all areas where the slope surface was disturbed during construction. In addition, supplemental hydroseeding and vegetation growth on the slope is recommended. The slope should also be cut back to a 2:1 inclination. The surface drainage design should accommodate the existing drainage from the adjacent property to the east The drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during first two years following constriction. We recommend that an as-built plan showing the location of the surface and subsurface drain lines . and clean outs be developed. The drainage facilities should be periodically checked to verify %~ that they are continuing to function properly, and Iikely will need to be periodically cleaned of silt and debris which may build up in the lines. Pavement Design A representative sample of the subgrade soil sample from the upper 2 feet was obtained from the northern end of the access roadway for laboratory R-Value testing. This sample was tested in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 301. Results of the test indicated that the near surface native materials have an R-value of 9. Based on this R-value D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 19 P:geo~geotech~0001045rpt.1-10-01 ooO~O~./ i al f it - ~~, w ev ed the followin avement test result, which is typ c or automob a traffic a~.ea., e d elop g p section Traffic Asphalt Class 2 Index Concrete _ A re ate Base 4.0 2.5" _ 8.0" 4.5 2.5" 9.0" We note that design traffic indices were not av~tilab~le ~~t the time of this report. An estimated Traffic Index of 4.0 is a typical value that may be used foriight automobile traffic. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrade and the entire baserock layer should be moisture conditioned and compacted as described in the section titled, "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." In addition, both the compacted subl;racle and baserock layer should be proof- rolled to confirm stability prior to placement of the overlying pavement component. If instability exists, stabilization measures or additional drying should be performed in accordance with the supplemental recommendations of the Soil Engineer. LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are b;aseli, in part, on certain plans, information, and data that have been provided to us. Any ch~angE:s iri those plans, information, and data will render our recommendations invalid unless we sire commissioned to review the changes and to make any necessary modifications and/or additions to our recommendations. Our recommendations have been made in accordance with the principles and practices generally employed by the local engineering geology and geotectinical engineering professions. This is in lieu of all warranties, express or implied. Our study did not include the assessment of environmental characteristics at-the property, particularly those involving hazardous substances. 'Subsurface exploration of any site is necessarily confinl:d to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between and around such locations. Should conditions different from those encountered in our exploration come to light durilitg project development, additional exploration (beyond that already recommended), testing, and analysis may be necessary; changes in project design and construction may also be nece:;sary. - Any person concerned with this project who observers conditions or features of the site or surrounding azeas that aze different from those described in this report should report them immediately to this office for evaluation as part of an adlditional scope of work. • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 20 P:geo~geotechW001045rpt.l-lo-ol ~~p110 • REFERENCES CITED California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies (Earthquake Fault) Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials, map scale '/4 inch - 1 km. Cotton, William, and Associates, 1980, Geologic and ground movement potential maps of the upper Calabazas Creek watershed, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to the City of Saratoga, California, 22 plates, scale 1:2400. Cotton, W.R., Cole, W.F., and Wallace, J.M., 1994, Geologic constraints on the Quaternary tectonic history of range-front deformation, northeastern margin of the central Santa Cruz Mountains, California: American Geophysical Union, 1994 Fall~Meeting, published as a supplement to EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 75, n. 44, p. 682. Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2000, Preliminary geologic and geotechnical review (S4010) re: Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Larry Perlin (public works director for the City of Saratoga), 4 p. Cummings, J.C., 1968, The Santa Clara formation and possible post-Plio^_.ene slip on the San Andreas fault in central California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, Arthur, Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of San Andreas Fault System: Stanford University Publications in the Geological Sciences, v. 11, pp. 191-207. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1966, Geology of the Palo Alto Quadrangle, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 8, scale 1:62,500. Freeman-Kern Associates; 1988, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Hamilton Stewart, 20 p. Harlan Tait Associates, 1997, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Adam Grosser, 17 p. Hay, E.A., Cotton, W.R., and Hall, N.T., 1980, Shear couple tectonics and the Sargent-Benrocal ~ %~ fault system in northern Califonia, in Streitz, Robert, and Sherburne, Roger, Studies of the San Andreas Fault Zone in Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 140, p. 41-49. Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: William Lettis and Associates, Inc., unpublished consultant's report to the U.S. Geological Survey, Award Number 1434-92-G-2220, 32 p., map scale 1:24,000. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 21 P:gco~geotcchW0o1045rpt.1-10.01 000111 Petersen, M.D., B ant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., C~io, 'I'ian.ging, Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., ry Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.S., and Schwartz;, D.:P., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File RE;port 96-706), 33 p., map scale 1 inch .107 miles. Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential seismic hazards in Santa Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Ge~ololry ~~pecial Report 107, 27 p., map scale 1:62,500. Sorg, D.H., and McLaughlin, 1975, Geologic m.ap of the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-643, scale: 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, 1961, photorevised 1980, 7.5-]vlinute Topographic Map of the Cupertino, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. Youd, T.L., and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic ground failures in northern California triggered by earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 993, 177 p., map scale 1:250 • • D & M CONSULTING ENGRYEERS, INC. 22 P.geo~geotech~0001045rpG1-10-01 ~®~~~~ '• AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS • Date ~ A~ Type 8/23/60 USGS b & w 2/ 12/64 unknown b & w 8/11/71 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w 8126/76 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w 10/13/77 unknown b & w 4/12/85 WAC Corp. b & w Frame Scale GS-VACY-2-189, 190 1:30,000 Saratoga 14 and 15 1:11,500 AV-1006-04-16, 17 1:12,000 AV-1277-04-19, 20 ~ 1:12,000 77811-1-1, 2 1:6,000 WAC-85CA-13-127, 128 1:31,680 • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 23 P: geo~geotechW 001045 rpt.1-10-0 I 0 00113 _ ®~ _ ~~\ \~~C~ 1 1 /%,` =- r ~~'l.J l4/~ ~=_~~': ~~_~JJ~_L •~- _ ' ~ ~r ! PLC. _ _ -~ , 1.. ~ __.. ~~~...~~~,,,) 14' ~ ~!i J' ~~'.:~ 1 ~ ~`? s%°.t '•~ __, _ ~ r) /•! 11 i/ ° /^ ^ `~\v ~ - ~~~~~ ' ('r^ _ ~ - IQ~ • (r .' ~,{ ' \ gal r ~% i m ~ , `~ q1 - i ' \ l ~ - ~~~ 'L J ~-/` c' / ~ '-601 ~j.; s .~ o ~; ~`~iT~V E ) -\ -- co: ~ me 0 • • ~ ~/~/ ~., \ ,~ my am e ' - _ .r • .~ 'i ~' l~i~ it o.~ I~~ i. ~ _~.> B !I r' ~ •• ~` 'Ij^ ~ 1\~ ~~_~.-c::-;-`` tir C ~,~ `800 .' ~'~ ~~-..~~`-~\l \r~ ~~-=\ ~ , ~1 . r~ i, >' ~~;,,%= ; >); -.. --; ' '\ SITE = ~~s,~ ;.,: `• --L. ' ~l^\~...~~\` ~i~~%''~~`'` :,\``i .i;\V,110te1+• - '>__~~\~~ ~Ip~~F ~~ ,lr /`_ /:. ~.~/ I( 'ct y•~ ~ _ / / O ~\~ .,~/ ~ \~r~- \ .: .c- •.l, .i ;~~ -..~•~, ~•. ~~.\~\~•. c - e • ~I :I ~; ~ _ r . ~- Wahl' b /~~~. \\~ i ~ )/~~ r! ~ ~jlcc' ~, 1\" ` • y., ~~ it / J• Die- ~~ ( r i ~~ _~ / - ~ - _r 1G `G-o li ~ r ~~\~ \ \~ ='y- -~ r : ,' , j~ r I It ~e ' /~%~'r~ :~~• ~•%2~ ~ ~_~~ ~~ j~:~~._ ~ 1~.~~\,r~ _ ,i 1 ~-•'l/~1/ ter ~j~~-- ~~ r~i" :'~~ c'=~%= `Jn_ r`fyL,12~~_~J\ \\'•1\, i~~ 1_'-~\ `~;~~ ~.~~~~, . ' ~• • ~~~~ ~~ °r~ • 1 ~` ~ - ~ i \ ~ y~!~ /ice\~~j//' .'.'/1 ~~ r_ ~ l~ .a- '~- `~8p0 ~'"'~(is^ • ) ~ .~ !' il. ~~/ _~~1~/I~1800 /~~; ~,~~_:. ,/~r~~r ~f1`~ ~"-\lC W-_~br •,~ l/ ~ sL /~~r. ~ ~~~\ _ '•i-1_wA ~ ~ _-- a~ _~_s yea 1- `~'~\ //i%~~ ~ ~ ~l~~ ~'I r- 1- Q ~, 'l\\ _ r ~'. r ~ ' s r • 1 ~ a-~ \ j.,~ \ - cam- \J - - • 4 l ~ .- ~ u.00 ~~~_~ 7~ - - -Vila ter it ~/ 't BASE MAP: CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA U.S.G.S. 7'k' TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP S SCALE: 1" = 2000' ,; D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 `VICINITY MAP 22:151 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 -ROJ ECT Q t • 9' " • Sir, - = ~ _``fg _ 6 . } •,. . • ,~,~ ~ ~~',.• _~.,.- ; ~ ~,- ~, ~ _~. `~ _ ~`.frt~gl. .:v fm \~"-•-s..i,,,~ r {/~`• • `t, ~ ~ ~ .yZl ~--, ~_J-.' , ~_- ~yi-=J -\ Y I )/ 9- ~I •~(IS~ ~ 1~~~ ~~j `{ ter: -. ~,- `~. ''~~ :fgif _ _. -~f. -- , ; ~'~ :7us ~ QTs." =S4,y/.~., ~._. - - _ ` ~~. . J BYO - ~ ~.fmg _ ~_~ ~ _ \•~ ~`c -- `tea ~=~__ ~._,.~•• `r __ ~~ ;: r- •~ ~~ ~~ ; ~J;~ 1 I -SITE , --~;~ -~ ~~._~l D. .c. •e~n -~~. 1S ~~ ~~lO c~.~ . ~ r -f " -,Bur• 1-:'~__-Y~ 'f _ Tbu _ .. ~ _ ;e ,~ ~ , \ i \` 1 t'eC 1 red ~ ~ ' jT.51 ~ / ~ 1 \~M1 . `y..`: ~•~`' ~~. ljj ~ . EXPLANATION Geolosic units in viciniri of site Qoal -Quaternary older stream alluvium deposits `Qof -Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits QTs -Quaternary/Tertiary non-marine sedimentary rocks (Santa Clara Formation) fs, fg, fmg, fsh =Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Complex sandstone, greenstone, melange, and shale • BASE MAP: ROGERS AND WILLIAMS, 1974, PLATE 1 __K_ - -_ ~ !!I Jac"!' ~ ~ _*i '~ / - '- ~1tA. V.~ r i -~ SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile b D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS,ING A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 PROJECT 1045. ,. ~ ~.. -- - - Dig --~~ ~ -_ _-_ __ .. _ .__-_ ~- _ - . .Ats EXPLANATION Als -Active landslide Dls -Dormant landslide Ols -Old landslide QTsc -Quaternary/Tertiary Santa Clara Formation BASE MAP: COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, 1980, SHEETS 2, 3 -N- SCALE: 1" =200' ®DB.M CONSULi1NG ENGINEERS, INC. ~~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 FIGURE 3 PROJECT 1045 GEOLOGIC VICINITY MAP 225:11 MT. EDEN ROAD SA.-R~-TOGA, CALIFORNIA W V a W h z '~ d v F cri H 3 z 1 ~ r / 3 U z ~ a 3 z ~, ~~ ~ U ~ ~ r ~ 7.. _~ . ~ N H 3 z a H 3 U W W 4L h II U Z W .~ a v o~ ¢a ao w A W U H ~ O F ~n N Q i Z N r ~ Z< a ~ o Z V Q O ~ ~~ Z° Q s O V ~ ~ ~ ~ < i~l~ I w V > > ~ II ~ ~ _ ~ a v F W W v~ II U Z W ...1 a U Q A ""' Qz ~o ~ ~o z~ w¢ W U E-~ Q N N Z O O N Z O V Z O J t ~g z v d ~ p t ~~~. L1 l^ a E~ 1 .~ U ~ .~ . .~ 1 i 3 'i o ~ z ~ - '' o s e N 0 u -ie `' d ~ O r; s v c ~~1Ov°. v m c 3 m v~ ° S ~+ - z o= ~~; o s '~ > ~,,, T u H ~ :°_ o 0.~ ~ `~' ~ u cU h $ ~ ~ W ~~ 3 ~ A ~ ~ c F o Z vi y, `' t ° 00 ~ ~ V dt a E ~o h 9 O ~ F Q U Q _~ o .a o a o .°n W t7 ~ a ~- .. W V > > ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-~ v tail W ~ p~ ~ w _~ u U Z W .a a U N ° R ~ F .~. v ~ ~ _ y ' E L O ~ 7 9 '~ y v 9 ~ ~ G O .' U d h L 00 t4 •~ '° v •~ ~ ~ V L .'°.. ~ ~ d ~ C ~ ~ ' C ~ _h ' ~ ~ .... N v Q v OD E '° o E ~ ° `° ° ° c ~ c ° ,i°~, c E c• E 3 ~ -'o - o > a T9 ~ !O N N ~~ L ~ C ~_ V C ~ ~, '0 ~ ~. 6! e0 F p A c CL' 3 y °~ e o ° u ~ ~ E ~ u ~ c R~ ° E 1+ O E ~ ~ f~J U ~~ 'O y ~ U ~ u~ 3 c c~ ~ ego o v u u ~ ,~„ c vCt°, ~~ 3~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ c •a h h E ~ ~ ~ T'- ~ n ~ _m 7 '~ v ~ y 7 Y 7 y~ d 1:. Y N~ ~ y r~ Y ~ C L ~ y ~ ~ v ~ T o" E E E o ~ ~ =~ o m y o >, _ c _ eT0 ~ T ... ~ G A ~ A ~' eC C ~ ~ U L ~ U ~p U- T C_ U G. :J ~ U T ... ep N ~ ^. ~ A to R h ~ h ,~_, N 00 N T H L N _ W" .. y ... Y _ 'C OD ~C .V C .V C O C ` C ~ .`~ `~~ v, .`7. w .7 F .'7 O .7 a 1 ~ . l` ~ , . I -~ .1 t ~ ,F, w ~ y ~ \~• 1 1' ~-, 1 ~• .~ a F ,w -`1-~ ~ rt, ~ \ ' ~ ~ N • ~ 1 .~ • U ~• - „may ~ Q Fri O ~ A/ O " ~1 w ti ~ ~ ~~ ~ r-~ W U F Q 7~p ~ ~ ,y N y N Z ~< 0 ~~ v Z O J Z ~ Q s CV V M t s 0 N a a z ti 1 960 Fill ~`~ _~`~~ ~_ ~~~ See Figure 4 for location of section and for ex cs., ~~s~ o. ~cOR~NT !f1 SCAiF~ 1 INCH . 2O FRET fH-VI ~~ • rJ S B B° • 1000 ~. .~ 4a 980 .~ 0 .~ a~ W 960 940 0 i• See Figure 4 for location of section and for ex 240 SCALE: I INCH = 20 FEET (H = V) ~~ D&M CONSULi1NG ENGINEERS.INC A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 i JOSE BWEORIN7 00. FIGURE 7 PRO1 ECT 1045 nnn171 • APPF;PIDIX A Logs of Expl~~ratory~ Borings • • 000122 u • LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-1 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26/00 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - ^ O ° ~ o Descri tion F O ~ d ~ ,y N o, ~ _ E d c ° ~ ~ a = _ C =° .-. ° ' ~ c ~ n ~ ~ ~ L O. H a m N l0 9 U d D V c ~ ~ N d j ' ' r ~ p~ O C Y FAT CLAY; bluish gray to olive green, moist CH to very moist; trace fine-medium sand; many 1 wood fragments with odor of decaying organics; FILL 2 LEAN CLAY; dark brown, moist, stiff; CL moderately plastic; some fine to coarse sand, 3 pebbles, and fine gravel Gasts; completely weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 4 FAT CLAY; dark olive brown, moist to very CH 5 moist, stiff; some fine sand, trace gravel; completely weathered Santa Clara Formation 6 QTsc 7 hard, somewhat less plastic 8 9 10 SILTY CLAY; light olive brown with some gray (QTsc) mottling, moist, hard, some fine sand; trace 11 pebbles and fine gravel; moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 less Gayey; more fine sand 20 21 22 23 bluish-gray; more Gayey 24 25 Project No. 1045 D ~ M Consulting Engineers Page 1 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY nnn~ •~•' LOG OF EXPLORAT012Y :iHA.1=T No. DM-1 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26/00 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE _ GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: --- FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - a O e `~ X V e Description 'g '~ d. N a c' 'E c a; c d v c n y c -`-° d N v .? d N .... m n ~ d a O. w .~ U ~' c- y c d L ~ • n E ; v m a ~ ~ u O1 d ~ m ~ u E m o d ~ o _ 0 \ 0- _ A m _ r'. '~ c o (see previous description) CUML 26 27 28 FAT CLAY; dark bluish gray, moist; polished lane surfaces; landslide shear 29 p SILTY CLAY; light gray, slightly moist, some (QTsc) fine sand; trace gravel; weakly consolidated; 30 moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 31 32 33 34 35 SILTY SAND; light gray, slightly moist; weakly (QTsc) 36 consolidated; moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 37 38 39 40 41 i 42 43 Bottom of shaft 44' 44 no ground water encountered 45 ,~ 46 47 48 49 50 _ Project No. 1045 D & M Conlsulting Engineers Page 2 of 2 A URS CORPOFtAT10W COMPANY r~ J nnn~9~ • • LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-2 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26/00 LOGGED 8Y: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - escription a ~ o ~ n d m E m c ; o ^ aci a u o O ~ H a \ ~ ~ c 0 c U °i ~ ~ ?' .N m U ?' c ~ Z. e C ~ to ~ ~ d .~ y ~~'-, ~ iv L c rn B E d c _ SILTY CLAY; dark-medium brown, moist- wet, frim; some fine-medium sand; trace gravel; CUML 1 (Colluvium) 2 3 LEAN CLAY; orangish brown wih gray mottling, slightly moist, stiff;some fine sand; CL 4 trace pebbles; completely weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 increase in moisture 15 16 SILTY CLAY; brown, moist, firm-stiff; some fine Band; cleaves along polished, striated (QTsc) 17 surfaces within 2-3 inch thick zone at 16' (not interprted to be landslide plane); severely 18 weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 19 20 . 21 22 23 LANDSLIDE SHEAR ZONE; polished, slackened and brecciated fat day; main shear 24 l t 24 5' p ane a . 25 Project No. 1045 D ~ M Consulting Engineers Page 1 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY 000125 LOG OF EXPLORATOIRY tiHA,FT No. DM-2 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 626/00 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 !_ HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE _ GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - N ° a V e Description O ~ `~ d it ~ 'E c ~ c d V = a y ~ _ j N d -a a r ~ L m n a » ~ a~ 'n N ~ V U r ~U c d ~ m ~ d t c of O m m o _ O d , c m R _ Z, 2 '~ u.E u c o SILTY CLAY; medium to dark gray, moist; (QTsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 2E~ (QTsc) 27 28 CLAYEY SAND; light gray, moist, medium (QTsc) 29 medium dense; fine-medium grained sand; some silt, pebbles and gravel; severely (QTsc) 30 weathered Santa Clara Formation QTsc CLAYSTONE; medium gray, widely fractured; 31 moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 32 33 34 35 CLAYEY SAND; gray, moist, loose; (QTsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 36 (QTsc) 37 CLAYSTONE; medium gray, widely fractured; (QTsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 38 (QTsc) Bottom of shaft at 39' 39 no ground water encountered 40 41 42 43 44 45 ~ , 47 48 49 50 _ Pro~~ct No. loos D 8i M Consulting Engineers Page 2 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY I J OOOi2~ LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-3 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 9/15/00 LOGGED BY: BDF DRILL RIG: HAND DUG SHAFT HOLE DIA.: 2' X 3' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - ~ o e - X ~ a ~- o g .N. -,,, N C d Description m °' E o -~ o " ~ ... G ~ m ~ ~ ~ V _ m O ~ = a C c o0 8 E c m m c o a c '~ ~ Z' -~ d c o .- FAT CLAY: yellow brown, dry, friable: FILL CH 1 FAT CLAY; yellow to olive brown, damp, stiff; CH 2 many medium -coarse sand-sized daystone clasts; dessication fissures to 3'; many limonite 3 blotches at 2.5-3.5': severely to mostly - completel weathered da tone QTsc 4 MUDSTONE; yellow brown to olive gray on (QTsc) fresh surfaces, damp, soft rod<; dosely to 5 intensely fractured in zones; moderately weathered; fine grained sand laminae at 5' ; 6 Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) " 7 coarse gravel/small cobble- sized mudstone clasts 8 about 30% fine sand; some 9 sub-verticalfractures open up to 5mm 10 CLAYSTONE; dark olive gray, damp, soft; (QTsc) 11 massive; dosely fractured in sub-vertcal zones; moderately weathered; many coarse gravel-sized 12 claystone clasts; Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 13 14 15 more closely fractured along - stib-vertit:al fractures dipping 16 about 73 degrees to w-sw; no slickensides 17 18 19 20 , CLAYSTONE; dark blue gray, moist to wet (QTsc) along fractures, moderately soft; massive; 21 widely fractured: coherent bedrock; some limonite staining at 20' contact; trace weak, Z2 conjugate, discontinuous shears at 22-23'; Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 23 24 Bottom of hole at 25' 25 no ground water encountered - 26 27 Project No. 1045 D & M Consulting Engineers Page 1-Jan A URS CORPORATION COMPANY • APPS;I~TDIX B Laborator3~ Test F;eports C7 n n„n ~ ~ c~ • ~~ `~ i~ DteltfConcuiungGnginerrs,trk. SOI~~ REFt)RT <x3t,37Z_371G Project: 22 X51 Mt. Eden Road Date: 03/31 /(-~ Project #: 1045 Lab #: 3997/L5322 ~ MOISTURE-DENSITY ASTM D2216, ASTM D2937 Bering Densih• Moisture Liquid Plasticity Passim ~ Soil Description liulc \~~. (pcl) (%) Lunit L~dex K21111. (%) TP.1-1 a: 2.0' 114.0 18.1 Lean CLAY, light brown TP2-I a~ 4.0' 103.3 22.9 : ?: Fat CLAY with Sand & Organics, dark brown TP4-1 (a~ 4.0' 124.8 25.2 >.~:::~>: ::`~< . ~ ~ Lean CLAY with Sand, light brown TP5-1 @ 3.S 120.9 24.1 32 11 > Lean CLAY, medium brown TP6-l ~, 4.S 121.4 27.7 'Lean CLAY with Sand. gra}~/liglu brown TPb-2 iu: 2.0' 119.8 25.2 >~ Lean CLAY with Sand, medium brown Boring Ites;sti~ty pH Chlorides Sulfates Soil Description B~~: Gan A. Bomberger, Laboratory Manager CET # 08601 ~~~~~~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSI\JE STRENGTH REPORT ~" ~~tc~ ASTM I)21ti6 - ts3!)3;.-3 %~b Project: 22» 1 Mt. Eden Road Datc: U3/; UnU Project #: 1u-15 Sattt le #: TP4-1 De tlt: 4.0' Lab #: 3997/Li;22 Location/Source: Refer to borin to _ Sample Datc: Refcr to boring log.; Material: Fat CLAY, ~rav/brown 2500 2000 N ''-^^- 1500 /V///~ v! NW LJ.. '~'^ VI LL wT 1000 ~ 2 ~ 500 i i I 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial D Densi cf 124.8 Initial Water Content, % 25.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 A. I I j I 1 ~ ~ ,- I ~ I ~ f ~ I i I i i ~ ~ ! ~ ; ~I '~ ~ i i I I ~ I ~ I I j I ~ I I I I I ~• i i ~ ~ ~ Ij{ ~ I I I ~ ' I I I i ~ I I 1 I I I r i i I I i I I - I ~ '. i i i ~ I I I t~ - I { I ~ ~ 0~ I i i I i I ~ I I I - i ~ I I I V I I I `I ~ i I I I I ~ i I I ~ I ~ ~ ~. "I ~ I I I , ~ i ~~ I i ~ i CET #(-85601 FAILQRE DATA Strain, % 16.0 Peak Shear, sf 2027 Peak Unconfined, sf 4053 •ii m• Ovo9ioo Winn 1 ~~ • •i UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH~REPORT D1~4CE ASTM D216G trz ~ ~ 3~_-?- ~ ~, I~ Project: 22»1 Mt. Eden Road Da~c ~-,/31/11u :=: Ill-3~ II _ Sample #: TPS-1 Depth: 3.S Lab #: 3997/L5322 Location/Source: Refer to borin to Sam le Date: Refer to boring, lo~~ Material: Lean CLAY, medium brown ~ l4UU ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1200 i ~ ~ ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ i j I ~ ~ 1000 I ~ ~ ~ ----.... _ I i ~ ': ; ~ ~ ~ i N I I I ' ~ I i ! I ~ i ~ 800 / ! ~ ~ ~ ----- - w I ~ Qi ! ~ . ~ i ~ I ~ i ! i ~ i , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ' ~ 600 -- ' w ~ i I ~ I ~ I I I' ~ ~ ~ ~ j ' ~ ' ~ illy 400 , iii ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ i , 200 _ -_ m o I I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15.16 17 18 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dry Densi 120.9 Initial Water Content, % 24.1 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 Comments: Re on B~~: Gan• A. AITURE-.DATA Strain, % 16.1 Peak Shear, sf 1275 Peak Unconfined, sf 2550 CET ~t085601 \ ~ r,• oz~ou-a, ...~ .~. . UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE :>TRENGTH REPORT ~atct: ASTM Da16G tr?t-s~z-s~to Project: 22a~ 1 h1t. Eden Road Datc: n ~/ ~ 1 /ut, Protect ~: It-1i Sam le #: _ TP6-1 De the 4S' Lab #: ~~t97/LS;2? LocatioNSource: Refer to borinz; to Sam Ic Datc i Rcfcr to borin~~ log, Material: _ Lean CLAY «~ith Sand. grad/lieht bron~n 1200 1000 800 c N Y_ tL! ~ 600 I (Y Q tLt ~ ~ 400 200 '" ---- ----=- - - --- -- --- - d - ~` o - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AXIAL :iTRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dn~ Density, f 121.4 Initial Water Content. % 27.7 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 FAILIIRE DATA Strain, % 3.7 Peak Shear, sf 108 Peak Unconfined. sf 2170 t - \ Rcpon B} : Gan A. Bomberger, Laboratory Manager CET #U1356U 1 - rn~ ovov%oo UNCONFINEL .:OMPRESSIVE STRENGTH i_..PORT o~tci; ASTM D2166 (831) 372-3716 Pro ect 22»1 Mt. Eden Road Date: 03/31/011 Pro~ect #: loan Sam Ic #: TP7-#1 De the 4.~' Lab #: 3997/Li.22 Loc:uion/Source: Refer to borin to Sam le Date: Refer to borin Material: Lean CLAY with Sand, i;rav/light bro«•n 1200 1000 800 c • w ~ 600 i ~ w ~ 400 j I i I i -.I_ i I ' ' i i ;i ~ f a i I / ~ i -"- ~ i i i O / I D ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i _ f ; I i f ' ~ i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' • AXIAL STRAIN (%) I 200 i 0 SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dn~ Density, cf 121.4 Initial Water Content, % 27.7 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 ~ ~ Comments: Re ort B~~: Gar<~ A. CET #U8~GU 1 AII,IIRE DATA Strain, % 3.7 Peak Shear, sf ~ I U85 Peak Unconfined, sf 2170 rea•. OJW fig UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE :STRENGTH REPORT uatc;i ASTM D:L1GG = i I, (X31)372-3TIG Project: 22» 1 Mt. Edcn Road Datc: t);/ ~ llUu Project ~: 1(ti-i5 Sam lc r: TPi;-2 De the ?.tY _ Lab -: ?~)971LS3?? LocatioNSource: Refer to bonn_~ fo ^ Sam le Datc Refer to bonm_ log, M~neriai: Lcan CLAI' with Sand. medium bzo.~•n 1200 1000 800 c Y_ (~ (~ W ~ 600 to Q i w ~ 400 200 . 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AXIf~L STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN .DATA Initial Drv Densi cf 119.8 Initial Water Content, % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 2.U7 FAILIIRE DATA Strain, % 15.2 Peak Shear, sf 1060 Peak Unconfined, sf 212U A. Bomberger, Laborator.~ Manager -CET #Ub:i6U 1 _ ~ ~-~f "y ~-~Y ~~ ~~ ~~ to n n n ~ iCE UNCONFINED ..OMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 1.LPORT ASTM D~66 (831)372-371b Project 22» l Mt. Eden Road Date: 03/, l/uct Pro~ect #: lu~t~ Sam le =: TP9-#2 De the 2.tY Lab r: ;~)97,`L~ ~_~ Locatioa~Source: Refer to borins; lo° Sam le Date Refer to borin~~ lo~~ i Material: Lean CLAY ~~•ith Sand. medium bro~~~n j 1200 1000 800 Y_ Cn w ~ 600 tr Q w ~ 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dry Densin~, cf 1 l y.8 Initial Water Content, % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 2.07 S~•: Gan A. CET #085G01 FAII.URE DATA Strain, % 1~.2 Peak Shear, sf IOGU Peak Unco~ned, sf 2120 i- `' rer O.~fW.00 ~~~~~ ~r R-VALtTE R]~PORT D&M Consulting Engineers. lnc- ASTM DZ844•, CCM.301 Project: 22551 Mt. Eden Road (Huerta) _ Date: 3-3U-OU Client: Project ~: 1045 Location: Lab ~: L 5322 Sample ~: Bulk Sample Sample Date: 3-2,-ut> Material Description: siln• CLAP; dark brown Sampled B~•: GH 100 90 80 70 60 W ~ 50 j ~ 40 i ~ 30 ~ 20 1 ~ 10 i ~ 0 I ~ i i ~_ I ~-f-R-VALUE - i _~_ ~ ~ I--;-EXP -PRESS. j -1 -- - t i - ~ -- - - - - ' ~ i _ ~ i ----------- - --- - ~ ' i I i I _ I I i -- - -- 0 ~~-- -~ - ,I i ~_ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) d (408) - 100 ~ 90 ~ - 80 -70 c a i ' w 60 ~ ~ I 50 a Z 40 ~ 2 Q 30 X t~.t 20 10 I ~ 0 700 800 Specimen No. ~ A 13 C Exudation Pressure, psi 278 437 732 Expansion Pressure, psf _ 0 37 66 R-Value _ 8 9 13 Moisture Content at Test, % _ 25.2 23.3 21.9 Dry Density at Test, pct +97.8 101.3 102.6 - R-Value Q 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 9 Er~aru~ion Pressure @ 300 psi Exudation, psf = 6 Minimum R-Value Requirement: Comments: Report B}~: Michael P. Gossett, Laboraton~ Manager ~ ~~ ~~ _ ~ m. •f • 6i 5! w 4( O Z } ~ 3C U 1- g 2c 10 7 4 7E 74 72 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT ' Dashed line indicates the approximate i - upper limit boundary for natural soils - I - - O" t _ - - - - - -- G~° o~- t - ~ __ ly ML it OL MH it OH 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT ~ 7C z ~ 68 z ~ 66 ~ 64 Q ~ 62 60 58 56 i NUMBER OF BLOWS LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS 63 23 40 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION gray CLAY: Project No. 074-040 Client: D&M Consulting Project: 1045 Mt.Eden Road • Source: DM-2 Elev./Depth: 24.5 LIQUID AND PLASTfC LIMITS TEST REPORT COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Remarks: • nnn i -~~ I t r PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIEtUTiON TEST REPORT _ ~ 10C 9C . SC 70 L1J 60 Z z 50 W J W 40 1 30 20 10 __= o o n o ~ a- s ~ i ~ - .. - F~ ~~~_~~~. 'ate ._ `~ ~ . ~~ . `-• ~~ . `` `` i 200 100 10 1 + 3" ~ % GRAVEL % SAND . % SILT ~ 7.7 13.6 I~KHII`J Jll_C - mfil COY % FINES 78.7 92.3 SIEVE PERCENT FIN ER inches size ` GRAIN SIZE D60 D30 D10 0.00 16 COEFFICIENTS Cc Cu PEF;CENT FINER SIZE #4 100.0 #10 95.E #30 95..3 #40 95. ] #50 94.9 #100 94.2 #200 92.3 0.0351 mm. 89.=1 0.0250 mm. 85.3 0.0160 mm. 87.? 0.0094 mm. 8~3.S 0.0068 mm. 83.1 0.0049 mm. 7S.-3 0.0035 mm. 75.3 0.0026 mm. 71.0 0.0018 mm. 62.S 0.0011 mm. 55.4 _: Source: DM-2 Project: 10.35 A•1t.Eclen Road COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Feature: USCS AASHTO PL LL CH 23 63 SOIL DESCRIPTION ~> @ray~ CLAY ~~•/trace sand EI ~~ OOO is ~R Drained, Torsional Shear, Strength Envelope, (Residual) Cooper Testing Lab. Inc. sooo Job No.: 074-040 5000 Client: D & M Consulting _ ------ ----- ----- - --- - --- - Project: 1045 Mt. Eden Rd. Sample No.: DM-2 @ 24.5' Soil Type: gray CLAY(CH) aooo LL = 63, PI = 40 - --- --- Clay Fraction = 79% ~ Friction Angle: Curved Envelope - - ~~ __ 0-2000 = 10 degrees __ _._______ ~, 2000-4000 = 8.5 degrees 4000-8000 = 6.5 degrees h Best Fit.= 7.5 degrees zooo Values are within -+ 0.5 degrees _-_-_._...._. i 7773 7000 -_- - ---- 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Normal Load, (p~) V Deformation Curves 7aoo 7zoo 7000 c 800 .° N v 500 N 400 200 0 I -~~ i • ~ i ~ I I i I To convert degrees to inches of deformation multiply by .0157. I ~ 0 50 goo Aso zoo zso 300 ' Degrees o7a-oao i i ~, u N r-, r O .,~ >, ~ c O O w Q; N N +~ ~ r-i ~ O c~ s~ ~ ~ C +~ O U1 U N ~ ~ +~ b •~ u •~ ~ ro U ~ C+1 b' x ~ v O w w ~- O b a z ~ _O ~/i } w h ^ N l,.L U~4~ v' v ~ ~ w ~ N w ~.Qcn ~ °o °o o° ao U ~ W a ~ ~ f~ r• ~ I~ WQ~Y wZ~ ~' C~ N! ~~ LL. L' ,~,.... ~ I I I "' o ^~ ~ n ~ LL. .~ - -- U u ~, 0 O ~ ~ v T- v t` O ~ ~ •~^ ~ ~ . „ ~ ~ t.C) w ~ ~ o Vi ~ v ~ O +~ U ~ v ~ ~ Vi ~ "' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ w b O O •~ '~ • ~ -~' ~ +~ N ~ E E U1 N X 3 ~ v " - / a `~ ^ ~'l T ,C ~ c( ~ ~ J H 3 O N C'7 N ~' , N O ~--~ N ~ ._.. f--' O C~ J r" //~1~ V 0 N T O . I I I 1 I I ~_~_ I I I 1 ~ I I I J Q N C0 d- Q ~ N o0 ~ O C+7 N N N *- r (S~~~J=10) ~~~Nd NOIl~I~l~ ~d('1~IS=1~ 1NdO~S • P _ ' . • ME1~IORANDUM TO: Bob Schubert, Senior Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer I SUBJECT: Geotechnical clearance conditions for Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road DATE: Apri123, 2001 i Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. The conditions of approval, based on attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 16, 2001, are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Consultant also shall clarify the foundation type and ensure that an appropriate capillary break has been provided for slabs (e.g., minimum 4 to 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. ~, 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be~limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and "excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. -1- ~~ ,"' The Project Engineering Geologist shall sfiecilica(ly observe and log pier holes excavated for the shear pin reinforcement wall, to verify th~it adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers are achieved prior to placement of steel and concrete. Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross section~~ shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, a~ld s~ubnutted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to finalization of C-radi.ng Permit. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstaridin;; fe:es associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zc-ne Clet~rance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising ~,ut of s~~il or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related co:nditi.on~;. -2- 00014 L Attachment 3 CC~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ VEN 13777 FRUITVALE A UE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Response to Planning Commission Comments (S4010D) RE: Landslide Evaluation Huerta Property 22551 Mt. Eden Road DATE: November 13, 2001 At your request, we have reviewed our project file and conducted a cursory evaluation of the landslide located partly on the Huerta property (22551 Mt. Eden Road). In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files, examined stereoscopic aerial photographs, and conducted a geologic site reconnaissance. DISCUSSION The City's geologic map indicates the western and southern portions of the property to be underlain by portions of two very large landslides (see attached figure entitled "City Geologic Map"). In addition, we observed shallow landsliding at several locations throughout the property, erosional gullies along the stream bank in the western portion of.the property, and 1- to 2-inch-wide ground fissures in the cut slope above the existing building pad. In our previous review memorandums addressing geologic and geotechnical conditions of the Huerta property, we noted that development of the property is potentially constrained by expansive surficial soil and bedrock materials, soil creep, landsliding, adverse drainage, and the susceptibility of the site to strong seismic ground shaking. During the course of the applicant's geotechnical investigation, the large landslide located in the southern approximately two-thirds of the property was investigated, and a geotechnically feasible building site subsequently was located in the northeastern portion of the property. 000143 a John Cherbone ' Page 2 November 13, 2001 54010D • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION It is our understanding that the City requests our answers to two questions: Question: "What would be involved to mitigate the southern most landslide?" Response: As shown by a dark red color on the ati:ach~ed snap, the landslide covering the southern portion of the Huerta property extends beyond thc~ property boundaries. Thus, full mitigation (stabilization) of the "southern" land;>lidc~ would require construction activities on several properties, because the landslide extends under adjacent properties further south and west of the Huerta property. Design of stabiliz~~tion measures would need to be preceded by a comprehensive exploration program- in order to determine the accurate locations of the landslide margins and depth. We note ghat the landslide boundary closest to the Huerta development was determined during site ir~ve;~tigations, and engineering measures designed to prevent adverse impacts of potenti~il l~indslide movement were incorporated into the . development. Question: "Could native Redwood or Oaks be plantea' on, at, or near the slide as it exists without jeopardizing the stability of the slide and off site properties?" Response: The landslide underlying a portion of the 1~uE;rta property was determined to be 25 to 29 feet deep in two exploratory boreholes. It i;; u;nlikely that the presence of new trees would significantly affect the stability of such a large and deep landslide, unless excessive water was introduced into the hillside as part of l~lantin~; of, or caring for, the trees. However, the trees could present new hazards to structures ire the vicinity if the trees were to fall during future landslide events. The potential hazard could bc~ mitigated by placing the trees at distances from structures that are greater than the ant:icip~~tecl heights of mature trees. In addition, the trees should not be placed along creek banks {duE~ to susceptibility for creekbank slumps). 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. 000144 CITY GEOLOGIC MAP • r - • ? r~~- I • - r • - a ~ - _. _ _. • v _ ~ -~ ~'z ~ ~ , ~,~;: roximate Buildin Site APP 9 • . - • , ~ ~ - y .T 1~ ~-. _ - •~ ~ • ~ _ : i • ~ • X - ~1 , ~ - 1vs ~ 1 • • :~ ~. L , -, ~ • f~ w ~ A` • 1 Y - h' •4 • . ,. - , •, ~ ;; Y - } ~ • • a f ~ - • • Y • ~• • . '~"-~' • -. .Y F+1^ • • • ( ~w .1 ~ ~ .'-. ~' ^s _ - ~ v • • ` •_ - • • • _ .: ~• • y _' • • • • • ~=:Y ~ ~; ~ ,fc~~ u. • *, ~ - ~':-x. • . r: \3i. • - • ~. • - __ ~Ji _ Y • _- __ 1Yy~_ - a'eT' . . -::DIY- 2 " 0' - ' _ :200' ~ .° 400' } • .:.. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS ~00 _ _.: _ :,~_. k~~. ~ -. . , - ` .~. tis~~ .r~ ~`.__• T~ THIS PAGF: HAS BEEN INTENTIONAL:LY .LEFT BLANK ®00146 • ., ~ 3 5 ~~~- J i' A4 ll y ~~ ~t'1 r / ~ a n v ~•. ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ . ~ ~~ r a / ~~ '~ -~/ r W ~ i ~ , i! i _.___._ i i ~ V.i re ;~ ~ -i:. Y>' _ ~/ ~y Yg9I _ Om Y _ % / ' r, . `_ v /, -Y~ --~~ I '~ ~ w ~~ i ~a ~ I 11 o I ~~~. ~\ ~ i ~ . ' i I ~ ~ a- ~ ' ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° a _ v ~ fl ,~ ~ ~; ~. ~?: 7r~ n `~ i I i~ lir ~ :x L ~~ I I ~q t~ jm \,~F ; . ~ ~ l ~. ~. ~ ,, ~ ~ ~, i , : ~ ., ~ ;.F L w ,~ ~ \~ ~\. - ~b ~+~~ ~o ~ ~~Pi ' ? I ~ 4 ; ~ ~ ~ ~, , o' ~ ,; ~ ~~ ~ i V ~ . :~ ~~ '-~ ,',,1' ~(aJ~~ -off ~' ~ ~~-` < .t . ~~ 1 Sa ~'~ ~ t\ '~1 -~ o ~:~`J `~' ~ L ,1 ~ o \ I `-- I,1r~ ~8. 0 Q pl ~ Z F J ~ ~~ o ,i 9 7 ~~ s ~~ -J F iI ~ _ ~ ~ ~ X W u! 3 n- ;J ~~ , 'I Sa06_-LG~. Z~ os6 b'/Na~Q~'/ 7i~J ~ S P1.4~~.? S07 I 1b~no~ .7n~C~s b'A S Z9 %.77~1/h7~~b' - iL~+o~d .>^a7atbH,7 . ~ I~ ~g G'~~'b'd~b~d S5N/Mk~b~t7 I ~~i o iii li a ~j~ li Z~ -I U I•. -' li; I ~;, a ,,. I > ~ ~- Q J v o . a\ r ~ r. i. ~ ~ ~ N N 'L ~ ~ .., CS = j1"_ - = - V W ~ ~ K ~ z - w o Q _ \9 ~ N _ m nl ~ ~ ~ Z z O Q ; ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ (` N ~ ~ ~ ~ 11l -- - Q[~~ 0.l p 7 m ~~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ;~,Ng rL o~ ~z K Q :•• U ~ ~ ~ uJ ~ ~~ u-. ~ ~ ~ Z~ J ~ ~ ~ w~ ~~ ~ ~ F- -- ~~` v ;n Z ~ LL1 iil ~~ ~ tJ \9 ul Q ~ v~ ~ - Q _ Z -~ il ~ Z ~ oL ~ O ~ °G Q- ~ z ~ Q ~ O i>_1 hL ~ Q oc Q ~ ~ - . ~. N .... ..._ . u L~ G ~ ~ D G f J ~ .. v z w ~ ~ oQ ~ _ Qz W ~ ~ o ~ Q w Z >.~ ~ ~ _ uJ - Q ~ '' ++ W V Q ~ D ~-. ~ ~{-- - ~ a ~ ~ U .J - ~ ~ - ~ ~- O ~ _ Q ~ ~ ~ CV Q Q ~ N cn ~~ // l L n S1~ _o zN P F u ~ 'I a i Q ~ ~; 4 Q x LL I, > Y~1 J ~ ul J ~ J pJ Z 1 3 ~ ~ F I ~ Y ~ v o ~~ z s Q m I' ' ' C ~ ~ ~~;~ ~i~ ~I z n~ 1.1.. O 11_ s>t,~. • -w o- 4 - ~I~ h i~ ~,i - .~ I ~' ` ~" li',; v ii- i~ I1] ^[ J,i ~1 r~L~~ I~'LI ' ~ I~ li 1,~7 ~, I I ~\ i ~_:;. ii L, ~~~ T ~N~. z~ t r ~ ~i ~ h Nq~ Q~ ~~~' _~' _ - _ _ _ ~I N O ~S R~ J~Cq -rcp J~ J~`J~- llr ~1 ~~ `. U JI ? K lL F-evC~ ~Q ~, o~Ci ~O~'~.. }`tP Ull. O ~=- ~z~o~~~ Q.Q U~~~3v~~a ~~.Z ~'i Yom.- - ~ii ~ - - - _ _ .- - QII`Oc' ~ mNO~ p~-in. O INNNNh----. - ~- O- SC~~I ~ N F ~iI ~; dl ~~ ~Q ~~ Z Q U. u3 N p I ~~ \ \ a ~ 9 __ ~ ~1 ~ ~ p~ ~ S ~ ~` . , \ II i ~ ~ ,\.. .~ ~. .~,I~ i 1 ,~ _.1~. ~I ~ ~ ; Nl~z ~ °_ w fL ~ H Q~ 2 F- ~ AQ d . e1 -~. 1 lll, Z 3 ~ -~cG- O - Sl VCI tt; 'J J ~J. - d ~~ ~~ ~. . ~? ~~~ ~~ ~ C .1 i c po o ~ ~ .` ~ ~ ~ ~ p U \.1 \\~. / \\~ ~~ ~ _ oC ~ ^ ~ 7 \ \ ~ ~~`'~~\ , s I `\ \ Ps I .; i~ F ddb e6 ~ ~ iYd _ \ ~ I. Jl ~' +- \ d I '1 ~ J) d °~ ~\~.% ~, // , Q`~``~ ~, ? dry / '~t~j ~~ °~o o , ~\ it ~ `~ .T \. 6j,a ~ ~ \ ~ CL \ ~• ~ i Q ~T.c: ~ ~ $.~ i ~ - ~ ~\ ' t (f~ ~ ~~ ~.. N 7~ Q • • • J~ Q ~\~ ~ `~ L ~ I ~ W - ,. 0.Y \`~' \ - ~. ~ \ 7` J ~~ 0~ ~s ~_ o~ i N i I, ~.\ . -~k ~ 9C' ©i i : ~ Ji I~i I I \\ ~~/ ~' J ` \ ~ -_..________... _____._____-_ ____ j - - -- - - ----- -- I __' ---- -- ---- --------- ---- -,~-- _-_ ---------- --- --=------ --- F _ ~.__ -~;a% ---'t--*-~- _~: Q' \~ ~ ~~\Y/: ~; • • ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ---- ,3/,f------- /~ i ~ ~ j - i - rNI- ~i ~~ F-i _ Zi? ~~ ~v u Q X111 1 1 i i I 1 if { I 1 { o: s~ u! a' m a, ~~ ~J:Ge -~> ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ; ! ~ . ~ ~ I' I Q ~ a ' ~i I ,p; Q~ - II. I Q ~~I I i ~ ^I ~ ~ i ~~ _ { ~ - LLI nu ~ ' ~ { . ~ ~ I j ~ i _ ~ I -_~.. ~~ I .I { _ I ~ L.. ~ i I ..7-5 ~ _i ~ I I ~ i ~ Q I j ~ ---~ ~ ~ ~ ~ waa I i mo. ~ QI ----'~- l t I _ ~ ~- {-- j v I 1, ~ ~ - i Z I 'J I I ~ ; I r"~ ~.. ~ ~ ~^ ~ }-I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ '_ ~ ~ rtl~ ~, ~ - ~ m~ ~ f . I QI ~ l ' ~ i I ~b 4 r ~-- ~~ `, i ~ a. ~ ~ ti. ~ I 'i E i I !~ I o~ Iti 811 I ~, „ I ~, ~ a: I ~ ~ I f , r I_ /i I J~ m; I 1 ~ I I_I . ~ i; o ~ I I l u ~ , I~ I ~ I 3~ ~'I - I(1 ~ ` I' I I ~ .r : ~? ~ I I ;J~ ~ r I ~ I. ~\ I ;I li 4 1 1 '~ I li ~ _J. I" j 1 ~ ~_ ~: 1, ,8, E ~~ -- ~' I Q,. ,i I _,, ~,_ ~I -_-___- ~"/ ~I I ~ \ I'~i~!. W.I ' ~ ~i ~ 11 ~ I o-; ~ -- ---' $I }~`~tl I I fey ~I '`~ I '~ lVl ~y ` ~ ' '~~ F- I~ . QI ~~ ~.~ ;~ I I i ''~ i ~ 'a 1 W I ~s :Z ~_~ ~n ~x i 1 ~~ n i--. ~ ~ g V `.. s ~~ .v ~~ ,V_ 3~3_ ~~ ~ _ - W ~ ~~. C..N ~ V•.N ~ ~ i ~~ .o I `, ~ Ij . l .. ! { . r-=,~ 03`'`~~v r 1~ sl ~~ ~~~ r ~~W~z~ ~ gla o~z o ~+ u~1~N p2F ,~{t ~ Q>w~~~w `#! I I I I ~~~tr mom/ ~ ~ ; k I - - T l i Z f I o ` I I z ~ j j ~ ~ i I --r ~- !1 -~-` I I I I ' r l l r' I, / . I i t • -III- ! 1 1 ~----• I I - r li i'I ~ - I ~ . ~ I ,I Il ~I 1 ~ __J ;~ I ~' I O _ I ~ I Z 1 ~ 7 ~ i 'V N . L i Z owl ~F ~J ~ ~ ul J ~~Q uri u. 3 a _ ,. ~ ~ -i ~'~ 11 I~~~ ~; ``! ...~ Q v~ ~f.. it ~~ I ~~ ,~ I ~~ I O ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~; i ~ ~ ~ N - -~ ~o ~ y ZI ~~ U( o- ITEM 2 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~~ DATE: December 12, 2001 RE: UP-O1-007, SPRINT PCS, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell BACKGROUND On August 22, 2001 the applicant submitted a request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to install three antennas within a proposed light pole and one GPS antenna on the exterior of the pole. As part of the project, the applicant proposed a new bus stop with two benches. The equipment cabinet was proposed to be built below grade and behind a retaining wall designating the bus stop area. The applicant also proposed to landscape the area. At the August meeting the Planning Commission raised concerns about the proposed light pole and asked the applicant to review other options and locations for the proposed pole. The project vvas continued to the September 11, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At the September meeting, the applicant requested that the project be continued to the next available Planning Commission meeting October 24, 2001. At the October meeting the item was again continued to allow the applicant time to provide additional information. The applicant is asking that the project be continued to allow additional time to provide information from the Joint Pole Authority that controls the existing utility poles that may be used as alternative antenna locations. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the item be continued to a date uncertain and the project renoticed when the applicant has prepared a complete package addressing the Commission's questions from the previous meeting. • 000001 12/05/2001 WED 12:33 FA% 925 901 1001 RILEY & ASSOC. 1¢J 002 RICHARD CONNOR RILEY& ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 2420 Camino Raman, Smite 380 San ~tamon, Cs~it#'on~ua 94583 Telephone: (925 901-1.001 Facsimile: (92~ 901-1011 December 5, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE John Livingstone Associate Planner City of Saratoga __ :13777 Fruitvale Avenue 'Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: UP-01-007 Request for Hearing Continuance far Farwell Avenue ~ Satatoaa-Los Gatos Road :Dear Mr. Livingstone: :Richard Connor Riley and Associates, L.L.C. represents Sprint PCS is the zoning approval process for a :conditional use permit for the proposed Sprint PCS facility referenced above. Sprint PCS respectfully requests a continuance from the scheduled hearing date on December 14, 2000. Sprint PCS will take this time to work with the Joint Pole Authority to further examine possible site alternatives on existing wooden power poles. Per our conversation this morning, I understand that a new hearing will be scheduled for the project when Sprint PCS submits a complete package addressing the :viability of placing antennas on nearby power poses. zn addition, I w~l have a radio frequency exxgineer 'with me at the next besting to address technical qucxtiaas regarding Sprint coverage needs. :Please call me at 925-90I -1001 if you have any questions or need addltioIIal information. Sincerely, RICHARD CONNOR RII.EY' & ASSOCIATES, L_L:C_ ~~Vj~tt73 ~""~ $eajamin A Davies ° CC: Mark Gagne (Sprint PCS) Mohammad Alaa~ (Sprint PCS) .~ F:~SPItINTISaata ClaralSite Directary1SF54XC429-A1Contanuance Letter ]2-5-0l.doc • 000002 ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Applicant No. /Location: F-O1-015/ 13651 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: BARBARA AND TOM PRIDHAM Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Date: December 12, 2001 APN: 503-14-10 test 503-14-021 Department Head: ', 000001 1.J V J 1 1 1Gl l-G 1tV dl.l File No. F-01-01 S: 13651 Pierce Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has applied to legalize an existing fence enclosure. Staff received a citizen complaint regarding a newly constructed fence on the applicant's property. A statement from both the applicant and complainant are attached. Various fence treatments exist on the applicant's property; however, the newly constructed wrought iron fence segments, which enclose the site, are subject to Planning Commission review at this time. The applicant requests an exception to the maximum area of enclosure permitted within hillside districts for an as-built fence pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 (c) (1) and (2). In hillside districts, the area of enclosure shall not exceed 4,000 square feet; however, Planning Commission may grant approval for such exception based on the following cases: (1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping, and other features of the site; or (2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reasons. . As discussed below, Staff finds conditions at the site and surrounding area meet both criteria. Site Description An existing 2-story single-family residence, detached garage, and swimming pool are located at the rear of_the site. The Calabasas Creek runs along the rear property line. Pierce Road borders the front property line. The topography at the site varies from very . steep to level. The average slope of the site is 22%. Physical traces of wildlife at the site include trails, deer droppings, and hoof prints. The property is zoned Hillside Residential and the net site area is 57,064 square feet. The site is heavily vegetated with trees, shrubs, bushes, and groundcover. Existing Fencing (Please refer to Exhibit A) Wrought Iron The applicant recently enclosed the property by adding segments of six foot wrought iron fencing to previously existing portions of chain link and wood fencing. The wrought iron fence consists of 5/8 inch wide black vertical bars spaced at a distance of 5 inches. (100002 File No. F-01-O1 S: 13651 Pierce Road C7 Criteria 2: The Fence is Required for Safety Reasons The Calabasas Creek, steep topography, and roadway conditions surrounding the site provide evidence the fence is necessary for safety reasons. Calabasas Creek The Calabasas Creek runs the entire portion of the rear property line. Much of the terrain lying within the Calabasas Creek watershed is characterized by steep hillsides, heavy rainfall saturates unstable slopes and causes the groundwater level to rise, triggering landslides of mud and debris into the creek channels'. Topography of the Site The slope at the site varies from very steep to level. There are extreme and dangerous vertical drop-offs in many locations on at the site. Roadway Conditions Pierce Road borders the front property line of the subject property. Pierce Road is narrow and winding. It serves as a major arterial to the Mt. Winery concert facility. This roadway experiences a steady flow of traffic throughout the day and evening. The maximum speed limit on Pierce Road is 25 mph. Site distances are limited at the subject property due to established vegetation, topography, and natural bends in the roadway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the conditions at the site and surrounding area meet the required criteria to grant approval for the as-built fence to enclose more than 4,000 square feet in a hillside district. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application by adopting Resolution No. F-O1-015 which includes the following conditions: (1) the applicant will provide an accessible trail along the iron fence which runs along the top of the creek bank to permit the passage of wildlife, and (2) the applicant will relocate the existing iron-fence a distance of 10 feet from the top of the creek bank. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. F-O1-O15. 2. Statement from the applicant and complainant. 3. Photos of the existing fence treatments and site conditions. 4. Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community Development Department on December 3, 2001. • ' Saratoga General Plan, Safety Element, page 22. (1n0003 File No. F-Ol -01 S: 13651 Pierce Road • Wood The previous property owner installed portions of wood fence at the front of the property. The six foot wood fence is located a distance of approximately 40 feet from the front property line. Several oak and bay trees buffer the fence from traffic traveling along Pierce Road. Chain Link The neighboring property owner installed chain link fence segments which enclose a swimming pool. The applicant installed an additional 6Q~eet of chain link fence contiguously. The chain link fencing borders the North property line. Evaluation of Required Criteria for Granting Planning Commission Approval Criteria 1: Visibility of the Fence from Public Streets and Adjacent Properties The location of newly installed portions of wrought iron fencing, style and materials of the fencing, and topography and vegetation at the site and surrounding area greatly reduce visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties. Additionally, generous required lot sizes and setbacks for residences in the hillside residential zone district minimize the visual impacts of the fence on neighboring property owners. Location of Fencing The subject wrought iron fence which was recently installed and encloses the property is located predominately to rear of the site approximately 100 feet from Pierce Road and Quarry Road. Visibility of the fence from public streets is hindered by the distance of the fence from those streets, as well as, by variation in terrain and vegetation as discussed below. Topography of the Site The frequent variation in grade at the site and surrounding area prevents views of long expanses of fencing from the public and adjacent property owners. Vegetation at the Site The site is heavily vegetated with oak, bay, and pine trees. Ground cover, bushes and shrubs also buffer views of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties. Materials and Style of Fence The wrought iron fence permits visibility through black iron bazs (5/8 inch wide) which are vertically spaced a distance of approximately 5 inches: • 000004 ' File No. F-Ol -01 S: 13651 Pierce Road Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. F-O1-015 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pridham: 13651 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application, for an exemption to the hillside fencing enclosure requirements to allow the azea of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sq. ft.; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: Visibility of the Fence from Public Streets and Adjacent Properties The location of newly installed portions of wrought iron fencing, style and materials of the fencing, and topography and vegetation at the site and surrounding azea greatly reduce visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties. Additionally, generous required lot sizes and setbacks for residences in the hillside residential zone district minimize the visual impacts of the fence on neighboring property owners. Location of Fencing The subject wrought iron fence which was recently installed and encloses the property is located predominately to rear of the site approximately 100 feet from Pierce Road and Quarry Road. Visibility of the fence from public streets is hindered by the distance of the fence from those streets, as well as, by variation in terrain and vegetation as discussed below. Topography of the Site The frequent variation in grade at the site and surrounding area prevents views of long expanses of fencing from the public and adjacent property owners. Vegetation at the Site The site is heavily vegetated with oak, bay, and pine trees. Ground cover, bushes and shrubs also buffer views of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties. Materials and Style of Fence The wrought iron fencing permits visibility through black iron bars (5/8 inch wide) which aze vertically spaced a distance of approximately 5 inches. 000005 File No. F-01-01 S: 13651 Pierce Road The Fence is Required for Safety Reasons The Calabasas Creek, steep topography, and roadway conditions surrounding the site provide evidence the fence is necessary for safety reasons. Calabasas Creek The Calabasas Creek runs the entire portion of the rear property line. Much of the terrain lying. within the Calabasas Creek watershed is characterized by steep hillsides, heavy rainfall saturates unstable slopes and causes the groundwater level to rise, triggering landslides of mud and- debris into the creek channels2. Topography of the Site The slope at the site varies from very steep to level. There are extreme and dangerous vertical drop-offs in many locations on at the site. Roadway Conditions Pierce Road borders the front property line of the subject property. Pierce Road is narrow and winding. It serves as a major arterial to the Mt. Winery concert facility. This roadway experiences a steady flow of traffic throughout the day and evening. The maximum speed limit on Pierce Road is 25 mph. Site distances are minimal at the subject property due to established vegetation, topography, and natural bends in the roadway. 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 Barbara and Tom Pridham for approval and exemption from the hillside fencing regulations, be and the same is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will provide an accessible trail along the iron fence which runs along the top of the creek bank to permit the passage of wildlife. 2. The applicant will relocate the existing iron fence a distance of 10 feet from the top of the creek bank. Section 2. 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 12~' day of December 2001 by the following roll call vote: • 00406 L- File No. F-01-015: 13651 Pierce Road i~ 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 ~0~~0"~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C, 000008 Attachment 2 October 12, 2001 Christie Oosterhous Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Safety/Fence Enclosure at 13651 Pierce Road Zoning: Fencing within hillside districts Rl 40,000 Hillside Purpose of Submission: Requesting approval from the Saratoga Planning Department for a safety enclosure/property fence at 13651 Pierce Road. Our request will be based upon the terms outlined in the articles of Chapter 15, Zoning Regulations, 15-29.020 "Fencing within a hillside district". The Pridham family is requesting approval to retain an existing safety/fence enclosure. Although the enclosure is in excess of 4000 square feet, there are several important safety factors that justify its existence. The safety factors plus the lack of visibility of the enclosure from neighboring views and/or local streets, are considerations that are consistent with the Planning Commissions examples under which approvals for such enclosures maybe granted. Background As you will notice from our pictures in Section I3 of this submission, my wife Barbara and I have three young children. When we were originally looking to purchase this property in the summer of 1999, we reviewed our safety enclosure/fence request with James Walgren (SP?) of the Saratoga Planning Department. At that time we were verbally advised that with consent of adjoining neighbors, we could enclose our property. We closed-the real estate transaction to acquire 13651 Pierce Rd. in October 1999 and we then followed the verbal advice received. We reviewed our plans with and received consent from both our attached neighbors, the O'Connell's at 13621 Pierce Rd and Ms. Prokochak and her ex-husband at 13681 Pierce Rd. We did not realize that approval and a permit were required from the City of Saratoga, until we received a letter on June 25, 2001 from the City, notifying us that we maybe in violation of Saratoga Municipal Code 15-29.020. We apologize for our misunderstandings and request Planning Department/Commission approval to maintain our existing safety enclosure/fence. Factor 1 -Safety As exemplified in the pictures contained in Section 13, our property is vulnerable to three major safety concerns: nn[1(1(19 • 1. Proximity to a very busy and dangerous section of Pierce Rd. Now that Pierce Rd has become a by-pass around the City of Saratoga for mountain residents traveling to and from work, and since the City of Saratoga is allowing the Mountain Winery to drain the concert and tourist traffic down Pierce Road, our street has become very dangerous for small children. In addition to the increased speed and volume of traffic on Pierce Road, we have the added concern of spirited drunk drivers going to and from the Mountain Winery. The enclosed picture of the beer and liquor containers (see Section 13) is typical of the garbage we pick up between the existing front wood fence and Pierce Rd. This is compelling--evidence that drivers under the influence of alcohol are driving on our local street on a regular basis. Another attribute of our location on Pierce Road is the fact that we are exposed to blind curves from both directions. Prior to completing the safety/fence enclosure, we had experienced several scares with the small children, who had a tendency to wander towards the street. There simply isn't enough time for a driver to react, considering the blind spots and their typical speed of travel past our driveway. Our driveway is also used as a turnaround for cazs that have gone past Sara Hills and are looking to turn around on an otherwise very narrow road. These people are not looking out for children when using our property as a turnaround. 2. Bordered bYthe Calabasas Creek The Calabasas Creek contains fast flowing and deep water levels for several months of the year (i.e. approx. Nov/Dec -Mar/April). Pictures taken in late November 2001 offer sound evidence of the high water levels and fast flowing nature of the Creek. As drowning is a major concern with all small children, we deemed it critical to have a safety enclosure to prevent wandering children from dangerous exposure. Our approach and philosophy for addressing the Creek water is no different than what we have done with our pool. The pool is covered by a manual safety enclosure that only an adult can open. Pictures of this enclosure are"included with the submission. We were not prepared to take the risk of our children, or visiting friends, who might wonder the property and thereby put themselves at risk of drowning in the Creek. Just as parents won't let their young children play at our house unless the pool is covered, both they and we have the same concern regarding the creek. With the increased amount of winter rainfall in the past few years, including certain areas of flooding, this offers further compelling support for our safety enclosure, particularly considering the age of our children (i.e. then ages 9, 6 & just 2). 3. Topographical terrain and cliff/road erosion With the Creek as a perimeter to a large section of our property, we aze exposed to eroding cliffs with active mudslides (60' high in the back) and more recent road erosion on Quarry Road. Both are dangerous conditions under any circumstances. In addition, the fast flowing water has created other 15 - 20' cliff areas around the nnnn-~ n Creek's edge. The risk that our kids could be caught up in a mudslide, or that one of them or their friends might fall off a cliff or steep hill, is one of those chances we aren't prepared to take. As you review the pictures of our property in Section 13, you will also notice the significant variations in topology. This makes for some very steep hillside conditions, which also represent risk to our small children, in addition to the benefit of hiding most of our property or any of its structures from external view. Factor 2 - Visibility of the safety enclosure/fence from public streets and/or an adjacent property, is virtually impossible In the pictures provided in Section 13 and assuming the Planning Department elects to visit the property, you will notice that the new safety enclosure is virtually invisible to outside viewers and has also been very well camouflaged into the landscape. