Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-2002 Planning Commission Packet1 ~3s CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL' Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent Commissioners Barry ~z Roupe Staff Planner Vasudevan, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES' Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2002 (APPROVED 5-0) •-, "`.~, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePubhc will be allowed to.address thePlanning Commission for up to three ' ° ,:mutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohtbus the Plamm~g Commission from discussing or taking action'on such Items. However, the Planning Commission may,. +~act staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Plamm~g Commission direction to Sra f f t '- ,' ,.~ ~~ n REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA E` _ ' ° ~ - _ - - f ' Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the ageY~ - - ~; '~~~:.';~tf tl~as~properly posted on May 16, ~~~,"_ ~_; - 2002. ' ~ ~ ~'~ ~{~,' -- - REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS~~ -- - _ If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City c ' - Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). - ~ - CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. Application #02-029 (397-17-014) -ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Ave.; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the main structure and construct a new 4,641 square foot single-story residence. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. 4! The existing guesthouse, greenhouse and workshop on the site will remain. The 43,168 square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 2. Application #02-040 (503-20-083) - CHYAN, 20870 Verde Vista Lane; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The proposed residence will replace atwo-story home that was demolished in conjunction with a previous Administrative Design Review Approval. The 43,264 (gross) square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 3-2, KURASCH &t GARAKANI OPPOSED) 3. Application #02-083 -CITY OF SARATOGA -Saratoga Woods Neighborhood; - The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would limit existing single story dwellings to single story. An Environmental Initial Study is available for review at the City of Saratoga in the Community Development Department. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 4 Report on Inconsistencies between the Zonmg Code and the Planning Department Handouts. (SULLIVAN) (DIRECTION GIVEN) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of April 17, 2002 and Adjourned Meeting of May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:02 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive this Agenda via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato~a ca us ~J CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE' City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2002 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-029 - ANDERSON Item 1 19571 Farwell Avenue 2. Application #02-040 - CHYAN Item 2 20870 Verde Vista Lane LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Commmttee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Plannmg Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3 00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES. Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Any memberof thePublic will be allowed to address thePlanntngCommission forup to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from ducusstng or tahing action on such items However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA __ Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 16, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS - If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. - 1. Application #02-029 (397-17-014) -ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Ave.; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the main structure and construct a new 4,641 square foot single-story residence. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The existing guesthouse, greenhouse and workshop on the site will remain. The 43,168 square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 2. Application #02-040 (503-20-083) - CHYAN, 20870 Verde Vista Lane; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The proposed residence will replace atwo-story home that was demolished in conjunction with a previous Administrative Design Review Approval. The 43,264 (gross) square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 3. Application #02-083 -CITY OF SARATOGA -Saratoga Woods Neighborhood; - The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would limit existing single story dwellings to single story. An Environmental Initial Study is available for review at the City of Saratoga in the Community Development Department. (SULLIVAN) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 4. Report on Inconsistencies between t_he Zoning Code and the Planning Department Handouts. (SULLIVAN) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of April 17, 2002 and Adjourned Meeting of May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us ~~ llll D LJ ~ d Q MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 8, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting _ Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April 10, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of April 10, 2002, were approved with typographical corrections to pages 5, 15 and 16. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Kurasch and Zutshi APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of Apri124, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the regular Planning Commission minutes of April 24, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Roupe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items • r• Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 2, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 _ Application #02-025 (386-O1-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road: Continuation of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building contains 2,500 square feet and is zoned CV-Commercial, the lot is 18,500 square feet and the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit. This Public Hearing was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2002. • Informed that the proposed use consists of an enrichment program for children. • Reminded that the main concerns raised at the last meeting including parking and circulation. • Said that the applicant has arranged an agreement with the Home of Christ Church, located at 6345 Janary Way in San Jose, to allow their site for use as a pick up point for this Use Permit. • Said that there is a deed restriction on the Church property that requires gates to be closed after dark. • Stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions that maximum parking on the Prospect parking lot be striped, that two sheds be removed, that staggered arrival and departure times be coordinated and that the enrollment be limited to 30 students on site at any time. Additionally, staff is proposing an added condition requiring the applicant and/or the Church apply to the City of San . Jose to change its current restriction on parking lot access at the Church site so that it can serve the intended use for a drop off site by this new institutional use at times that are compatible with this proposed use. Commissioner Roupe sought assurances that the City of Saratoga would retain the right to inspect conformance with this off-site transport and pick up arrangements. Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that there are six and 12-month reviews called out in the Conditions of Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Kurasch reminded that the proposed hours of operation are to 8:30 p.m. Asked if the applicant can change her hours in order to conform to the available parking hours at this San Jose Church location. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicant extended her hours due to the limitations on the number of students on site at any one time. Director Tom Sullivan added that if the City of San Jose refuses to approve the extended hours for the parking lot at the Church for use by this applicant, this Saratoga Use Permit would become void. Commissioner Kurasch suggested marking off spaces belonging to the Medical Center, particularly since this off-site drop off program is being proposed in lieu of a Traffic Study. Commissioner Zutshi said that this marking of the parking spaces for the Medical Center would not be necessary on Saturdays, particularly since it appears that there would only be one-on-one tutoring - occumng on Saturdays and the dental practice is closed. Therefore, the parking spaces should be available to this use. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:13 p.m. Ms. Jean Wu, Agent for the Applicant: • Advised that her client has operated successfully in Sunnyvale for 9 years. • Stated that her client, Ms. Gin Ju, is available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Gin Ju how many students would attend class on Saturday. Ms. Gin Ju replied that the Saturday program includes tutoring with between one and five students per teacher. Commissioner Roupe stated that this represents a potential of 16 students plus four teachers for a total of 20 on Saturday. This creates a potential for congestion in both parking and traffic on site. Ms. Gin Ju said that while it is hard to say exactly how many students will be on site on Saturday, she assures that there will not be more than 10 students at any given time. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Gin Ju for clarification as to whether the dental office is open on Saturdays. Ms. Gin Ju replied only in the morning. Mr. Jim Yeh, Property Owner: • Identified as the owner of the building, Mr. Jim Yeh corrected that the dental office does not work on Saturday. Commissioner Roupe proposed a stipulation that no more than 10 students are permitted on site at any one time on Saturdays as a Condition of Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 -Page 4 Acting Chair Jackman suggested that perhaps the Church could serve_as an off-site drop off point on Saturdays too in order to allow more students on Saturdays. - Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are not the same traffic problems on Saturdays as on weekdays. Commissioner Roupe stated that this would be assured with a limitation to 10 students at a time on Saturday. Commissioner Hunter commended Ms. Gin Ju for her efforts to respond to the concerns raised by the Commission at the first Public Hearing. Thanked her for those efforts and stated that this proposal represents a good compromise. _ - Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Roupe stated that this could be an approved Conditional Use. Commissioner Garakani stated a concern for cars stacking close to the intersection as he observed occurred when making the site visit. He added that with the off-site drop off and pick up proposal, his concerns are somewhat alleviated. Commissioner Roupe suggested that perhaps entrance and exit arrows should be placed to eliminate _ confusion on how circulation should occur on site. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be helpful to have a traffic study. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Commission could re-evaluate if problems occur. Commissioner Roupe added that if the proposed use of the Church for off-site drop off and pick up does not work out, the Use Permit can be reviewed. Commissioner Garakani asked how this would be monitored and by whom. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the staff planner would be the one to monitor. He added that generally, review is based upon complaints raised. Commissioner Roupe reiterated the importance of a special condition to require the Church in San Jose to obtain necessary approvals to assure compliance with its own Conditional Use Permit in allow this Saratoga-based school to share the Church's San Jose parking facilities for the hours necessary to support this Use Permit. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this could be added to the Conditions. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is the consensus to limit the number of students on Saturday to 10 and to mark the parking spaces as reserved for the Dental Offices. Commissioner Zutshi again mentioned that so marking the parking spaces would not be necessary on Saturday when the Dental Office is not opened for business. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter agreed that marking the parking would be confusing and assured that the Dental Office would promptly complain to the landlord in the event that their spaces are being taken by this school use. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a sign restricting the use of parking from Monday through Friday as an alternative. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purpose of teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs on property located at 20444 Prospect Road with the following Conditions: 1. Compliance with the San Jose-issued Conditional Use Permit for the Church regarding approved hours for use of its parking lot; 2. An added Condition of Approval requiring the re-striping and signage for the on-site parking lot; 3. Establishment of a monitoring program to ensure conformance with the arrangements for the off-site student drop off and pick up process; and 4. A limitation to ]10 students on site at a time on Saturdays. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: - l~Tone Mr. Ken Silverman, 12179 Atrium Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he resides at the Park Saratoga Townhome Development and has concerns about this proposal. • Pointed out that there are many children and seniors and that additional traffic poses a concern, as do issues of overflow parking into the area. • Asked that the Commission take these concerns into consideration. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that the students are picked up at their schools and will be dropped off-site to the Church location for pick up by their parents. Additionally, there is a limitation to 10 students on Saturday at any given time and a Monitoring Program will be in place. • Assured that if a problem comes up, Mr. Silverman can bring it to the attention of staff. • Asked Mr. Silverman if he finds these provisions to be adequate. Mr. Ken Silverman replied as long as everyone follows the plan. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that neighbors are the best part of any monitoring program. One of the City's two Code Enforcement staff can respond within thirty minutes. The Use Permit can be brought back for revocation if the use is not compatible with the area. *** 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 - Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Acting Chair Jackman stated that she received the Public Notice for this Item and will recuse herself. She turned the gavel over to Commissioner Roupe and left the dais to join the audience. Application #02-073 (517-09-069) POLLACK, 14500-14550 Bid Basin Way: Conditional Use Permit application to allow an existing real estate office to expand into the adjacent 1,400 square foot storefront along Big Basin Way. The building is located in the CH-1 Commercial District. The lot size is .30 acre, the building contains 9,051 square feet and the property has 17 parking spaces. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: -- • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow a real estate office to occupy a storefront at 14500 Big Basin Way. This site is adjacent to an existing Caldwell Banker office and the combined square footage would be 2,100 square feet. • Added that this conversion from retail to office would result in the loss of 1,000 square feet of retail space. • Informed that correspondence requesting denial was distributed. Additionally, the Economic Development Office is also requesting that this storefront be retained for retail use as it has desirable frontage. • Pointed out that the General Plan encourages commercial uses and therefore staff is recommending denial since this proposal would not enhance the commercial viability of the Village. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Economic Development Office concentrates on the Village only. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Economic Development Office is concerned with every area of the City that has a Commercial Land Use designation. Commissioner Kurasch said that she assumes that the City Manager and Council concur with the recommendation of the Economic Development Office. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan whether this proposal was ever agendized by the Business Group. Director Tom Sullivan said he does not believe so. Commissioner Roupe asked staff for the distinction between services and retail uses and questioned whether the generation of sales tax is the main difference. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Zoning Ordinance clearly identifies the service versus retail uses and clarified that a real estate agency does not generate sales tax. Sales tax revenue is encouraged in the General Plan goals for the Village. Director Tom Sullivan added that the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the first floor spaces in the Village are to be occupied by retail uses. - Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Hunter gave the example that a Kitchen and Design Store that also sells appliances would be retail while one that simply provided design services without sales of appliances would not be considered a retail use. Commissioner Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:48 p.m. Mr. Mike James, Managing Broker, Caldwell Banker: • Said that the building owner, Mr. Pollack, provided a letter asking~for approval of this Conditional Use Permit. • Said that Mr. Miles Rankin, a real estate broker in Saratoga for 35 years, accompanies him this evening. • Informed that Caldwell Banker currently has 150 agents in Saratoga and that they have always had an image in the Downtown. • Said that the two small spaces they currently occupy in Downtown Saratoga are not adequate and don't work well for their needs. • Pointed out that with this Use Permit approval, they will shut down one of their two existing spaces, consisting of 400 square feet. Mr. Miles Rankin, Realtor, Caldwell Banker: • Identified himself as a 50-year resident and 40-year broker operating in Downtown Saratoga. • Said that they have 17 parking spaces, which would be adequate for their needs and that they would operate a very high-class real estate office in this space. This proposal will improve their existing operations in Downtown Saratoga. Commissioner Garakani ointed out that a retail sho wo 1 p p u d be more helpful to the other businesses in the area. Mr. Mike James replied that there are no potential retail uses pending for this location. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are other real estate offices nearby in the Village. Mr. Mike James replied no. Commissioner Hunter said that she has noticed that there appears to be lots of real estate offices in the downtowns of more affluent communities. Mr. Mike James said that their type of office would attract visitors to Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter said that she observed what appears to be office use within an empty store near this site. Director Tom Sullivan reported that this use is a current Code Enforcement case. Mr. Miles Rankin pointed out that there are already many other businesses in Downtown Saratoga that do not generate sales tax. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Rankin if he has considered usin a second floors ace in lieu of a first g p floor storefront. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Miles Rankin said that there are none available right now. Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has concerns. _ • Pointed out that two businesses participate in Parking District 4 in this immediate area. • Stated that this is an ideal retail-based business location on a prime corner location. • Said that it is important to allow retail to come in. • Said that he has known Mr. Rankin for a long time but that he believes there is a better use of this site as retail since the windows are ideal for merchandise displays. Ms. Cynthia Fortino, 14510 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she is a resident of the area and serves as Assistant Manager at the Butter Paddle store. • Stated that the store manager sent a letter. • Declared the importance of a vibrant retail environment. • Pointed out that a real estate office is a destination type business that will not generate traffic for the retail businesses in the Village. • Asked that the Commission not allow the erosion of retail business in the Downtown Area. Ms. Pinky Lafune, 14510 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she is the Assistant Buyer at the Butter Paddle. • Stated that the Village is charming and needs to be left that way. Mr. Miles Rankin: • Stated that businesses are fleeing Saratoga and people are not shopping in Saratoga. • Added that vacancies exist up and down Big Basin Way. • Pointed out that there are other service-oriented businesses along Big Basin Way including banks. A real estate office is needed too. • Pointed out that they typically leave only four to five people per office at any given time. • Said that everything would work out fine and that only 1,000 square feet of retail space would be lost. Commissioner Roupe proposed a potential compromise of having the real estate office give up all the current space occupied so that it can be returned to retail uses. This would result in a loss of only 300 square feet of retail space instead of 1,000. Mr. Miles Rankin said he would take the suggestion under advisement. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this is not the proposal currently before the Commission. Mr. Miles Rankin again asked why banks are a permitted use while a real estate office is not. Commissioner Roupe said that the banks have been there a long time and the City now has General Plan guidelines in place. The City does not want to worsen the situation by removing more retail space from the Village. Commissioner Roupe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:15 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that public comments have been made and good points raised including parking concerns for the area. • Said that to change the use of this site from retail to office would be opportunity given away since this site has the potential of being a viable retail use. • Stated that it is important not to close the door permanently for retail uses, as it would have a longstanding impact on the Downtown. • Pointed out that the current economic downturn is occurring all over right rtow and not just in the Village. • Added that it is important to support the other businesses by bringing in foot traffic and it is also important not to have destination businesses as there are already enough and more are not needed. • Stated that this proposal is inconsistent with the Downtown both aesthetically and functionally. • Said that she will vote to deny this request. Commissioner Garakani agreed with Commissioner Kurasch. He added that for the good of Saratoga, this real estate office should consider space other than in the Downtown. Commissioner Hunter: • Advised that she attends the Business Development Meetings and also shops in Downtown Saratoga all the time. • Said that she has no problem with real estate offices but that there are two spaces occupied already by this real estate company. • Expressed agreement with the points made by Commissioner Kurasch. • Said that this is a relatively new building of approximately 15 years and is prominently located. • Agreed that adequacy of available parking is a concern. • Said that she hopes a retail use can be located for this site. • Stated her support for the staff recommendation for denial. Commissioner Roupe asked what the parking requirement is for an office use. Planner Ann Welsh replied that this is a 9,000 square foot structure and that an office use requires one parking space for every 200 square feet. This would result in a need for 45 spaces. While available City parking can also be applied, this project is very underparked. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that this building does not itself provide adequate parking. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Exclusively Yours customers were not allowed to park there Commissioner Zutshi agreed that retail uses are more necessary than a real estate office at this location. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he supports the need for retail and staff's recommendation. • Added that he also recognizes the benefit of along-standing real estate office such as this one. • Suggested that the applicant consider consolidating their offices into the Exclusively Yours tenant space and leaving two spaces available for retail use. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that that alternative would still not be viable as it still represents the conversion of retail space into offices. • Cautioned that the Commission should not give this applicant the impression that this is a likely alternative. • Said that she is not in favor of converting retail into office at all. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a real estate office on Big Basin Way. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Jackman Acting Chair Jackman returned to the dais and assumed the gavel. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-058 (CITYWIDE) - SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: Zoning - Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include a revised definition of "basement," provide a definition of "lightwell," specify setback and size requirements and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 4/24/02) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that at the last Commission meeting a Public Hearing was held to consider amendments to the development standards for basements. • Stated that the item was then continued to allow the conclusion of the Public Review Period, which occurred on Apri129, 2002. No comments were received. • Stated that numerous reports and discussions have been held and commended Commissioner Jackman and Planner Lata Vasudevan for their work on this update. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:27 p.m. Mr. Andrew Barnes, 14377 Old Wood Road, Saratoga: • Stated that this Basement Update would have been helpful to him when he was planning his home. • Said that it has taken 18 months to get his project through the City, which represents lots of time and money invested. • Asked if this Ordinance Amendment would be retroactive since he is fearful that it would limit his own project. Director Tom Sullivan assured Mr. Barnes that the Ordinance Update would not be retroactive nor apply to his project. He added that Mr. Barnes appears to misunderstand some aspect of the proposal. He added that basement space is still not counted as FAR unless it is a daylight basement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Kurasch added that there is no net square footage effect as a result of this Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe added that the Amended Ordinance would help with basements on Hillside projects. Mr. Andrew Barnes said that mandatory Soils Report should be required very early in the process, as this would save time. Director Tom Sullivan said that a project planner addresses these issues and provides a letter to the applicant within 30 days and schedules for a hearing within 60 days of an application being found complete. Commissioner Kurasch told Mr. Barnes that it is important to comment on the Basement Ordinance Amendment in general terms rather than based upon his specific project. Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Barnes provide his recommendations via letter for consideration by the Commission's Subcommittee on Design Review Processes. Commissioner Roupe asked if one or two motions would be required. Director Tom Sullivan replied that one motion could suffice. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:40 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting a Negative Declaration and a second Resolution recommending adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-058) regarding development standards for basements as proposed. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Application #02-080 (386-26-080) CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Avenue: General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Quasi-Public Facilities to Public Facilities. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow the city to own and utilize the property in a manner consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that properties designated Quasi-Public Facility cannot be controlled by a publicly elected governing board. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City has made an offer to purchase property owned by Grace United Methodist Church at 19848 Prospect Avenue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 12 • Added that this purchase requires an adjustment to the site's General Plan Land Use designation, which is currently Quasi-Public Facilities, since it is not appropriate for a property so designated to be controlled by a publicly elected governing board. • Recommended a change from Quasi-Public Facilities to Public Facilities for this parcel. Commissioner Roupe asked if this change is intended just for this one site. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked if a Condition could be imposed that this change not go through if the City does not end up buying this property. Director Tom Sullivan assured that this change would not go through if the purchase were not completed. He added that two Resolutions are required. One for the Environmental Determination and the second for the General Plan Land Use Amendment itself. The Commission must be able to make the finding that this change is consistent with the General Plan. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:45 p.m. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:45 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions, one to make the Environmental Determination and the second to recommend approval of a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Quasi Public Facilities to Public Facilities for property located at 1984E Prospect Avenue, with the understanding that this action assumes the City will go forward with the purchase of this property. If not, the parcel will retain the current Quasi Public Facilities General Plan Land Use designation. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Subcommittee Reports Commissioner Hunter advised that the Design Review Subcommittee held a preliminary meeting and will meet again soon. They plan to work to streamline the design review process. Commissioner Roupe strongly encouraged public comments on this process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 13 Election of new Chair and Vice-Chair Commissioner Hunter asked how long each member of the Commission has served and which Commissioners have served as Chair. Commissioner Roupe replied that he and Commissioners Kurasch and Jackman have each served for three years and none of them have yet served as Chair. He added that traditionally, if the Vice Chair is willing, they are invited to serve the following year as Chair. He asked Commissioner Jackman if she was interested in serving as the Chair. Commissioner Jackman replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Jackman was elected to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission for the next 12 months. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None _ ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, Commissioner Kurasch was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for the next 12 months. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None Housing Luncheon Commissioner Zutshi advised that she and Commissioner Garakani attended the Housing luncheon today. Commissioner Garakani stated that he found it to be very informative. COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meeting of Apri13, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, May 22, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~- Corinne A. Shinn 3160 Irlanda Way, San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 267-3327/Home - (408) 234-0064/Cell Email address: corinneshinn@earthlink.net May 12, 2002 Ms. Kristin Borel Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Kristin: This letter serves as my invoice and request for payment for services rendered as Saratoga's Contract Minutes Clerk for Planning Commission meetings. I am requesting payment as follows: • May 8, 2002 (Regular Meeting) 450.00 TOTAL DUE $450.00 Please remit to the above address. Thank you. Sincerely, Corinne A. Shinn ~.J ITEM 1 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-029;19571 Farwell Avenue _ Agent/Owner: Park Miller / Gibson and Margaret Anderson (owners) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner ~~ Date: May 22, 2002 APN: 397-17-014 Department Hea • • 000001 ly.~Tl rarwell Avenue CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02/15/02 04/11/02 05/08/02 05/08/02 05/03/02 - The applicant requests design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 4,641 square foot single-story residence that will be 26 feet height. The long, rectangular site is 43,168 square feet, and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The existing guesthouse, greenhouse and workshop structures will remain. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the design review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report . 3 Letter from Neighbors 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" • 000002 • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,168 square feet SLOPE 4.5% Average Site Slope; 5.2% at building site GRADING REQUIRED: 60 cubic yards with a cut depth of 1 foot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project, which proposes the demolition of a single family residence and the construction of a new single family residence, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 3 exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. The site is in a residential zone and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior siding will be red cedar shingles with cedar shingle roofing. The trim, fascia and sash will be bone-colored surfaced wood with iron ogee gutters. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • OOU003 r--~ ~J Lot Coverage: Building Footprint: Pool ~sz Spa Driveway Walkways ~ Terraces TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Size of Residence: First Floor: Garage: Workshop ~ Greenhouse (ex.): Guesthouse (ex.): TOTAL Setbacks: Front Rear• Left Side (west): Right Side (east): Height: Residence and attached garage Proposal - _29% 6059 sq.ft. 1620 sq.ft. 3258 sq.ft. 1650 sq.ft. 12,587 sq.ft. 4,047 sq.ft. 594 sq.ft. 810 sq.ft. 608 sq.ft: 6os9 sq.ft. 70 ft. 225 ft. 11 ft.-6 in. 16 ft. 26 ft. Code Requirements 35% (15,109 sq. ft.) Maximum Allowable: 6oso sq.ft. Minimum Requirements: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 50 ft. Left Side: 11 ft.' Right Side 11 ft. Maximum Allowable• 26 ft. 1 Pursuant to Section 15-65.160, reduced side setbacks are allowed because the lot is substandard in terms of width. • • 000004 ~' PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant requests design review approval to demolish ahingle-story residence and construct a 4,641 square foot single-story residence. Anew driveway configuration with guest parking is also proposed to facilitate egress onto the street. The 43,168 square foot parcel is Long and rectangular, with a 10 foot wide public service easement along the front property line. The applicant does not propose to make any modifications to the existing pool, guesthouse, workshop and greenhouse structures on the site. The applicant has proposed swell-proportioned cottage-style home with varying rooflines. Even though the maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet, the highest roof elements are set back significantly from the property lines. The entrance to the attached garage is at the side of the house, so that the front elevation is consistent with the cottage style. The rich wood textures of the siding and high-pitched roof minimize the perception of bulk will blend well with the surrounding trees. The properties in the vicinity are one and two story homes of various architectural styles. Staff feels that the proposed home will not only be compatible with the surroundings in terms of style, proportion, mass, and height, but will also enhance the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the neighbors. A letter with signatures of approval from the neighbors is attached to this Staff Report. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed single-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations and varying rooflines. The elevation walls jog in and out on all sides of the structure, creating shadows on the nchly-textured wood shingle siding. The maximum roof height of 26 feet at the central portion of the structure enhances to the cottage-style architecture of the building. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: Since the applicant is proposing a limited number of materials that are primarily natural wood, the residence will blend well with the surrounding trees. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: Interference with privacy is not an issue with the proposed single-story structure. All of the neighbors have no concerns with the proposed home. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is approximately 4.5%, and the proposed house will not have any impact on access to views. 000005 Policy #5 Design for Energy_Efficiency: The Anderson residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The house will be well insulated and will have energy efficient windows, and heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Saratoga City code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The proposed residence will have a two car garage. Grading The project requires very little grading. The applicant proposes a maximum cut of 1 foot totaling 60 cubic yards of soil. Trees The City Arborist Report, date stanped and received March 6, 2002 (attached), contains recommendations for the protection of trees on the site. . There are many trees on the property. However, according to the Arborist Report, there are only 4 ordinance sized trees tfiat may be affected by the proposed construction. Three of the trees are large oaks and one is a fine multi-stem Japanese maple. Replacement trees are required for the Japanese maple that will be removed because of the location of the proposed home. The 3 large oak trees will remain in good condition if the applicant follows all of the tree protection measures. A condition of approval has been included in the attached Resolution requiring that the applicant comply with all of the Arborist Report recommendations. The applicant has also submitted a conceptual landscape plan. Much of the existing landscaping in the large rear yard will remain. A lawn already exists adjacent to the large oak trees (trees #1 and #2). The Arborist Report states that lawn shall not be planted within 25 feet of the tree trunks of the large oak trees. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a final landscape plan be submitted for review and approval from the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits, to ensure that proper planting is proposed beneath the large oaks. Conclusion The proposed residence complies with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Ha-idbooh and satisfies all of the findings required within Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 The proposed residence will preserve the natural landscape to the extent feasible and will not interfere with views or privacy. The proposed residence will be compatible with the neighborhood and is designed so that the perception of bulk is minim~ed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the design review application 02-029 with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~~~~6 Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION N0.02-029 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANDERSON; 19571 Farwell Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning-Commission has received an application for design review approval to demolis~i a single-story residence and construct a 4,641 square feet single-story residence. The proposed residence will be built on a 43,168 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of asingle-family residence in a residential zone. _ WHEREAS, the applicant has rnet the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privary: 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 (u) community view sheds v,~ll avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Interference with privac;~ is not an issue with the proposed single-story structure. All of the neighbors have no concerns with the proposed home. 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 mininuzed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Muumal grading is proposed. According to the Arborist Report, there are only four ordinance sized trees that maybe affected by the proposed construction. Three of the trees are large oaks and one is a fine multi-stem Japanese maple. Replacement trees are required for the Japanese maple that would be removed because of the location of the proposed home. The three large oak trees will remain in good condition if the applicant follows all of the tree protection measures specified in the Arborist Report. • 00000'7 Minimize perception of excessive bulk: The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will *ninimi7e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. - The proposed single-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations and varying rooflines. The elevation walls jog in and out on all sides of the structure, creating shadows on the richly-textured wood shingle siding. The maximum roof height of 26 feet at the central portion of the structure enhances to the cottage-style architecture of the building. Compatible bulk and height: The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and the natural environment; and shall not unreasonable impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonable impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy: The properties in the vicinity are one and two story homes of various architectural styles. Staff feels that the proposed home will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood, and will be compatible with the surroundings in terms of style, proportion, mass, and height. Current grading and erosion control methods: The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City: Minimal grading is proposed for this project. Design policies and techniques: The proposed main structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techiuques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #I: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed single-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations and varying rooflines. The elevation walls will jog in and out on all sides of the structure, creating shadows on the richly-textured wood shingle siding. The maximum roof height of 26 feet at the central portion of the structure enhances to the cottage-style architecture of the building. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: The applicant is proposing a limited number of materials that will blend well with the surroundings. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: Interference with pnvacy is not an issue with the proposed single-story structure. All of the neighbors have no concerns with the proposed home. ~~~~~8 Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is approximately 4.5%, and the proposed house will not have any impact on access to views. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: - The Anderson residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The house will be well insulated and will have energy efficient windows, and heating and cooling appliances. 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 Gibson and Margaret Anderson for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans mcorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." S. No ordinance size trees, other than the tree specified in the Arborist Report that is in conflict with the proposed construction, shall be removed without review and approval by the City Arborist. 6 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 shall be included in the construction plans submitted to the Building Division. If all storm water cannot beretained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 000009 CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 8. Protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." Staff shall inspect the tree protective fencing prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 9. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to issuance of Building Permits. 10. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, security in the amount of $7,052 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the project site. 11. Prior to granting Final Building Inspection all approved landscaping must be installed and the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protection measures and replacement tree requirements. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Roof covering shall be fire retardant. 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detachedgarages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the 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. 15. 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. 000010 Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met.- - Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption - PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 22nd day of May 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: - - ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Pro a Owner or Authorized A ent P rty g Date 000011 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • X00012 ~a ;" BARRI E D. CC~ATE h° Attachment 2 and ASSOCIATES Horecuturai Consultants _ 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408353-1052 TREE PRESERVATION RECOA~IlViENDATIONS AT THE ANDERSON RESIDENCE 19571 FARWELL AVE. _ SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist February 25, 2002 Job #02-02-023 R: 2.21.02 D: 3.23.02 M: 3.4.02 p ~~~~~~ MAR 0 6 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEV~~PMENf • 000013 TREE PRESERVATION REG~..LMENDATIONS AT THE ANDERSON RESIDEN 19571 FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA Assignment - Kristin Borel asked me to inspect the trees at the Anderson property to determine what effects the proposed construction would have on them. The map I used to prepare the following information was prepared by Park Miller, architect and titled Site Plan/Drainage and Grading Plan, undated. Summary There are many trees on the property but only four trees which may be affected by proposed construction or site grading are large enough to be controlled by city ordinance. Three of these trees are very large valley oak trees in excellent health and one fine multi- stem Japanese maple. Proposed building footprilrts which would intrude slightly beneath the canopy of tree #2 and on the margin of canopy of tree #3 should work well, as long as no trenching is allowed beneath the canopies other than that required for construction of the building and fencing prevents access to larger proportions of those tree's root systems. A new driveway is to be installed in the area beneath the edge of the canopy of tree # 1, but if the protection fence is installed as proposed in this report, that small amount of damage to the root system should be quite acceptable. The three valley oaks are valued at $47,011. I suggest a 15% bond ($7,052) to assure maintenance of the protective fence. The Japanese maple which wautd be removed is valued at $2,102 which is more or less equivalent to one 36-inch box and two 24-inch box native trees. Recommendations 1. I recommend that protective fences be installed as precisely shown on the enclosed plan to protect as much of the root mass as possible beneath trees # 1, 2, and 3. That fence should be of 5 foot high chainlink fence, installed on 2-inch galvanized Iron posts driven at least 2 feet into the ground and should be installed before any equipment arrives on scene and be maintained until the project is completed and all subcontractors have left. 2. Anew 24-inch deep trench is specified to run partly beneath the canopy of tree #2. That trench should not be installed beneath the canopy but should intercept the existing drainline some other place, which is not beneath the canopy of a tree. No landscape irrigation tenches maybe dug inside these fence lines, either during or following construction. • PREPARED BY: HARRIS D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 25, 2002 000014 TREE PRESERVATION RECt.ioIMENDATIONS AT THE ANDERSON RESIDENC.r- ~ 2 19571 FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA 3. Lawn is specified in the area between the new driveway and the house and I presume intended to run continuously beneath the canopies of trees # 1 and 2. Lawn must not be planted beneath those tree canopies but should stay at least 25 feet from the tree trunks or where possible even further away from the trees. - 4. The grading for the proposed berm adjacent to the new driveway must not extend beyond the area shown on the plan and must stay beyond the protective fence line as precisely shown on the enclosed plan. - 5. The applicant should clearly understand that the tree bond for trees # 1, 2 and 3 is to assure the installation and maintenance of the fence precisely as shown on the plan from before equipment arrives on site and until all contractors including painters are gone from the scene. 6. No other trees of ordinance size are seen on the property, which would appeaz to be potentially damaged by proposed construction. Respectfully submitted, L~~`~~. Barrie D. Coate BDC/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Chart Tree Chart Definitions Protective Fencing Specs. Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Map (Plan) • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 25, 2002 000015 BARRIE D. CTE AND ASSOC><ATES ~ ~~-- Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. L.os Gatos, CA 95033 GILOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decnrrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree Eacnrrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdtiog root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosyMhates. Induded bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown" Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small be~anch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smalls part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, sttacbed to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. • ~i • 000016 Job T~TI: Anderson Job Address:l1 Farwell Ave. Job #~2-023 2.25.02 Mea wrem erhs Con dltlon Pru ninal cablln q Nee ds Pestl Diseas e Pro blems R ecom nand . BARRIE D COATS ~ ~ '~ . and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q W ~ ~)~ItK2 LL _ ~ z ~' (~ U' Z U' Z Q C7 ~ ~ it } F W _ ~ ~ R> (W O ~ ~ ~ 8 _ F ~ W ° ~ 0 ~ `" ~ n J 13535SsoniRo~d lwGda,G 951D0 ~ w ffi o: ~ w ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ U Z ~ u~i ~ ~ ~ z w Z ~ ~ ' ' 0 o a U Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °o: ~ ~ w ~ - ~ U ~ ~ p O m ~ m = a w a w ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ W W ~ ~ p 8 w w ~ ~ Key # Plant Name p ~ o ~ p x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i m x rn x c U U U ~ U o. o: z z 1 Val Oak 33 0 38 45 65 1 1 2 OverClls k~bata in 855 X $27/sq in = $ 23.081 X sp class 100% _ $23,081 X coed 100% _ $ 23,081 X loc 80% _ $ 1 B 485 Total Value 2 Val Oak 32 0 38 50 85 1 1 2 in 804 X $27/eq m = $ 21,704 X ep class 100% _ $21.704 X coed 100% _ $ 21,704 X loc 70% _ $ 15193 Trial Value 3 Vel Oak 30 0 34 50 55 1 1 2 In 707 X $27/sq. in = $ 19,076 X sP class 100% _ $19,078 X cond 100% _ $ 19.078 X loc 70% _ $ 13 353 Total Value 4 Hasa Ma 10 0 x 6 0 6 0 916 12 15 1 1 2 414 in 139 X $27Isq in =' $ 3,753 X sp class 70% _ $2,827 X coed 100% = S 2.827 X be 80% _ $ 2 102 Total Value ~'1,, . ~~ , i ~,.~ N REPLACEMBNT TREE VALUES . S-aal ~ 536 15-Sal ~ 5120 24"box -5420 36"box - 51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST Pase 1 of 1 BARRI E D. COA~ ~~ 1 and ASSOCIATES (408) 353-1052 - 23535 Summitttosd . Loa Caton, G 95030 - - DEFINITION OF TERMS ON TREE EVALUATION CHARTS DBH 1 Diameter in inches at breast height, or 4 y: feet. MULTI-STEM TREE Check mark if the tree has more than one stem. DBH 2 and DBH 3 Diameter at breast height for the multi-stem trunks, if any. HEIGHT As explained, listed by feet, approximately CANOPY DIAMETER Canopy diameter listed by feet, approximately. HEALTH A judgment of relative heart for the species is the subject area and soil. Number 1 signifies excellent health. A rating of number 5 represents specimens which are dead or actively dying. STRUCTURE Judgement of relative structure: 1= perfect structrure; 2= good to average _ _ shucture; 3= potentially hazardous and repairable; 4= actively hazardous, but repairable; 5=actively hazardous and not repairable. HAZARD RATING A proportionate degree of hazard, based on 3 factors, fai]!ure potential, size of part which would fail, and a target rating potential4-12. CONDITION RATING ~ A composite of Health and Structure ratings. CROWN CLEANING ~ Crown cleaning is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. - CROWN THINNING Includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, more than one-third of the live foliage should never be removed , , , , CROWN REDUCTION Used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be primed again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being ' . made. ~ , CROWN RESTORATION Can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may aced to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length of growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several pruniags over a number of years. 000018 i • • ~~ 2 CROWN RAISING Removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestnans, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one-half of _ its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of its crown to ensure a well-formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the forage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. PRUNING PRIORITY The relative importance of the recommended pruning based on the danger created by the unpruned portions. REMOVE END-WEIGHT Defined as requiring the removal of the ends of major limbs or major branches in sufficient quantity to prevent the breakage of the limb in question. This ~s done by thinning. Different species will require different amounts of end-weight removal depending on the inherent structure of the tree. As an example, Elm trees must not be allowed to develop heavy end-weights, where the same amount of end- weight on Magnolia may not be dangerous. Possible entnes in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning no attention is needed, 5 meaning immediate attention is needed. CABLES NEEDED If support cables are needed, the quantity needed would be noted here. INSECTS This would define the proportion of insect presence and damage to a tree. A separate list might accompany this to show what insects might be found in each different species of tree. The potential numbers listed under this column would be 1 through 5 showing the proportionate severity of the infestation of insects. Number 1 being no presence visible at the time the survey was taken, 5 being a very severe case that should be treated immediately. TREE CROWN DISEASES Defined as the proportion of diseases present in the specimen at the time the survey was taken. Potential entnes in this column would be 1 through 5 Number t • signifying very severe disease presence that should be treated. For this column a high rating may only serve to provide warning for the following year that treatment for the diseases in question should be planned in advance. Examples are Anthracnose disease on Modesto Ash. They would have to be sprayed before foliage is developed far enough for the disease to damage the forage, usually in early March. DEAD WOOD Self-explanatory. Defines the proportion of dead wood that is in the crown of a tree Entries possible in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning none present, 5 meaning a significant quantity of dead parts present This would usually be reflected in the health rating for this tree, but not always if the species typically accumulates dead twigs in the tree, as does Alb~zia ~ulibnssin. TRUNK DECAY Trunk decay would signify the proportionate amount of decay in the trunk of the tree. This is usually a result of removal of large limbs or branches from which decay travels and is a far more serious problem in some species than in others. Significant amounts of trunk decay in Elms would be a very serious potential problem, where the same amount of trunk decay in a Magnolia might not be nearly so dangerous. Potential entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no decay, 5 signifying so much decay that the tree should be immediately removed. ROOT COLLAR COVERED When the root collar of many species is covered, Armillaria mellea, Phytophthora cactorum, or other diseases, may kill vascular tissue, implying that this condition must be corrected. 000019 ~~ r ROOT COLLAR DISEASES This column defines the amount of disease activity discovered. When more than 50 percent of the trunk circumference-has been killed, the tree would be rated number 5, and a removal recommendation made. DAMAGED PAVING This relates to the amount of damage, usually by raising of sidewalks or movement of curbs caused by tree roots or tree trunk mass, and reflects the proportionate danger of pedestrians tripping over raised portions of paving. Possible entries in that column 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying a level pavement and no affect by the tree on the pavement surface, 5 signifying a very severe pavement interruption that should be repaired immediately. NEEDS FERTILIZER This column would signify the need of the tree in question to be fertilized. The entries possible in this column are 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no need for fertilizer, 5 signifying a severe need for fertilizer. Many species used here would require very little fertilizing in these soils, but in a species such as Magnolia, it will often not be in good health unless it is fertilized NEEDS WATER Defines the need for water of a given tree. The possible entries are t through 5 Number 1 signifying no water is necessary, 5 signifying the lack of available water is creating a severe impact on the health of the given specimen. Watering may be difficult on old specimens unless a water truck is used or homeowners are encouraged to do their own watering. The implication is not meant that weekly watering is necessary, nor should shallow watering, as once a month during the summer to supply several hundred gallons of water, slowly, would be the requirement. REMOVAL PRIORITY The level of the danger the tree presents. C7 • 000020 I3 RIED COA77: 'I'ree~ Preservation . AND ASSOCIATES Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists ' ~ ___. ~- .J, Ir Construction penod protection for ~ ~, trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is ~~' `,~ ~;, i allowed on the property. a ::~~;~; n ~~~ ~a I ~' ,z :, ,'~ ~ ~ ";~~a Top of fence hang with fluorescent flagging tape every 10 feet. 6' chain link or welded wire mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-angle post Fence placed at drip line or 50% greater tan the tree canopy radius c,}ere possib.l_e Foadway ~ _ . - - - 0 ~ Fence/ / 1 sitino ~ hen construction is to take place beneath a rye canopy on one side, the fence stioti<d be wed 2-3 feet beyond that construction but ~ ~tween construction and the tree trunk. ~ ~ _ - _ ~ ,' , i ~~ °~ ~" f I al~t~L:- ~' ' {,t~ r ( r ' ff construction or paving is to take place' ~"I~`r'`~ ,~. >' throughout the area beneattf the canopy and ~ ::;c;~ ~;; ~:,~:~~.~ dripline fencing is not practical snow fencing -' ~:;~ - ti ,; , should be used to protect trunks from damage , ; ,;4 ,' t;g,r:k~; , ~ ; ~ . , {i ~Y J~~ ~` j Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing to £3' above ground on i~ = 1 ~'' ~ trees where construction t'~ , i~~ ~ ..., will take place beneath ~ ~_ the canopy ~" '`~ ~~• ~~ , 30 - ~ ~ - - - _ sBARRIE~~Dr ° ATE~A`NQ~ ASSOC - •=a ~'~'1~=~~~- `--~ ~ ~ - - - ultural Consultants '~`~`~~`;,`-" - - - ~ - - _ _- (408),_353=1052~~- -`~-~~ -=~ . - --~-°•`~~.--Y_---.~ - -_ - `Fax (408 3j53~1238~:,~~_~.~,~~-. i ~ .>.-~s=.:~}= ~±~=~~- - -- _ - ° S+'~iS~{,4r. Y{`9 .wr. tam T ~.~- • tIY... r. r - __ 23535 Summit-R ' L_:o_ "_Gat- ~ y,. __ .v -- ~:~~~'~.~~_~:==..-_- . _ . _ -. =- . . :::~ ,'" .. A .>. i _ =5'2 ` e '"_ _ -'t_.v~ Fa:: _ tx +~`K _ .1..iiy..`.: `.T..: . - TREE PROTECTI ~ ' _~ ~ ~- " ON-BEFORE; DI~RING,-,`-ANDS R CONSTRUCTION- - }~-:,_ . a~,~~~~:~~~~.- - - - _ - ;.:, Th_ ese are general r_ecommendatons~--~"~' - - - _ - ~- i... ~t~ And may be su~~erseded ~rt~specific_instrvctions _ _ - .s~,.,~ ~ ~_, Plan location of trenching to~avoid all~Fpossible~jauts~bex-eath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines; cable.TV~and`roofidrains ;;~-~_ :~_- -- Plan construction periodfence.~ocations'whickv~nl ieven~ equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. ;,;;~,:~-:~.,,~ :_-`.:~YS~,.._~=z;;;; - ' -' ~ >. --, Install fences before any construction related equi 'ent is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. _- .:~ ~~r°;.;~-~::~1 ti-.,.~.r~~~;:~~= ;~ :~,~;~s~:;~$;~`°;,,~ .~---- - Inform subcontractors in writing that they must cead this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have readthe- ocument~-._• - Prune any tree parts, which conflict with~c_ onstnictton=betweeri-August and January. Except for pores which may be pruned between October- anaary. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work: If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the'ceifified arborist is on-she, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, Ieaving~an-18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arbonst. _ ._ : - ' -.''U-`~ - -=- Under no circumstances may any party remove, mare than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. ~ ~- _ _- - DURING ~ -: ~r z~ .:~Kn- _ ~~,,, -~~:~-:~:;. Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in yertica7; undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone: "_ -- Clear root collars of retained trees enough to le_ ave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. ... `_ ~ _ - - - ` Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1~" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply wafer-at the dripline; or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3"deep;layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any -- organic material which-is non toxic maybe used.,:-- _ - , ~~ - - - AFTER _ _ ~~;~ }~~~.:~_ _. =_ _ :_`~~ _~;, _ -. -- -, ~ -- tt~ __ ; Irrigate monthl ith~l0~gallons of wafer~peT 1,' of trunk diameter with a soaker _hose, placed just `_ „` ~j- inside the dripline. roue Ulltll 8. O£ra has-falleIli~~''t'__:`~•;Y'.~Yr.i:ei~~:~,,~'p ;i ; - ..5.~:~T` z ,;~, ~~-~~.~~r Avoid cutting imgation "trenoh~estieaeatl~tieef ~=,...<1 ~ -~ , - . -Y - _ - < T ~-' .~- : ,,~~ ..~.~.i ...y ,{~r S~ ut?.:='~ '°h' roS"~-.F~. tiYF?'-•2.. 4,~.. i~A',3:'.tY fF^,~+'~t..,. Avoid rototilling beneath tieeucanop~es "since t~a-~vi~j"destroy the small surface rootsKwhich <„~,.. == _F3...~.,,~ ~ absorb water°=''-~-= ~- ~ ~r~~-:' -;~= ~:~~~~,~:~~•~~ ~ -. = _ : ,.-"-s;,~~ , _.° `-;.. ~~~. ~,,~. t;~~ ~`' Avoid installation of turf oLothir fr~uerrtly,im ' ~larrts tieneath tr~~ can~~ies: ~ ~ j - '~ `""~'"~~~'~ ~'~" -:~~ ` " ~'+'~'E'4f.-aY~'G~"~iFi~'~~~~?~. "N~+ ~Tn. y!~?f~':A. S.~,CM``,` ..~.'n'E'~a`, Y,'...r...s .>-. - . _.. ..:..a~, :.."y- `-•.y:ny. .t 4~!:w `: ~µi ~`lr:"'r. "'<:.:?~'v'-r'-xC~''Y-" nZ* "~'+~i;; Vt'„~^.'.n~' s: - - a;~~y::..;.:~c,~:r~: T*,..a~:'_t'~~F ,ter ''r'c%,,. ~ ''~~.,.F~~ .J ;.;~_. - :.n_r;~ ;.'-;F~:: - - - ~'w"" ..3~d4~--'-;z~fw «,:.i;?~a-~ q 'n`'-,~= `_~°`'' `F'' ~' z - - - _ ~~~a;t^»_a= - +a~='- at».:"~~i; - _ : ~, . -~,=r = _ ~ __ .~;,..~.- j ` ~ - ~ ~K~y~.. = 0022 J _~~--- _ _ no n+o i ;~ o ~k. A ~ ,~ t-~•sta ~ I.rWUC~) ~ a ~t ~ •• ~ t ~~+1 b4~ ~ t _1 / ~N ~ 1 -.; soQ / a-e r/ v~ti~+-~ t ~~~ _~~~) I -~ ~ \\ ~r;~ - _ _~ is --t I 1 ~'- ~ r~, s- ' ~ ~r• ` - I- ~ X61¢ I ~F ` T+, _ ~_ ' - ` Protective Fence ~ 0 - (1 ~~ ~ ,~ 1 F .~, wuryen..r Neare•nesl M"titG ~!1`r, BARRIE D COATS True Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the . and ASSOCIATES Mderson Property, 19571 Farwell Ave t+ost n~ lass ns[ss~ws.r t Prepared for .ca.,u vsaio Gty of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date Feb 25 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 02-02-023 Ma Reduced Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts All dimensions and tree locations are approximate 51 I =b -o - ~ W M"~ ~1+'~ ~ M a-w roc .- , ~t. a~~: arr 3 ~~~irH W~+r'.+'R na u 1 (~I • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000024 • 1 • • Attachment 3 To Saratoga Planning Commission: We, the undersigned, have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction at the Anderson residence, 19571 Farwell Avenue in Saratoga. We feel that the Andersons and their architect, Pazk Miller, have done a good job designing a house in keeping with the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The Andersons are long term residents of our neighborhood. We would like to see their design approved by the Planning Commission. Date Signature - 3. Zo -o ~- ~ Address lc}~o ~r.~,,~i`i,..c.. ~/~. /~~ ~ ~ 9~ o ~ ~~ ~x~ ~~ 3 f ~ 4~~0 .z- C~.oe~ ~ `,~ ~ ~~~.d-a~~ f'~Sc.,~S r R.~ iT v q,~ }~~ _ ~1~~~- ~~~ ~ 000025 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK oooozs • • f: „ • 1 ~t • I I I i 5~ ~+~ ~ 00o220(I)(I.) I i .~~~ ~' ~J L' U ~ u I Q 456 II2i ~ ~' .~' ~ ~~Lt(y.~ 462 1141 69o tti ~ o os 53't a 6n 116 ~} 51 y P . {rv ~' I'1'~'OI ~' 14~J ~p J j 2N SAMTA 61UZ Alf ' T ~ ~.,I t SUITE 2C@ l05 G~106 o~~ u ~ ~~3 ~~ ~~D~C~ IAA ° 4 L- 9l4 40+13 $! ~, ,~ °~~ ~I~ ~ EVISIONS °~' B ~. o~ h •j'+ OOOry29 (Z~(dJlFi~ , 4 S7b c ~ AY 1 0 2002 ^~ >~' ~ d ~~ ' ~~ ~~ ~~•o ~~ ~ CI7'YOFSARAfOGA ~OIt~1UNITY DEVELOPME " - - ael ro - N o ~ io M" ~ •- ~ ~ '[~?I,~ 1ac503 ~ C~ ~~ ~ W fAL I INFF~lopS Ca~~hE.~. C X64+5 ~ Al1o~.X~ ~ ~WJ X059 3 ~ 'fie ~ ' Iwo 0 Ile •joe i ~ M5D A rQ ~~ 1215013 (292$ C{; a u ~ ~~~~~ t ~ r,~ t I u rli' ~ ~ w ~' IQ.j~~ ~ r,•w ac _ _ N~ 1$0--- w 1~14ieo d ~ _ r ~ '1UptUCglNi~l. ~ --- i6 ~ ` I - '~ ~~ 4~4~1 ~ i ~ ~ ®Q~ ~f ~ ~~. 1 III s+'° ~.-~ - --- ~ I~ ~ ~ ' ~ U I ro ~ o ~' I~ t ~~b ~ '~' ~ ~ /n~ J` I (F l p~,.,(ca5 j I ~90~ ~~ ~ yet -- ---- P2`." +~~a~ MIx~51a ~ C,~Y~J''.l' 4cf~ I I I ro I ~ ~p "` /,Ak' ~ ~It r I c ~' IL., ( ® I S ~ • ~ I ,I_ ~ I ~I ~5 ~~• ~v I ~ cry ~' -; , ~'~ ~ { ~ f6~ \ I_ ~'`~°~ ~~ ~ ~ ~; , j- trews '~.a ~~ ~'~ 1G r» II A ,~ ~ 6' '~ rp' I .. " ale ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~°, +~-Uwso~e ~ t IAN!( 'k ; `+?, y`~-' ~ d " ~ R4i1.o ~ ~~~~+~,.~' ~s-=. i ' I 1W ~ flP49o6 I--------- ±4'9) ~1 ~ ~ ~ I '~ 5 ~~r" I ~~ ,. y' ~ +. - ~ I ' ~/ ~ I--- -~ ~a ~ ~M ~~ ~ I „~` ~ ~ ~ I } ~ ~' I ~ i ~~ ~-- I`~~ I+ql~ ~- \ Uyn DteroN ~I1D ~ ~~H~l,~'~'' ~'hll ' I,., , I DRAWN UAT6 'IH~I l~F ~ w~~~p~- ~1 EUII~NG`~(y'~' ~ ~ ~~ / I l~ N ~ i ~ ~ 910'0 11~lal ~'! TtC ~GNe M R/+1 P4( ~~ 1'~+ Y- JD! NUMIER b~~ hlYdl I 2. ~~ ~ i -~~, ~„~~.. ~~ o~ ~ r~ ~ t j ~ ~ ~~.. ~, ,~ ~ I%~ a a,e @. loa%rye s I'Vo 3 No% IG+ Ipo 4 ~e1ot 31A • yH.e y LIAx t3A• 'CAe (0. upC 220• 6'IGo ~ IIo% 13A. IM10 D Iloe 3pn '130 q @~o% M1I6~ gK+y la .}oe 4p%2 • 90 II i9er 19gm 96'16 K I9 B% 21 9~ M9e 17 woe 130. 200 14 IBOr fov~ teoo 4°4i 5 LR6 Iy < 10) ,1, R.}AM 2~0 a n'IO b Npx I e ~ IB o , ~- 'Iv~.~~ QIn41,3 =~i oN I', Iv! v ~ ~o° G al~o~ I L~oiMLN - I NN 1 VI~I'~ a01 130II I i ... o °~y P 'r 1 r~i • I - - ~ - - . Q ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I td536 ~~ ~._t I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~-'tTH ~ 1 4~C1rJC1" ~ _ ~ pJ2 ~`~ et ` ~`~ ~~ "" l , f ~__, 4Q I O o y 1 - ' --- ~~ ~ ~iv~~ 1- + I et.kN IIG +g5f.5 , , ,, / I ~ I ( ,'' ~ ~ 21{11 ,, ,,, , ~ N' -~~' ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ k9~i o a L ~~ ~\_I i~~ ~~`-~ ' f`~' I ._ _ O N I ~\\ -o ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i . e ~ ~ _ ,0 =p a I I~ >z~r.l I~ PMk u$IrJE~ J ~--- I a~l~ I4C11 1 lB1pU) ~` I ~, ~ +Q -l~ I -~~ ~~ MQIRE4T ~, 2N SMf~0. QiLR 0.E GuIiaRNn~3.1030 (a0B1399-° ~ REVISIONS s J • o~2 F~N1~q.5a T"~~ ~ ,~U ~ Ord-I^~'~I~ °..IGiNG' CSI ~~ c~ p i ~~~pNN'fpp~~~f~ ~7 ~~ r~ ~" ~ ~~ M} ~~hiMl • • ~~~V" y N "~ _ _ --- - -- - - - -I- ~ ~" '[' - -- _ -- -_- - - ~ ~ - - ,- - _ -I ~p_-ITT-~ __ .. .. - ----- ~-- -- -- - -. . - _ ---s=~ -- - - - 4ia 8 ''- is 1~' I8 ~ - - __ t - r - - .~ ~_ _ZT~' ~ -r- ~-' ~l -1 ~T-1'Ir ---r-Z~ -- -}----~YS;- i _ _ L ~ t - ~ --_ - ---,-. 4ed G i Vp ~'~ ~409~ 3995090 REVISIONS ~i Fir r~rr~+~ ~ ~L~Vr°~7foN f ~~~9~'0 • • ~~•~~~ hpu~.~~ Li~~ y Ao ~~~ V ~~~.~ ~~ I 5 ~~ i ~; r ~' { V41-I~Q r i 7 asa a ~~ ~~~, 2 N EAMA (3iUZ AYE G 9~500~0 7u0973945a90 REVISIONS Q N BMRA G7U2 AYE G~lFOR1JA 95!130 1408109&5040 REVISIONS • r--- ---~ ~ ~ j„ rl ~ ~ r---~,-- -~ ~~-~~.-- -- ~ --~,; ~ T ~ d ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~1 61: 0 ~t -~~'--- --~ ~ -"-- L. ~"~ ~i r-- 1 ~~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ VV v, M r~~-- -- ~ _(wefi - - ~ ~~ ~ y T ~- }-- (v'i'ol _ 1 ~~ ~~~ lad I ~ ~ f t ~ i ~ I ~ SpIPC ~ P ~+l 4 ----- ~ r s__1 ( ta! (a1~-~A'MteM ~~ ~.~, r---- i L-- ~'---~ ;~ ~ ~ I "" ~~,~°~°I i I I hh ~~ ~~ i ~~ ~- ~~ aawNTw~c ~...L~ ~ovnovao roe ~~ ~` t~ ;~~; • ~ ~` I i I i I •/ i REVISION SY I _ - I I w 4~ z < ~~ ~.¢ g =~ I ~ da < €~ ~ a ~' S ~~+d ~ ,~~ a ~ Z ~,9 La ~z a u ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~D ~~ i o_ I I (N) NATIVE SHRUBS r ' a TOYON, MAN.ANIT} 1 CEANOTNUS (N) SMALL WATERFALL (N) LOW STONE wALLg wl BWLDER9 ~1's ~ /`~ ~ ® ~.... Try ..~ ~-- ~ - /'- ~~ ~`Z.. ~~ ~ -\~"~.,~ ~-' - ~..~ ~.~;'~v~, \_.-^J \~ ~N ~~/ti's ~~ ~ ~-- A~'~.~-~~~i/~~, ' ~ ~ ~ °" ~~Y'~.'~~ /~~ ° ~ YL J ~ , ~ 7= ~- ~ ~ ti~ ,,-~ ~, a ~ le) WESTNWSE ~ ~ "l.~-1 ~ I _ / U~ ({ y Q ~ ~~~ ~ - POSFn (~ I l ~ ~ z~ ~ I ~ I WRAGE I ~ ~ )) J (E) (E) ypR e~OP OREENHWSE .a-_ ~ °,° FF 413! / PAD 4110 _ ~ ~ (N) LCOSE LAD- gTONf PATIO ` 1 SLAB P35 ~) PAD 45G 6 ~ \ ~ -/~_,,, ~ I ( I,I' - ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ rRCros® ONE-STORY (N) GARDEN ~~ ~ oRNAne+r ~ 1 ~- ~ ~~= i ~~ "YY ~ Q ~ ~ ~ l RElIDENGf ~~ l~ i ~ I ti \~ ' j Pogo U~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - \ C ~ ~ ~ (E) POOL 1 SP4 ~.- (E) BACK LANDSCAPE TO RCMAIN 1 F F X430 PAD 4505 ..` J ( ~" ~~ //1~ ~ ~~~`/~ \\\U _ 1 \ (N) STONE ~ GWRTYARD ~ ~ ~ ~ //~'-'! ! / ~ \~~ I ! 1 ~ ~ V ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ V J ~ v I \, \ \~ V ca - 0 0 0 w~ O 0 C U w ~ T O ,~~ ~ ..~ ~ i ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ bQ o ~ ~__ ~ ~ 'd GfkY 'BP( MAGN0.IA '94 ' MVCL SIX4rERS' z ° ~ I PRUNUS TEDOENSIa KEH 5-45 9-Z4 rr^^ ~ ~ Vl r DRAWN RT CMECKEO P$ DATE 4_9-07 I ~ SCALE 1'•lOr_~e I "DRT' ~ 5 ,~ 20 30 exEEr ~~ of aKEETa ITEM 2 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-040; 20870 Verde Vista Lane Agent/Owner: Reza Norouzi /David and Janet Chyan (owners) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner ~ti/ Date: N1ay 22, 2002 APN: - 503-20-083 Department Hea , 000001 20870 Verde Vista 1_ane • CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 03/OU02 04/15/02 05/08/02 05/08/02 05/03/02 The applicant requests design review approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The proposed residence will replace atwo-story home that was demolished last year in conjunction with a previous administrative design review approval. The 43,264 (gross) square foot flag lot is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIOr1 Approve the design revie~~v application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1 Resolution 2 Arborist Report, received March 13, 2001 3 Applicant's letter 4 Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" • C7 `0~00~2 • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,264 square feet-(gross); 40,196 square feet (net) SLOPE: 18.7% Average Site Slope; 9% at building site GRADING REQUIRED: 1191 cubic yards of excavation and 230 cubic yards of fill. The maximum cut depth will be 11 feet for the basement ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project, which proposes the construction of a new single family residence, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA The Class 3 exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in a residential zone and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish will be linht gray-colored stucco, off-white trim, and gray `ledgestone' veneer accents at the lower portions of the facade. Roofing will be concrete flat tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • 0©0003 Lot Coverage: Building Footprint: Driveway, Walkways, Patio, Pool TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Size of Residence: Fu•st Floor: Second Floor: Garage: (Basement) TOTAL Setbacks: Front. Rear Right (North) Side: Left (South) Side: Height: Residence and attached garage Proposal Code Requirements 24% 35% (14,069 sq. ft.) - 4,116 sq.ft. s,52o sq.ft. 9,636 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: 2,337.0 sq.ft. 2,140.2 sq.ft. - 640.4 sq.ft. (602 sq.ft.) 5,117.6 sq.ft. 5,142 sq.ft. Minimum Requirements: 126 ft. -3 in. Front: 30 ft 60 ft.-0 in. Rear: 60 ft. _ 29 ft.-10 in. Right Side• 20 ft. 21 ft.-2 in. Left Side• 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft 000004 PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story 5,118 square foot residence with a 602 square foot basement. The maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The vacant flag lot slopes uphill to the west. The neighboring home to the west is at a higher elevation and overlooks the subject site. With the exception of this neighboring home, the subject site is secluded and has several large trees along its perimeter. The applicant obtained demolition, grading and building permits for a new home in conjunction with a previous administrative design review application. After the pre-existing two-story home was demolished last year, the applicant decided to submit a new design review application with a completely different house design. The applicant has proposed a contemporary style home with a series of several low-pitched rooflines. The varying wall expanses of the proposed facades have a combination of bay windows and balconies, with stone veneer accents at the lower portion of the facades. The architectural styles of the homes in the vicinity of the project site are primarily one and two- story ranch style stucco homes, interspersed with a few homes of other styles. Attached to this Staff Report is a letter from the applicant indicating that the neighbors are in support of the proposed design Staff has concluded that the proposed two-story home will be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of style, proportion, mass, and height. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations including varying rooflines, bay windows and balconies that will minimize the percepnon of bulk. The gray-colored stucco exterior will contrast nicely with the stone veneer accents at the lower portions of the house and will help soften the appearance of the facades. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: Since the applicant is proposing a limited number of materials and the proposed colors are earth-toned, the residence will blend well with the surroundings. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site already has several tall trees along its perimeter, screening views from the adjacent property owners. The property to the west already overlooks the subject site. No privacy issues were raised by the neighbors. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The project site is located in a hillside area. However, the proposed home will have no impact on views or access to views. ~~~005 Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The Chyan residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The house will be well insulated and will be equipped with high-energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. The main bulk of the house will face the east and south for increased solar access at morning and midday. Parking _ _ The Municipal Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The proposed residence will have a three car garage. Grading This project proposes 1191 cubic yards of excavation and 230 cubic yards of fill. The maximum cut depth will be 11 feet for the basement. The applicant proposes to add a new retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway and garage. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that all retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15- 29.010(g). Trees The Ciry Arborist Report, received March 13, 2001 and prepared in conjunction with a previous design review application, contains recommendations for the protection of trees on the site. A new Arborist Report was not prepared in conjunction with this subject application because the proposed home is in the same general location in reference to the protected trees. Nevertheless, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a grading and drainage, final landscape, utiltry and irrigation plans be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. According to the Arborist Report, the construction proposal will expose 9 trees to some level of risk of damage. Tree #4, a Monterey Pine, is in conflict with the proposed driveway construction and will be removed, and replacement trees are required. All other trees on the site ~vrll be retained in good health, if the applicant complies with all of the Arborist Report recommendations. Conclusion The proposed residence complies with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbooh and satisfies all of the findings required within Municipal Code Section 15-45.080. The proposed residence will preserve the natural landscape to the extent feasible and will not interfere with viev~~s or privacy. The proposed residence will be compatible with the neighborhood and is designed so that the perception of bulk is minim~ed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the design review application 02-040 with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~0~~6 Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION N0.02-040 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHYAN; 20870 Verde Vista Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of asingle-family residence in a residential zone. 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 Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy: 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 (u) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project site is located in a hillside area, and the lot to the west already overlooks the subject site. The site also has trees along its perimeter screening views into neighboring lots. The applicant has indicated that the neighbors on all sides have no concerns with the proposal. Preserve natural landscape: The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimising tree and soil removal, grade changes will be minim~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboruig developed areas and undeveloped areas. - , ' Only one tree will be removed as a result of the construction. Since the site is situated in the hillside area, a certain amount of grading is required. The applicant has tried to rrLnim;7e the amount of cut by proposing a basement that does not comprise of the entire building footprint. • d~~~~~ Minimizeperception ofexcessive bulk: The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will m;n;m~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The proposedtwo-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations including varying rooflines, stone at the lower portion of the facade, bay windows and balconies that will rni_n;m;7e the perception of bulk. The grey stucco exterior will contrast nicely with the stone veneer accents at the lower portions of the house and will help to soften the appearance of the facades. Compatible bulk and height: The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and the natural environment; and shall not unreasonable impau• the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonable impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy: With the exception of the neighboring home to the west, the subject site is quite secluded and has several large trees along its perimeter. The architectural styles of the homes in the vicinity of the project site are primarily one and two-story ranch style stucco homes, interspersed with a few homes of other styles. Attached to this Staff Report is a letter from tie applicant indicating that the neighbors are in support of the proposed design. Staff has concluded that the proposed two-story home will~be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of style, proportion, mass, and height. Currentgradmg and erosion control methods: The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City: 1191 cubic yards of excavation and 230 cubic yards of fill are proposed for this project. The maximum cut deptli will be 11 feet for the basement A grading permit will be required for this project. Design policies and techniques: The proposed main structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #l: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence has a combination of horizontal and vertical articulations including varying rooflines, stone veneer entry columns, bay windows and balconies that will m;n;m;7e the perception of bulk. The grey-colored stucco exterior will contrast nicely with the stone veneer accents at the lower portions of the house and will help to soften the appearance of the facades. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: Since the applicant is proposing a limited number of materials and the proposed colors are earth-toned, the residence will blend well with the surroundings. ~~0~~8 Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site already has many tall trees with dense foliage screening views from the adjacent property owners. The property to the west already overlooks the subject site No concerns regarding privacy were raised by the neighbors. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: - Theproject site is located in a hillside area. However, the proposed home will have no impact on views or access to views. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The Chyan residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The house will be well insulated and will be equipped with high-energy efficient heating and cooling appliances. The main bulk of the house will face the east and south for increased solar access at morning and midday. 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 David and Janet Chyan for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Burldulg Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. - 3 The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. - 4 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 wntten certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." S. No ordinance size trees, other than the trees specified in the Arborist Report that are in conflict with the proposed construction, shall be removed without review and approval by the City A.rborist. 6. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.010(g), no retaining wall shall exceed 5 feet in height. . 000009 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will beretained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices shall be included in the construction plans submitted to the Building Division. 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 maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted. - CITY ARBORIST ' 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's-Report, date stamped March 13, 2001, shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 10 Protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." Staff shall inspect the tree protective fencing prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 11. A grading and drainage, final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12 Prior to granting Final Building Inspection all approved landscaping must be installed and the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protection measures and replacement tree requirements. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 14. Emergency Gate/ Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not ubstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if pro~~ided shall be fire department approved prior to installation. 15. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet with 2 feet wide shoulder, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform ~ , to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. 16. Fire Department (En ig_ne Driveway Turn-around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Deparanent Standard Details and Specifications D-1. _ ~~~0~~ 17. Required Access to Water Sup~l~(Hydrants~ Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire -hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, install an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. - - 18. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with the background. 19. Gara eg Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. 20. Early Warning Fire System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per Ciry of Saratoga standards. CITY ATTORNEY - 21. 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 the Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 22 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, Ciry 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 days from the date of adoption • ~~0~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 22nd day of May 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES• ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended tune frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • X00012 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT' BLANK • 000013 BARRIE D. COATE~~~~"~ D ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 --- ' Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CHYAN PROPERTY 20870 VERDE VISTA SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Mark Connolly Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 site visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist February 14, 2001 Job # 02-01-032 Plan Received: 1 / 29 / O 1 Plan Due: 3 / 1 / O 1 ~~~~od~~ MAR 13 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT • • e Attachment 2 000014 TREE SIIRVEY AIiD PRESER~ATI ~COMMERDATIORS AT r1 THE CHYAF PROPERTY, 20870 E VISTA, SARATO(iA ` Assignment • At the request of Mark Connolly, Senior Planner, Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent 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 9 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #4 is in conflict with construction and is planned to be removed by implementation of this design. Replacement trees are suggested. All other trees are expected to be retained. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are 7 trees on this site and 2 trees located on the property toward the south that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The 9 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 7, 8, 9 Coast liv a oak (puercus agrifolia) Tree #2 Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) Trees #4, 6 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Tree #5 Interior live oak (Quercacs wislizenii) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the 9 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BEFCH, CON3IILTINQr ARBORIST FEBRIIARY 14,2001 000015 TREE SURVEY AFD PRESERVATI~ECO1[~SE1tDAT~ORB A^,' ~ 2 THE CHYAR PROPERTY, 20870 ..~E VISTA, SARATO(~A Exceptional Fine Fair Maig~nal Poor S cimens S edmens S cimens S ens S ecimeas 7 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 3 _ 8 9 Exceptional spedmeas must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them iin their current condition must be used. Fiore specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Trees located oa a~aceat properties which would be affected by this activity must be treated as Exceptional, regardless of condition. Impact of Construction Tree #4 is in conflict with construction of the proposed driveway. ~.....~ Tree #5 would suffer severe root damage by the construction of the proposed new driveway. If tree #5 would be expected to survive, grading must be limited to a minimum of 7 feet from the trunk of tree #5. If the existing retaining wall adjacent to tree #6 is planned to be replaced, tree #6 would suffer significant if not severe root damage if the soil is disturbed and roots are exposed to the air. Whether or not this wall is proposed to be reconstructed is not made clear on the plans provided. The plan proposes to construct a retaining wall between trees #7 and 8. In this event, neither tree would survive. I am unable to recognize the purpose of this proposed retaining wall. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc., under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. S. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. PREPARED BY: ffiCHAEL L. BEI(CH, COliSULTi1~O ARBORIST FEBRUARY 14,?AOl 000016 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATI~RECOIOtENDATIONB AT ~ 3 THE CHYAN PROPERTY, 20870 V$icDE VISTA, SARATOGA 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible-plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. In order to retain tree #5, I recommend that the limit of grading (or any other construction) must be located a minimum of 7 feet from the trunk of this tree. This may require relocation of the driveway, which also must meet this minimum clearance requirement. 2. In order to retain trees #? and 8, I recommend that no retaining wall (or any other structure) be constructed within 15 feet of the trunk of either tree. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained tree #5 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 " gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree. 7. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. PREPARED BY: ffiCHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRIIARY 14,2001 00001' `--~ ~` A ~$ sURVEY AND PRESERVe~,-~~ ~co~xDe~oirs er 4 4 TxE cxYAa PROPERLY, 20870 vERDE VISTA, BARAA7+oc~A ~ - 8. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fences as noted on the attached map. For any area where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 9. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 10. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 11.Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 15. 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. 16.Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 17. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 18. 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. • PREPARED BY: 1ffiCIiAEL L. BEFCHf, COl'fSUL'1'UT(i ARBORIST FEBRUARY 14,2001 000018 - ~^'~, 4 TREE SURVEY AND PRSSERVATIk.:_ RECOI[S[ENDATIONS AT 5 THE CHYAN PROPERTY, 20870 VERDE VISTA, SARATO(iA Dalue Assessment --- The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Tree #4 has a value of $952, which is equivalent to two 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Acceptable native tree replacements-are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Auer mac;rophyllum California buckeye - Aesc:ulus californica. Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens • The combined value of all of the other surveyed trees, which are expected to be retained, is $12,189. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($3,047) of their total value to assure their protection. Respectfully su tt , Michael .Ben` h, ~,s~ B e D. Coate, Principal MLB/ sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTiIfd ARBORIST FEBRUARY 14,2001 OOOOg9~ job Title: Chyan Job Address: 20870 Verde Vista Lane Mea aurementa Condition Pru ningfCablln q Nee ds Pest/Dtseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ' ! ~ i E? 1 1 _ ~ i ~ I RABBIS D. COATS ' ! ~ o ~ ~ I ~ ~i and ASSOCIATES ~ ! ' ! ~ ~ I ` i ~ ! ~ ; ; ~ { z ; ~ I ~ ~ ! ~ ~ W ~ E i ° w ~ ,~~, (~ 353.1051 ~ ~ { w I LL ~ , I ~ ~ ? O i ~ I ~ z_ i !~ O O~ W ~ ~ p r r t d' m p ^ ~~ u~ p U v~ O ? ~ ~ ~ 13535io•m1Ao~d w `~' ~ ~ ~ ~ , z I w i~~ Z ~ ? i z { vii i y d ~ W p ~ g ~ z v ~ ~ m m W G la Give G 9!030 ~n Y I ~~ w p ~ ~ i ~ z ~ ~ ~ o l~ p ~ ~ x ~ w ~ ~!~ ~ z W ~ w z a i ~ 3 o O O ` ~ l w ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ W '~ ~ S ., 1 = F c i ~ t! z z z z I ~ w ~ v 3 ~ Y c ~ ~ ~ a x ~ x x`~ ~? o: ~ ~ Z~ O O i I O! O ~ m o ~ w ~ 0 w u~ Key * Plant Name m o ~ m o m 1 1 p p w x a cn x ~ O u> v! ~ v m v o: II m U v m c~ ~ a ? m ~ p ~ I- 8 m g m w z z W rc 1 Coast Live Oak 9 0 x 8 0 ~ 13 ' 20 ! 