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any of our neighbors, passing cars on Pierce Rd and/or Quarry Rd to see the safety enclosure/fence unless actually on our property. The new fence material is made of iron and has been specially "acid etched" to give it a rust look that blends in with the heavily treed landscape. As depicted in the enclosed pictures in Section 13, the material used for the safety enclosure blends very well into the wooded terrain of our property. Action Taken Prior to doing any work, we had spoken with James Walgren and we reviewed our safety concerns and plans with our neighbors. We received support and approval from our neighbors to proceed. To ensure that we were being considerate of their wishes, we walked the property with each neighbor, consulted them on the planned fence style, location and color. All this was done to ensure that we were taking into consideration the environment relative to wildlife, aesthetics, fence design and color. We also wanted to make sure that we didn't in any way obstruct or detract from either our neighbors views. We went to great lengths to ensure that our new iron fence would blend into the landscape. In addition, our fence does not unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife that may want to pass through and/or around our property lines, without having to go on the road or in the creek bed. If you are able to take the time to inspect our property and fence installation, I will be ~, happy to arrange a time for you to walk the property with me. I believe that you will find that the fence style, construction and environmentally blended coloring are not only appealing, but also virtually invisible to the passing eye or neighboring view.- We hope that you will agree that our safety concerns regarding the road, the creek and the cliffs, represent more than adequate justification to support our safety enclosure/fence as is, while at the same time respecting the zoning criteria for exception approvals. Summary 00001 • My wife and I and our children have been residents of Saratoga since 1993 and the owners of 13651 Pierce since early October 1999. We are law-abiding citizens of the community of Saratoga and have been both active participants and volunteers in many community programs and events. Our three children (i.e. ages 2, 6 & 9 at the time of purchase in 1999) are our most precious assets and their safety and that of their friends is our foremost concern. In light of the above safety concerns and the lack of visibility of the safety enclosure/fence, we hope that the Planning Department/Commission will approve our request to maintain our existing safety enclosure as is. Based upon the facts and circumstances provided above, we request your approval and/or variance/ordinance exception, such that we may keep our fence as is. I believe this request and approval provision if granted, would fall under Article 15-29 section 15-29.020 "Fences within hillside districts", subsection (c) (1) & (2). We are reasonable people and would like to work with the city to ensure we receive whatever ordinance or variance approvals we might require. We have enjoyed the safety of our fence for almost two years now in its current unobtrusive form and structure. Without this enclosure; we would not have the required safety and protection necessary for our three precious children. We are delighted to be residents of Saratoga and we look forward to a positive and long lasting relationship with our town's authorities Sincerely yours Thomas W. Pridham • nnnn...~ s To: Saratoga Planning Department From: Lina Prokopchak Resident at 13681 Pierce Road Date: 11-30-O1 Referencing: Fence at 13651 Pierce Road I am writing this memo to express my concerns about a fence at my neighbor's residence, address 13651 Pierce Road. I know that a hill side fence ordinance exists that restricts a resident in the designated area from fencing in more than 4,000 square feet of their property. My neighbor has clearly violated this ordinance. I believe that this fence was installed with full awareness of this ordiiumce and the violation of it. The ordinance further states that any fence, no matter how large, may not knowingly impede an established wildlife trail. Clearly this fence is in violation of that portion of the ordinance as well. It is my belief that this neighbor was fully aware of that violation as well. He did tell me that it was the restriction of the doer in his yard that was one of the main purposes of the fence installation. It is my understanding that the purpose of the upcoming hearing is to consider a waiver of this ordinance to allow this newly installed fence to stand as is. I do not understand an ordinance that is either not enforced or easily allows a resident to obtain an exception, especially in this case after the fact. It was my understanding that an exception should be granted prior to an act, not after a violation. It is my opinion this exception should not be granted because of its clear violation to the ordinance. I do not think this residence should be allowed any special consideration because of expecse incurred. I believe he installed it with full knowledge hoping that this path would not be required to allow the fence. Furthermore, the wildlife trail restriction has forced the deer to reroute their normal path. This has caused them to feed more frequently on the vegetation in my yard as well as spead more time there in general. This has created a heavier maintenance burden on myself for clean up and plant replacement. Lastly, and I know that this is not necessarily relevant to this hearing or your decision, this fence is in violation of our mutual property line. The fence was not installed where we had mutually agreed upon even after multiple meetings and review of my survey. I am :still considering legal action regarding this matter but decided when I became aware of this hearing, that I would wait for the planning commission decision before I pursued further. It is my hope that your decision will support the txisting ordinance. Thank you in advance for considerati 18 years. and opinion. I have lived at this residence for over ~~P • nnnn-~ ~ ~r THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~~ 000014 }. ~~ File No. F-01-01 S.• 13651 Pierce Road Attachment 3 PHOTOGRAPHS EXISTING FENCE TREATMENTS. , -- _____- -_ _ Left: Newly constructed wrought iron fence. • • Left: Existing wood fence. Left: Existing chain link fence. File No. F-01-O15.• 13651 Pierce Road PHOTOGRAPHS, CONTINUED • • Left: View of iron fence from Quarry Road. Left: Calabasas Creek after heavy rainfall. ~I m rn m ~. m > T N D D P m , 9. T. o ~. a V, D O ~, m 0 ° rn o $- ~ m 77 v ~ b. o ~ D Z cn O W I .P y C ro m O w a ca;. e: c~~ tgs spe ^;S ~€ 9c. ~.~ :Rg iFb '•° m>NE P'P l maw ['7o u~~ ac aw a'jw~ a , a 3 ~o S m a . ~~ r a ~ oa~r ' ° y~ ~- Y oAyln yp wAR' aZn ~ 71 .asap .oa $' gz~1 ~ K07 s~ 0 F ~' O v: O a ;,~, C~ ~ ~ t a a 1 /l'. ~~ lam/ ~~ 93 ~o f f,y `' _ ~v __ '/ // Y O _ ~ \ ~\ ``~ ~. \ A .____-1 ~ L~ ` BET s-. H c ~ _ ..~- / ~ _, ..- -_. \ ~ ^\i .. _ / - ~ t ~~~ ~ ~C % .-~^~ \o~., - _ __.. ~ \.f~- -mac--° ~ /~~~ ~;i~,tg~ '~~-~)~~'`~~~~~\. \\~~ ,~; l ~~.`~ ~ moo; ~_ ~ -J e 1 ° ~` ~~ \\\i~. ~~\ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ! /' " -- \\ ~ ~~~~t- ~. \_ ~ ~ - ~' , ~c~~~ ~%~~ 'c"G°/ .\' \~ ~ ~~~~~_ ~,~/1~_ ire\/ `Q.,\ ~~,~aq _~>,~\ `` \..q ~`\\ \\ ~ .. ___ `\ /~y ~` ~ [1,_. ° ~ _. - - fI~ -.~~~ ~ i/ ~d'3 s7 cry' `ii} p~ ~`. \, •I ~' ~o ; ~ S.~'\ \~\-- ~,0 _ "'C/ ~ ', ~ ~~t.~\ \ I ` \ ^~ i~l~i, i l ~ le < P l o o P ~ $ ~~ j \ a Z ~.~>n ~ \ `'v' u ~l ~ 4 ~ AEI ~ \ . ~~° ~i 1 ~ ~!. a { ~/ / ~/ ~ o ~~~/f / ~ y~ ~~~ J :1 •1. I ~ J- _ ~\ ~/ moo: ,~.s~ _~~' I w, ~I I S A 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ // .-' 14 -'~ I ~ \ a ,~ ~ ;' . e M o~ ~. \'. '~;i :; / / ° •• ~ .• - e . \ `~ ~,., ; ,,I r i /~ `~ -i '- ~ g .g.,~. / _, ~ ` - ~_ ' \ - -' , ,% _ __ _.. ~,_.r-- . _. N•-J _ \ ~, (~ v 1 - 4 -~-5----~--- - oo 52Z' >; n o z z f z .. a O y n 2 z n 1. I '~~ ~~'~'~~I1 i ,~ ~ ~l ~ N ; C ~ ~ ~~1~~ 9 ,~ Qp ~ ppv~ y a~ -~ ~ ^ Z ~ i Y. E y Q a~ ~~ A a < :~ ~ ~ ~ ~< 3~~ y r ~ C Zx ~ n V < 1 m ~~ ,: o ~J I~ ~- z '-< m n ~ C d ~ C G~ C ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ ~n ~' o ~ y ~~ U ;~\ < xZ~;-~ ~~ --- , ~° ~' ~ ~ o ~v''~~ 4, ~' o R Y _ ~ s . ?' a Z o ~ ~. ° a % .~`' /r °/CRC[ 'z' `~ a y 2 ~ .. w n .. N ~~ (( Z C C s .'.~~ ~E ~- Rn tie •' 4 u yy..,, \ ~ ~ N A ~ E v 3 ,>: ~ w w ~ °.^ it A '\ YS• ,$ v ~ ~ ~ , C I ~, ,_.,~ -- _ ~ yy O ~ 11 ~ _ r3 1 y N^~ 3 ~. ~ ~, a ~,~= ~ N ~ y ~~ W n ~ A - O N ~~Rr ~ d ° tr..r ~ / - •, ''~,~ ~,,.,~ ~~ y°''q f !b w N ~ ~ g ' y •~ ~ y 4 `. F s ~r '~ ' ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ Q y ~ ~ G ` .... II H .~ ~ O ~~` _ S ~~. `~~ b+ N ~~ w S ` ~ . ~° ~~. \ ...~ .~~\~J J ~ ~_ ~ _ j ~ ~au J . J U ~~ N L O o m o m '~ ~ m .0 Z "~ 4 0 ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 14625 Fruitvale Avenue/DR-00-059 Wendell W. Roscoe/Venkat and Anjana Kalkunte John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~ p~~ December 12, 2001 397-17-012 Department Head: ~, 1-f VLJ 1 1{.11 {. ~' 0.1t. 1 ~ Y t.ill.at. nnnnn~ t CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1U27/00 10/9/01 1U28/Ol 1U28/Ol 1U23/Ol The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to construct a new 6,048 square foot, two-story residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 2,000 squaze foot home and 2,400 square feet of accessory buildings. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 42,011 square feet and is located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00-059. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-00-059 with conditions 2. Ciry Arborist Report 3. Report from the Historic Architect 4. Package from applicant including colored elevation, plans, letters from neighbors, letter from applicant, solar energy documents, and herb garden description, marked as Exhibit °A° • nnnnn~ File No. DR-00-OS9;146ZSFizritvaleAvenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 42,011 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 630 cubic yards of cut and 7S0 cubic yards of fill. 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. IS A ONS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMM SION CTI On October 9, 2001, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the removal of the existing house from the City of Saratoga's Historic Resource Inventory and gave a positive recommendation for proposed house to the Planning Commission for Design Re~~iew. .In order to remove the house-from the.Historic Resource Inventory staff had a local Historic Architect that specializes in reviewing historic properties, prepare an extensive report re~~iewing the historic significance of the property. The conclusion of the report found that the existing structure was not of historical significance and would not qualify for the National Register of Historic Places or be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (see attached Historic and Architectural Evaluation). During the initial meetings with .the HPC, concerns were raised about the originally , proposed metal standing seam roof and the loss of the herb garden. In response to these ' comments, the applicant changed the roof material to a slate roof and hired a Horticulturist to preserve the herb garden (see attached letter from the Horticulturist). MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be beige color stucco, with stone accents. The window trim and railing will be painted an olive color. The roof will be a gray slate roof. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. P:~Planning~John L~FruitvaleAve 14625SRdoc nnnnn-~ File No. DR-DO-059; 146ZSFruitvaleAvenue Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Patios, Pool and Walkways TOTAL (Impervious Surface) First Floor Second Floor Garage Pool House (Basement) TOTAL Front Rear Left Side (Exterior) Right Side Residence Detached Garage PROJECT DISCUSSION Neighborhood No~catron Proposal Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35% 35% 3,289 sq. ft. 5,479 sq. ft. 8,768 sq. ft. 14,704 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 3,289 sq. ft. 1,787 sq. ft. 704 sq. ft. 268 N/A 6,048 sq. ft. 6,060 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Garage 35 ft. 30 ft. House 80 ft. 66 ft. 20 ft. 60 ft. 25 ft. 22 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. In addition to the standard noticing conducted by the City, the applicant has contacted each of the surrounding neighbors (see attached letters). Staff has received no negative , correspondence from neighbors as of the writing of this staff report. ' Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,076 square foot, two-story residence with a 704 square foot detached garage and a 268 square foot pool house for a total of 6,048 square feet of structure. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 2,000 square foot house and 2,400 square feet of accessory buildings. The • • P ~Planning~John L~FruitvaleAvc 14625SRdoc File No. DR-00-059; 14625FiuitvaleAvenUe maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 42,011 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood consists of both one andtwo-story residences with varying azchitectural styles. Directly across the street from the project on Fruitvale Avenue are two-story Mediterranean style homes. The first two homes on Farwell across from the site are single story ranch and the third home is a more traditional French design two-story house with a stucco exterior. The proposed design of t1•ie home is consistent with other new homes being built throughout the community with the slate roof, stucco exterior siding and stone accents. The proposed home is unique with its semi circulaz design azound the giant Oak tree near the center of the property. The homeowner has worked with the City Arborist to preserve this tree and build the home around the tree leaving the tree as the center of attention. The proposed project implements the following ResidentialDesign Guidelines policies. • Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be built in the center of the lot in approximately the same location as the existing house. The house will be surrounded by mature trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public right-of-way. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will breakup the elevation of the building. The roof will be a slate material that will blend in with the substantial tree canopies that surround the parcel. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows and stone accents. The beige color with olive trim will further blend the home into the existing landscaping. • 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 a beige color with olive trim to blend the proposed house in with the surrounding environment. The house will also have natural stone accents on the facade and on the proposed three-foot tall fence along the property lines that face the roadways. • 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, close to the center of the lot. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. The lot is flat, and the proposed home will be located in the center of the lot surrounded by mature trees. • Policy 5, "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 P:~Planning~John L~Fcuitvale Ave 14625 SRdoc nnnnnc File No. DR-00-059; 14625FruitvaleAvenue house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The applicant is also proposing the use of solar panels as an alternate source of electricity for the home. Detached garage The -applicant is proposing a detached garage with a height of approximately 15 feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 12-feet, or up to 15-feet with Planning Commission approval if the following findings can be made: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the proposed accessory structure meets the above findings in that the proposed style and pitch of the garage roof will help it relate to the main structure. The decorative dormers and windows on the garage will give it the appearance of a residential structure from Farwell Avenue. There are three other detached garages on Farwell and one on Fruitvale Avenue. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have a detached three-car ; 04 sq. ft. garage. Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees from the site. The house has been designed around a very large Oak tree in the front yard of the proposed home. The applicant has worked closely with the City Arborist during the design process to ensure that the large Oak tree and all of the other trees survive the construction. The applicant has all ready implemented some of the Ciry Arborist recommendations for tree care. In order for the trees to survive, the Arborist has made specific recommendations including a tree bond for replacement of any trees that are damaged. The City Arborist report dated May 14, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The arborist's recommendations are conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit of X27,068 is also required as a condition of project approval. , Fireplaces The applicant is proposing two gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace in the family room. • P.~Plannin~John L~FtuitvaleAvc 14b25 SRdoc !1!1!1!1!1! File No. DR-00-059; 14625FruitvaleAvenue • Correspondence No correspondence was received on this application at the date the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission except what has been included as part of the applicant's attached submittal package 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 Secrion 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00-059. • p:~r~~Jo~L~Ns~~~n.~ia6~ssRa~ nnnnn'7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OOUOUH • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-059 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Venkat and Anjana Kalkunte; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,048 square foot residence on a 42,011 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; 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 Bulk" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be built in the center of the lot in approximately the same location as the existing house. The house will be surrounded by mature trees that will reduce the ~~isibility of the home from the public right-of-way. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building. The roof will be a dark -slate material that will .blend in with the substantial tree canopies that surround the parcel. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows and stone accents. The beige color with olive trim will further blend the home into the existing landscaping. 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 a beige color with olive trim to blend the proposed house in with the surrounding environment. The house will also have natural stone accents on the facade and on the proposed three-foot tall fence along ~, the property lines that face the roadways. • 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, close to the center of the lot. • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. The lot is flat, and the proposed home will be located in the center of the lot surrounded by mature trees. _ Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficienry" 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. The applicant is also proposing the use of solar panels as an alternate source of electricity for the home. 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 Venkat and Anjana Kalkunte 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 December 3, 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 res~isions: b. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. c. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. The maximum height of the garage shall not exceed 15-feet, and the house 26-feet, as measured from the natural grade per Section 15-06.340. nnnn~ n S. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yazd 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. Prior to issuance of the building permit or demolition permit the grading and construction drawings shall be reviewed by the Ciry Arborist. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 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 May 14, 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). 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. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, Ciry of Sazatoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, l6-60-E.) 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed ~' installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 16. Driveway shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 21'. CITY ATTORNEY 17. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry 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 v~~ith respect to the applicant's project. 18. I~TOncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the ~~iolation, 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 15-90 of the Saratoga ~~ Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of December 2001 by the following roll call vote: • • AYES: -NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Acting Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date nnnn~ -~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000014 ''"', ~" BARRIE D. ~c.:OATE Attachment 2 and ASSOCIATES - Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 REVISIONS TO OUR . TREE SURVEY.AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY 14625 FRUTTVALE AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Phil Block Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 14, 2001 Job # l 2-00-307-01 ,. D C~C~C~~dC~ ~~`; MAY 2 2 2001 ~=~ CITY OFSAR^,fr~i :. COMII;U':-T5' lid': ~"..:....af 000015 ~- -- REVISIONS'rU OUR TREE SUKVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIrIDVDATIONS A ~ THI: KALIQJNTE PROPi•7tTY. 14621 FRUiTVALE AVE. SARATOGA Assign meat .` At the request of Phil Block, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home with several out buildings, and to construct a new home with a detached garage, a pool house, a gazebo, and a swimming pool 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 l6 trees to some risk by construction. No trees are planned to be removed by implementation of this design, but several trees would be severely damaged by proposed features of this plan. Design modifications are suggested. Replacements which equal the values of removed trees, if any, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that- would be expected, but additional ~` procedures may be required pending design revisions. A bond equal to 40% the value of tree # l 1 is suggested combined with a bond of 20% the total value of all the other retained trees in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are 12 trees located on this site, 3 trees located on the adjacent property toward the west, and l tree located in the public right of way on Fruitvale Avenue that are at risk of damage by proposed constnlction. 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 16 trees are classified as follows: Trees # l , 2 Blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atluntica 'Glauca') Tree #3 Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) , Tree #4 Silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanlhemos) Tree #5 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #6 Persimmon (Diospryos virginiuna) Tree #7 Black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees #8, 14 Valley oak (Quercus lobate) Trees #9, 1 l Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ~` Tree # 10 European olive (Oleo europeu) Tree # ] 2 Avocado (Persea americans) PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBURIST May 14, 2001 n~nnn~ ~ REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIluIENDAI'IONS A7 ~ THE IUU.KUNTE PROPERTY. 14625 FRUTf VALE AVE., SARATOGA ` Tree # 13 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # 15 Weeping Deodaz cedar (Cedrus deodara Pendula') Tree # 16 Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis ZCaizuka') 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. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition, to aid with planning. . Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S imens S imens S imens S imens l , 2, 8, 9, 11, 3, 6, 14, 15, 16 5, 7, 10 _ __ 4, 12 0 l3 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 aze 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. Mitigation is recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties which would be affected by this activity must be treated as exceptional regardless of condition. Coast live oak (~uercus agrifolia) tree #11 is by far the largest specimen on site. Tree # 11 has a trunk diameter of 50.5-inches DBH (diameter at 4 %2 feet above grade). its height is about 50 feet and its spread is 100 feet. The canopy is dense for a tree this mature. Tree # l 1 has no major branch failures, but has a low branching canopy. Some of the lower branches are near horizontal, and for some branches their vertical clearance from the ground is only a few feet. For instance, the vertical clearance of a large branch on the west side at 44 feet from the trunk is only about 7 feet above ground. Tree # l 1 has at least fifteen cables throughout the canopy to support the horizontally inclined branches. It appears that many of these cables have been installed as a precaution, because as stated earlier, no major branch failures have occurred. Large wounds would have left large scars. No large scars are observed. The fact that the tree has rather extensive cabling does not necessarily mean that the tree has an inherently weak structure or that multiple wealoiesses exist. In my opinion, it appears that at least some of the cables may have been Installed simply to ease the mmd of the previous owner(s). PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTff[ED CONSULTING ARBORIST May 14, 2001 nnns~~s ~ REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIv)ENDATIONS A, 3 TF-)E KALKtTNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUnvALE AVE., SARATOGA A large bark injury is seen on the east side of the trunk of tree #11. This injury is .) 23-inches wide and 4 feet above grade. The bark in this area has been recently removed in this area and has been cleaned. This wound has been left open to dry, which is the best course of action. No other symptoms that would indicate the cause of this wound are apparent. Because of this and because of the trees fine health, this wound does not significantly compromise the health or structure at this time. Tree # 1 l has had a large area under its canopy leveled and covered by granite chips. The area surrounds the trunk and extends from the center of the trunk for approximately 25 feet toward the south, for about 30 feet toward the west and the east, and for about 20 feet toward the north. This area has been used by pedestrians extensively apparently for several years. Because of this, the soil in this area is compacted, and as a result absorbing roots in these areas will not be as active or vigorous as normal. In all likelihood the most _ significant quantities of absorbing roots that are vital to this tree's survival are located between the granite chips and the existing house on the north side, between the granite chips and the Farwell Avenue on the south side, between the granite chips and the existing tool shed on the west side, and between the granite chips and the dripline of the canopy of tree # 13 on the east side. I have marked this area on the map. However, this is an estimate based on experience. A more accurate method would be to perform a series of test holes starting at about l 0 feet from the trunk of tree # 11 in search of absorbing roots from this tree. This procedure would be more diicult than most sites because of the quantities of competing plants that exist at this site. Please note that this indicates that a ~f significant portion of the root system of tree # 11, as well as the other mature trees on this site, extends well outside the dripline of the canopy. The roofline of the existing house is located 34 feet from the trunk of tree # 11. The tree has been pruned in past years to prevent branches from striking the roof of the existing house, which extends over the roof line for about 43 feet from the trunk. Impact of Construction No trees are directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, many of the construction features would jeopardize the health and safety of several of the trees on this site and some of the trees on the adjacent property. In preparation for a meeting with Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Architect, Mr. and Mrs. Kalkunte, owners and Mr. Phil Block, Planner, the footprint of the proposed residence had been staked. Having observed this, it does not appear that the footprint of the proposed new residence is in conflict with any of the branches of tree # 11, although some branches would be very close to the proposed roofline. The area between the existing house and the gravel area beneath the canopy of tree # 1 l is in all likelihood a very sensitive area containing significant quantities of the absorbing roots. It will be essential to provide a platform buffer for protection of the absorbing roots in this area during construction, which would be the. south side of the proposed new .~ residence. This area is sloped and for this reason, it will be difficult to keep a platform buffer in place during construction. Sections of the platform buffer will have to be tied PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTffIED CONSULTING ARBORIST May 14, 2W t nnnn~Q REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMF]JDATIONS Al 4 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUrrVALE AVE.. SARATOGA to ether ands iked to the soil to event sli a of the latfonm buffer. It will not be g P Pr PPS P feasible to grade this area to prevent the platform buffer from being on a slope. In this same area, there exist many plants, which will be removed It will be essential to remove these plants without significantly disturbing this soil containing the absorbing roots of tree # l 1. This can be achieved by cutting off the stems of the plants at grade and leaving the roots intact. At 44 feet west of the trunk of tree #l 1, the vertical clearance of branches is only about 7 feet, which would not provide sufficient clearance for the proposed driveway. To achieve adequate clearance at this location, at least one 12-inch diameter limb would have to be removed. The loss of a branch this size would cause a wound which would result in a cavity which would typically weaken the parent branch. Because large wounds on mature trees such as tree # 11 are not covered with new tissue quickly (thus, to prevent infection) a cavity is usually the result, which would weaken the remaining branch that later may break and result in further infection. It may be possible to use a cable to raise this limb. There must not be a grading cut in the area proposed for a driveway under the canopy of tree # l 1. Should a grading cut occur, the absorbing root loss would no doubt be severe. To prevent this occurrence, the driveway surface and all of the materials used as a base must be constructed completely on grade. If this requires that the elevation of the proposed new garage must be raised, then this modification in the design must be done. The proposed pathway to the new entry of the residence must be constl acted on top of the existing grade to prevent significant root loss to tree #11. The proposed grading to provide drainage around the backside of the garage would result in significant but not severe root loss to neighboring trees #7, 8, and 9. No grading, excavation, trenching, or surface scraping closer than 15 feet from the trunks of these -three trees should be allowed if they are expected to survive in good condition for the long-team. The proposed grading for drainage adjacent to trees #5, I S and 16 would severely damage the root systems of these~three trees. The root damage to tree #4 would be fairly minor. Trees #15 and l6 would require a minimum clearance of l2 feet and tree #5 would require a minimum clearance of I S feet as described in the previous paragraph. All of the trees on site are at risk of significant root damage, broken branches, and bark injuries by equipment used during demolition of the existing structures and by removal of the existing driveway. Trees # 1 and #2 are particularly at risk of severe root loss by removal of the existing driveway. The soil directly beneath the existing driveway no doubt has significant roots from both of these trees that must be preserved. PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ May 14, 2001 REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIulENNDATIONS A7 5 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUiTVALE AVE., SARATOGA The water meter is located on the east side of tree #2. If a new water main line or if any ~` other underground utilities must be constructed the existing trees may be exposed to significant root loss. 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: l . 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 excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape imgation. 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. . 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 8. 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. No grading cuts-must be made to.construct the proposed driveway. Fill materials may be used but no grading cuts may be made. I suggest that the driveway surface be constructed of pervious materials and that this construction meet the following requirements: -materials must be applied on the existing grade; -if fill is used, fill soil must contain less than l0% clay; -base materials must contain no granite fines; -compaction must not exceed 80%; -edging must be on-grade by pier and beam method. All of these conditions must be met completely if the affected trees are expected to survive. ~~ This implies that the elevation of the footings, the garage floor, and the building structures may require elevation redesign to achieve these objectives. PREPARED BY: I~DCHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST Mai 14, 2W 1 REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIvIlvlENDATIONS A'I 6 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, !4625 FRUrfVALE AVE., SARATOGA 2. Tree # l 1 must not be pruned to accommodate the proposed driveway or the proposed residence. If supports must be used to elevate the low branching on the west side of the canopy to achieve the required clearances between the driveway surface and the branches, the steel post supports must be permanent and they must be constructed with as Little disturbance to the existing soil as possible. 3. Plants that exist between the existing house and the existing gravel patio under the canopy of tree # 1 I must be removed by hand by cutting the stems that ground level and leaving the root systems in the ground. 4. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the foundation of the proposed house and the protective fence for root protection of tree # 11. A platform buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by l 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. - 5. The proposed pathway to the entry of the new house must be constructed completely -~ on the existing grade, with the exception of steps, which will require some excavation in order to create treads. 6. The drain lines for discharge of down spouts must be trenched within l foot of the proposed footing of the new house. 7. There must be no grading within 15 feet of the trunks of trees #5, 7, 8, 9 l 5, or 16. 8. This site will require that protective fence be provided in at least two phases. a. demolition phase b. construction phase 9. I recommend that a plan showing existing structures and features be provided in order to indicate the locations in which protective fencing would be required during the demolition phase. 10. 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 l 8-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. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIIED CONSULTWG ARBORIST Mey 14, 2001 REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOItRuItTIpATIONS AT 7 7"FiE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 1462 FRUITVALE AVE., SARATOGA ~/ 11. I recommend that the existing driveway, the existing planter box structures, and any other features within 20-foot of the trunks of trees # I and 2 must be removed by hand. - 12. I further recommend that this 20-foot section (from the trunks of trees # l and 2) of the existing driveway be demolished last. This would be after the existing house, the existing green houses and sheds, and after the remainder of the existing driveway has been removed. This would preserve the root systems located under the existing driveway of trees #l and #2 during demolition. 13. Existing underground pipes that exist within the driplines of the existing trees must not be pulled or torn out of the ground. Where these pipes are found as described they must be cut and left in the ground. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Immediately following the removal of the existing driveway within a 20-foot radius of trees # l and 2, the.exposed soil must be covered with 3 inches of wood chips in order to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. The wood chips must be spread immediately following demolition (i.e., within 1-2 hours) the spreading must be by hand and the area must be thoroughly wet down. 17. I recommend that the removal of the existing sheds under the canopies of trees #7, 8 and 9 be done by hand. Further, the existing meditation pavilion under the canopy of tree # 1 l must also be removed by hand. No vehicles must travel beneath the drip lines of these trees during or after demolition. l S. Following the removal of the existing sheds, especially those sheds under the driplines of trees #7, 8 and 9 and of the meditation pavilion (under the dripline of tree # 11), the exposed soil must be immediately covered with a full 3-inch layer of coarse of wood chips, which must be spread over the entire area that is disturbed. Any areas where the existing shrubs and perennials are removed within the driplines of trees must also be completely covered with a fu113-inch layer of coarse wood chips. Spreading of the wood chips at all locations must be done by hand Also, removal of shrubs and perennials must be done by hand. No vehicles must travel under the ~~ canopies of any tree. PREPARED BY: IvIICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTWG ARBORIST Mey 14, 2001 REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC01.9uiENDATIONS AT 8 . THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUITVALE AVE., SARATOGA 19. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 20. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 2l .Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of. trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 22. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to atrunk-than I S 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, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than l 0 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. Bender board or slmllar edging matenal 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. I suggest that herbicides must not be sprayed to kill understory plants if 20% or more of the tree's total root zone would be affected. As an alternative, I suggest that undesired plants be mowed or cut to the ground, and the cut surfaces of the stems of larger plants may be painted with herbicide. Trees can absorb herbicides after being sprayed via the soil, but trees are not known to absorb herbicides from plants of different species. 29. Inspections of the installed fences, activity areas beneath the canopy of tree # l 1 with platform buffers and trenching for services should be scheduled. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTffIED CONSULTING ARBORIST May 14, 2001 ~- REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIvIEI~ATIONS AT 9 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUrrVALE AVE., SARATOGA -- _ ~M Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Tree # l 1 has a value of $38,919. I suggest a bond equal to 40% ($15,568) of the value of tree # 11 combined with a bond of 20% ($11,500) of the total value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum Califonnia buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully subm ~ d, Michael L. Bench, Associate .~~~~_~ Bame D. Coate, Principal. ~~ MLB/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Root Renovation • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST May 14, 2001 N .Q O r Q OJ t6 H vi m d i~l Tl Q O d ~+ >~ .Q 0 .., H 0 IrL) uraOlaa T-~a = - T/AO~J a1311rIGJ3a ~ ~ ° w7 7 ° N ~ ° ~ O 7 10 7 ° ~ 1O ~ ° N ` ~ ° E ~ > ~ > > > ~ > > ~ > a~nua~ SQ33N N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~L) a31dM SQ33N ^ w r w ^ ~ w u (s-L) 3SK3S10 ad71o~ loos m m m $ ° A (s-L) aaaanoo ad7'}O~ loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a x x x x x x x a a (, L)AKJ3a ~Nflal m ~ (S-L) OOOM Od30 $ N $ ~ m ~ v O N N O N a (S-L) 3Sd3SIO NMOa~ 33a1 N N N N N N (S L) $1.' 3S`NI Y tl 11 0 Y 11 p (S-L) ~u.raorad :NIUNfiad p p O O O p~ b O O O 10 A m • U3Q33N SHl9Y..1 D ~ ~ C $ C $ G $ ~ ~ C Z 1H`JI3M~N3 3AOW3a s = X X X X X X X o °JNISIIRJ NMOaO V a 5 NOI1daO1S3a NMOaO d `?NINNIHI NMOa~ O N O ~ N N O O N N N ~ N N M JNINd31~ NMOaO r w u r ^ w 11 (6-£) JNilda 4adZVH g ~ o ° g ° g I l n c -; - (OL-Z) ~JNllda NOWONOO N °~ N a e~ o w W O °~ v ~ ,~ ~ _ y t~ V U V {Z ~ t~ C ° (s-L) 3anlOnaas ~ o N ~ Q e ~ a ~ •~ ~ a x x x x x x x (S-L) H1ld3H N N Od3adS O f N N q f a> N O < m n O N N ~ O eo a7 N O N N O N N ~ to O /~ m N M . 1H~J13F1 /NO ~ N N p n N m _ N ~ N ~ N C 133j ~ aaiawvla N r N r N r m 11 r r ~ ` w) U N w ~ E HBO c c c c c c c M r O A O A ~ _ d 0 HBO N N X N N X O ~ N N X N N X N N X O O ~ N X ~ N X 1'r31SAS-I1lf1YY x x HBO O N b_ f ~ONy ~ O O m ~ N O ~ N N O N ~ f O ^ ~ O ~ ~ N < < ... 4 ~ e a e q o e .~ .. vs ~ ~ ~ _e _ d .... ~ a m _~ ~ ' d n ~ ~ ~ `. ~ ~ ~ U wl g ~ a ~ `~ ~ wt 0 ~c ~ ~ $ ~ ~ E O o m (> > t~ ~ W °Ip v ~ '~ m m 3 m n. r N A ~ b w1 1~ C ~ o a O 3 ~ n f-F W I r+ , ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~n ~ ~ ~ a~~~~ a ~~~ o~ _,o i N w~ O ~~ - Q a .--1 ets .~ ~" ~D eM P-I a i.n '~ .G O h1 d ~.1 .Yi V, .a 0 -1 l,rL) uwolad 'fvno~ea e ~vnow3a aNawwoa3a ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ m ~ N ~ aazrnla~ SO33N ~ " O N N F F F N N ~ N ~ (S L) a31VM Sa33N r u a a ^ n x (S-L) 3Sd3S1O aKiIOO lOOa ° m ° ~ o m m m m m (S-L) O3a3A00 aVll00lO0a ~ B X x x X X x x 0 e (S-L) QOOM 41/j0 v N ° ~ ° N --- o ~ r v a (S-l) 3SV3SIO NMOa'J 33a1 b N O w l7 f N N P N h N (g-L) S~Syp n u u e r u u lS-L) ALaOlad JMNnad o °o ~ ^ g $ °o a v X 03O33N S319b'J o Z ~ tS $ $ $ ~ s 4 1H J13M-ON3 3J~OYIT3l1 c ~ x X x x x x x a ° JNISMa NMOaO v o 5 c NOLLV!lO1S32! NMOMO o ~+ - N ~ O O N -- a JNINNIHI NMOa'J N ° ~ ~~°ppD N N N 19 N JNINH3l0 NM021'J a u Y N a u x (6f) `JNI1Va ORIdZVH l~ °o ~? o° ~ g o °o ~ 0 ° 0 ^ o c r (Ol-Z) JNllt/a NOILONOO ~" m N ~ < ~ ~ a ° W N ~ ° ~ 9 ~ V (~ f~ V V U __-_ V C ° U (s-L) 3anlOnaJ.S e e ~ r N m a m m e m X X X X X X X (S-l) H1lM3H avaads v" ~ °v H n g - ~ ~ N N n v f - N h O_ b ~ N ~ m " 1H`JI3H l7 N N N N N 100 N N N Q N N N 177a u0Y aal3wvla ^ p N n N p n II ~ n N II N II E ~ ~ HBO c e c e ^_ m c e c o o b c e c - m c - m a HBO ^ N ^ N ~ ~ N ^ N °~ n N n W ~ N X X X X X X X YIf31SJlS-IllfirY x x HBO O m N O N O- ~ O ^ m m ~ N $ O ao ~ O N ~ O N Y ~ N < < W i/J e e e m e 0 < ~, ~ ~ m ~ E V V ~ ~ ° c~ 2 ~ ~ e ~ g ~ m ~~~ s oe o ~ o ~ ~ ~. '~ ^ ~ e ~ O o v °' ~e ~ 7 ~ Q ~ ea ~ ~ m U O _ ~ W 0 ~ t C7 < j at O O O N Of ~ O ~i a , O 6~ 3 a vFi Lr] !'~ •i ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Ey~~. ~~~~~` ~~5~8 a~~~~ 0 0 . ~ .~-~ r+ O 0 .-, tv 9 Q 47 ..-/ 7 .. .O ~' '~ b Q O .-, a, I .~ 0 ~--~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ld/Ww321 aN3wY~ N ~ ~ r Y a3z11LLa3~ sa33N ~ ~ oc (SL)2131dMS033N • • (Sl) 3Sd3S10 2M10010021 o (,-L) Q32l3A00 214110010021 X a x a (SL)Ad03Q ~Nf12l1 e (SL) 000M 4430 ~ p N N eo d lSl) 3Sd3S10 NM0210 33211 (SL) S103SN1 • • (SL) AJJ2101?Jd ~JNINf12ld ~ r i 03033N S318d0 ° 1H~JI3M-ON3 3AOW321 e q °JNISId21 NM0210 ~ NOLLdilO1S321 NM0210 c d ~JNINNIHI NM02l0 M N ONINd3l0 NM0210 • • (6-£1 ~JNLLd2102MdH c - (Ol-Z) °JNLLd21 NOLLlON00 ~ a N q v u v c ° V (SL) 321f110f12LLS r> e X X (S-L) H11d3H ad3ads R ~ R ~ ~ a 1HJ13H o 0 w e ~ 133 t® 2l313WM0 ~ ~ • m ~ • _ E ~ ° e H90 o ~ e o Fi ~ H90 X c X w3ts~s-LLinw x Hea m R o ~ ~j W ill ~~ 0~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q M!~ 2 n+ aZ s ~ ~' C S ~ ~ ~ a a W~ ~ O C oe = ~ 2 °~° i° = b m Y E- ~^ O ~" 3 ~, u ~ "r ~~ ~o~~ ~~~~ ~ a ~ r > xx ~ 1ff ~ N ~' .~+ en ~epf g 1" 8 O Z ~ ~ ui ~~~~~ U r r r Q r X +X X Lil ~ Q' ap N OG1nNd'h ~ooO~~ • D _'y r•••• '}p' L9~ / .•+•• 1 , ~ . I'J. • Mai...... \ • 1 ~ ~- - ~ ~.l ~• •I .. - ~/ j Protecti~•e Fencing s ~ ~.. I i•"~ .~ V Dwine Construction / ; Phase .~„~ , { --.-._. ' • • ~ ~ ~ - Ir.~~ ~ r -_-\n,f It...v .r he~.mn~nr..n~.. ' ~ ~~ i .oela of - 1~Ihe Aal\unlt lt.t`+r.. lll~`•In~~r.a„\.. I )bli.l[G.aRACae ~ 'i ~- 1~ 23335 aummrt RwJ Itnwol u. lea! r R ~ r~ ~ lGS W tns, U 95033 ~ ~`i:`:~~ Protective Fencing ----------~~ .;s[: 4:~ ~ .•1 Vn4Ra 1'Nnnm~• IM•. '~'~'~ ~+~'rY NORTiCLLTLRAt CONSl1lTANT I`al. lanuan ll• '(w': _ MM a-' 1~` .i'- [ONSUlT1NGAR80RLST vi: .taw..: .nar•- ~- . ~ . , ' : ........ .......... ....... ....- Y 7 ¢e wml+ers wrtespurd to eralualnrn ch.vl> VDM RL.I W'F r ..~•::: •+• :~ •, ~'~~', .:~~ :..~ ~ ~.`~. ~ , :'.:...y.....:• . • :•': ': ': '. ,.: All dimensions eM lnt: k.calan. r' ::.:::::::::::::: 1~ ti; ; . ' lue appmzieule. • ~~:• ;.(H)/AKDDRMdAY •: :::••~••~• G r t Z ...I .. PARRY 1~ lf1ATi ANI~Nt1~l IATI• 1.~•_. ... `. .Il. • r,l.o..wn.wr. .~.~'...'... ':1~'f' ~ : ~ • ( ~ -.>n w.nrna z• .ro wuo 1 A w,,.. _ r 1 ~L ` 5 ~ t'ii ~+ - nriD ~.mf on Rf c.^w,l~, ti` .c \ ~\ i. ~J 1 OIK 1 f tI1Clllp ~'. . • r .. •.• • •• ~/a~ ` ex / t%~ f ~ f, / : /= ~ ~ y j al~~ Estimated ~ . I ~ ~ • i ~ r ~~. Root Zone / ~ / ~ s lg ;~ ~ Of ~ '~ , j ~ ~~~ ~ Protective l:encing t Tree X11 / - ~ If Retained s 1 I ~ I ~ Protective Fencing ••. / ~ : mo..am. J~ •~ ' ~ ~ ~ t i ` ~' Dwing Demolition ~ - ~ °'°~ ~ .•~ '~ y ' & Construction Phase. NI' ~ •~'••• / ~ i ~ ~ Pw ' ~ ~ .,~~_ _'`~ ~T_.. _ y.-~. ~ ~ ~ I r • i , ~~ III ., I I 1 ~~:,~-~ ~ ~y ~~ov/ q e-/It _RnnK ':,,0~ac~+' .r. ... C` -mot .... qe~ ... V \ ~ .-. . . ~, .... ~. ' ~ ~ ~ Protective Fencing ~ ~ ' ' ~ k .~~~~. ~~= T Dwing Demolition Phase ~~ ~'f Opening Between Trees # 1 & 2 ~` Closed by Protective Fencing Daring - - _ - - Construction Phase 000028 • Olive I: 1 ~~ i ~y r... _r.-/ ' 'IfIfi 1 ' II ~r :i ~7 'J~ 7 ~ (E)F IE tPrw REWVE:- - _ - -. y,'. rr 1 ..6 ' lEl Wire 7c ~ -cweanw,uwr `AR`AtAGE -PROTECTIVE FENCING 76e a4 rs ~^~~ 7URSnodpbvEwnr •':ER 5~5'Fu a.Hp _ aro•.• -1'L.L6 r~ . W~ Jow.~pae t31aw rv.(.~d e `op ~ es {o c sA.S 'tdl \h~R.P . - __ free Wve) Md Preaers'auon Reoammendanona Barrie D. Coate 6 Associates At The I:alkume Property. 13623 Fruavle Ase [SOB) 353-1052 23535 Summit Rosd - Prepared fa: Los Gatos, CA 95033 , City of Saratoga. Planning Depr. MORTICULTLRAI CONSULTANT .Date- anua 10,2001 ba12d0.307 CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ Scale: ma reduced (2 ma ) Ttee tlutnbers cotxspond to evaluation charts. Ali dlmeO81Offi eDd [tee btattons ete' LppIO)Umate. BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCUTES NorKUkunl Conwrkants (408) 353~1OSI su (408) 3534138 23535 Summit Rd. lns Gatos. CA 95033 9r 8 I _ a - Drip line of Tree Canopr i -"----------- ProteetiveFemeir~ I . ~ ,. E.. I _ ~_ _ _ __ cwA-,* r .I I " --- ~, (N) nrn RESIOEN~E ,' _ --\ ~ ~ - ~. ~~~ ^ ~ , . 5.070 ae fe • ~Y • - TREE- . ... ' i eEDwt? -r~M,~:E E~RE;.,Rar~t,A`: ~--, Cedar ~ ~ IfRetained I w I _- ' / -' ~ Remove This paving Last ~r.~ l _ ~ By Hand and ~ " ~ _ / Immediately Cover with 3-inches of Wood Chips ~ - _ / Then Immediately Close Fence -_ , 1 / On West & East Sides - ~ sta. ~. t 4 .. • .. • +`r _~ ~ i / ~ ~' _- ~ c.Protective Fencing -. _ ~ __- ~~-- ~ ^^--i ~ ~ ' i 1 t- -ew / - _ ~ 1 During Demolition / ~ Deodar Cedar i Phase ~'.,_ _ -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_-''""-~ • ~ - ~ • Atlas Cedar `) I 'Atlas Cedar'~_ .--~RE.~rElErr,Ar:~Rs _ ~ ^~ a ncEE ` :s L.. _.~. -~~ .... ~. ~ •~ ~ SAS ~ ~ w~^O'C22C-E 7Lnb9~ T~ - ~I ~ - /_ ta• 4~ was ~ ~ FRUftVALE E~UE~ ~~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ • • •/• • • • • • i~r~~~~ ~~ rs ~• ~ ~ ~ fM~ g [ ~ s arzo-« zrn~ ~ t`------------- - - ---; -,a - THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000030 • • Attachment 3 Administrative Draft HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of the Single Family Residence Located at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California • Prepared for: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: DILL DESIGN G~OJP IIU NOKTrI SANTA CKJZ AVFJ~U~ LDS GATOS. CALIfC)KNIA gSU~U (4U8) 7S4-4UIS (4081 ~qq-471S PAX Written by: Leslie A. G. Diit Amber Engle Grady April Halberstadt • October 3, 2001 L' ., - 2~Q1 u C :, ...~ .. ~. ~: d0'dQ31 Historical and Architectural Evaluation . 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INI'RODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3 Qualifications ................................................................:..................................................... 3 Methodology ..............................................:......................................................... .......... 3 Historic Status ..................................................................................................................... 3 Location Map ........................................... ~ ..:................................................................... 4 Historical and Fre-historical Archeology ............................................................................ 5 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .................................. ' ......................................................................5 . `. The Quito Rancho ............................................................................................................... 5 The Farwell Family ....................:................:........................................................................6 Fruitvale Avenue ..................................... ' ... ...................................................................... 6 Farwell Avenue ...........................................!........................................................................ 7 Orchards in Saratoga ........................................................................................................... 7 I PROPERTY HISTORY ..........................................:........................................................................ 7 Saso Herb Garden ........................................~........................................................................ 8 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..................................:..................................................................... 10 EVALUATION FOR SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................ 12 National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................. 13 i California Register of Historic Resources ....:..................................................................... 13 City of Saratoga ................................................:............................................................... 13 Evaluation ...................................................:..................................................................... 14 Potential Impacts .........................................:..................................................................... 15 LITERATURE AND SOURCES CITED AND CONSULTED ................................................... 16 APPENDIX Assessor's Parcel Map -Book 397 Page 17 ..................................................................... 18 County Map, after 1897 ......................................................:............................................. 19 Brainard Map1888 ............................................................................................................ 20 Additional Photos .............................................................................................................. 21 State Recordation Forms (DPR523) • • • n,~ i nPC~~~,~ ~t'i)I IP ~DD~a3iG. - Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 INTRODUCTION Historical and azchitectural reseazch and evaluation of the property located at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, was conducted in August and September of 2001 by the firm of Dill Design Group. John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner for the City of Saratoga, requested this report to accompany a permit for demolition. The property, located on the northwest corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues, is identified as 14625 Fruitvale Avenue. The Assessor's Pazcel Number is 397-17-12. Qualifications Leslie A. G. Dill, Principal of the firm of Dill Design Group, has a Master of Architecture with a certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia. She is licensed in California as an architect. Amber Engle Grady, Preservation Specialist with Dill Design Group, has a Master of Arts with an area of concentration in Historic Preservation from Savannah College of Art and Design. April Halberstadt, a Historian with the firm, has a Bachelor degree in Geography and History from California State University at Haywazd. Ms. Halberstadt specializes in Santa Clara Valley history and historical architecture. Leslie A. G. Dill is listed with the Northwest Information Center as meeting the requirements to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities within the profession of Historic Architect and Architectural Historian in compliance with state and federal environmental laws. Methodology Leslie A. G. Dill, Amber Engle Grady and April Halberstadt conducted a field survey of the subject property in early September 2001. The building and site were examined. Notes on the architecture, characteristic features of the building, and the neighborhood context were made. Photographs were taken of the interior and exterior. Architectural descriptions within this report were written based on these notes and photographs. Additional research was undertaken that included visits to major repositories of-local historic source material. These repositories included the California Room of the Martin Luther King Jr. Main Library, the -archives at San Jose History Park, and the Offices of the Santa Claza County Recorder and Surveyor. This report was prepared utilizing the methodology recommended by the National Park Service, as outlined in Preservation Briefs #17 (Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character), and #35 (Understanding Old Buildings: The Process of Architectural Investigation). - , Historic Status L. Davis of SHPC completed a previous Historical Evaluation for the property in August 1989. The site was subsequently placed on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resources Inventory in 1991. The site is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources. Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,r :' p t ~ •.. ~Y ~ - ,~ Yom- •.M ~. `~t - - _ 1 Y W ,. ., `..~i ---. ~ t - _ ~... .. • .. ~ ~ , ~ ~ i~ - - ~-' -' -- - •~•' - ..w l~ • ~ ~ _ ~ :' P ~~!".~•f _' ~' ~ mot, i i i ` .., SITE .,,r_ ~ _ ~ ~ ..; :, -- ~ ~ ~ t. 7 ~ 1 • f `-` _ Y ` . ~ --. ~~. .` ~ i J ` ~ '. 1 • ~ `. ~.C _-__ ~Jt -._ ,`• .~. ,~~. .ate i t • ff~~ a a. . • •' ~' ~ ~1 1 ... ..G • ~ Location Map Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 5 Historical and Pre-historic Archeology While the first inhabitants of this region were Native Americans of the Ohlone or Costanoan language group, this report is not intended to nor should be used to addresspre-historic issues. Fre-historic investigation, if required, should be undertaken by a qualified archeologist. The historic overview involving the Spanish and Mexican periods of Alta California, as well as the early American site history, is provided to determine the potential for historical resources related to these eras. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The Quito Rancho The first settlement by non-indigenous people in the vicinity of the property at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue occurred in the 1840's. A rancho of three square leagues, over 13,000 acres, known as the Quito Rancho, was granted to Jose Zenon Fernandez and Jose Noriega in 1841. The rancho was located in the western foothills of the Santa Clara Valley and currently includes much of the city of Saratoga as well as property in what are now Cupertino and Campbell. Fernandez and Notiega were related by marriage; Fernandez was Noriega's father-in-law. Both men had come to California in 1834 as members of the Hijar-Padres expedition, originating from Mexico City. The rancho was granted to Fernandez and Noriega by Mexican governor Juan B. Alvarado. Spain's rule over Mexico had ended in 1822. The Mexican government granted most of California's ranchos between 1822 and 1846. In 1844, three years after the Quito Rancho was first granted to Fernandez and Noriega, Jose Noriega ceded all of his interest in his rancho to Ignacio Alviso for 200 head of cattle and 100 sheep. Noriega later died in the wreck of the Natalie, which sank in Monterey. Fernandez became an official of the Mexican government in Monterey and died in 1843. In 1848 Ignacio.Alviso died, and his portion of the Quito grant was willed to his minor grandson, Manuel Alviso. After years of litigation with other Alviso heirs, -Manuel's ownership was confirmed. In 1858, Jose Ramon Arguello, his mother, Soledad Arguello, and his business partner S. M. Mezes became possessors of a large portion of the rancho along the northeast boundaries, including the subject property. The Arguello family is noted for their pioneering establishment of a commercial olive orchard of 81 acres on the Quito Rancho not far from the subject property. Jose Ramon Arguello established this orchard around 1865.Over the years, the Arguello family, who retained .only a small portion of their original holdings, sold off much of the Quito Rancho. The Quito Rancho was the subject of extended litigation over its patent (verification). There were two major points of dispute regarding the Quito Rancho. The northeastern boundary had not been clearly specified or surveyed due to the rugged nature of the terrain. Secondly, a substantial portion of the land had been mistakenly thought to be United States Government property, open to claimants who were willing to farm 160-acre sections of land, and many people settled in the area under that assumption. The claim for title to the Quito Rancho was filed in the United States District Court in October of 1860. Because the northeastern boundary of the Quito Rancho was greatly disputed, American settlers and nnnn~.