25 1 3 4 ~ Queruce a rifolia s . In 89 ~ X $27/aq m = $ 2,403 X sp. class 100% _ $2,403 X cond 75% _ $ 1,802 X loc. 70% - $ 1 282 ~ Total Value 2 Mexican Fan Palm 14 0 i 20 12 12 1 1 2 ' Washin tonla robusfa 7 feet x 250 r foot X $27/sq in = $ X sp class 50% _ $0 X coed 100% - $ X lot 70% - $ 1 750 Total Value 3 Califom(a White Alder 10 0 12 20 20 1 4 5 ' Alnua rhombifotia In 78 5 X $27lsq in = $ 2,120 X sp. class 30% _ $838 X cond. 80% = S 382 X loc. 80% - $ 229 Total Value 4 MOntere Pine 18 0 17 30 25 1 2 3 PInuB radiate s . in 201 X $27/sq in = $ 5,428 X sp class 30% _ $1,828 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,485 X lac. 85°'0 - 962 Total Value 5 Interior Llve Oak 6 0 x SG5 ' 3 0 f 7~8 ~ 20 i 20 1~ 3 4 ~ Quartos wizlizenii = 8. I i 1 s in 50 X $27/sq in = $ 1,350 X sp class 70% _ $945 X cond 75°k = $ 709 X loc. 70°'0 - $ 498 Total Value 8 Montere Pine 14 0 ~ ! 15 ~ 30 25 1 2 3 ~ i { , ' I ! s in 154 X $27/sq in = $ 4,154 X sp class 30% _ $1,248 X cond 90% _ $ 1,122 X loc. 80% - $ 873 Total Value 0 O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 0 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal = $120 24"box ~ 36"box =$1,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 ORST 48"boX 52"box a $7,000 ~"~ .~ e 1 of 1' Job #02-01-031 4/01 f'~ ~, ..i J Y BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (4~ 353.1052 73535 ir.eiAoad Lat:fa,G 95030 Key / Plant Name 7 C LI ak 8 Coast Live Oak 9 Coast Live Oak 0 A ,~ ob Address: 208 erde Vista Lane ob #OZ~1-031 J J 2,~~/01 1 ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ; I 1 f ~ i ! I ~ _ ~ I I ~ ~ ~, j j I° ~ j ;Z , ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~W ~ W ~ W w u' I~ ~ ~= ~ ~_ (~ Z - ~ t!~ 2 i O i !i i~ Z 1~ ~ I W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ U ~ O v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ z ~ U = I ~ ( ~ I w w ~ a ~ 3 p ~ ~ ~¢ } ~ W = H t I t o Z z I z z N r, N 0 Q: O E O p U O U 3 LL ~ ~ ~ H U ~ ~ ( i > y O N S s m ~ ~ m m w ~ ~ ~ { O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ p O p O W ~ W 0 0 0 o x N x w U 1 U U ~ U U ~ ~ ? ~ o ~ z o: z z oG 18 0 x 18 0 32 30 45 1 2 3~ 4 In 302 X $27/sq in = $ 8,154 X sp class 100% _ $8,154 X cond 90% _ $ 7,339 X loc. 70% - $ 5,137 Total Value 14.0 15 25 30 1 3 4 in 154 X $27/sq in. _ $ 4,154 X ap class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 75% - $ 3,118 X loc. 80% - $ 1,889 Total Value 9 0 10 25 15 1 3 4 In 83 8 X $27lsq in = $ 1,717 X sp class 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 1,288 X loc. 80% _ $ 773 __ __ _ _ Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = $1,320 48"box =55,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box =515,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 2 f, "i ~~ r-. BARRIE D. COAT~~~D ASSOCIATES ' - - Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 _ Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be - produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept sma) I and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. • • 000022 _ ~:'~-F.~~w;~~. ~;~-_~x z "fir Horticultural Consultants - - - --- _-^ 408-353-1.052:_ _"_ =~_ =~ -:: -' -: - - 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CJ~95030.N _ "'> - ,_».Ar~ C - clb^ .y ph~.i -T-'+•..-"YryzrY. ~ ~ "~ -, -. - , _ _ _ _ ,• : =-~ ' ;~:d: F ~ ~, ;2.o- - _ - =- - --TREE .PROTECTION BEFOItEf-DURIIV ;;-AND ~AFl'ER CONSTRUCTION~~ ~:~ ' _ - - • _. - _ - ~ - -~ =These are ~_eneral recommendations ` -- -_ - - ' - -- -- - ~ ~ Arid may ~ie-auperseded'„b _~aif~spe~c instructions `- _ - -- - ~~:~_~. • - y,,..=~-.,v ~ai~. '~,R .~TiPcy7~ . `.. d1Y4~~.'-. BEFORE .. ~ - - ,f. }}_;__-~-~:~? ~ ~~- ~~~"~~'f = . -- ~x~~'-• . °r,_:.=.~ - . :.- _ . -_-. Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible-ads beneath tree canopies: 'This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable-TY and roof-ar ms~ "`= ~ -=- ' --`- _ . - - -_ Plan construction period fenee _~ooa~ons vvhic~~" , pi+evant~equipm_ ant travel o_ r material storage ~5 ~~"YJ~S~d..~..'ie-car ~ -.J .. e. ~'~-~-'" -- ' beneath tree canopies. ~~~~~r,:'~~~=~~;,~:~~~,~ri,. ~,.~F~;.,;;~~::;:__--~..~_- Install fences before_ nay coiistniction re1t. ~ mgt is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. ~ - -`- ~~ c+~4 ~'.~_..*t`~~=~ "~ `~,-~,=,~;= - - Inform subcontractors in writing tl'iat they mu [~read~t~iis documen_ t. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have ~d the docaiineitt; _ ' -~ - _ ,_,._ ~_ Prune anytree parts, which~conflict~w~ith cons'tnic4on between August_and January. Except for Pines which may be pnme3 between~October January: Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for~his work. If Iiimbs era in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is an-site,~carpeatars may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long:stub; which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove moca than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created.;: ~- -.;:`-~~F~=,'`~_~~;,~~w ,_ -,- - - _ -_ -.3'- - - - - DURING _ - - , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~;_ - , Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree'canopies. Maintain fences at original location is vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. -_ ' Clear root collars of retained trees ea to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. ' - ;.-, ` .. ~~. -w.., ~ , Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 . gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %s') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and ir:side fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may beused. -- - = - . - _ AFTER ' ~°_ ` ~' `~L ~~ =~-_ :~i r" ~~F - - _ - ' ', ~ "" _ - - . Irrigate monthly with-10 gatlrons `of wafer per 1 ".. of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just - inside the dripline. Continue'u#itil 8" of rain has fallen. • Avoid cut~iag~irrigation trenches benead tree'canopies. ' ~' '~=~ - ~ ::: ; , " - °, : ,-: " -- Avoid rototilling b~ canopies sincethat--wilt dastroythe-smelt suiface loots which - ~.,,- absorb water. -=;.~~'~~' 'f ;~` z~:.~ ~; ;~ Y .~,.,~:.y~ .~,~.,,.-,.,.~ -,_:_ ~.~ ._ ._a_,Y .~ ~~,~r _- -.r ~'~'++"" r,:a ,- ,e•'.-~..,,n F.,.,,.~-F ~~r ~'~~~'~';~a~--s:~"~4sf~-_,; S.' ,cam' w~~~y.. Avoid installatianVofturf or odiet fr`egtient[y .' .plants leneath'tree canopies:` - '"~~ ~''~°~-~,;'~ ~~~ -- ~ „• f ~? 4_.„ _ ~'`; _ ; ~ -:j4y.''- -z`_';c ~,,. :`+;`'~~.;~~r.,,. gin'.`;.~': :, -= - _ :: ~~,~ .=~ ,~~ .^- - ` _ _~, " - ..'~"~?;{~.- .is:'.Y,{,e°.' ^i~ -•~. _ ~' - - ' ._ '~:' . CS~~~',~F~,`f..~~'e:~~r~~'+~+i-^~.j~,i~. ".`r :t: _ - _, ~:; »%`,, ";'`r - - Y`- ~.. R,: .d. ~'--'~>.,;'' ;i-+3"'~--.'.'`k"~, .' lE'sr_r,^;s;r~l,~_, -. ' +4:. . " '+',.~~^:~~r<=: '" _ =t'.~.+'~. ` i~ is , _ _ ~r~ , GUIDELINES FOR TREE PROTECTION r, .-r~X li 1 H; ,J .. ' , "4N~~' P . .~'~~Y ~.~ ~ ~ ,p3y ~ . ye " ~' ' ,d'1 "~ •d~ '^ 'Y ~ - ~ , - ~-R x 7 .~iP i, fig, ~ ~ , .~ ,~; - ~1:~~-.~~a1;: •;~,~~ , _•, ~ 1 ,x, + 1 1 ) - YF` s fit' ~. f ~. j.. 1.Z'f Yi ~~ _ _...'!. ;I: ~ ~ ai{~jrXNlic4~.I:: ~fxur'tr~` •, ' ~ , ' ' „ ~ BA ~ ~iir~1~~'r~ i i . 'r r ~ ~~, f•~'~ •. }~'~'~~ ~~S..~r t ,i~17r~~; r,:~ ~ 1. '~n wql', r~ +~y~, i;f~ni~'}.z ~~}'i:V'Ir',.7o ',rgh;. xi~~~:~`y' "; ~45~{4;~~i~; "~ r1'~}{'~ha5;~ ~ 4 _ . ~~ «`....' YY'•': ~ "N G~,: ~~ ~A;11 i.F~t'~+~Y ~,'.pfi~.~&" S'GYFS.~.i.~ ~'Sd:~!f~t~«.\~'3N:~~~~'f4~IAc1 . ~ ;1 --j y^ _t; a•~;7ti-Yh: A'`~'~~7=i,~_ ,: if,,~:+~"~ .'~Y~a,~'k' ~~M9'-7i;11 ~~. n~l.'"~`-f+~`M1 IY Yd~hEi•S.F_ • --~Y ~M.rn ~~, i. ~.1~~+~f~rN, ~k ~a i'n,~'~ t ' y.:", r r. ~'tµ<r ;~d~`L. t tti ,y,t "r',i~„~~~,1~~~AS z'; n'4"~•~ ~i,"' '1~ ^i A~~!. .;~i'i~ '.. 'u 1zPYri~, 'f'4a~}::.i6~~~1^''7~^•k„- "z,' t r , - '" t~ . %~r* r ;, ~~r Caro, ' a,a~ ''f u~" t' z ~ ter:. .}i; `~Z{.t L'~' t ^Z~ '~•'4 br F ~ ~ ~~i' iW" a yY~~ y~l ~ ' y.~ ~ qs .'.~' a , t ~ir~.,... '' a' w', f~° ~~A,.aJsx ~~..'.,,-n. ~ "~stz'.L ,~~Fi.. .k'fd ~.xi: n. ,'y.tr"^'.e'`-'•.2~., ~:_1~Yesiocl~; etc: ,'~ ::~ ''k~'~ ~ , ' 1 '!,i i ^ '°' '~~ ~ ~'" • I .F+~. p: Barne D. Coate ~ ~ `^ ''" Er Associates Radial Trenching _ __ _ _ - ' ' ''~''~-'~"',3„, (408) 353-1052 `-" __ ..~-~"-- Dr ~;>~' _"' ~rF ,. 23535 Summit Road The Do's and Don'ts of Imgation ~ --- _,~ ~- - IP C'he I ~ ''~`% '''; Los Gatos, CA 95033 L_~~.~y--~-_ --~~=-.-~°~ -~• rt 4~ ~' ' ~ Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies i_ "~ - - _ _;~ '~- ~ -~=-~-"~ 's~~ HORTICULTURAL CONSULTAh7TS ~"'~,~-°'~~'" - '_•. - ~'~ ' "~ `"-' -- -' • ~~" it ~~~ Certified Consulting Arbo 'st ~^_~_ . - .. - V r ,_. ~ "' _}"_.,~~', • ~: ~ ~• -;- :,; y~~~~--- `"``==~, Shallow' ~~ ~;.-x~,; .~~;, +:~>~~'. ,~ •,:a,,. ~'~~ , ~ ~-~"_---r.~-'"" tio~ .. :-~--~ ab$orbing ~ - ~~,,.~• ~~`F-`~,~~, t~~~:~~~'a~{-:. , ~:¢}~ :,~:_ ~,~ • ~ ~ Root Protection Zone .==~- _•~•% :~, ~--. , ~ ', •:,a ,,~ ~s-~, .'~`'.~,~ ~' :~~t~a~~+,,u., ~~~~~:•'Fti~:`~`-`•,,', r:~y*~~;.. ~~~~~:'' , •~~ . £ 1 %s times the Dripline ,~,~ =~ .. _ ; pia rogt.~ti s . ~.~. ,:N^, ~,~ ~ ¢~.ai=,,'.,`~ :. ;tt~,yt~~ ri .~ ,r~„ it:, ~,.- 'j- t, 1~-~ -e ~ ~/ ' ~~'q.'„'' '-'~•~e~. y` 1~' ' ~.'~~y *~qt ~,~~ ~~m ,;i ~• ~,t~.:t•-:'t- -~,' Diameter ~=~ • = _ - _ ' {. ~` •~.S'~y a , ~., r..,,_ •: r, r .l: t; ^A t ' t%, ~. ; r,, ~~' ?' :'t.~.... :x ,~s,'Y ~a~r,. tt''r'^' •Hf,4 ~ fq 4i,t ~~' ~;'. 'J,. r ~ ~b {S+, - ~ p, ( ~ _ ~`f'Y`rt-a ~'~+t~' , ,~,4~~- s;k'+~': .'~~".~ ?'~ 4, r'Y 1; ~ ':. - { " ~ ~~" ~,i' -5 ~~f'~f~J//~,f '~-.:.r+n` tV, < f '~A~' ,`iti'. {{• 3,: `• ~ .. ~!~'t+ _ 'e' n!, S~~'~~~~:,~~~ .~z~'~' ;~s n#' ;m„s• ~~+~~~ . ~ '~ ~7s! ,.~ '.a• , ~,j tk, c,~ 3 '(~f~~!.~: ~V' Sr,~~ .:ya r . ~;. 1. ,~ .,, ~ ~ td t'tE~,t,t 71,.,.. `' . 5 n~tr ,`~,t,}{=, ', `5F i,K {' y'!V, `b. ',z i 'i~„`'~Y[~l`i~ •t,. -rr ~'» ~. .1.. ~', + U: is -~{• ;. +' Ci{, ~ ~~~,-.. ,~a,,{ ~~~+.~.:..~ .. ~~~ab. q'F~R ,',~'s`;,~'~'' :,~,~L~;.,:'~-,-~;,;,;~:.~~~,+, she, ~/' . ~ !~, ,5'times,trunk diame_ ter `'"'~~~_~ ~' :~- ;~, ~~ !ii 'tn ~,~~.0 'i';," ;; r.~'.~, ~',nY L ,e ~~ _• ° ',i"~LN„ ,'1~':~ ~•.Ii ,+4 ~~ ~-r~ .r.....ea*.....i''sa, ~,t~ t''jr ' ~'' _{ i '• '+4~' r X ,{, e ~.- t ~ 5Et';G ,~ ~ ~a~' .~ ., i`'~ ~'` ;ia f~~7.r~', .+ ~ ~ 9 .v Ft .i ,Mry :} •~ ' ^,~ 4• ~ {~'s~~~~~'t~tr;~s4q~r~, ., kt ~' S i„ ` "~i.it'~',+~ ~~"~•"''~ ra,, ..~~ - 1:~~,n.+ , ';~t .t:~ i~ v~D ~' ~ ~ .~'9:*. ~ _ ~ 1 t',1' {q;Ir,E,- ~ ~ ,~. A'~1,~ 7, ~.,,r4-w ... ~,~ti + ~; w1 r : -1. Vi ,~+y'i^, '•~~' '~ '~ T~',•' - ~~ ~ s~ ( ~ .:~~.-:- ~.. .<n'*'~~}Y~$, ,`a,11.a(l y+ ~I'I",~'t?') r',,~,r~'++y`:~4,~•t11*`.~a« `~~'d 's~_. ~ ~r. ~~;'t -, ~~~.;a.;:'Y;,~~T, ,a' `JJ~°r ."r'4,~~a r ' It'rl$~,tl(~n;, lateral' llne5 may be Installed -~ '-~• ,~. ~ •" -' ~ ~ '_ a ~"~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 'fi ~ '( `~' '~~~~~~ ,'r+ ~ ':,, - ~,~~',~ - `~'- ~%'- "~-, ;fs -Lateral,line''°1:~2~-~nches.deepY;~Y i ~1~2-inct~e~~~.t~eep);,in hand dug trenches in areas ~;~~ ~.•r'':%~ ~ ~ " ~ ~~''~ ~•~:: ~' ~" ' ,;~ .',f containn~shallowa'absorbing roots if ~ " ~„' - - aY the'trenches are at ,right angles to the trunk, ' ~ ~•`' '~~' `~~ ' ~•~ ~ ~ . • ''~' ~-~''' ~~~' i, i,t'1 '~ td ~~ ~ sr. v asLopposed~to cutting across the root mass area. ~~~'7., ~ `• ' ~I , °~~}+~ Mainlines~(18-inches deep) must be installed outside ~~•~`°`~ '`' ~ ~ . ~ ' " Qfthe~root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet ~ , ' , ~he''areat.w~thin~ ,_~i~nes the trunk diameter of the trunk. ~~:~ ~ ~~~ ~ <`~"'' , °'k, ''max " ~ r _ . ,, ~'„^ ~ . ~ ~ `',~a,,, ,rte _ , ~ / ~%$"' •= ~''~M ' t of +: " . ' ~ ~ ' '~t?, 1.FtJ~'-~w ;+t1`<`1t~-('_~y"1S , nx7'.~iri~Yi'`,-. r ,no's, ,} i r ~,, ,c ' ~, Y T1ZEE N OT_~S CALIFORNIA DE_ P_ A RTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION George Deukme'ian Jerry Pertain, Director Gordon K Van Vleck J Governor ~,,.,,, Secretary for Resources } State of California ==`: The Resources Agency '• .; o ~ ; ©' `_ ; JANUARY 1989 Protecting Trees From Constructio_ n Impacts Sherburn R Sanborn Staff Forester, Dutch Dm Disease Project, P.O. Boz 820, Santa Rosa, CA 95402-0820 Why Should We Protect Trees An important benefit of trees to society is their aesthetic value. Our parks, streets, ha~mes and_ businesses would seem sterile-- without them. Trees also have monetary value. Residential and commercial properties with established trees have a greater market value than those without them. Trees provide other benefits which include: shade, noise abatement, wind breaks, erosion contrd and air pollution reduction. Like .all green plants, trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen during photosynthesis. This process contributes significantly to the recycling of the atmospheric gases we breath Unfortunately trees are often irreversibly damaged or killed during construction and/or landscaping. grows well bey and the trunk. Depending on soil conditions they may extend two to three times the radius of the craw n. The roots of most tree species are associated with beneficial fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi increase [he roots ability to absorb water and minerals. Sail disturbance during construction can permanently disrupt this association. How Construction Affects Roots ~. By understanding where roots grow and how th~ function, we can begin to see how construction activities such as trenching, slope cuts, soil compaction, soil grade changes and paving can affect roots. Understanding a Tree's Root System The primary impact of construction around a tree is to the unseen portion, ROOTCRO~N the root system. Activities w bleb disturb or alter the soil in w h h i _ ,c roots grow can njure or }.ill a tree. To reduce or prevent adverse impacts, we must understand how roots function and haw they develop in the sail. The greatest proportion (90%~ of tree roots is found within the first three feet of sdl. Roots function to support and anchor the tree. In addition, specialized (absorbing) roots function to exchange gases and to absorb water and minerals. Mast absorbing roots are found in the first 8-12 inches of soil where water and oxygen can readily penetrate. Roots require bath water and oxygen to grow and function. ~ A network of supporting roots and absorbing roots When trenching for utilities and foundations or where grade l lowering is dome close to a tree, there is a likelihood that roots will be cut. The closer DRIPLINE the trench is to the trunk the greater the damage. Each root that is cut reduces the tree's capacity to supply water and nutrients to the leaves ~` Trenching within just a few feet of a trunk can reduce the functional root system by as much as 50% Sail is compacted during construction by heavy equipment which squeezes out the air spaces making it mare dense and stable. Unfortunately this process greatly reduces the infiltration of w a~ and oxygen into the sail. As a result roots cease function and eventually die. In addition, root penetration is decreased. Shc grade changes alter the natural soil level around a tree. The addition of f~ill~OO2~ particular, can have an effect s~''lar to sail compaction. The depth and porosity the fill soil are the mast important factors affecting the tree. If e depth is significant a the porosity is low, root h can occur. Far some tree species, a grade ange of two inches can be significant. Sal fill that is compacted a has lower porosity than the native soil will restrict root activity. If roots cannot develop er grow into the fill, recovery by the tree after construction may be impaired or prevented. Fill soil around the root coilaz (the Hazed pazt of the trunk at or just above sal grade) and trunk will result in death and decay of the bark tissue. This can cause the death of all or pazt of the root system including the supporting roots. Often this results in a "Hazardous" tree. Grade changes that require the removal ~ sal often remove absorbing roots and expose and injure other roots. Concrete or asphalt paved over soil where roots are present will seal the surface, reducing water availability and gas exchange to the roots beneath. Usually soils are compacted prior to installing pavement which compounds these problems. vmptoms Of Construction Impacts injured tree may take several