- Historical and Architectural Evaluation ` 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 6 - ranchers who had bought farm property from the Arguello heirs fought the claim. In August of 1865, 3udge Ogden Hoffinan approved an official survey, and settlers living in the area between the old and newly established northern boundary were notified. They had the choice of re- purchasing their homes or releasing them. A portion of Saratoga, then known as McCartysville and thought to be outside the limits of the Quito Rancho, was affected by the boundary change. (Cunningham: 1967) The Farwell Family During the early years of American settlement, many American settlers claimed 160 acres of "government land," staking their claims and improving the property as required by law in order to have their claims properly verified at a later time. John and Nancy Farwell and their four children were among the early settlers, arriving in San Francisco in 1849 and taking up a claim in Saratoga in 1855. A year later they moved to their Saratoga claim permanently and began farming. John died in 1866; his wife Nancy passed away in 1$85. Fruitvale Avenue formed the eastern boundary of the Farwell acreage. While the two older sons were helping on the family farm, the third son, Franklin Farwell, went to the California mines about 1856 and mined for five or six years. He returned to Saratoga in the early 1860's. His brother Charles drowned in 1864, and his father passed away two years later. Franklin remained to help with the farm until 1871 when he moved to San Frartcisco to engage in business. After his second brother, William, died in 1877, Franklin once again returned to Saratoga and took charge of the orchard operation. (Foote: 1881) Neither of the two remaining Farwell children married. Franklin Farwell and his sister Jennie Farwell continued to live on their ranch until their deaths. The family engaged in raising prunes on their property. Both of the Farwells were very active in local and civic affairs in the Saratoga and Los Gatos area. Franklin Farwell kept a diary of life in Saratoga that is in the collection in the Saratoga Historical Museum. The Farwell home was known as "Bella Vista" and it was one of the most noted estates in the West Valley area at that time. (Saratoga Historical Foundation collection) Over the years, Jennie and Franklin Farwell sold portions of their family's original 160 acres, including the subject property, until less than half (about 70 acres) of their original ranch remained at the time of Franklin Farwel]'s death. Farwell died in 1905 and his sister Jennie Farwell sold the family estate, "Bella Vista," to Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Blaney who had moved to California from Chicago. Fruitvale Avenue (McCall Road, Fruit Vale, Odd Fellows Road) Currently known as Fruitvale Avenue, this two-mile stretch of road connects two major county thoroughfares leading to Saratoga. Property owners in the area petitioned the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for the road in 1860, and a public roadway 40 feet in width was accepted and approved by the Supervisors in 1861. The major property owners who are listed on the petition include the McCalls, S. Sykes, P. Langford, Thomas Gallagher, S. Nordgreen, T. OTools and the Farwells. The early road was known as McCall Road and Public Road 115. It was also called the Odd Fellows Home Road because of the retirement home, known as the Home for the Aged, established by the Intennational Organization of Odd Fellows (IOOF) in 1912. Because of the public access provided by Fruitvale Avenue, property in this area was subdivided and sold earlier than land in many other areas of Saratoga. - Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 7 Farwell Avenue Farwell Avenue, which forms the southern boundary of the subject property, had opened in 1888. Looking for easier access to the post office in Saratoga, residents along Fruitvale asked the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors-for a shorter road between Fruitvale and the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Local residents pointed out that the hill to the top of Fruitvale was very steep and hard on their horses and that it would be better to have a road into town that was not only shorter but was on a level grade. Frank and Jennie Farwell contributed the 40-footright-of--way now known as Farwell Avenue, asking only for the construction of a new fence as compensation. The Supervisors approved Farwell Avenue in 1889. When Farwell Avenue was opened as a public road, the subject pazcel, which was then four acres, became a comer lot. Franklin Farwell had sold this parcel to real estate investor William G. Hawley who specialized in orchard acreage and lived in Willow Glen. Just after Farwell Road was opened, Hawley sold this four-acre orchard in 1889 to J. D. (Daniel) Sutherland (Deeds Bk 111:Pg391). Sutherland is listed in the City Directory as a fruit grower, living four miles west of_Santa Clara. Orchards in Saratoga Around the turn of the century, the owners of this property aze not listed as living in the immediate area. The four-acre parcel was appazently used as part of a fruit drying operation until about 1914, first by A.N. Van Fleet, then by Adair's Dry Yazd. (Davis: 1989) The Santa Clara Valle has a long history of small famil orchards. Early settlers discovered that fruit Y Y growing in Santa Clara Valley was so productive that it was possible to provide handsomely for a family with an orchard property of only four or five acres. With that in mind, the San Jose Board of Trade, later the Chamber of Commerce published many pamphlets for distribution to citizens throughout the eastern United States, encouraging them to come west. The Southern Pacific Railroad was just one organization that advertised the benefits of living in Santa Clara Valley. The San Jose Mercury published a substantial book in 1896 titled Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers which detailed the many virtues of growing fruit in the area. Opening the South Pacific Coast Railroad across the valley through Los Gatos in 1878 was also an impetus to fruit production. Fruit could then move to eastern markets in just a few days. This was the era when co-operative growers' associations were first formed. Several of the largest fruit canning and fruit drying establishments in the county were located in Saratoga. Glen Una / Hume Ranch, one of the largest packing operations in the area, was located just above Saratoga-Los Gatos Road about one-quarter mile from the subject property. Property History 14625 Fruitvale Avenue APN 323-43-029 The earliest owners who occupied the property were the Reverend Merriam B. Davenport and his wife, Mary, who reportedly built the extant house. They acquired the four acres in 1914 (Records - Bk 420:Pg 340) from Robert and Clara L. Lovick, when Mr. Davenport was about 63 yeazs of age, and sold their acreage eight years later. According to the 1989 recordation form, Mr. Davenport was a retired minister nip ~ ncfi~r.~ i~/~~io ~ A!1/l/lnW Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 8 _ and carpenter who built the house using lumber salvaged from the earlier structures on the property. In 1922, the four-acre parcel was sold to Charles H. and Pearl Atkinson. Charles's occupation is listed as "rancher" in the City Directory. In 1936, the Atkinsons divided the four-acre parcel, and sold the subject property, then cone-acre corner lot, to Charles and Lily Wreden. (Records - Bk 777:Pg 510) The Wredens sold it to Harold and Ethel Miller in 1940. (Records - Bk 993:Pg 488) Dr. Harold Miller was Dean of the Department of English at San Jose State University. The Millers developed a garden at the site, focused around a large oak tree. The landscaping consisted primarily of ivy, oleander and some junipers. The Millers were especially fond of tuberous begonias and hung many pots of them from the branches of the oak tree. Neighbors recall that the Millers held a parry in their garden every fall when their begonias were in bloom. Dr. Miller was noted in the neighborhood for carrying on a running battle with the Public Works Department of the Ciry of Saratoga. The oleander hedge that lined his property along Farwell Avenue was so tall that approaching traffic along Fruitvale was obscured. Dr. Miller refused to trim this safety hazard so the City was forced to prune the hedge for him. Harold and Ethel Miller owned the comer parcel at Farwell and Fruitvale from 1940 until 1962, when it was sold to Louis and Virginia Saso for $31,500. (Records - Bk SS l l :pg 606). In a personal interview, Virginia Saso noted that there were a few garden elements within the property from previous owners. At-the front of the yard on the north side, there are remains of a rock wall formation that appears to have been a decorative feature. The junipers that are planted nearby also predate the Saso ownership. Since Farwell Avenue was dedicated in 1889, some landscaping may have been introduced in this area to grace the entrance to "Bella Vista". The Saso Herb Garden For nearly forty years the house and gardens at the corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues have been known as the Saso Herb Garden. This important agricultural enterprise had a wide following due to the pioneering nature of the owners in developing the market for herbs and specialized medicinal plants. Hundreds of local residents attended classes and the Saso family offered workshops. Louis and Virginia Saso both came from agricultural backgrounds. Louis Saso was born in Portland, Oregon of immigrant Italian parents. His father and uncles were ranchers in the produce business. The family relocated to the Santa Clara Valley when Louis was eleven years old. Virginia Saso was raised on a farm near Hollenbeck Road in Sunnyvale. After their marriage, Louis and Virginia Saso lived in the East Bay in order to be closer to their business, the Hayward Wholesale Produce Company. In the early 1960s, the Sasos acquired a campground in Felton, California, that was used as a park for recreational vehicles. Looking toward their retirement years, they decided to buy a home halfway between their coastal property and their business in Hayward. After purchasing the subject property, the Saso family- moved to Saratoga with their seven children in 1962. A prominent landscape feature on the subject property is a native oak on the south side of the house, estimated to be 300 to 500 years of age. The tree has a circumference of nearly fifteen feet and a canopy that measures over a hundred feet. Over the years it has provided a site for horticultural classes, for sunrise worship service, for the weddings of family and friends and for a memorial service for one of the Saso sons. ~„ . ~< < , ,, , ,p,,. ,~ (1(1(1(1'28 ' Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 9 - Louis Saso became interested in herb production in the eazly 1970's. The switch from the produce business to a different type of agricultural production was prompted by a desire to change to a less stressful occupation. Having observed that the production of fresh herbs was an expanding mazket in the Bay Area, the Sasos began production by offering small potted herb plants at local food cooperatives and farmers' markets. Louis Saso's experience in herb gazdening led-to a career as a teacher. At the encouragement of a friend, Saso began offering classes in herb gazdening through the local community college extension program. The first workshop was held at West Valley Junior College in 1975. The program quickly grew so large that the Sasos began an apprentice program in 1984. • • Louis and Virginia Saso added some unique plants of their own to their gazden. There is an avocado grafted to bear fruit during all four seasons and another tree grafted to beaz peaches, plums and apricots. There are pomegranates, Japanese maples, grapevines and berries. There aze reportedly 30 varieties of oregano. An article in the Saratoga News from 5/1/1996 stated there were 1,000 different plants in the garden at that time. - The front yard features gazden beds planted with herbs that aze laid out in a large circle with twelve sections named for astrological signs. Each sectional bed contains the plants appropriate to that particular sign. The astrological gazden was laid out following a pattern that was designed by an English physician- astrologer named Nicholas Culpepper in the early Seventeenth Century. The side yard has an herb bed ,• f- •-- „~ planted with Chinese herbs, framed with F ~ "'~~ 'Y;; a "moon" trellis. The rear yazd contains ~' - +~ several potting sheds and greenhouses, f ~` a`~ ~ built over the ears to serve the retail r .,~- `=`'~ business that the Saso family developed. ,..f..~.. -• -- Both Louis and Virginia Saso have herbal plants that have been named in their honor. There is a variety of salvia, ~~~ {: F'4!'yt a member of the sage family, named for •~~~.U ~ ~' Louis Saso. Virginia cultivated oregano ~ ~. t and discovered a new strain of this plant y-y' -' ~,~~•t~ _ that is now known as "Origanum f~p'+' '~i ~ Virginia Saso". The Saso Herb Garden ,= t~.; ; •.- is noted throughout the West and is L - '~~ ' ~ -~ ~ ~ -- ~' ~ - ~ ~~"` often referenced as an authority by other knowledgeable gazdening resources.~A book featuring the Saso Herb Gazden was published in 2001, entitled The Herbalist's Garden: A Guided Tour of 10 Exceptional Herb Gardens, written by Shatoiya and Richard de la Tour. .,,, , ,,«..., .~;., ,~ 000039 Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 10 r~ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Craftsman style residence was built in the early Twentieth Century. There are no original building permits or other public records that establish a definitive date of construction; however, previous documentation indicates that the house was built in 1914 by the Davenports. The first listed occupants at this address in the City Directories, as well as the style and materials of the structure, corroborate a construction date of 1914. Similar structures of this style were built in the Santa Clara Valley as early as 1904. The barn/garage appears from its construction materials and method of construction to have been built more than fifty years ago. The other ancillary structures on the property are more recent. The two-story residence is centrally sited on an approximately one-acre lot on the northwest corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues and is ~I within the city limits of Saratoga. A driveway runs from Fruitvale Avenue along the north side of the house and wraps behind the west side of the house. The majority of the ancillary buildings are located on the northwest portion of the lot. Several Sheds, greenhouses, a Guesthouse, and a garage surround the house on the north, west and south sides. The ancillary buildings on the north and west sides are separated from the house by the driveway while the guesthouse on the south side is separated by a walkway. A large oak with a circumference of approximately 15 feet and a canopy of over 100 feet is located south of the house. Other mature trees are located throughout the lot. Gardens of various designs surround the house. An astrological garden is located directly in front of the house, between the house and Fruitvale Avenue. ~~ The Craftsman bungalow is one story at the front and rear, two stories at the ,~.i i .~Lf i /7/~. to front Yorch, September ZUUI. (above) ~ Oak Tree, September 2001. (below) Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Ftuitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 11 center, and has a partial basement towards the rear and center. The first floor is above grade. The house has a generally rectangular in plan, and its roof is moderately pitched and currently roofed with wood shakes. The house was originally sheathed in horizontal shingle courses that alternated 9" and 3" reveals. The shingles are still visible within an addition on the south wall and above the porch roof. The house is currently sided with horizontal lap siding. The two-story, center portion of the north side wall projects out from the footprint of the house, and creates a bay window form at the dining room. At the southern side of. the house, a small, fairly recent, addition encloses ahalf-bathroom; it operis from the garden and contains only a toilet and sink that sit at grade. The first floor portion of the roof, which is gabled front and rear, has wide eaves with exposed rafter tails. Plain brackets support the front and rear gables. The second floor roof, which is hipped, also has wide eaves with exposed rafter tails. Two unadorned, square columns support the gabled front porch roof. An arbor extends the full width of the rear facade and covers the back porch. • The majority of the doors and windows appear to be original. Fenestration consists of a mixture of one-over-one double-hung and multi-lite fixed wood sash along with some two-lite, wooden vertical sliders on the upstairs sleeping porch. The upper sashes of the double-hung windows, at both the one-story and two-story portions of the house, have sash-ears. At the front of the house on three sides, one-over-one windows flank a fixed picture window that has atwelve-lite transom. The second story is situated over the middle portion of the house. It is rectangular and is flush with the north and south facades, and flanked by attics to the front and back. The living room is entered directly from the front door. The living room features coved ceilings, a brick fireplace and plaster walls. The dining room opens from the living room on the north side of the house. It has exposed wood beams at the ceiling. The stairway to the second floor is located off of the living room on the southern side of the room. One bedroom and a bathroom are located behind the stairs and can be, . accessed from the dining room. The kitchen, the rear foyer/laundry, and an enclosed porch are to the rear of the dining room and bedroom. The stairs to the basement are located in the northwest corner of the house off of the rear foyer/mud room and have a landing at an exterior entrance on grade. It appears from the cabinetry that a Murphy bed opening once connected the bedroom to the sleeping porch. The kitchen has been remodeled, possibly in the 1960's, including sheet vinyl flooring, a drop ceiling, and modern cabinetry. The bathroom has also been remodeled in recent years. Dli L DESIGN GROl1P n~nn ~ .~ Interior, Front Door, September 2001. .Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga ~ Page 12 , ' - ~~ x . ~r~.c. ~~~~ ~ . _,; -- - - - :,: -~ . . North fagade, 2nd Floor, September 2001. The second floor consists of one bedroom, a sleeping porch, and two attics. The front attic is finished as a room with plywood on the ceiling and walls and a window on the front wall. The central bedroom is carpeted and has knotty-pine vertical beaded v- groove paneling on the walls and homosote ceiling. The sleeping porch, off the north side of the bedroom, is also carpeted and has a continuous ribbon of windows on all three exterior walls, as well as ~ small windows that flank the door into the bedroom. The windows on the exterior are four-lite, wood-sash vertical sliders. All of these windows appear to be original to the construction of the second floor- reportedly added by the Saso family. The rear attic is not finished as a room; the studs and rafters are exposed, as are the backing for the wall paneling and the skip sheathing and shingles of the roof. Vertical v-groove redwood paneling encloses the stairway and is divided by a beveled horizontal watercourse and beveled corner boards. The house is of conventional wood frame construction. Knob and tube wiring was found throughout the house. The original garage building is of vertical board construction with a moderately sloped roof gabled front .and rear. The v-groove doors have been refaced on the exterior. The doors are hinged. The other planting sheds and ancillary buildings are more recent construction with shed roofs and concrete floors. The guesthouse, set into the garden to the south of the house, is a large open room designed with shoji-type screens and includes a shower. EVALUATION F.OR SIG1vIFICANCE Three sets of criteria are utilized in evaluating the potential historical and architectural significance of structures and sites within the City of Saratoga. The first set of criteria used is defined by the National Register of Historic Places, which was established by the National Park Service. The California State Historic Resources Commission developed the second set of criteria used, for the California Register of Historic Resources. Lastly, properties are evaluated according to City of Saratoga Selection Criteria for structures of potential historical value. ~; P'! L nFC~!N !?DiJp llnnn ~ •~ Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 13 National Register of Historic Places To meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, a building, site, or object must have architectural and historical integrity, and satisfy at least one of the following conditions: Criteria A it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Criteria B it is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or Criteria C it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Criteria D it has yielded, or maybe likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. California Register of Historic Resources In order for a resource to be eligible for the California Register of Historic'Resources, a building, site or object must meet three standards of review: 1. A property must be significant at the local, state or national level, under one or more of the following criteria: • It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California and the United States. • It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or California's past. • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the State or the Nation. 2. The resource must retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic property, and to convey the reason for its significance; and 3. It is fifty years old or older (except for rare cases of structures of exceptional significance). Resources already listed, or determined eligible for the National Register, or California Historic Landmarks #770 or higher aze also, by definition, eligible for the California Register. A property is automatically eligible for the register if it has been listed under any state, national or local historic resource criteria, unless the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. City of Saratoga Under the City of Saratoga Selection Criteria, structures of potential historical value aze evaluated according to the following: DILL DF_SIIN lK<)! 1P 000043 Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 14 _ ~~ a. The property exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or _ b. The property is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or c. The property embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or d. The property is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or e. The property embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or dist4rict within the City; or f. The property represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or g. The property embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. I Evaluation The building and site were evaluated for historical significance based on age, integrity, historical association, and architectural value. The building meets the 50 year-old threshold of both the National and California Registers. Buildings and sites associated with the lives of persons that provided value to their community where the remembrances of those personages and their contributions to society, important to local, state or national history are potentially eligible for the National, California and/or local registers. The property is originally associated with the Farwells and the Arguellos, both important families in the West Valley; however, neither family developed this property or is associated with the buildings or site. This association alone does not lend historical significance to the property on a National level. The site is associated with patterns of the community's agricultural past, but the current building and site improvements are not directly associated with this history. Because the City of Saratoga does not have: a 50-year threshold for significance, the long-time association of the property with the Saso family and the Saso Herb Gazden, as well as the design of the garden setting of the property, seem to confirm the property's listing on the Heritage Resource Inventory under items a., b. and g. The mature trees on the site demand special note, but aze outside the scope of this evaluation. The building is a Craftsman Bungalow style residential structure that was built c 1914. It has been altered with new roofing and siding, but the original form is clear, and the original windows aze extant. The ~; house is more than ninety years old and is a fine example of a Craftsman bungalow; however, there are more distinctive examples that better represent the style of azchitecture throughout Saratoga and the local DILL DESIGN GRL>UP ,1.,.~.~ . . Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 15 - region. Therefore, it would not qualify for. either the National or California Registers based on its architecture alone. The gazden and site embodies a distinctive design, but fails to meet the age threshold necessary for listing. The subject property is currently listed on the City of Saratoga's Heritage Resources inventory under Criteria a. and g. The building and site, as previously noted however, would not appeaz to qualify, for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources based on the can ent level of information. Potential Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a "project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." In this context, a historic resource is one that is listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act identifies demolition of historic structures as a significant . impact on the environment, and modification of historic resources as potentially having significant impacts on the environment. In defining historic, the structure must be on or be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a California State Landmark above #770, a California Point of Historic Interest or be listed or eligible for listing on a local register. The threshold for significance, for listing on a local register to be eligible for the California Register, must be established through a public process and can be quantitative or qualitative. Because the building at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue does not currently appeaz to qualify for the California Register of Historic Resources, demolition of the structure would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource that would result in a significant effect on the environment. • DILL D);SIGN GRC)~JP (lnnnd~ Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 16 LITERATURE AND SOURCES CITED AND CONSULTED Arbuckle, Clyde 1968 Santa Clara County Ranchos. San Jose: Rosicrucian Press 1986 Clyde Arbuckle's History of San Jose. San Jose: Memorabilia of San Jose Baker, John 1994 American House Styles. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Brainard, H. A. 1888 Map of Saratoga City Directories 1870 - 1968, City of San Jose (Saratoga included) County of Santa Clara ' Deeds and Official Records School Tax Assessment Records c 1930's Great Register of Voters, 1890 Cunningham, Florence R. 1967 Saratoga 's First Hundred Years. Fresno, CA, Panorama West Book. De la Tour, Shatoiya and Richard 2001 The Herbalist's garden: A Guided Tour of 10 Exceptional Herb Gardens. Pownal, VT, Storey Books. Gan: od, R. V. 1962 Saratoga Story. Published by the author, Saratoga, CA. Munro -Fraser 1881 History of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: Alley, Bowen & Co. San Jose Mercury 1896 Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers. Alfred Eaton, San Jose. Saso, ~ Virginia Personal interview September 20, 2001. Sawyer, Eugene 1922 History of Santa Clara County, California. Los Angeles, Historic Record Company. • Saratoga News -Various articles and photographs featuring Louis and Virginia Saso and their garden. See www.metroactive.com/papers/saratoga.news. ~~ Quito Rancho DILL D)=SIGN GKC~JP ~ (1(1(1(1L1~ Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 17 Plat, filed in the County Recorder's Office Book A of Patents: Page 112. The Herbalist's Garden - 10 Exceptional Gardens - 2000 (Saso Herb Garden is included. www.saso.com/herbgardens ,,,~ ~ T'1FCi,AI /9/IIIP 00004'7 Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 S ANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRACT N4 5583 LAN E r° ,.,~ - ...: ..o-~- _~- -~~t,.... t - 23 1 g°~ 130 i s s/ _~ P S9 1 1 -- -- -- ---+-- ~"~s.~ss--- :; I -- tD•: AC. s :04 AC. 6 ?z ~e ~ ~~ ~~ v= I ;_ _. :n.se ` 2 `ems, ~ ;+~ K~oa ~ e ~ ------~ ~ L04 AC •• 7 ~`'+~ ~ .BLACK 'Na .~? '~ ` r' $ w 6 ~ tM ~e 1 ~ `~~+~~Qp__ 3 - le7 SS I ~ ~~ ;~ 8 • "J 3 1 S ~ 4 `~`~ -. :~..:a0 i~a ....L .. ` - - :t if!-L1 T~ 70S.e2- ~~ s. ~~ i'-__ ae 14 I IS ~ K /'E', ?'a NI { I 30 ~ ?9 ~I ?8 ~ ~ ~ ~; e ~ I I I 'erl., ~,~A 17 ~ ~------r, --- I iaaa I uas ~` I eq /~ qd' ~ A ~ ' ' .~a°i a ,...e WAY - , C ~ 3S gM 3 36 ~ ,; < a ?6 IB G - ?I ~ ~ ~L--?-6~ ---~~°j--- 4 I eo ~ -~~~_ > ~--~// 13 i 1' = 200' I . P. M. 537 - M - 6 R-LA PCL.A SAC /~ ~'+ 1AC - ¢ W O --67'Q-~ z 37 ~ N a ?S 19 ° ~ L. A // Q 36 2f6.9S = -- 45e ^ H a~----- --- ~ -- 1.oa Ac .~ R ~ ~ ' ?9 "~ t ~8 ~ ; ~ Z4 zo ~: ~ !~ t _ ~' SITE r ,..,, ,,.., I ,,..,. -- rw-cT u~c~~=- e t P. M. P. M. 479-M-?2467-M- 52 0 Current Assessor's Parcel Map 397 17 .s ~ ~~ uwrtEnce E sra+e - ASSESSaR Cadottrd neap Iv amnenl prvo~n, ai} Campled under R k L Cade, Sec. 327. EMaa1M Ad Yar ]DO1-2000 • D!! ~_ DFC~GN G?.C~UP • C • Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 19 DILL DESIGN GROUP County Map, after 1897 ~. Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 20 .. ~. :, .,, •i ai ~r,.., 1t ~~ ~. •~.. 3' • 1i ~ r = w' ~`,~. • Brainard Map 1888 .M, M trc HF< lit ~ ~•Hurro ti ^~~ i ^.=C~~n~ ~p/~i ip hAAAC~ Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga ' Page 21 - ~- t i ~~ rn~ ~ nFv~rv ~>?n~ iP 000051 Herb Garden west of house, September 2001 (above) Original shingles, September 2001 (below) Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 22 a • • rn~ , n=~~~nr ~t'~~i iP Living Room window, September 2001 (above) •Rear of house (west facade), September 2001 (below) • • Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 23 T1il ~ T1FCi/.nl /.P~)1IP North Shed, September 2001. (above) Garage, September 2001. (below) nnnnc~ '.~ - -~ ~~V .. .. ~ Historical and Architectural Evaluation 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Page 24 .. ,~ c ~~~'~~~ . .'~~`{ • p!L~ D~SI/N GP,C)~JP South shed, September 2001. (above) Guesthouse, September 2001. (below) • _ _ ,,., _ State of Califotria =The Resout'e~es A®ency ~`$ ~ ~'~ ~~.~ima. ~' - ~ _ DEPARTMENT.OF PARKS/KND~i4ECREATiON {-°- t x~ ~ ~ ~ z PRIMARY ~tE~OtiD ~~. ~.~ _ ~ ~.;,. ~>~ =~~`.~~~,,,- --.~ - _.. '~"+ ~~ Y .. _~ - _ ~+,'~, K~,^~~Y. !hip T _ - - - . - ni'- .4Xisaa.~~}A~./~!_'s~.-r,ci :fig. y __'p!g'y:•_i _..2t - ,~.; "~"~~, ~,ev~few a "~ `°~"~°-~~~tevieweir =-~-~ ~-~.-~ -Date ~=- -- - - - . Page 1 of 5 "Resource Name or#: (Assigned by recorder) 14625 Fruitvale Avenue P7. Other Identifier: Saso Herb Garden •P2. Location: ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestrieted •a. County Santa Clara and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) •b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West Date 1980 photo revised T 8S; R 1W; B.M. Mt. Diablo c. Address 14625 Fruitvale Avenue City Saratoga Zip 95070 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone lOS; 587445mE1 4123686mN _ e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, diredions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: 397-17-12, northwest corner of Fruitvale and Farwell Avenues 'P3a Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Indude design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The two-story residence is centrally sited on an approximately one-acre lot on the northwest corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues and is within the city limits of Saratoga. A driveway runs from Fruitvale Avenue along the north side of the house and wraps behind the west aide of the house. The majority of the ancillary buildings are located on the northwest portion of the lot. Several sheds, greenhouses, a guesthouse, and a garage surround the house on the north, west and south aides. The ancillary buildings on the north and west aides are separated from the house by the driveway while the guesthouse on the south aide is separated by a walkway. A large oak with a circumference of apprgximately 15 feet and a canopy of over 100 feet is located south of the house. Other mature trees are located throughout the lot. Gardens of various designs surround the house. The Craftsman bungalow is one story at the front and rear, two stories at the center, and has a partial basement towards the rear and center. The first floor is above grade. The house has a generally rectangular in plan, and its roof is moderately pitched and currently roofed with wood shakes. The house was originally sheathed in horizontal shingle courses that alternated 9" and 3" reveals. The shingles are still visible within an addition on the south wall and above the porch roof. The house is currently .aided with horizontal lap aidi~yg. The two-story, center portion of the north aide wall projects out from the footprint of the house, and creates a bay window form at the dining room. At the southern aide of the house, a small, fairly recent, addition encloses ahalf-bathroom; it opens from the garden and contains (Continued on Page 3) •P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 2 Single family property, HP 33 Farm/ranch •P4 Resources Present: ®Building ^ Structure ^ Object ®Site ^ District ^ Element of District ^ Other (Isolates, etc.) PSb. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) View from northeast September 2001 •P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ® Historic ^ Prehistoric ^ Both c1906-1910, 1989 DPR • •PT. Owner and Address: Venkat and Anjana ICalkunte P.O. Box 3114 Saratoga, CA 95070 •P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Dill Design Group 110 N Santa Cruz Ave Los Gatos CA 95030 •P9. Date Recorded: 9 / 2 8 / 01 •P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive 'P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter none".) Historical and Architectural Evaluation of the Single Family Residence Located at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA, Dill Deaiga Group, October 3, 2001. 'Attachments: NONE ^ Location ~ Map ^ Sketch Map ®Continuation Sheet ®Building, Structure and Object Record [~~i}~~R1~econ .. State of Caiffomfa =The Retoti'ces DEPARTMENT OFPARKS /CND REC BUILDING,'STQUC'~URE, ]~ Page 2 of 5 _ r r X`yN :x<_~:; - 'NRHP Status Code ~ 7 'Resource Name orb (Assigned by recorder) 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 81. Historic Name: Saso Herb Garden 62. Common Name: Saso Herb Garden 83.Original use: Single family residential 64. Present Use: vacant •65. Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow 'B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built c. 1906-1910. Second story.. '67. Moved? ®No ^ Yes ^Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A 'B8. Related Features: Garage, various sheds and greenhouses. B9aArchitect: Unknown b. Builder: Davenport, owner '610. Significance: Theme Architecture and Shelter, Agriculture Area Saratoga Period of Significance 1940-1962 Property Type Residential/Agricultural Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historipl or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The subject property was part of the Farwell Homestead grant, a 160-acre quarter section claimed by John and Nancy Farwell in 1855. Farwell Avenue, which forms the southern boundary of the property, was once an entrance to the Farwell estate known locally as "Bella Vista'. The four-acre parcel was probably leased as part of a fruit operation until about 1914. The property owners at the turn of the century are not listed as living in the area. The earliest owners who appear to have occupied the property were the Reverend Merriam B. Davenport and his wife Mary, who appear to have built the extant house (DPR, 1989). They acquired the four-acres in 1914 when Mr. Davenport was about 63 years of ag~ and sold their acreage eight years later. in 1922, the four-acre parcel was sold to Charles H. sad Pearl Atkinson who owned the farm for 14 years. Charles Atkinson's occupation was listed as rancher in the City Directory. 'Ir. 1936, the Atkinsons divided the four-acre parcel, sad sold the subject property, then a comer lot of one-acrz, to Charles and Lily Wreden (Records - Bk 777:Pg 510). The Wredena held the property for only four years, and then sold it to Harold and Ethel Miller in 1940. Harold Miller was a professor at San Jos€ State University and Dean of the Department of English. Harold and Ethel Miller owned the corner parcel at Farwell and Fruitvale for 22 years, from 1940 until 1962. In 1962, this one-acre parcel passed into the hands of the Louis and Virginia Saso, who purchased it for $31,500. (Continued on Page 3) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 30 Trees/vegetation '612. References: Arbuckle, Clyde, 1968 Santa Clara County Ranchos. San Josh: Rosicrucian Press City Directories, 1870 - 1968, City of San Josh Cunningham, Florence R., 1967 Sara toga •s First Xundred Years. Fresno, CA, Panorama West Book. San Jones Mercury, 1896 Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers. Alfred Eaton, Saa Jos€. (See Report for full listing of References) B13. Remarks: House and associated buildings proposed to be demolished. •B14. Evaluator: Amber Engle Grady 'Date of Evaluation: September 28, 2001 (This space reserved for offiaai comments.) r . ~ SITE \ ~ r~ w -- -- ,1R. r".. 1 ~ h- c jl nnnn~~ • :•:ti•:{. ~ .:>:::::::•:?•;tiyti :•{. }:•:ti~ • :•x :ti•:41:v::v:}•hti::: {:'•Lti<•rti\~tiryk~:~ ~ • '.;ti \v.•.•::::..•: •: ti: {v •~'ti~ •:::titi•: r:ii•:: ~.. . .~ $tat8':G~:~+'•`a1~OT~fB-''~tA~:~B$~111!~`$~:• • ,,:'t~:•: • •~+:•y ~'•;~.,~ ..,•: ;.~•;. ~ •:::~:<; •::.•.~:::: ;:::: ::•::: ... ~7EPAR~IfIIENT ~F;. ,P;~#t~$:.~~ /~~/Mn' . ~•: ,~ tick ~ ~• ..; L\~~ ti•.: ;•~~ . \•.:1 :~ :.~ •:..•.•: • :\:.ti ~:; :iti :•:vim.;..: ~~ ........:..:...:.: .. :.......:..... .... ..........:::::.\'ti•:'r'ti{a' •~•{?'~ ~\k\~ 'ti~ ~ti•'tititi~i~7h~?::~• •i~ti•}:•`S:\\•:•}}J}7 :~:.~.~.<:.. /-• ~/ •~! •»X{•:{\} titi•.ti1 •.v L v •. ~ ~'r, ~ L a \~\ .: ~~~\~ ti~ :tiS~'ir. ~ ~titi {{?:}'}:`}:~i`4::':{,.;i:': :~~~11~~~~;1;: ~7~~~1tii~ v.\~• {.v ~~:•\ t~ti ~~.. .. ?T.ti 'ti\•1k \ t. t~C• ' .... .. k'r :: .~ •.v.v ~:: : \ k. 1~ ~k :: y'{~ti.•.~:'•'titik .LLky~ ~~ \\ .:: •.v: •.v: .....:.:v:::.. ... i:ti•}}i:}ti•{•k ;.: ry ti{}} .y}~+ r:; ;:}ti:1;~•.; }?y::}kti•:j.•.~: ){ti}ti}iv •k~1• •r.11~ L, \ : ~~~ti~ : ~.. 1 ~4 \1k4~i}ti~:ti :\1\~::}~~\\k`:::{Y:}1{':::•::{'::\': . Page 3 of 5 'Resource Name of ff (Assigned by recorder) 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 'Recorded by Amber Grady pate 9127/01 ® Continuation ^ Update Continued from •P3a Description: only a toilet and sink that sit at grade. The first floor portion of the roof, which is gabled front and rear, has wide eaves with exposed rafter tails. Plain brackets support the front and rear gables. The second floor roof, which is hipped, also has wide eaves with exposed rafter tails. Two unadorned, square columns support the gabled front porch roof. Aa arbor extends the full width of the rear facade sad covers the back porch. The majority of the doors and windows appear to be original. Fenestration consists of a mixture of one- over-one double-hung and multi-lite fixed wood sash along with some two-lite, wooden vertical sliders on the upstairs sleeping porch. The upper sashes of the double-hung windows, at both the one-story and two- story portions of the house, have sash-ears. At the frost of the house on three sides, one-over-one windows flank a fixed picture window that has a twelve-lite transom. The second story is situated over the middle portion of the house. It is rectangular and is flush with the north and south fagades, and flanked by attics to the front and back. The original garage building is of vertical board construction with a moderately sloped roof gabled front and rear. The v-groove doors have been refaced on the exterior. The doors are hinged. The other planting sheds and ancillary buildings are more recent construction with shed roofs and concrete floors. The guesthouse, set into the garden to the south of the house, is a large-open room designed with shoji- type screens and includes a shower. Continued from •B10. Significance Louis Saso was born in Portland, Oregon of immigrant Italian parents. The family relocated to the Santa Clara Valley when Louis was eleven years old. Virginia Saso was raised on a farm near Hollenbeck Road in Sunnyvale. After their marriage, Louis and Virginia Saso lived in the East Bay in order to be closer to their wholesale produce business, the Hayward wholesale Produce Company. In the early 1960's the Sasos acquired a campground in Felton, California, that was used as a park for recreational vehicles. Looking toward their retirement years, they decided to buy a home halfway between their coastal property and their Hayward business. The Saso family moved to Saratoga with their seven children in 1962; the youngest child, Chris was born in 1965. Although the property is locally listed sad the house retsina most of its design integrity, the associated persons and events do not convey the required age and significance to make the property eligible-for the National or California Registers. Nor are the design and details of the house distinctive enough to make the property eligible on the basis of architectural significance. 000057 ~`- .T ~ y - ~1 s~ ~.. .~^~ OOOS V Page 4 of 5 'Resource Name of # (Assigned by recorder) 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 'Recorded by Amber Grady 'Date 9/27/01 ®Continuation ^ Update North Shed, September 2001. (above) Garage, September 2001. (below) J _ !. .~ • `r u ~jf }},,~~'.~}~ti' %;y'~'• ~•'4:+ti}`L~..'ti'~:tiv' ~Ltitititi{'Yv}~;:ti''4 •titikytiL~;i•}}•,:• '4 '•:tiLtt1? 'LLt•~tifi };;.}: •:v::::v:~'~ .. ':-~~`~..~ ~~r~~}.i . }.1:151 t: ~ :: tL \ 1\•:. Y Y .L L. ...:. :-..Y '1iY::Y:•.':: :: ~•~?• 1SC.iflSTff • . .: ~• .1 Lyyt,Lt1~'~h•. •t 1,1v1ti» • 1t .. ~~~(y.~ 1. v.~1, ~Y .~1~ •X1111 ' L~}` •": ti ~:{11:1w.ti:w:. ~ ::•.~•: :.. '-"V V l'• •'h4.•~' h t1: ~'` t . 1t 1 t. •.11.~lYytiti •1•{: { •y;ti1ti ::: 'ti'::'•:::•:'~••":-:.: ~: • ~.-. .:i•:::.:v'• ~1h•: ~ t'~'•:ti'1;:ti •11~ k~•.v~tt1k~k+;; N~~•t~. t t 1 1~tti ;~~ti .41~•: ti•t.; ~;.....~ y :}:{::~ r:: :w:.1:~Y:.1•.1 1•.R1~. h~.ti :L_ 1~~ti~:L}:•:~ tiv~;v.v. ht4h tL? ~•. ~1 . t. ~ ~.:~:..1.}}~.~;::.}:..yt.;.ti~ •:: ;?$iti~ ~' ~ - . Page 5 of 5 'Resoun~ Name of ~ (,4ssigned by recorder) 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 'Recorded by Amber Grady 'Date 9/27/01 ®Continuation ^ Update ~~ .•~ I ~.. ~:~ ~ ~ ~, ;f ;.,. .~ South Shed, September 2001. (above) Guesthouse, September 2001. (below) 00(ln~q \L THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Q L l_~'~ •~~ ~Fl ti i - ; - AI LL ~. -u 7 #1 J z: ~ i __ ~__ _. ~.:xt ~j7 ~ ~ . a a mM~ `~ ~ t ~+ ~ i J ~fy , - ~Y tea.;='--y~ - _ _ _ 1- zd' 1: ~ ~lii R ~ ~ pH .. L• 3 - r , . ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t~~ 4( r fT S i~e -. y ~i ~} ~ JJJ~ i )t ~- V 1 _y~ a L J. ~ ~ ~~ ..4_ _ ~ - A yS -- 1F 4dn r~~ ~ ~ r• ~ C !_ ~ ~ r= ~ ~ l I - f'~ s ~ ~-y t 11 F ~ ,.-a ` i ,. ~~~ ~ "!1 4 h 11 p:~ F~ .P I ) ~_ ~ ~F i, _ F - 111 l~(~= ~ r - ~1~ ~ - ~ :ra ~: ~' .r 1 J 3 i~~ U ~': ~; ~ ~ ~ 3 4 ~~. ,~ r O d~~n ~ 1~ I j If wt ~tr r~X~ ~ ~ 7 F r9v ~~.': ~ ~ s fr ,~~. ~ J ~,1. - __ ~_ ~- • *. i k -y~. ~ __ •_- ~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission, Subject: Proposed new construction at 14625 Fruitvale Ave.(previously Saso Herb Garden) The proposed design is influenced by the 300-year-old coast live oak, roughly situated in the middle of the lot. The house is a segmented arch, which rises beyond the drip line of the oak tree. The front entryway, the garage, and the walkways leading to the front porch have been designed such that not a single limb of the oak tree needs to be sacrificed. We would like to highlight a few key design principles that would be apparent in the enclosed °~ drawings. These principles guided us during the design phase, and we hope that you will like what we have done. We invite your comments: • The elevations of the structure are softened by the use of different material. Judicious use of lime stone columns, slate, wood and light colored stone bring out the softness, and light green wood trimmings blends the structure with the garden. • We have minimized the areas of maximum height, and varied the elevations in such a manner that existing views that neighbors enjoy are not altered significantly. This also has an indirect affect of reducing the perception of bulk in the structure. • We have surveyed the many fine homes along Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues, and have ensured that this new structure is compatible architecturally. • We have used native vegetation to preserve privacy and mitigate mass. Accompanying photographs taken along Farwell and Fruitvale Avenues indicate that the new structure remains hidden for most part behind the thick foliage. We also used diverse techniques on the sides of the building. We have taken care to avoid neighbor interference in all instances. • All the adjoining structures are united using a single architectural theme. The three-car garage is connected via the limestone column supported breezeway to the main house in the front, and the limestone columns are again used in the rear to interconnect the poolroom and the gazebo. Throughout, we have preserved similar materials to integrate adjoining structures. • We meet energy guidelines by using efficient appliances, and we propose to use solar energy where applicable. Modern innovations in solar panel technology allow us to blend the color of solar panels with the roofing material. • The garage and driveway are situated to mitigate noise impact on adjacent properties. The traffic interference is also mitigated by our proposal to move the driveway to a less busy street. • Exterior light source interference to neighboring properties is softened by existing foliage. • We propose to locate stone compound wall along Farwell and Fruitvale to coincide with the property boundary as shown in the drawings. Special care will be taken to preserve the fruit trees along this stone compound wall. We also propose to erect a 6' wooden fence on the other two sides of the almost perfect square lot. • The maximum height of the new structure is the same height as the existing house. • The shape of the house is to fit the environment. Radius affect of the house allows for freedom of airflow. • We do not propose to perform grading cuts to accommodate the driveway. Fill materials will be used to protect the roots of coast live oak in the middle of the property; and valley oak and another coast live oak on Rollin's property. . Current Status: We initially submitted the design to the Saratoga planning department during December of 2000. Heritage and Preservation Commission (HPC) recommended the following changes to the original design, and has approved demolition of the existing structure: • Change the roofing material from the originally proposed metal in-seam roof to slate • Device a plan to protect the herbs affected by the construction. - We have accommodated both of these recommendations in the proposed design. The roofing material has ' been changed to light gray slate and we have hired a Saso apprentice, Nancy Frizzell to relocate the affected the herb garden to another portion of the lot. We look forward to the opportunity to present our design at the December 12`h public hearing. Regards, Venkat & Anjana Kalkunte 14625 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 408-525-6059 Supporting material enclosed: • Artists color rendering • • Drawings that detail site layout, plan, elevation, section and roofline • Proposed use of solar power to address energy conservation • Neighbor petition supporting the proposed design • Proposal to save the affected herb garden • Hela ~ Home ~ ' • • •' ~ ~ ^ *ro 'v ~ 111 _- where to go, how to get there! ® .~ s s 's .® r . ..... Map Search Result Show Nearbv 14625 FRUITVALE AVE, SARATOGA, CA, 95070-6135, US _ ~ Businesses ; Map A New Location Advanced Options: Customize Map i Print Options Click map frame to move map in desired direction. Save th ~ Add LOCatIOnS STREET MAR AERIAL RHOTB .. ~. ' ,~,~F T(~~i) o "` S'~Q~ ~e~ Allendale are ,, ~, ~ i min Popular ~ ~~ ,k ba'' P.llend~e _ ;__ ~ 1O Online 'CLICK t~ ~~ o~~, /~ .p - ~~,g e'Cil"r ~~ ~` 1 Commuriit~es j ~ f7j l ~~'~, i~o.€ "---'--'--' ";c - Yl o O~ ~~l ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ SP~ P`l~ Saratoga •~..~° ~'°~'~ N ~~ ~~ i • . • ¢5~ . Q O i r '~~ 'we•st3v~al~ley~_ > ~ '~W--gal yellow Pa9~` ~ t4 1O ' ~` I ~ ~~~ f ~ - }fir ~ f O an ag n Dry Ath tles~~Jay~ -- a 5wa_ ~ 1 nt r~ ~ z ° t P/ ~4 i ~ -~ l~c~ ~, ~~~ ~ r~^I~ ~ C7 L ~'~r ~ U~ C~ ' ~ ~~ f ~ f~ ~ -J San Marcos Rd ~~~ `r~i~ , i ; ti m • 1~ ~ .~~ ~~ ~~ 4` 'tiyj ~ VersaBles Way Burgund Way ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~Je~/f ~ y~/ ~ ~ ry~ ~ f ~ ifs ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~}'• ~ ~, \ti E _ ~}, ~ _ ~ c~ ~ ~~1 e f l~ Is m ~ :I ~ ~ ~ S~ 1 ~~ ~J Ul I ~ Mendelsohn Ln ~ ~ ~ + ~ Ln y H'01 Ave Th rea Oaks Way tr`0~ .~ Winn Rd r ~r 1 4ae ~ ~ f ~ ~~~ ~,of a ~ Abndra Ln `J ~rq,~~ ~ ~``~~Jr J ~~~ ~ Fiobi~ Way ~ ~~°r~r~ a'y 6~0 ,..~ r' 7, hark Wa o ^ ~ 1~ ~~ ~ 2001 A+la uest.com Inca S&2001 Nav' atbn Technob iea • tlldnNa Ott MAP WILI: ~ Zoom In 0 Re-center `Use Subject to License/Copyright Ii 0 ~Marite Vlsta Dr 'V ! Move Location Map Legend T LOT£ti~~ tlIN80~Iltl~ SIIIH SOlltl SOl s: s~ °i s 5 T ;h05-8h6-059 ~1 3Ntl1 380atl L£h5Z E!~0~!IEJ'E~3EA~ s.; anuany a!enl!nij Sz97i Q 5 aa.~ aln5 ~` baasrsaQ 3JN341S3b31Nf1~Il1f~13H1 '"11V~"5'"'"""'° `°°~" 1V1LW9t199NT111V7d M02'Lll f; _ 30JSOa 'M ll3QN3M spaswn uvo :wl °sao i. b W ~- 1i CC~~ dQ FQQ 8 r° J y aos ~ o - ~ N N N ~~' G7~LL~d ~ IiM Jn°~8 ~ B w ~~s~ ° ~y~ €~ o N ~t1 pp ~C(( ,6-v.~ u ~ g In ~~ N ~N ~~ 1L 1~~ 0 ~ S,ACw ~ ~ Q °~ wa u~i5 1 F u mc~f ~~ ~v~vm Y t` . ~ z~ w g~~~m~ - `~ ~~~~W J ~`g ' 0~, s~ <Z ~ z ads W ~~ u~< ~ d o F zZ ti Oo w w ~ ui >o b °Sy 8 OoC L°~ ~`~~ ~°'O cat ~ ~ Y v$W 9{W~Ya ~ ~" of ~.. w o 0 0 < t~ a s ~ Antl o°e °o ., . ~, w 'I- Z w~ w 0 ~~ O N p ~ ~' .. ~' ° FphbAq 5 '~ ~ Z Z ~<~ ~i~ v_~ d d ~ w~ ~ $ $ 6 a FL S Z < J~F~z <~ coo o w o w o3~ n dwoc ~ f; < o < < zd d$«~° d LL ~O O O~ O O w ~ w ~ K ,V <p ~p~ O = d _.° ~ w ~ ~ O V, ~ ~ w < ~' C ~~ g ~~ x o x « z3tp~Tw ~ 3` pu6o„L~a°` C7 °cowozwwul IZ ~p~ l~ ~O II O~ Z ~ J ~F ~ ~ W ~ Z ~ Lng h "d ~y Z O w <w t~OOZ w < m w°e - ~°t < a ~ oo <<~3<°e ,,,~ w ; o < IJiZdI~°weww~ >-O ~ zd Ae « f O tL ~~ tL3UUI~u= WN d w ~ LL W ~ W ~,~t H G `C Z LL. lt1 °oCU~Ww~W Qzw < e[ ~ oc °c Oy ! \ a X < pnnndc~tnN ~ - Q~o ~ ~ ~ wW ® 8 ~I,ea D o z<a~uwiuWi+xxx Wyow Z ~ a,~ t ~ q~ ~ ,cnnalwa U o~~"~°~°1~«< q y, z ~~n~~w~~~~~ ~~. ~Id ~ ~ ~ 96 m ~ ~f ~ Q ~N_; Ntn t ._N~ S ~ ~ ~ o «<aca «< lC i ~~.~__~ .- 30N3d OOOM.A-.913) ____~___~ _~~__ _- ~1 }/ ~ ._ W ~ a ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ m < b N I w~ ~ ~11 5 89' t8' 08" W 208.36° \ d, ~ N 1 _ 1 \ \ ~ - ~ 1 ~ \ 1 \ \ 1 ~ 1 - - / ~ \~ \ _ 1 ~~: ~., _ • • - ~ I Ti' ~ ' .rl£ o-.9 ' ~ ~' - ~:•~~.. ~.• , :; w °C ~ w 1 v0 O~W ?L:^. \ :~ 1 xx m ~ Z LL ~ ~ ~ W ~ \ 1 \ ~ ~ .. ' I r,• ___ " . ,• •~ ~ •. ' u I 1 z i ~ 17+9135 30K •t~r ~ .:`: ~ I ~~ •• rri ,.. ~. ~- ~ - i~-- o z , ~ Z~~ p~'~ ~ ~jwm~ ~o~ < LL' ~~ LL OO ~C--.--. ~--. - _ ----~----- ~~f: --~ Z - -- ~" --- ' I 1 3 1 1 ~ / \ \ \ 1 ---- 1 t • ~ ' ~d ~. ._ +-r. -~ N~ ~. Z ~ °[ r ~ ~ _ O \ ` ' \ - to ~ ly._ \I ~° o \ ~ o~ ~K ~ %n ~ \ ' ----\ \ \ N \ \ • W \ '' 0 \ ~ LON 1 ~ iii ~ 1 .... ~ \ ~ - Y7Y9135, 3015 ' \ .p.~y '._... \ ~ ~ ~ 1 m I I ~\ ~ } < i( w I ~ ~ L E W ~ \ \ . ~• 'Ym JY}O O ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~< ~.N ~ uOLL n n~o ' I EW r z OF F ! 1 I .. ~ . ..... I 1 YI / ' ~ ~ - w~~ 1 1 i~i I I 1 J I _ _ ~` ~ \ \ J/ m ~~ I / i w _~ • a `- .96'802 M „80.81.68 5 I FARWELL AVENUE dz w i J o u rr ~ ~ ~ y z < U Z ~ }<- Z LL 3 2 z u o ~~ ~ g ~ 30 ~ W o ? o~ ~ ~ m p > ~ oc w 3 wo 6 b ~ ~~ w ~ ~ N K C Z Z v FO N ,~ .= ,~~~ ~ ~~` 2 \ \ 1 •< 1 \ °~ J ~ \1 1< ' I 11 l o • D • e ~" • , ::~ ~ \~~ ~~~^~\ 1 J \ ~ ~\ 1~ ~ f ~ ~- ~ ~ \ 1 ~ \ ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ I \ ~ \ ~\ 1 \ ~, .. \~ 1 \\\ ~\ i \ ` 1 `~ ~~i ? 11 d~ , N \ p'Gu \ -t k .' 1 \ --------L^L-- ~= ~~~ ---~ -_.: _, -. _. ,. __ _. •.21 MrW aas, -109-9 I, \ [OTftTa1 YIMtlOiI1Y7 SlllN SO11Y SOl 'S r ~ 3NYl 3lOOY tf~5t e(W0~1(e~'eibOlele$ ~~~ 4 ° • ~ r qy-~,(p~~ anuany a(enl~ni~ Szgti Q w w.,~ a3nr9is3Q 3JN3af53831Nt1~1~13H1 o'obm~ aasmo9 ~~ 'p` 309S0?1 ' M ll3QN3M w ~ """" 7t ' ~ ~ ~aviceeeo- atr,! omcea~ ~ ~ . ooai,eano- Ka Sc' 1 ~~ cal s9°u a~t~oe ' s ~ ~ {~ ~ cc` 1 ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~t~anaw~sl ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ s~ w ~$~ d ~ q a ~ per ~~ ~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ s ~ e~ ~ n p f a. t y t ~~ ~s~ ~ g ~~ r`e SO + s 0 ~ ~ i _ 1 ~ s ~ 3~N3i OOLYM.L!-B l~ ~ ~ .. a ~~ .+.a:~w-.-...e:+r.~.s+~s:'~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~e--"~.~. . ~ - ~ ~ •/e.M.• y _ . _:.. - . ..~ .. ~_ . ~ - .. /•-~• •~~ ` M ~$6 mid d ~ ~ . • Q. .-, 111' ~ ~+•":~ti•---•-•-----• •--•---- ----- ./_I -~~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ .... \ •~~ ~~~Y~ I ~~ ------- -•------ ---- ----------• ,~ •. ~ ~ ..•• , • ~• -- -_-- • '~ -_ _ -- rte: - --- _ _._-.._-• ~, -- ------- - • ~ • - -- r ..F~ . • J • ~... :~~ • G ~ -` ./ •. " ~.~hh~ `' ~ BPS I • , Cr ~ , ::?: ~ • r'~7Mj:p i 7OWL393019~ I ' ?r. d ~ ri. :~; . ; m I ~a 1 J -~ --r- -'s~ ?Yy :''d: • r.:j:?~;: •r• 'ir r.~:.;. ~ • • ' ~1 I ~ : •f 1 ~iy J ~ :J:~:M ~l••••• yM.:~,Y7vJ•• ~ : ~ 1 • ., I 1 Q ~ C 7 Q F ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ r .a :; r. . m • ~ t~"J,er'ai 'LZ MAO A{6e~ - , _' . _ _ -----• -•---•-•--•-----•-------------------1 '~ ~ i d v' _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ '~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ - '3/Ib', 773M~Jd~ ~i i ~' - := _ t ,~, LOi£iT~ tlINMO~IItl~ -SIIIH SOlltl SOl Sh05-8h6-059 '1 3Ntll 3900tl T£h5Z 213N97 S3Q 30~SOa 'M ll3QN3M el U10;f ~Y~ 'EbOiele$ --- anuany a~enlmtj $z9hi 37N~diS3b31Nf1~Il~13H1 _".`"_"__"~ 9 CV a~. 1p - ~ ins r a ~ y- • •. N LOi£iTlk tl1Ntl0~Iltl) SHIN SOlltl SOl + ~ ~ ~ CSI ~Sh05-8h6-059 '1 3Ntll 3fl00Y i£h5Z PIU10~I~P)'Eb01YlE$ I anuany a~en~ml~ Sz99~ ,.,..~ - .~ c I - M3N97S3Q ''n""°ns ~wrmu '°°z's ~ 3JN3aIS32J31Nft~Il1~13H1 r,,,,,,~„m,„v„ ~~, ~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~„~,,,, ~ 3 0) S O M ' M l l 3 Q N 3 M ~,~,,,, ,,., ,q,,,~, $ .i ~ L z J D_ J ti Z U W W N O v O ~ 0 Q OL ~ ro Z ~ W Q LL O Q _ ~ J ?n U <W ~r J ~ U `~ W ~ OL Q - -~' ~ ` ` ~ J LL Z U W C; ~~ i' • • • c+7 toicti~~ v~aaoanv~ sniff ia i sol so 5405-8h6-059 ~1 l e wo eie e 'Ebo ~ ~ N 3NY 3flOQtl T£oSZ i ji~ ~ ~ $ Q anuany a~enlmii Sz9~i a,, ,,, aaN~rs3Q 3~N3aIS3b31Nf1>IlV)i3Hl '~"'"°~""°"" '°°~`` 3 0 J S O a ' M l l 3 0 N 3 M N,,.p~s "~""„~ °~°" ""° ao. °"~"° swiswa no =~«la.~s+a z 0 d< Ltl ~`" Z :; o ~ ~~~ - ~o ~ ~ _ ~` ~ Z Y 8~ _ O ~ m w3 a`~ 4 .. ~ =.O 2, ``;~~ Ci +` /~ ~ ~ 2\ 1 N ~~ / / 2/C ~~ ~ } N / 1 1 ^ry ~ / ~ 1 O // ~ 1 1 1 t t 1 1 ebpe: 7:t2 1 t 1 ~- ~ O U 0 1 1 1 1 ~ _ N IV 1 e 1 1 e LL4 O Y 1 1 1 1 / l ~ 1 ZIZI ~~q z: ~~ Zt~L ~p ZI~L o 1 - « 1 N 1 1 1 No~ 1 C I ~ . ; I - ~ . 2b 111 `~ ` 0 WY O 11 ~ ` ' ~ \ 1 N 1\ ~~ ~\ 1 \ , ` ~ ` /' 11 ) I 1 1 1 S K y J N 1 1 1 1 1 ZI~L CIO J m 1 1 1 1 1 1` 1 1 1 (/ 11 N w ~/ iii 1 i 1 i _ i - _ _ _ _ J ' z d LL ~~~ 0 b o' ~'. ~; • • • LOi£TTjj tllNtl0illtl] SIIIH SOlltl SOl Sh05-Hn6-059 ~1 3Ntll 3900tl i£n52 EILL10~I E 'EbO F E ' ~ ~ N J I $ ~ j Q anuany a~En~irui Sz97i a,, ,,, aos ?I3N97S3Q 3JN3a1S3b31N(1~I~MI~H1 wlimansam«.v mxs _ 3o~soa •M ll3QN3M ~,,,,,,,s~,,,,, ~.~, ,~,; ; ~„~~;;„~, m0i5in7n u~o - \ Z Q d ~ i A~Ai +- .2~.Y. O i W I ------- " - -'------'- -'--- ---- r ~ r r ~ ~ ,, ~ is , i W o '" n. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -~__ _ __ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i i i i i i ~ ~ ~ i i i i a ~~ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J A~2f Z Q ti O CY W 1_'_____" __'_____. _Ne _________'..______1 K ~ r ~ G 1 a: ~a ~ o - ~ w _- -- ~ ° --- - - o° i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ -. . _ , m ~ 'ti Uf u a s~ 4a W ~Y ~ .'~ 'o~ ~~ ~' ~> Jac -~~ ~ °~ ~ ~~ g ~o ~ ~ z 0 7 r~: < a f ~ ;~ u~ e ~ E 1 Iz 3 3~ ~~ z~ ~~ j N~ ` Z ~~ 2 ~ J 1 oQc ~~ o • • • T LOT£TT~~ tlINtl03IltlJ SIIIH SOlltl SOl ' b a + + ~ r ('~ h05-Bh6-059 '1 3Ntll 3900Y Tf75Z OIEIY$ EILL10;I~Y~ E anuany a~Ynlml~ Sz9gt a ~ • ±~ a~ a3N~as3p ' r.,n.~~,. X15 ' ~13H1 3JN341S3b31N(1)Il1 N "'I ~~~ M ll3QN3M 30~S021 ~ 390tY 1S3H91H .6-.iZ d S W~ I` ~~ ~ ~ ~_ o~~ ~ ~~ ~Wrc k W7~ Z I - ~?° ~~ r ~ Q ~ ~ F- +- Q j ~ W I W J W Z O o W ~'6~ °,< W 2 F- O Z 0 O ~D ~J I ~v ^ d z 0 LL ~ z Y1 6y t 2 ~~ J g 3- ~~ s ~ aw ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ O1 YOO~d A-At pggg~z~ ~°o~ ~ g~~ # W $ Q z }~ z 3 ° ® ' V (~J/ ~~ l~ ". I/'r 31Y1d 1Y,4 3 Y C 4A Oo-,4t 4-p-Y_J_JLJL ~! n • ~ _ ., • ~, Z ~ Z Q ~ F- J W W W K W ~ ~ °~ W ~ W O -1 • LOTfTTIk YINllO~IIY~ SIIIN SO1lY SOl <Srt05-Bn6-059 ~1 3NYl 3800Y TfnSZ 213N9I S3Q 30JSOM 'M ll3QN3M P7UlO~1~P~ 'PGOjPIP$ anuany a~Pnlmy Sz94~ 3JN341S3b31Nf1~1~bh13H1 '~~`"~ ~°~'` N,~~~~ z 0 w w >Y ~_ (~ W X W ^ t l • • • N a 9 t ~ ~ Q _ ~~ +ms wopq ugppryiwonag,gq~ -` ~ 0 ~~ o~ g m ~ s~q ~s N w ~~~ N T LOI£TT/! tlINUOdIltl7 SHIN SOiltl SOl s + ~ _ ~ Sh05-8h6-059 ~1 3Ntll 3600tl TfnSZ aiwo;I~Y~'Pbo1E1E$ anuany a~en~ml~ Sz971 ~• +n 3~N341S3b31Nf1~IlV)13H1 r,,,,,~„~,,,,, ,o,~~, sn«~+oSb,Cl°M 300S021 ' M 1130N3M +~~,. n.a ~o I o. I ~ I ~~ ~,_ ~~ d o si ~ o w- ~ . I 3-70171 15 3H91H ,.6-.bZ `-~ ~ I l I lUyl i - z 4 ~ ~ ; I S° I ° I ~ ? ~ m i I ~ I I l ~ w - ~ `° ' z I ~ I w ~ 4j o I ~ L ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ z I o ~ ~ I ~ i o -T Z, ..~ -=- - = W - ~ I o i I w ~ I i I ~ ~ I i ~ w I I j ~ i ay ~ p I ~ ~ I ~ I / I II ~ ~ V I I I ~ ~ ' I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I I I i .` i ~ I J 4 I I ~-~,vv v.e OOl3 Ol b001d ,A-A1 --~V I V I I ~ i I ~ I I J I I I ~% I I ~ I I 4~ I I ~O ~~ ~ I I I , =' -; I' - I rf_'0 i I ~ F ~~.~ ~ 4n. m I I ~ i -:;,~,~~-; ~ I I ~ ~;,f ~`'' ~ I ° ~, , ` ' ,~_ `; I '~ ~~ A I I +'~'_~~'< I I k I i ` t ~ -,~ I I ; I ~~ i .~.:,< ~'~' - .. , -. I -`I - _~. I ~,---=,--.~ .o..~ ='=' -_ ,`r,_ ~;> ~~, ~~. ~. \, ` ~,1. 1: !: ~: V,. "-v • • • ~ [ I Il ~ D f ~ YIH80377Y~ S17IH SOlIY SOl X b ' ~ 5405-846-059 ~1 3Htll 3800tl If45Z ~ OlP1E$ Eiu10f~~E~ E anuany a~enlml~ Szg4i _...~ ---- - - a s a3asrs3p N3C153~131Nf1)IlV)13H1 3 '~""°~'°'"" '°"" `-'`'° `_='-'~ ~ ' 7 '" ° °° ; . ° ~ 307S0?l b ll3QN3M w s e ae e c W R' O O V V r~-~1.,1 V 0 ~ - .r C O~ U ~ __ a ~~ w j~O: ~' i ~ ~ ~~d `~ o ~ ~` ty ~ ~ , O J Q h s ... 0 e - ~, ~ s • To, Saratoga Planning Commission, September 6,2001 1` J1 Subject: Proposed construction of single family home at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue We are delighted with the plans Venkat and Anjana Kalkunte have developed for their property recently purchased from Louie and Virginia Saso. As long time neighbors and residents we feel the home is a wonderful addition and an asset to the street and neighborhood. We support the proposed design that recently accommodated HPC recommendations: In addition, we feel that the architect has employed innovative techniques to avoid neighbor interference, and noise impact. No views are blocked to existing neighbors, and-the driveway is interior and far removed from property line to cause no noise impact to neighbors. The owners have taken care to preserve the mature trees on the property. We appreciate their diligence and find that they are planning their residence with extra care and sensitivity. We urge the planning commission to approve the current design. - Residents of Fruitvale and Farwell Avenues Residential Address Signature tq~zD ~ctirwel~ ~ ~>h ~~4RcOS ~ ,~ - l ~ col 195'0 ~,~9~2~~~~-~. ~~v2~t/'~1~ ~~.~ ~~ 9 C~l~. FRK ivc ~ L ttV ~ E ~ LEES ~T~-sCtFrCD lJ6 L~aN '~ Residential Address Comments l 5~~ e.(.,C dam' ,~.~,~,~, ~, ~~ wc~ ~tP~. i ~~ C~~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ ! ~5~ O ~a~-tv.~j~ Looks exce 1 le ~~ ~ Ye ~~ k~~ kk s u~~•~ Ice t~ d ~ I: 9e h~-ly -~ arc o ~ oda.#e c~.tl wed buc !G (7tease (ef !T.'wt ~'o~ ~ ~5-So ~fiP-~~L~L- ~~/l~/z ~F-~J~i4 T" ~S Gti'~i~,D .~?'•L ~Gr_,~slL`i° ~ Rte- ~~i~ 70 7i~ ~r=S/,P-t~S- ~~ ~. FROM LOUIEBVIRGI Ff1;;P10. 4088670307 Scp. ~0 ?001 05:31PM P1 • Louis-and Virginia Sacn 4U5 Jrsmeralda llrive Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060 September t9, 2001. _ To the Members of the Planning Commission; The decision to sell the Saso ~lcrb Curdcr~s property and move away was a very difficult oue for us. We had hopexl to spend thu rest or our Slavs taking care of the gs~r~tenc. TJnfnr[nnately thAt w9c nnr. to he. T.nnle'c rnnr health rm.ade it impossible for us to maintain the property. We -feel fortunate to have sold our gardens to Venkat and Agjana Kalkunte. From the heglnning, they nndercrnod nnr great :iffe~c.tion for the. herb gardens and all of the beautiful fruit and ornamental trees growing on the 9cre. They worked diligently to plans their new construction s~- as to minimize the need for moving many of the trec+. We suggested that they consglt an arborist about the care of the great oak tree, which they did. They asked our advice on diffct-ent aspects of the prropexty and hired ~-ur inn, Tnm Rs~sn, whn i~ a lrandQeA~e gardener in the Cs~rsttngsl arrA, to prune the trees. IYe helped plant many of the frets and he is an expert i~ pruntting. Nancy ~'t•izzel will be working witL the K~tlkunles to move and replant many 0[the hcrhg and other plants surroundi>ag the present house. She had been un npprcnticc in the herb garden. for five years and is very kltowledgeble on herbs and other plants. Thcu- architect, Wcu~lCll Ruscue, has cnent nrtAmy hours on the property planning- - the correct piacemeatof their new home. ~Vc think the Herr owners dre gettnine in their ihtcrest in preserving the garden. We urge the planning commisron to approve their propuaud plan. Sincerely, . ci~il~'L-y',~rc~c~u~ .f1r~-c~ t 01/09/2001 17:24 4087410522 i~ ROTHCHILD NELSON PAGE 01 Date: March 5, 2001 Tv: Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission .Saratoga Planning Cornrrussion From: Eileen Rothschild Nelsoxt 19612 Farwell Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-0522 Subject: Proposed Plans for 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga I am really delighted with the plans Vetxkat and Anjana Kalkunte developed for the property recently purchased from Louie and Virginia Saso. As long time neighbors and residents on Farwell Avenue, nny husband and. l feel the new-home will be a wonderful addition and an asset to our street and neighborhood. It is a beautiful design that will enhance the site. We are fortunate our new neighbors are so diligent about making their plans with extra care and sensitivity. . ~~ ~'IARG FRET ~=~iNDERSON n,~be~ ~ ~ , 2~ 1 .`~ 0 ~ ~, Sc~-d~P~ r ~ ~~,w$v a.Q-~ ~ ~~~ s~ Qom- -~- ~s ~~ ~ . j~ ~~c~- h~Y~- , X11 ~- see cn.5 l `~ ~-~-~- ~~- wee, `~`~ ~-~' -Q'~~ . ~ ~~ ~ .~~ ~'~ -~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r~~ -~~a~ ~~ ~~-~- ~; t 1971 FARWELL ~~VENUE SARATOG~. C:~LIFORNIA 9070 • • • • ~, ~ -`~ C4 C7 n, ~' ^ • • ~ " a~ ~~ M A K E E N A AKE ENA ENERGY N E T W D R K ~- - Run Your Electric Meter Backwards With Solar Electric Power From Akeena ~. _.... _ While the sun is shining, any home or business can generate clean, reliable ? ` ' " electricity. All you need is a solar photovoltaic (PV) system professionally installed by the experts at Akeena. Here's How It Works: Photovoltaic systems turn sunlight into electricity. Silicon wafers capture photons from sunlight, turn them into DC power which ~~ - ~ " - is then transformed into 120 " ~ ~ ~ volt AC power and • ; connected to your existing "~ - electrical system -- as well as the local electrical grid. When the sun shines, you can generate more power than you consume (your meter will really spin backwards). At night you'll draw on utility company power, essentially using the electrical grid as a giant - • • - ~ storage battery. PV systems can also be equipped with . ~ ~ battery backup so you have ' uninterruptible electricity even during power outages. Click HERE if you would like an Akeena representative to contact you regarding the purchase and installation of a PV system. Rebates Pay Up To 50% of System Cost There's never been a better time to purchase a PV system. California currently provides rebates of $4,500 per installed kilowatt of PV capacity, and the State just recently approved solar tax credits that save an additional 15%. Businesses and home offices can take advantage of the 10% Federal Investment Tax Credit and 5 Year Accelerated Depreciation. In California, PV systems -" ; . increase your property values with no additional property taxes ~, ~ . California Rebates Going Fast The State of California established the Renewable Energy Buydown Program to help jumpstart the installation of PV systems. However, the State's generous $4,500 rebate program has not yet been renewed for 2002. Currently, there are no more rebates available for large commercial systems. But there is still rebate money left for residential and small commercial systems sized at less than 10 kilowatts. So don't delay -- act now. Positive Cash Flow And Fast Paybacks Properly designed and installed systems have paybacks in 5 to 10 years -- and even faster if special electric rates are appropriate. Depending on the size of the system -and your expectations for electric price increases -Net Present Values for a typical system are in the range of $3,000 to well over $10,000 for people with high electric bills. In order to maximize your savings from a PV system it is necessary to do an analysis of the solar exposure of your site, consider the applicable collector mounting and electrical interconnection issues, and evaluate available electric rate plans. The financial, environmental and lifestyle benefits of awell-designed photovoltaic system are compelling -- PV systems are one of the best home and business investments you can make. ~ ~~' ~ ~-~` ~ - Get Your Power And Protect The Environment Sun-generated power is clean -- no pollution, noise or fossil fuels. And energy savings are not the only benefit: a typical 4 kilowatt system eliminates 80 tons of carbon dioxide over its 20+ year lifetime. All photovoltaic modules installed by Akeena are guaranteed for 25 years, so you can expect long term, trouble-free operation of your system. Home About Contact Copyright Akeena, Inc. ©2001, 2002 All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Privacy • r ~ ~i E E N A ~ ~ wKEEpA E N E R G Y N E T W O R K Reduce Your Electric Bill " ~- ' ~ ° A typical large house in the San Jose area with air conditioning or a swimming pool will use about 1,500 kwh (kilowatt hours) of electricity per month. At current PG&E rates, this level of consumption works out to about $300 per month for electricity averaged throughout the year. ,.,... , In the Summer of 2001 PG&E drastically changed their electric billing methods for residential customers. Their cost structure now includes five rates tiers -- instead of the previous two tiers (baseline and above baseline). The most common rate tiers (E-1 rates) range from $0.13 for baseline electricity consumption all the way up to $0.26 for top tier consumption (not including various adjustment and discount factors). Not surprisingly, owners of even small and medium size houses find themselves in rate tiers in which they pay in excess of $0.20 per kwh. In order to calculate your actual energy savings it is necessary to consider the changes in your electric bill in each applicable rate tier on a monthly basis. Simply averaging your savings over the year will not take into account the seasonal output of the. PV system, nor will it properly consider the impact of multiple rate tiers. The following chart shows how the electicity consumption for this typical large house maps into these five rate tiers. Note that electricity consumption typically increases in the summer months ,,, "- _ " because of air conditioning and pool use. At these consumption levels, the homeowner is consistently in the highest rate tier throughout the year. Marginal electric rates at the top tier are billed at $0.26 per kwh, which are much higher than the average annualized rate of $0.18 paid by this homeowner. Current Monthly KV1A-I ~ over 300% $0 26 ^ 300% Baseline $0 24 O 200% Baseline $0.19 ^ 130% Baseline $0.14 0100% Baseline $0.13 ~~,o ~~~ ~~ rr." ~ 5 ~ mom ~,~~ ~o'~ o ~ g ~ D As you can see in the second chart, the PV system essentially eliminates most of the top tier electrical usage. There is an excellent match between the seasonal output of the PV system (energy output is highest during the summer months) and the seasonal energy usage of the home. Additional PV system output would go towards reducing lower rate tiers -which will save less money • than the higher rate tiers. Monthly KV4H 1Mth PV S~rstem 2s0o 2,000 ^ Qver 300% $0.26 ^ 300% Baseline $0.24 1,500 ~ ^ 200% Baseline $0.19 1,000 ^ 130% Baseline $0.14 500 ~ 100% Baseline $0.13 For many PV customers, changing to PG&E's E-7 Time-of-Use rates makes sense. Depending on your actual daily load profile, you can reduce your electrical expenses by an additional 10 to 40 percent because you will essentially be selling expensive peak power back to PG&E (when the collectors are operating at their peak output during summer afternoons) and consuming inexpensive, off peak power. In most cases we recommend that customers evaluate their actual daily load profile after the PV system is installed to determine if a change to the E-7 rate makes sense. Home About Contact Copyright Akeena, Inc. ©2001, 2002 All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Privac ~ A K E E N A • } wKEE~~ ENERGY NETWORK -- ~ Residential Case Study - . _,.. ' ...... A photovoltaic system was designed fora 3,500 square foot house in the San Jose area. - This system included forty-eight 120 watt solar panels installed facing southwest at a 18 degree tilt. A total of 5,760 watts of peak power generating capability is provided (based on "" ~ ~""' `' ' manufacturer output ratings). This system provides about 20 kwh of energy per day or about 7,400 kwh per year -- after taking into account various real-world efficiency losses. Costs for the system were: $37,638 for equipment " . _ - = - ;,, $13, 638 for installation $2,947 for sales tax . $21,553 rebate from the State of California $4,900 tax credit from the State of California • Net costs to the homeowner were therefore $27,769. Based on current residential E-1 electric rates, a 8% discount rate, 30 year system lifetime, 5% annual electrical rate increases, and standard tax rates, this system will save the homeowner $1,729 per year with a simple payback of 6.8 years and a Net Present Value of $15,232. If one assumes that electric rates increase slightly faster at 8% a year, and the current Solar . " Energy System Sales Tax Bill is passed by the State of California (eliminating sales tax on the above system), the simple payback drops to 3.3 years with a $32,949 Net Present Value. These savings do not take into account several important factors: • Distributed photovoltaic power is a renewable energy resource and very kind to the • environment. • Renewable energy system improvements add significantly to the value of your property without any increase in the assessed value in most municipalities. ` ~~ \ - " - • Cash flow savings are likely to be hundreds of dollars per month if you were to install a solar electric system in conjunction with other energy saving devices -and then refinance the entire package at a lower interest rate. Home About Contact Copyright Akeena, Inc. ©2001, 2002 All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Privacv Ete[nit • SUNSLATE Product specifications • SUNSLATE dimensions • SUNSLATE roof -front view • SUNSI.ATE roof -side view Eternit and Sunslates roof information Eternit, Inc. provides these guidelines for the installation of Roofing Slates to assist the applicator in effecting an efficient and workman-like application. Although this manual provides details for typical conditions encountered on slate applications, all application details are beyond the scope of this text. When encountering any conditions not illustrated in this manual, please contact Eternit, Inc. for assistance. Eternit's Roofing Slates provide a limited 50 year warranty. Atl materials utilized in the construction, including fasteners, fiashings, felts, underlayments and penetrations should be selected to provide the same life. Failure to conform to these Installation Guidelines will void the Eternit Warranty. Eternit's Slates and SUNSLATESTM have been thoroughly tested by independent laboratories to insure their pertormance (see • Table 1). Eternit Slates are rated as a Class A roofing when tested in accordance with ASTM EI 08. TEST REPORT (Table 1) • Test Parameters Eternit Test Report ~ Condition of Acceptance Actual Results Flexural Strength 3001bs avg 500 lbs Conditioned PFS Report 90-44 2501bs avr 5351bs Immersed Water Absorption PFS Report 90-44B <15% 13.3% Wind Uplift-Dynamic ATI Report #3869 80 mph >90 mph Moisture Perneability PFS Report 90-44A no water transfer passed Freez-Thaw Resistance PFS Report 90-44C 100 cycles passed eatherometer PFS Report 91-07C 2000 Hrs passed Wet/Dry Cycling PFS Report 91-07A >90% strength 99% mean strength Hot Water Exposure PFS Report 91-07B >80% mean strength 99% mean strength ASTM E108 Factory Mutual Report Class C rating Class A rating Modulus Elasticity KOB Report • (average) ~~ 2284A ~~ <1.5 x 10 psi ~~ 1.46 x 10 psi ~I Approvals ICBO Evaluation Report No. 4827 Dade Countv Acceptance No. 90-0228.3 PRODUCT INFORMATION (Table 2) • • / SUNSLATE~ Eternit Slate Headlap 5" 5" Exposure 11-3/8" 11-3/8" Starter Height 16-1/2" 16-1/2" Slate Height 28-5/16" 28-5/16" Storm Anchor (Hook) Location 7-7/8" 7-7/8" Slates/Squear 77 77 Slates/Pallet Squears/Pallet 22 0.28 56 0.73 • eight/Pallet 2301bs. II 380 lbs. Roofing Slates Eternit's Roofing Slates are non-asbestos fiber reinforced cement states produced to a uniform thickness of 4 mm (3/ 16"). Eternit Slates are produced under compression with an integrated color finish. They have an authentic slate texture with beveled and crenulated edges. The finished slate receives a pigmented coating applied to the exposed face and a clear sealer protects the back. The SUNSLATETM is glued to the Eternit slate and then used as a standard roofing slate. The actual slate sizes, and properties are listed in Table 2, Figures 1 and 2. Normal production processes will result in slight changes of color between production lots simulating the beauty of natural slates. Care should be taken to mix bundles to provide a dispersed appearance. In addition, Eternit Slates will age and eventually attain a variegated matte look and rough texture which approximates the appearance of natural slate. SHEATHING -- American Plywood Association rated, exterior grade, thickness to be determined by the roof span and the required design loads but not less than 15/32" for standard roofs andLnTot less than 5/8" for Class A roofs. Roofing Felt and HEADLAP -- Slates may be utilized on roofs with a minimum slope of 3" per foot. Roof slopes less than 5" per foot require a headlap of 4" and two layers of 30 Ib. felt. Slopes of 5" and greater may use a 2" headlap and one layer of 30 Ib. felt. In some areas an underlayment of an approved modified bitumen or other high • performance underlayment may be desired as an upgrade. Please contact Eternit regarding any upgraded underlayment product prior to installation. Flashing -- Non-corroding metal, as specified by the National Slate Association. The type to be selected is subject to local conditions. Fasteners (STORM ANCHORS) -- Shall be made of galvanized steel, approximately 5" long with a 1/8" diameter shaft and with i/4" offset bend (see Figure 3). The anchors are positioned in the center top- notch of the slate to provide quick and accurate alignment. The storm anchors have been designed to significantly increase the wind resistance of the Eternit Slate and SUNSLATESTM and are required for the warranty to be in effect. Stone anchors are available from Eternit, Inc. Storage and dandling ~7tore Eternit Slates and SUNSLATESTM in a clean, dry, well ventilated area- protected from the weather and other trades. As soon as the slates have been delivered and stored under cover, split the plastic wrap to allow for ventilation to prevent excessive water condensation. If the slates should get wet in storage, efflorescence is likely to occur. Mild efflorescences of the slates will usually disappear over a period of time. Severe efflorescences may require special treatment. Contact the Technical Department at Eternit Inc. or Atlantis Energy Inc. for details. Cutting Tools Unlike other mineral fiber cement slates, Eternit Slates can be cut and punched with a slater's hammer. For rapid and efficient cutting, punching and notching, a portable • slate cutting machine may be utilized. Interior cuts in the slate can be accomplished with a pin punch and hammer. Individual slates can be faced scored and snapped over a straight edge. Eternit Slates can be field cut to provide an interesting feature to the i ~'~ - • SUNSLA • SUNSLA • SUNSLA • SUNSLA ~~- TE Products ep cifications TE dimensions TE roof -front view TE roof -side view 1. PV Module 2. Juntion box 3. Roofing Slate M 00 r~ SUNSLATETM DIMENSIONS 7 7f 8" g.. fi 5f8" ~ ~- dp M ~ M ~ ~ r r r r ~ 5 3I4" ~ ono, polycrystalline or amorphous solar cells C.2~i 3 2 1 -4u • • ~7 ~ ~Q. '~ ~~ ° to ~d Fi~'~ Fin ~n F I ~ ~ X12" to ~2° ~C S`ta rte r s late ~ 5" x ~ 5 314" Field verrfy Distance between slates: G/~ ~ -~ r/~ Etern~t • • SUNSLATE Product specifications • SUNSLATE dimensions • SUNSLATE roof -front view • SUNSLATE roof -side view SUNSLATETM Roof Side View • L 'I 8" F ~ ~ ~ /2" to ~ 2° 6 J • • Proposal To .Relocate Plants Affected By Construction To: Saratoga City Planning Commission From: Nancy Frizzell Re: Proposed Construction on 14625 Fruitvale Ave. Date: May 21, 2001 Saso Herb Garden is truly an exceptional herb garden and, from the very first time I stumbled upon it (circa 1985) to the present moment, I remain in -its spell, held captive by its beauty. Five years ago I had the chance to became an apprentice worker in the Saso's garden. I jumped at the opportunity and started working immediately. At that time I was also enrolled in the Ornamental Horticulture ~ program at Foothill College. My apprenticeship ended all too soon,- but I continued to show up every week to help Louie and Virginia, and to share in their passion for plants. My knowledge grew with each visit, as did my fondness for Louie and Virginia. -Now the Sasos live in Santa Cruz. Each week l drive over the summit to spend time with them in their new garden where they continue to educate and inspire me. About 6 months ago I agreed to work at the Kalkunte garden (formerly (SHG). I had learned that the new residence, yet to be built, would be bigger that the existing house and that some of the plants were in jeopardy.- The Kalkuntes have. a genuine appreciation for all the plant life on their property: As stewards of this horticultural treasure trove, the Kalkuntes gladly take on this immense responsibility of nurturing and caring for their gardens. Below are the areas, that will be affected by construction. • 4 beds bordering existing house (front, sides, back) • part of the zodiac garden Virgo to Capricorn, moving counter-clockwise fashion • a portion of the bed between oak tree and existing house • a portion of the bed between oak tree and zodiac garden- . thyme bed, vitiver bed and adjoining areas (greenhouse side of the driveway) • part of the .retaining- wall lying between Farwell and the oak tree Here is the criteria for determining a plant's. worth: • Does the. plant- have medicinal value? • Does the plant have ornamental value? • Is the plant unusual? • Does the plant belong to a collection of plants? Is it one of Louie's. salvias? Is it one.of Virginia's ornamental oreganos? This criteria is very broad and encompasses most plants in the garden. Therefore my goal is to save the majority of plants residing on the Kalkunte property. i In order to preserve plants that would otherwise be destroyed, techniques to maximize plant preservation: • the plant can simply be dug up -and a) transplanted . b) potted. • the plant can be propagated a) by seed b) by cuttings I employ a variety of Transplanting is the simplest-way to save any plant. I have transplanted many plants but prefer potting them up in one gallon cans. These container plants will be relocated in -the garden at a later time. This method is highly successful. if the specimen's size is modest and its root structure is fibrous. A mature plant with taproots reacts poorly to the shovel; disturbing. the root system may throw the plant. into irreversible shock. Digging up young tap-rooted .plants can work if much care is given. Seed collection and cuttings remain. options. Seed collection is another way. Many seedling cultivars remain true-to-type after propagation by seed.- Examples: Lavandula, Cerinthe, Borago, and many Salvias. Taking cuttings is my favorite way to propagate plants.. Cuttings of selected plants are- collected and taken to my greenhouse (in San Jose) where. I can keep a closer eye on them.- Each plant is started in a special soil-less medium of peat and pumice rock. It requires 4-6 weeks for the cuttings to form acallus -and then some roots. When the plant has a healthy rooting system it is returned to the Kalkunte-property. There are specimens in the garden that challenge my ability due to their sheer size. If it doesn't fit into a 5-gallon container it's probably too large- for me to handle- (I'm a 5'2" female). Mr. Kalkunte is planning to hire someone who specializes in transplanting large plants. In the far corner of the property (furthest removed from- the streets) Mr. Kalkunte intends to repair the benches and lathwork. Shade cloth will again cover the lathwork to -filter out the harsh midday sun. Newly potted plants and young plants started from- cuttings require a sheltered environment since these plants may have disturbed and underdeveloped rooting systems,. respectively. Plants will remain here until a permanently placed in the garden. I hope you find this report helpful and I am very willing to answer. any questions. Yours truly, Nancy Frizzell • KALKUNTE RESIDENCE PLANT LIST FRONT OF HOUSE BED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HOUSE Aquilegia tall blue-violet and tall pink Columbine Bletilla striata Chinese Ground Orchid Cuphea hyssopifolia False Heather Cynoglossum `Mystery Rose' Pink Chinese Forget-Me-Not Digitalis pale pink Foxglove Erigeron karvanskianus Santa Barbara Daisy Iris, dwarf (peachy mauve/ reddish brown) Iris Lysimachia clethroides Gooseneck Loosestrife Pelargonium x hortorum (pale magenta) Pelargonium Perovskia atriplicifolia Russian Sage Phygeiius sp (red) Cape Fuchsia Primula sp. Primula Scabiosa columbaria `Butterfly Blue' Pincushion Flower Spiraea japonica Spiraea Verbascum bombyciferum `Arctic Summer' Mullein Zauschneria californica (Epilobium) California Fuchsia • 2 PLANTER BOXES ON FRONT PORCH Pelargonium Zonal Geranium magenta (2) deep purple-red (2) pale pink (1) SIDE OF HOUSE (DRIVEWAY) Abutilon sp. (deep red) Flowering Maple Alstromeria sp. Peruvian Lily Aquilegia sp. (tall, pink and blue-violet) Columbine Buddleia sp. Butterfly Bush Camellia (3) Camellia Campanula gomerata Bellflower Cerinthe major `Purpurascens' Cerinthe Geranium sp. Geramium Papaver sp. Poppy Potentilla erecta Bloodroot Salvia elegans Pineapple Sage Senecio x hybridus Cineraria Teucrium fruticans `Compactum' Trachelium caeruleum Compact Bush Germander Throatwort Viola labradorica Labrador Violet • SIDE OF HOUSE (OAK) Aquilegia (tall pink) Columbine Brunfelsia pauciflora Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Camellia (3) Camellia Jasminum polyanthum Pink Jasmine Philadelphus sp. Mock Orange Psidium cattleianum lucidum Lemon Guava Salvia elegans Pineapple Sage Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay Origanum vulgare hirtum Greek Oregano Petroselinum crispum Curly-Leaf Parsley Petroselinum crispum Italian Flat-Leaf Parsley Red Trumpet Vine Rosemarinus officinalis Rosemary Salvia elegans Pineapple Sage Satureja montana Winter Savory Thymus vulgaris Common Thyme Tulbaghia violacea `Variegata' Variegated Society Garlic BACK OF HOUSE - Achilles sp. Coronation Gold Yarrow Alstromeria Peruvian Lily Alyogyne huegelii Blue Hibiscus Aster sp. Aster Salvia officinalis `Berggarten' Common Sage Dianthus sp. Pink lochroma cyaneum lochroma Lychnis coronaria Rose Campion Phygelius sp. red Cape Fuchsia Salvia greggii (purplish-red, coral, deep pink) Autumn Sage (3) Scutellaria lateriflora Virginia Skullcap Wisteria sinensis `Alba' White Wisteria • • ZODIAC GARDEN CENTER BED Ajuga sp. Ajuga Lavandula angustifolia `Hidcote' Hidcote Lavender TAURUS BED Filipendula vulgaris Dropwort Lavandula stoechas Spanish Lavender Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender Cotton Stachys officinafis Wood Betony Verbascum blattaria Moth Mullein Verbascum bombyciferum `Arctic Summer' Mullein GEMINI BED Agrimony eupatoria Agimony Cymbopogon citratus Lemon Grass Filipendula vulgaris Dropwort Geranium incanum Cranesbill Lysimachia clethroides Gooseneck Loosestrife Phygelius sp. Cape Fuchsia Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead CANCER BED Geranium incanum Cranesbill Salvia greggii red Autumn Sage LEO BED Geranium incanum Cranesbill Lavandula x intermedia `Grosso' Lavender Fat Spike Saxifraga stolonifera Strawberry Geranium VIRGO BED Cedronella canariensis Balm of Gilead Lavandula stoechas Spanish Lavender Nigella damascena Love-In-A-Mist Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead Potentilla erecta Bloodroot Salvia greggii (red) Autumn Sage Teucrium hircanicum Caucasian Germander ~ 1 LJ LIBRA BED Agrimony eupatoria Agimony Aquilegia (tall blue-violet and tall pink) Columbine Geranium incanum Cranesbill - Lavandula x intermedia `Grosso' Lavender Fat Spike Nigella damascena Love-In-A-Mist Phygelius sp. Cape Fuchsia Thymus sp. Thyme SCORPIO BED Aquilegia tall blue-violet and tall pink Columbine Ballota pseudodictamnus Ballota Cedronella canariensis Balm of Gilead Gaura lindheimeri Gaura Lamium sp. Lychnis coronaria Rose Campion Nigella damascena Love-In-A-Mist SAGGITARIUS BED Nigella damascena Love-In-A-Mist Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead Salvia leucantha `Purple Velvet' Mexican Bush Sage Teucrium hircanicum- Caucasian Germander CAPRICORN BED Aegopodium podagraria Variegated Bishopweed Aster sp. Aster Australian Mint Bush Prostanthera rotundifolia Cedronella canariensis Balm of Gilead Phlomis Janata Compact Phlomis Salvia `Indigo Spires' Indigo Spires Salvia Salvia semiatrada Bicolor Sage Stachys byzantina Lamb's Ears Teucrium hircanicum Caucasian Germander Zauschneria californica (Epilobium) California Fuchsia AQUARIUS BED Filipendula ulmaria Meadowsweet Phygelius Cape Fuchsia Scrophularia californica Bee Plant Teucrium hircanicum Caucasian Germander G • PISCES BED Achillea sp. Yarrow Ajuga sp. ~ Ajuga Borago officinalis Borage Ruta graveolens Rue Salvia greggii red Autumn Sage ARIES BED Artemisia.frigida Fringed Wormwood Lavandula x intermedia `Provence' Provence Lavender Nepeta sp. Catmint Penstemon sp. Penstemon Salvia greggii `Alba' White Autumn Sage Stachys ofFcinalis Wood Betony Teucrium fruticans `Compactum' Compact Bush Germander Thymus sp. Thyme BED BETWEEN OAK TREE AND ZODIAC Aquilegia (tall blue-violet) Columbine Campanula sp. (low growing) Bell Flower Cineraria sp. Cineraria Filipendula vulgaris Dropwort Fuchsia hybrida (single red/white) Fuchsia Fuchsia hybrida Fuchsia Helleborus sp. Hellebore Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle Tovara virginiana Tovara Digitalis sp. Foxglove Geranium sp. Geranium Penstemon Sp. (purple) Penstemon Phygelius sp. Cape Fuchsia Salvia greggii (hot pink) Autumn Sage Spirea sp. (dwarf) Spirea Teucrium hircanicum Caucasian Germander i BED BETWEEN OAK TREE AND HOUSE a Abutilon hybridum Flowering Maple Anemone japonica Japanese Anemone Brugmansia sp. Angel's Trumpet Camellia sp. (3) Camellia Cineraria sp. Cineraria Cyrtomium falcatum Holly Fern Fuchsia hybrids Fuchsia Fuchsia magellanica Fuchsia Hamemelis sp. ~ Witchhazel _ Helleborus sp. Hellebore Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Rhododendron sp. Rhododendron THYME BED, VITIVER BED, AND ADJOI NING AREAS Artemesia sp. Wormwood Ballota pseudodictamnus Ballota Cerinthe major (yellow) Cerinthe Cerinthe major `Purpurascens' Cerinthe Gaura lindheimeri Gaura Hemerocallis sp. Daylily Nigella damascena Love-In-A-Mist Oregano sp. Rosemarinus ofFcinalis Salvia greggii (red) Washingtonia sp. Zauschneria californica (Epilobium) PROPOSED GREENHOUSE Oregano Rosemary Autumn Sage Palm California Fuchsia ~- - • . •s I . --. ~ ~~~ ~ ®L t 3~ ~ ~• ~ o•~ ~~~6N ~ ~~ ,~9'j0Z as ~ •~s ~ 49 x s •t9•x are.9a~6 • 6~~ a_ '~ .. b6.69 • 4929 ® .~ 'S8 ® ~ /~ • Z ' 6® 1 £L• ~.9t S£ ~ •1 j mow,. 3N{d,9Z 21N{~P'tl N >r • 4~.9 ~ .~ WOd.9 S , 68 x • 1~ pro . tG't6 x 6 ' £t'~ r ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ oebe x ~ ~ ti ~ ~~. m ~_ _ ~ 46`l6 x dN(`. 1 ~ j~, `E. . LLB 6'i9 ~ .r ~ ~~ 1~~. / _ ' `Zg' X SL'£8 = /~ ~~ 5;0668'08 1d / c ,.• _ ~~a s~ os • i • ~ X 94'!6 \` ~ l 7[ . b •OB X 0~"i L6 • Ls~oe x th ~ ~`0 '£9 X { ££'48• /~ 0£'6B X ' ~ Abe` W ti6 . ~ yid ~dw ~ - ,/ ~~ ~ ~ : 6 ~~ 3 1 '~6 ° ' x ti ~ ~ r-~1 ' • aL'18 '~, - I ,x:06 ~1 r 0, . 1 _ ~ _ .; y ,~ ~• • SB'68 X ~g ~~ f N 9£S9 • m• ~~ Z_•~ ~ • Z • ~ 1~~'99 X . ~~ ~ m .O~ 8 ~ a ~'°o~~ C z '~>r FB 8 ~ ~ ~• '. Z t'49 ~ ~ :9'96 8 • ~ . d9 a9.~ ! ~O ~` . // . X 9 1 • 66.59 / f ~ ~.~ _' 9NlLSiX3 ,~. . ~ Y8 .. • --•--- City of Saratoga - Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP ~ • .~ Community Development Direct DATE: December 12, 2001 RE: Planning Commission Mission Statement DIRECTOR'S ITEM The Mayor has requested that all Commissions and Committees of the City develop Mission Statements. In order to assist you, I have put together a draft mission statement for you to review, modify, reject and/or replace. Please come to the meeting with ideas of how we can improve the draft. The Mission of the City of Saratoga • Planning Commission is to ensure that the physical development of the City is consistent with and implements the environmental, social and economic goals of all segments of the Community. • rr. R COMMISSION ITEM • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Resolution of Intent to Study Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yazd Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings. Location: All Residential Zones Applicant/Owner: Saratoga Planning Commission Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: December 12, 2001 APN: N/A Department Head: • Discussion The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differs for lots that have been developed prior to May 15,1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15, 1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi- story dwellings. Staff has been told that in the past, the setback requirements and the Design Guidelines used to reduce or minimise the perception of bulk found in the Residential Design Handbook have been melded into a requirement that the second story to be at the Multi-Story setback while allovaing the first floor to be at the single-story setback. The language of the Zoning Ordinance does not support such an interpretation. The Zoning Ordinance offers the following definition in Section 15-06.655, "Story; Multi-Story. "Story" means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above. Basements are excluded from being considered a story." Section 15-12 the Zoning Ordinance has the following language, "The minimum yard requirements for structures and additions thereto on vacant lots and other lots created after May 15, 2001 " [~nnnn~ ~_ The purpose of considering the adoption of a Resolution of Intent is to give Staff direction to initiate the Study of the particular issues and to set the Public Hearing process in motion. The Commission's first task is to determine if there is interest among the Commission in moving forward with the development of possible language for an amendment. A discussion amongst the Commission regarding whether or not to leave the Design Guidelines and set back requirement bifurcated. However, if there is such interest to consider amending the Ordinance, the Staff needs general direction on the particular sections of the Zoning Ordinance the Commission would li1~e to see amended language developed. For example, the Commission may have different issues with second story setbacks in the R-1-10,000 District than it does in the R-1-40,000 District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If there is interest in developing a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment the Commission should adopt the attached Resolution. If there is not majority interest, please inform Staff. • • ~~~~~ ,t ,; ,~ ~ ~ _.. • RESOLUTION OF INTENT 01-001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHERE AS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the City of Saratoga with respect to proposed amendments to the zoning code of the Ciry of Saratoga; and WHERE AS, the Planning Commission intends to initiate proceedings to consider amendments to the zoning code with respect to rear yard setbacks in the R-1 Zoned Districts to clarify the differences between single-story and multi-story dwelling setback requirements; WHERE AS, this matter was considered at a duly noticed public meeting on December 12, 2001, at which time all members of -the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the initiation of these proceedings. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby initiates proceedings to consider amendments to the zoning code for the Ciry of Saratoga with respect to requiring second stories to set back further than first stories of any multi-storied dwelling. The Secretary to the Planning Commission is directed to cause a notice of the initiation of these proceedings to be published in the Saratoga News at the next available publication date. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California, this 12 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEIv'T: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • 000003 MINUTES • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 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 applicants for the Finance Commission and the Saratoga Community Foundation. 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 -Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (3 potential case) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested City Attorney Taylor to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, ABSENT: Mayor John Mehaffey ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Melissa Eddy, Interim Director of Admin. Services John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 17, 2001 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 17, 2001 was properly posted on October 12, 2001. • i COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~~ The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen Court, noted that last December she appeared before the City Council in regards to the subdivision across from her house. Mrs. Lee noted her concern was the driveway of the flag lot #4 facing the front door of her house. Mrs. Lee stated at that time she indicated to the City Council that the long driveway would invade her privacy and would take away from the value of her house. Mrs. Lee pointed out that at that time the Council agreed that the developer should angle the driveway away from her house, combine the driveway with lot #5 and then exit to the street and plant screening to minimize the impact of the headlights coming down the driveway. In August 2001 the developer started construction. The developer cut the curb for the driveway and started the grading that pointed directly at her front door. Mrs. Lee stated that she contacted the Community Development Department and asked to see the final map but was told that they did not have the map. Also; the developer took out an oak tree; as far as she is concerned the developer took out the wrong tree. Mrs. Lee requested that the City Council investigate her concerns and invited the Council to her home to experience the impact of the driveway on her house. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith requested. that Mrs. Lee meet with Director Sullivan. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATIONS FOR JUDY ALBERTS, SHEILA IOANNOU, AND BARBARA OLSEN, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendations. Vice Mayor Streit read the commendations and presented them to the outgoing Commissioners. City Council minutes 2 October 17, 2001 1B. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMBERS ANGELA FRAZIER, LOGAN DEIMLER, GREGORY GATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-071 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANGELA FRAZIER, LOGAN DEIMLER, GREGORY GATES TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the new Parks and Recreation Commissioners. 1 C. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF FINANCE COMMISSION MEMBERS ALEX TENNANT AND JIM HUGHES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-072 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE FINANCE COMMISSION BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ALEX TENNANT AND JIM HUGHES TO THE FINANCE COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 4-01 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the new Finance Commissioners. 1D. PROCLAMATION -SUPPORTING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CLEANUP OF . ` MOUNT UMUNHUM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Vice Mayor Streit read the proclamation and directed the City Clerk to forward the proclamation to the appropriate party. City Council minutes 3 October 17, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian noted that recently he had an opportunity to join a group of people on a tour of Mt. Umunhum. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the sight needs a major clean-up and sighted several examples. ~~ CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2B. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES-REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 10, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2C. CLAIM OF LING, LAVINA; CLAIM NO. GL-052984 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize settlement. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2D. CLAIM OF FITZSIMMONS, ANN AND KATHLEEN; CLAIM NO. GL-052777 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. Councilmember Baker requested that Item 2D be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker questioned if there was any new information of the follow up documentation the City was trying to find. Councilmember Baker noted that he is uncomfortable denying this claim with the information he has been provided. City Attorney Taylor explained that ABAG has indicated that given the facts, as stated by the claimant, and based on the City's review of the their files, ABAG is recommending denial of the Claim. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DENY THE CLAIM OF FITZSIMMONS, ANN AND KATHLEEN; CLAIM NO. GL-052777. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 WITH BAKER OPPOSING AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. City Council minutes 4 October 17, 2001 2E. DAIS CHAIRS IN SARATOGA CIVIC THEATER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-073 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,967.81 FOR COUNCIL DAIS CHAIRS Councilmember Waltonsmith removed Item 2E from the Consent Calendar and questioned how the decision was made to purchase these particular chairs. City Clerk Boyer responded that the chairs were purchase according to the comments Council communicated. WALTONSMITHBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,967.81. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING 3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearings for CIP and Environmental Impact Assessment; close public hearing; accept report; direct staff accordingly on CIP; adopt Environmental Impact Assessment. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that on October 1, 2001, the Finance Commission reviewed the CIP and was satisfied with the plan, however the commission could not vote on the CIP because lack of quorum. On October 10, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the CIP for consistency with the General Plan. Subsequently the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the finding of consistency. Director Cherbone noted that an Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental Checklist Form for the 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan has been provided to Council, which lists the environmental category under which each project is expected to fall. Director Cherbone reported that at the Study Session in June and at the meeting in August, there are 38 proposed CIP projects that total $13,086,350. Currently Council has identified 26 projects, which are proposed to receive full or partial funding for a total of $8,573,350. City Council minutes $ October 17, 2001 Director Cherbone briefly explained the funding source for the various projects and noted that there is a $75,8,350 deficit in the Park Development Fund, and provided four options to Council on how to balance the deficit in the Park Development Fund: 1. Defer some desired projects until the Park Development Fund reserves are full project funding. 2. Supplement Park Development Fund shortfall with the General Fund unobligated fund balance. 3. Allow Park Development Fund to borrow shortfall from General Fund and repay over time (up to five years). 4. Partially fund some of the projects with park Development Funds until additional fund balance is attained. Director Cherbone explained the next steps in the five-year CIP as follows: • November 7, 2001 1. Adoption of Resolution amending the FY 2001-2002 Budget 2. Adoption of Resolution approving aFive-Year Capital Improvements Councilmember Baker asked what changes were made other than improvements at El Quito Park. Director Cherbone responded that other than the improvements at El Quito Park the only other change was the seed money set aside for the medians on Prospect Road and staff was directed to bring back an amount for Phase II of the Heritage Orchard Project for an educational facility. This is just in the funding notes, no money has been allocated for this. Councihnember Baker asked if the proposed CIP was available to the public. Director Cherbone noted that the proposed CIP was on the Internet and copies were made available at all main reception areas at City Hall. Councilmember Baker asked which option the City Manager would recommend. City Manager Anderson responded that given the circumstances of the unknown economic conditions he :would urge to opt for prudence. Furthermore, City Manager Anderson pointed out that if Council chooses Option 3 the Park Development Fund would repay the General Fund in approximately 5-7 years. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what the standard amount of money that the City receives per year from Park Development Fees. Director Cherbone responded that the City receives approximately $100,000 - $150,000 per year, but in recent years the amount has been more. Vice Mayor Streit noted that if you look at the items in the Park Development Fund there is a sufficient amount of money to fund everything in the first fiscal year and every project except the actual construction of Azule Park. City Council minutes ( October 17, 2001 Councihnember Baker stated that he wants Azule Park completed by the time he is out of office even if the City has to defer other projects. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith both shared the opinion that Azule Park has waited too long to be developed and needs to be funded. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited any public comments; seeing none Vice Mayor Streit closed- the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with Option 2- Supplement Park Development Fund shortfall with the General Fund unobligated fund balance. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 4. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION REFERRING DR-O1-007 & BSE-O1-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN, 19751 VERSAILLES WAY BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consider request for reconsideration and adopt resolution. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan noted that the developer of the 19752 Versailles Way project has requested reconsideration of the City Council's action to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. Director Sullivan explained that since the last meeting the developer has obtained consensus to have the front yard setback at 55 ft. Director Sullivan explained that tonight the. City Council would have to decide whether or not to reconsider the issue and open it back up for discussion. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO PROCEED WITH RECONSIDERATION. MOTION DENIED 2-2-1 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH OPPOSED AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 5. AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO LIBRARY BUILDINGS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement with PG&E and pay engineering deposit to San Jose Water. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that there are a number of utilities to be connected in order for service to be provided in the Temporary Library. Staff is requesting authorization to pay PG&E the balance of funds required for both installing and City Council minutes '7 October 17, 2001 removing the temporary service equipment from the site. The service agreement covers the use of this equipment to meet temporary needs. Also San Jose Water is requesting ~~ an engineering deposit in order to begin their work related to the expansion and renovation of the Saratoga Library. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH PG&E AND ISSUE A CHECK FOR $17,582.14 TO THEM FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES RELATED TO ELECTRICAL SERVICE AT THE TEMPORARY LIBRARY. MOTION~PASSED 4-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PAY AN ENGINEERING DEPOSIT OF $10;000.00 TO SAN JOSE WATER FOR SERVICES RELATED TO DISCONNECTING AND RE-ESTABLISHING WATER SERVICE TO THE EXPANDED SARATOGA LIBRARY. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 6. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK DONATION UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-074 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2001-2002 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $120,500 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that to date the Saratoga Youth Fund has received a total of $126,900 and an additional $31,000 in committed funds. Director Cherbone explained the breakdown of donations as follows: Donations Received 1. Pony Field Improvements $60,000 2. 6 pairs of Soccer Goals $12,000 3. General park Fund $6,000 4. 2 Flag Poles $6,000 5. 1 Bench $1,500 6. 1 Bollard $300 7. 2 Electrical Outlets $3,000 8. 1 permanent AA Backstop $7,500 9. 3 Outfield Portable Fences $6,000 10. Saratoga Sheds/Containers $2,500 11. 3 Scoreboards $9,5001 12. Bases & Equipment $7,500 • City Council minutes g October 17, 2001 12. Bases & Equipment $7,500 _ 13. 128 paving Stones $6,400 14. General park Fund $1,700 _ Total $126,900 Committed Donations 15. 6 Covered Dugouts $12,000 16. Other Baseball Amenities $12,000 17. 1 Scoreboard $7,000 Total $31,000 Director Cherbone explained that staff is recommending Council authorize an increase to the existing contract with Perma-Green Hydroseeding, Inc. in the amount of $40,000 for above items 3-8, 11,12 & 14. In addition, Director Cherbone continued that Council approve the purchase of items 2,9, & 10 in the amount of $20,500. Item 1, Pony Field Improvements, was approved by Council at the October 3 City Council meeting and Item 13, Paving Stones, will be agendized for consideration at a future meeting along with the Committed Donations once they have been received by the City. Director Cherbone explained that Saratoga Little League has made a proposal to the City that if it loans $90,000 to the Saratoga Youth Sports Fund, they would repay the City back over three years. If Council approves this proposal, staff would bring a formal contract between the City and Little League regarding this issue. Councilmember Baker asked the City Attorney if the City could lend public funds to a private organization. City Attorney responded that it would be for public improvements and a contract would obligate them to use the funds appropriately. Keith Simon, President Saratoga Little LeaguelBoard Member to Pony League, 20450 Montalvo Lane, explained that Pony League and Little League have donated $210,000.00 to this project. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH PERMA-GREEN HYDROSEEDING, INC. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO PURCHASE AMENITIES FOR $20,500.00. MOTION PASSED 4-1-1 WITH STREIT OPPOSING AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Consensus of the City Council to direct City Attorney to prepare a contract for the loan and return for approval at the next meeting. City Council minutes 9 October 17, 2001 4. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION REFERRING DR-O1-007 & BSE-O1-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN,19751 VERSAILLES WAY BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Vice Mayor Streit indicated that the City Attorney has informed him the Council needs to go back to Item 4. Vice Mayor Streit explained that since the item was on the agenda the Council is required to hear public comments. Councilmember Baker asked the City Attorney if the Council has to set aside their vote that was previously taken and listen to input from the public and then vote again. Attorney Taylor explained that Council would need to hear from the public and then reconsider the motion to reconsider the issue. Mary Doble, Doble & Sons Custom Homes Inc., 1233 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, noted that at the last meeting because the neighbors could not agree on the proper setback Council decided to ssend the project back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Doble noted that a few days ago she and her husband met with every neighbor and everyone agreed on a 55 ft. setback. Mrs. Doble noted that the asked each neighbor to sign a declaration stating they agreed to the setback. Mrs. Doble noted that prior to picking up the declarations from the neighbors, she received a phone call from Mrs. Joan Fox indicating that the neighbors have changed their minds and were having a meeting on Saturday and they were not invited. Mrs. Doble explained that Mrs. Fox told her that the neighbors were going to discuss the set back. Unfortunately as a result of this meeting the neighborhood had at Mrs. Fox's house other issues including the height and style were now a problem. Mrs. Doble noted that Mrs. Fox said the entire neighborhood was against this project. Mrs. Doble requested that the Council allow this project to go forward. Mr. Chen/Applicant. Mr. Moore noted that Mr. Chen has done everything possible to please his neighbors. Mr. Moore noted that his client is confused on what mandates his project to go back to the Planning Commission. Paul Doble, Doble & Sons Custom Homes Inc., 1233 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, noted that he has tried to explain to the neighbors that the only issue up for discussion was the positioning of the house. Mr. Doble requested that the Council cannot hear this project until December, which will hold up all of his subcontractors. Attorney Taylor noted that an appeal can be filed on one particular basis but under the City's code once the Council hears an appeal it is called a denuvo hearing which means the Council is free to consider any'other issues they want regardless of the specific issues on which the appeal was filed. In regards to what action the Council may take tonight, Attorney Taylor explained that since the Council acted and closed- the item earlier this evening, we have do not know if there were other individuals who wanted to participate in the discussion. Attorney Taylor stated that for due process reasons the City Council cannot take a final action on the matter tonight. City Council minutes 10 October 17, 2001 Attorney Taylor explained that the most the City Council could do tonight is either do nothing this evening in which it would go back to the Planning Commission or vote to reconsider the appeal at the next Council meeting and at that time Council could make a final decision. Mr. Doble requested that the City Council hear and consider it at the next meeting. Director Sullivan and Planner Knapp would have the opportunity to meet with the four homeowners. Mr. Doble noted that if the Council sends this it back to Planning another neighbor might appeal it and the project would be held up even longer. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO PLACE DR-O1-007 & BSE-O1-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN,19751 VERSAILLES ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2001. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Councilmember Bogosian requested that if Director Sullivan meets with the neighborhood to please invite everyone who owns property on this street to the meeting on November 7, 2001. Councilmember Bogosian noted his only interest is focusing on the setback; he supports the setback at SSft. Consensus of the City Council to reopen Oral Communications. Rich Schmieder, 19525 Three Oaks Way, stated that he has never been noticed regarding the ongoing construction project on the Ferrari residence. Mr. Schmeider described a few of the problems with this site including excessive noise and garbage and several occasions where his property was flooded by their pool. Mr. Schmieder noted that he visited the Building Department to complain about various issues. Mr. Schmieder asked if the City has time limits to complete a project. Mr. Schmieder requested that the City Council investigate his concerns. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to do a follow up report concerning Mr. Schmieder's complaints. NEW BUSINESS 7. ORDINANCE ENABLING CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCESS CLAIMS FILED AGAINST THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and waive first reading of ordinance. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor explained that State law and Saratoga City Code require that the City be given the opportunity to review a claim against the City before the claimant pursues that matter in Superior Court. Currently, all such claims are heard by the City Council. Government Code allows the City Council to delegate to City staff claim review and payment authority for claims under $50,000. City Council minutes 11 October 17, 2001 Attorney Taylor noted that because many claims are small and do not raise major policy issues, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to process minor claims with the concurrence of the City Attorney. This would speed processing of - claims and reduce the administrative burden to applicants and to the City Attorney. 8. Attorney Taylor noted that the attached ordinance would authorize the City Manager to accept, settle, or reject claims against the City of $3,000 or less with the concurrence of the City Attorney. Staff would retain the discretion to seek Council review for claims that are less than $3,000 and would be required to seek Council review for claims that are less than $3,000. The intent of this ordinance is to streamline the process. Councilmember Bogosian noted he likes the opportunity to review the claims that are filed against the City and does not support this ordinance. Councilmember Baker noted that the citizens of the City of Saratoga do not elect the Manager and the Attorney. Councilmember Baker noted that the City does not receive many claims and it is his responsibility as an elected official to review them. If circumstances change and the Council becomes overwhelmed with claims Councilmember Baker noted he might change his mind. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with his colleagues. Consensus of the City Council to oppose the proposed ordinance and continue reviewing every claim that is filed against the City of Saratoga LEGAL REVIEW OF PERSONNEL RULES AND POLICIES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-082 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $14,100 FOR A REVIEW OF PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW POLICES Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson reported that after an analysis of the City's rules, polices, memorandums of understandings and letters of agreement reveal a need fora " comprehensible legal review of personnel related documents. The City's rules have not been substantially reviewed since 1987. The City's administrative polices have not been revised since 1993. The City's rules and polices are not only critical to efficient and economical provisions of service to the public, but insure fair treatment for those who compete for employment and promotion. The rules define the obligation, rights, privileges and prohibition that are placed upon the City employees. City Council minutes 12 October 17, 2001 -. City Manager Anderson noted that wh_ le the Human Resource Analyst has been drafting revisions to the City's polices over the last two years, a meeting with attorney Richard C. Bolanos of Liebert, Cassidy, & Whitmore confirmed the need for an immediate comprehensible review of not only polices, but also City's rules and other documents defining the City's personnel system. Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore submitted an estimate not to exceed $14,000 for a review of personnel rules and regulations and development of updated polices. Councilmember BOGOSIAN asked why we have to hire a consultant to do this when perhaps we could copy another cities and go through the document and apply it to the City of Saratoga needs. Attorney Taylor noted that although Attorney Wittwer, who handles most of the City's personnel issues, has adequate knowledge of personnel regulations Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore has the legal expertise. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH LIEBERT, CASSIDY, WHITMORE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FO $14,100. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 9. CONSIDER REQUESTS TO JOIN FRIENDS OF THE COURT BRIEFS IN LOWENSTEIN V. CITY OF LAFAYETTE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve requests to join amicus briefs. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor explained that the City's support is currently being sought in Loewenstein v. City of Lafayette, a case of possible concern to the City. The case arises out of the City of Lafayette's denial of a lot line adjustment. The City is appealing the Superior Court's decisions (1) the denial of the lot line adjustment constituted a taking even though the property owner had not submitted even one development application for the development parcel involved in the lot line adjustment and (2) the city must compensate the property owner for the two year delay in developing the property due to the denial and subsequent litigation. Attorney Taylor noted that the attached letter form the City of Lafayette describes what the amicus brief will argue (1) the takings claim should not have been considered because the landowner had not received a final decision from the City of the permissible uses of the undeveloped parcel (2) there can no taking where the regulatory delay is due to a City's good faith error of law (3) a good faith two year delay in the development process does not have an unduly severe economic impact or interfere with reasonable investment expectations. City Council minutes 13 October 17, 2001 BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: Chamber ofCommerce -Celebrate Saratoga was a success and had a tremendous crowd. SASCC -facing financial hardships. VTA - requested a list of CNG fueling stations in the Bay Area. Councilmember BOGOSIAN reported the following information: • Library JPA -after the City Manager contacted the County Library, they have agreed to wait until after the bid opening for Phase II of the Library Project before they spend the $300,000. Councilmember Baker reported the following information: KSAR -establishing personnel rules, improving programs and bringing in new ideas to the table. Councilmember Baker noted that he was impressed with the new staff. Emergency Planning Council -discussed the urgency to standardize and equip all of the cities in Santa Clara County with updated emergency procedures to provide for proper response in cause of any terrorist activities. Vice Mayor Streit reported the following information: • Hakone Board of Directors -appointed new Board Members. • West Valley Solid Waste JPA -continued negotiations for renewal of recycling contract CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian referred to a letter he received from Peter Wang and requested that it be forwarded to Council Library personnel. Councilmember Bogosian requested a debriefing of Celebrate Saratoga including overtime City staff worked, injuries, and the breakdown of money collected from food and alcohol. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports Councilmember Bogosian's request. Councilmember Baker requested that staff provide Council with all Commission/Committee procedures and polices. Councilmember Waltonsmith -noted that she recently was invited to speak at the Greenbrier Homeowner's Association meeting. Councilmember Waltonsmith described some of the neighbors concerns: • Trees located near Cox/Highway 85 are dying. • Construction trucks are still going down Seagull Way City Council minutes 14 October 17, 2001 OTHER None • • CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that staff has learned that there would not be a quorum for the meeting of November 21, 2001. Attorney Taylor noted that tomorrow Ann Sullivan, Secretary to the City Manager, would be distributing to Council two correspondences. The First is a memo from the Tobacco Legal Assistance Committee, which summarizes the law in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling from last spring in the Loralard v. Massachusetts Tobacco case. The City joined the amicus brief and should have this information Attorney Taylor noted that the second correspondence is a two-page memo from the State Water Resources Control Board describing their effort to come up with state regulations on septic systems. Attorney Taylor noted that staff would be monitoring their progress. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council minutes 15 October 17, 2001