months to many ~ ears to exhibit symptoms of construction impacts. These can include: slaw decline, insect or disease attack, sparse foliage, significant branch dieback and w~lt~ng or yellowing of leaves. Reducing Construction Impacts The following techniques can be used to prevent or reduce the impacts of ccnstruction on trees: >> Fence around the area within the dripline to protect it from construction activities. Because roots often grow beyond the dripline, enclosing a larger area is desirable. ~~ Dig trenches by hand or tunnel under the tree if underground utilities must be installed within the tree's drip line. >~ Prune roots that must be removed, do not rip them out with a trencher or back hce. ~~ Bridge over roots when trenches for new foundations will damage them. ~~ Construct wells around trunks and root collars ~to keep soil aw ay and install aeration systems when the soil grade must be raised. Use a coarser fill soil than the soil being covered and do not compact. Add fill In the late fall or winter when roots are less active. Avoid working oo wet soils. What To Do Ai :The Damage Is Done » Sot! aeration (vertical or 6ydrojet mulching) can be effective where soils have been compacted. » Only remove dead, hazardous or obstructive bunches. Never remove more than 2090 of the fdiage during a single year. Leaves produce carbohydrates and buds produce hormones - both are necessary for root growth. » Where appropriate, apply pesticides to reduce attacks by insects or other pests until the tree's vigor is restored. » Place organic mulch over bare soil. » Restore soil grade by removing fill. » Restore irrigation regime that existed beforY construction took place. Summary Construction around trees can be done successfully. Hoa+ever, this requires planning before construction or landscaping. Not all trees on a site are worth saving. Each tree should be evaluated by a consulting azborist to determine its condition and value in the landscape. It may be more desirable in the long run to plant new trees after construction is completed. The value of a tree should be used as a guide to determining the measures used to save. it from construction impacts Where trees of high value are present the etfort and expense to save them is worthwhile. Ivlaturc trees take years to grow and their beauty and aesthetics are irreplaceable. Further Reading Caprile,_ Janet L. Guidlines Far Develop„le,:t Around Old Oaks. Cooperative Extension, University Of California, San Joaquin County Harris, Richard W. 1983. Arbortcult-rre Prentice-Hall, Inc. Tree Protection Manua! For Butders A,td Developers. 1980. Florida Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services, Division Of Forestry. Prdecting Shade Trees During Home Construction. 1965. U.S. Depaztment Of Agriculturc, Home And Crarden Bulletin No. 104. SUPPLIED EY COUQTESY G~: BAIZKIl l1. (.UA1 l: Ilurlnullur~i! omulunl Con~ulung Arbur~~r a08 751 ~OS1 2]575 Summa Ruad lus Gsws C,A g5alU ~ 00~ Mc Mui n • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000028 • t ~ - - Attachment 3 Feburary 2, 2002 To City of Sazatoga: To comply with the Neighborhood Requirement (item 12), this letter is provided to confirm that the owners of 20870 Verde Vista Lane have shown the proposed plan to its adjacent property owners. None of the neighbors reviewed the plan have expressed any objection. Following is a list of owners of those properties. Their telephone numbers are provided so that the City may verify our claim. Srini & Reva Ramadurai 20860 Verde Vista Ln. 741-8458 (East neighbor) Jimmy & Nancy Niu 20894 Verde Vista Ln. 867-9182 (West neighbor) Sam & Betty Joseph 20886 Verde Vista Ln. 741-1216 (West neighbor) John & Ross Fazio 20884 Sazahills Dr. 868-0108 {North neighbor) Nat & Edith Kallman 20900 Sazahills Dr. 867-9289 (North neighbor) ,-~ /% ~ David & Janet Ch er of 20870 Verde Vista Lane Y~ .7 000029 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000030 • • R~ ~61Q19 B7 VICINITY MAP ---- ~~ fi~® ~fi~ ~ ~~~~ o 0 208'10 VERDE VISTA LANE SARATOGA GAL I PORN I A , ' ~ ~ite ._~~~. E ~~ ,' ~5~'~ r d • y , ~§c `~n,.l d-"- ~.im z : ~~,_.., i 4 rijj i ~~~ ~ ){ ~~^y ~~ _ , 1.,.~1"~~~'`~P' 'j4r'''tlklTr' '1 1 I;G,~v1'~yyII4µS' I ~ ''~~54;~r~r', ~„ l III ~ ~,~+, 11~~u ~ n~ . ~- I~, ~~ .~"~~~~; _,.~=1,. ~. ~,,y41:,fE}`i, .... 4 ,~` •' 1,^'„~~~~.. .I. ~ f- ~ ;~;, ~ , ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .` ; ~~c~s ~ ~ I.,.~:~L=,~ ~ita,~ '~ '-~ , , 'r , ' ` ~ ' - --- ----- -- N~ `1 - ~ y~"'~~^ `%`~ ^ ,.;t°~.~;.~~ ~ 1 _ , , _ ' ~ - ------- ~- ------ ----- - - -- --- - - - -- - --- - - ~ =I. - - I __ ____ _ _ __ - - - a . ~ ~'~r •~n. ~ f ~•''ixa r ~h I• ~ t / r O ~4 ~1 i ~ I __ __ --_ r ~• N '' ,~ .. 1„mom A~ . * ~ n ' n , ~ U! N/ _ \ J J I ~ ' 'I ~.. .. . . I /i o 1 ~ d r ~ D . ~ . ~. i , IC . ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ `' ~ X1 ~" ~ " ~ ,~ ~, ~, ~~~ , ~1~;I11 it u, I~,!, ~ t' ~ ~ ~~I ~~~ I '~ I' • --- -- - ^ ---- - I ~ ~ ' ' .~.~;~z~ ~ ~~ 1 2002 I~~~ ~` ~- • ~~ •~ '1 ~ ~- o «~rd II ~ ~ III ~ ~~ : ..p ~) (•h. q ~. . -~ ~t,~, CITY OESARAIU~A ~~ - _ " - _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ n ~ _- _ _ _ __ __ _ _ a PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY ^ ~ DE516N REVIEW SUBMITTAL ^ BUILDING DEPARTMENT ^ PLAN GHEGK SUBMITTAL ^ APPROVED FOR GONSTRUGTION ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ (NOT FOR GONSTRUGTION) O l) 2u5 ~ 0 y ~ ~~~ ~ SHEET INDEX CONSULTANTS PROJECT DATA - ® ~ ~~ ~~~~o~ I1~ ~~ ~~h~ $ t F~B~~U~ a•m CAYER BVEET wYAr+ I- CUTER t7R t rlae TEL (4m8J 861•mH8 APN 503 • 20 - 083 SE1'6ACKS PROVIDED REQUIRED ~~ ~~~~~ LL . 70810 VERDE YI9TA LME FAX (4081861.9168 ' " ' " w~~~ 3 C•7 ~~ ANm ~~¢ ~~ I saRAtoGa,ca 99010 ZONING• R-I-40 30 -0 FRONT 126 -3 ' ° ' " ~ ~ ~ At4.i ~ 1 ARBORIBT REPORT AREaRIaT REPORT i- ARCFIIIECIURAL hEMARE A490C, hIC 1EL (1081996-n44 .atoGa•slxirvaLE RD FAx r4m61996-nu 1 sa 0 GROSS L07 SIZE. 43164 SA Fi. _0 60 •0 REAR 60 10° 29~ 0" ~~~a ~ ~ ~ . A•I AIffA CALCULATION ~1 p ~ BARATOGA Cf 99010 NET L01 SIZE: 40,196 SC,t FT - 20 - RIGHT SIDE ' i ~ y ~ , . i LEFT SIDE 21-2 10'-0 m ~m~ ~ Aa sITEPLA7ucaNCEPTUaL REDUCTION FOR 19~ SLOPE• ~ ~ & p A•3 LANDSCAPE PLAN E148O'ENT PLON 3- CIVIL ENGINEER 9NiP ENGINEERYJG 1111 PARK AYENBE, BUItE 708 TEL 1106) 314.4606 Fax r408)161-6630 (40196.018x40196.3196U 18,941 SO FT FIRST FLOOR t GARAGE 2,9114 SF 14 ~ W C S ~ ~~' ~= w ~ A-4 FIRBT BOOR PLAN saN .1osE OA 9sn6 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 5,142 SQ Ft PORCHES t PATIOS: 1339 SF 2b R ~ ~3w ~~_~~ ~ a-s ~~~~~ IA EB T L (10 1993 1091 BUILDING HEIGHT: 16'-0" LIGHT WELL: 1048 SF 03 R y~ < n '~ 3~~~z~~Q A-6 EXiHiIOR ELEVATICNL4 . T E 8 4• AF890RI8T BMIRIE D COME / A890C 13599 BUhMIt ROAD FAX (4081353.1736 181 ~ SITE SLO AG DRIVEWAY t WALKUTAY 51199 SF 131 ~ L ~°~~g~~~ A•1 EMERIOR ELEYATKx16 LOS GATO8, CA 99033 AVER E PE POOL: 240 SF 0b ~ a•e a-9 eu1LDNG sEOTroN6 eulLDlr~ sEa1ON(e TYPE GF OCCUPANCY R3/ UI F CONST V N LANDSCAPE• 30,560 SF 16,0 ~ - U A•IB 9ECTICN E•E N1D IB.'17F PLAN - TYPE O TO1AL: 40,196 SF 100 % ~ aO S; EXISTING AREA (ALREADY DEMOLISHED FROM PREVIOUS AF'PLIGA110N) ----------- IIlb SF Rl ~ FAR: 5 U [ `" ~ 0. FIRST FLOOR• 1100 SF. SECOND FLOOR 1 390 , LOT COVERAGE 14114 SF. 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . GARAGE 510 SF. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. 9b36 SF. 24.0 k [ y R 8 5 ~ A ~ ° ~ @ TOTAL: 3,110 SF ae e ~~~ PROPOSED NEW AREA• " ~ ~ ~ fi ~ ~ ------------- -- PROJECT ADDRESS 10810 VERDE VISTA LANE FIRST FLOOR 1,331.0 SF. SARATOGA, GA 95010 SECOND FLOOR 11401 SF 101AL LIVING AREA 4,4111 SF APPLICABLE CODES 91 UBG, 91 UMC, 91 UPC, 96 NEC oAie oULVOJ ALL APPLICABLE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS GARAGE. bd0.4 SF IIlb SF 10TAL FLOOR A 5 EA INCLUDING TI1LE 14, 1998 CBC a<a E, NT6 , : , R DRauw YLrtrl BASEMENT: 6011 SF. .ae No Grcar PROPOSED FOOL: DEFERRED APPLICATION ------------------------------ ~~~QD a ~~ _~~~; rt • • • C1 APPRO%IMAiE ulrnnuN or BIIIL111Nf „~ t- I-. ~ I' ~I ' I ,~,h, - - - • -~ - < _" . ._. .S 891T9'4$?;~,~ 4d2 35 ~ ,:., )~ :~„)., ~- 7~'~~„~~ ~-+ ii ~' _"., " n i~ ~ --PRO1ECil FENCING ENERGGY DISSIPAiCR r='u_- -- ' ~? -------- `~ ' \ \, (TYPE \\ I ~ iI-p.. ~~ ' P ~~- I j„ ,4" SQI ID PIPE I S = I i OOf n ,. it N I i , ~, ~ r \ \ ~? _ \i h~ ' M O t 60'-C z,t~-------- °-' ---1 ~ I lOE~I I C 1 ~' I I I 8 % " ~@VJTWOSTORYHOUSE ~+ FF =48100 ~ PA0397.D' _,OC ~, 'C39 I _p ,, 6" SOLID PIPE ~'~ a ~' it (ROOF DRAIN) Y tt G 3 I> u o ~ ENERGY DISSIPATDR u I 0 tUkf BASEMENT o ~ r" ~o„~, ~ ~ , ~ _ 00 ~ of ,. ', 1, i FF 398 p0 ¢ SHRUBS PAD 395 5 4ARACIE m , F F 400 00 ~ ~' ` I PAO 19900 0 _~~~ i '_~ ~ ''I - `- ---=-~ - - --~ 1~ - ~ - - - _ = N 89°22'42' W 231 50 TOW 4050' BOW 3998 EARTHWORK TABLE AVCN4[ H[ICMS WEPACE HEGIR ~Ui (CY) FILL (C~) INPoRf (C) F%W1RI ICY) _ oRNEw.r GUi zs L o ul o ____ o __ ul GENEFH SITE GMOINf. 2 I 150 `A o 100 BUANNC 8 08 910 180 0 )!0 101A1 1191 2!0 561 nuir. ~ COMFI,GIpV6 A9E ~10~9[RIOeN iHCIR GwN ODUl111IE6 InYE~OFR ] NA1iNUM NPfIH OF CNi IS 110 FEEL LEGEND: --- DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE APFRO%IMAiE FOIJNO GRANITE MONUMENT IocgnaN OF ---- STREET CEN iERLiNC - pUILOmG WOOD FENCE Tf, TOP OF CURH FL FLOW LINE GUli GUTTER TV TV CABLE BOX WM WATER METER CO CLEAN OUT CB CATCH BASIN SLOPE DENSITY CALClA.A710N LOi AREA = 40196 SU R AVERAGE SLOPE = 1/A x SUM (l) WHERE 1= 2 FEET (SLOPE INTERVAL) SUM(L) = 375921 FEET (FOiAt L~NGHT OF CONTOURS) AVERAGC SLOPE = 2 >,>, 3y59 221 ,. 100 40196 AVERAGE SLOPE = 18 7`: NOTES - ALL DISTANCES ANO DIMENSIONS ARE SNOWN IN FFFT AND DECIMALS THEREOF - REFERENCED ASSUMED 8 M TOP OF SANNARY MANHOLE LOCATED ®VEROE VISTA LN APPRO% 87 00 R WCSCERLY OF DRIVEWAY E0.5EMENF CL 40000 = yaR . SHRUBS , <(. i• ~. y, I _ __ ~~__ _ __ w 1 ~ , Y _ ! = r=F:~ t;~. f~,, ~~ it ~ )s„ , ~=SHRUBS ~ .. "111 -,i ~ r ~ ENERGY DIS9PATOR 1 otige a rc ~ I +'f~ a "r~ ~ ~ 6" SODD PIPE 4 L i .i ( 4 r s d o ZG V 4 i E APPROSIMATE 0 RETAINING WALL ~w ~ t1 ~ = Q~' ,~,Y,e I LOCAPON OF zm ~ °' { .Iq^. ~i.~'"1° BUILDING mV ? y I I =j, ~ ~ +11 t"Za i IJ I III } ~1 ! `I j I 1 I N I~ I c~ ~'. ~~ I-n ~II, i .a, I N I~ ~I I w I z ~ .n 1 ~ N =I ,~=~~I~ ~1! ~~~ R=20000 I I I'I D=05'55'33" I, L= 20 68 I , Q R=200 DO ,~~ ~""` 6=06'19'58" ~ s~ ~ ~ al r`-'Sc~ac 7 qv1 .. I L=2211 ,- _ --=w -~-~ a9 I?~ .~-- (~ ~ z,_", A ~ ~ n~ '.~="tea-°"r, ~ V 1 1 9 4 I~~ sF I,~ i Y 3 _ L- _ ~6 9 )~ ~~.~7. ~~,~~ ~-VbSTA (LN• ~40'~WID~) ~"~_ ~.~~ 1! a ~_~a»„ I, / ~ ' ?.. ~ SM~' .~_....o s,uv 1211 FARh AVENIC 6UliE 208 SAN .p6E CA 95126 TEL (WB) 112-5062 lEL (908) l14-1608 FAX (4081 487-8870 E-NAIL SMPENGINEERS9 1 AN00 CON OWNER LOPMIGNI ©2W2 sam coN9Axr WNL CNGINIFFS Z Z W a } ~ O W _ ~ ~ Z U ~, QQ ~ > U Q ~ ~ ~ Z w~ Q ~ o~ ~ ~5 N~ ~ L ~IiLt mte MAY 10 2UD2 soap 1' =16' n<,ly~<a br SR o1a.~ nY MA +~ r ?192 Sh<el C L. tl i P1 • • BARRIE D COATE AND ASSOCIATES r w Horticultural Consultants (40A) 353 ]052 fax (908) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, CA 95033 TRhE tit ~NVRY ANts PRF$hRVA fION RIeCOMMENUATI0N5 A7 IIIE 111YAN IRIIPERTY 20fl701y.NUl VIS fA SARAT(il1A [hrpirnl al the Ri yursl u( Mark ('unnWls I ommumry Wanning Ikpi Clh of 8ainmgn 13777 Fnutvalr Ave Saramg,u 1 n n5u70 411 visv ur MuharlL 131 nr.h l.onsulung Arlunsi frhnian 14 10111 Joh e01 UI II37 I'Im Rnlwid IJNt/UI I'Inn Uwe IJ IJIII ENCepnooal -_- Fine ~--~--- File---`--Margioil Poor 6 echnena i S -P .. , _pMimeoa gpecimeru Specimens _t 6peclmeos 7 112,1 SG I 9 Exceptsoail speesmem must Ix rrtawM ur anv cost and whau urr parrhues are needed m retain Ihrm m dint r unem rondnunl muss br usd Fiae Ipeeimem must IN reUnmd d possible but urthaul nmtnnlesigu irvwions Mdlgalwn pnxr duns rrmmmendrd hen ar ImaWrd ID hmrt Ilamage wuhm arm pled honiculnunl standards m order m prevent der hm Fair spec north rrlmnmq Out agnnl wlflluvl molar d, srpr n vrvun+ Mrhgannn meld prevent lonhrr Jr r tore Tmel located oa adjacent plaprrm s whuh would Lr allertrd In this aruvnv must Ix tmalM as Fxuphonal rrgmdlrss of r mMninn Impact of Coaatruetlw Tree 141s In Innmrt with rnnsinlrhon althe praplvd drm w n Tree 1E would sulTr.r srvac root damage by the aantnu tan of Ihr proprsed rw dew way If am k5 wnWA he rsprrred to snrvwr grading must hr IunnM to a mmlmam nl 7 h CI Irma the Trunk of urr p5 I(th1 rxlsmlg rctammg a,dl adlarrnl In tree 16 Is pNumd lu Ix n pbrs d Irre ab would sutler sgnmi ant If not severe mat damage d Ihr soil is dlsnn del and IYwts arc rxyosM to Ihr mr Whether or not This call 1s proposed to hr Ire mistral led Is not mode eMar on Ihr plans provided Ihr plan proposes to runswcl n nmmmg wall Ixtueen trees 17 and 8 In this event neither ore would survrv< I am unNNr to nrognvr fhc pmlwse of tlm pro~srA mtavung wall lit addition IU tin sp cifit nsks mhd Ihr rruunul ores mxv ue sublrcu A to man of the Indowotg dam~lgmg events that air Cunlriiun In canal I ut Ilan 41ICS r g, ~ ~I, 4a ~~ ~~ i~ h ~~ I The sin<kpJmg of mmmaals or the storage of cyulpmrnt nnUrr the rannpies 2 Ihr dumping of ronslniclwn nigh ruts, eslxl ldh wasm nwmn,Js, sin h os paumng pnxluels, mortar rain rrlr, rlc undo the 1.mnpus iIAR;J'Ofll 1 ffir nstruruon ha0ir mrluAmg foot u,Air alms rhr root svsh nn,and rhr parking of vehuMs or ionstrul non rgwpmrnl under the ianopns uv ^Aiundl,n C'ONan 4 Urmnhnnn o[Ux exrshng bulklings, dnucway, anA pathwaysnAyntcm to iYl n aNYiRIMMeN: Imrt msulbng w hark mlunes bmken 6ranf hr s, nr tool lax i 1heesrnvouaus for bnndetlon nr for olhrrronstrocuon ad7ari nl to toes b Ilu Ircnrhing al mss root roars for new uWAws ar for IanAsrnpr Imganon i Tlir gradmg of the surface call restating m the removal Mquaounrs nl ahsrNbnig rwl Ilps PRIPMev BT aICXM.L BMCN CONeuLTlllnMmmeT teBRUM41I xtal RVIr xax rRssmvaman areonacxoarrom Br rxe exrM raortarr xno vlwe ssmn, sMBrocx Assignment N the 11 yw sl o(Mark l onnDlly u owl l'Lmnrr, lommm~rts Fkimung L>rpartmmll, Cm of Sanllog,t Ihls rcpnrl rrvwws rhr pm~sal to dr nuihsh an rusmig home and to ronsti urr a new home m Ihr 1 nnlrst of pith nhal d image m m rhr renmval of casting tars 1 his I<pan lunha i pnindes mfonnahun alma[ Ihr hea![h anA unmturc ofthe acts an mtq xad makes rndsnons In who h damage In Ihrnl ran br n star nd to pout m der lute Comments and suggesuens contamrdmthre rep,n pies xthDl rhr loralmns un n[ )ices m Irbnnn m pmpoud ronsinu non air arriusv h prcsrmrd on der pk,ns nm°Wrd Eommnry This pmpnsll rxpovrs 9 Imo ur some level of nsk to rnnstnirtion for p4 rs In r unmet wah ronvmclnn aiul re planned In Ix iimovcd by Inq,lemnrtahon of this dealgn Repbremrnt tires aer suggested Ail other ores an rrprctrd IU be retained R ru rdurrs are sitggrsirA to Imbgnle the dam Ige That would M rrperlyd A bond I yilnl to 25°o the value nl the roamed tines rs suggrslM In acrnrdame wrtli the Ievrls of Ihr rrpcchJ nsks OAurwtloaa theta are ~ toes on ihrs snr and L Imes Iw xMd.in Ihr ryo}x•1 ty tmsald [hr srnrih ihxl are al nsk of durtwgc by propouA ronsuurhon fhr attached map shows Ihx tacnuon of mesc ores m1A dime appmrmtah remrpy dlmemrom Farb Imr tuts Ix•en tagged wnih n mrtnlht lalxl ui0, an usslgnrd number I he 911YPS aft ekisslUrd as fUlluws 7 u r+ 11, 7, R, 9 Coast hve wk Ipuercus agnlolm) 7 err R2 Mexican fan palm (WnsMngtonrn rcbuslnl tires b3, 8 Monmrry pole (Anus radmla) ftrc a5 Infcnnr Inc oak lpucrnrs uvclaenu) Thr hr alth arul strunule ,n each specunen n total oli x xaM of 1 hr 5 ern Ile nl ~prwrl nn the dam sheers Ihm follow N1s ten please note Ihm rarh hers stew lure m dislmgwshM from health The stmeturc rating w a usnnl valuanmi of enrh tree's ab0n lD rcnmm standurg and w maunam its hrnn<hmg wnhaul hleakmg or spldttnq apart Ia;unagc Df this nature run lxrur despite exeeplrmtel health Alsn stucture is not as aesthenr faun A urr Ihsl has an exrr0rnt,siruanm mat nut nn rssaM m arsdrenralN pkasmg Hrr ause rhr sannus rominnahons of hrelth anA struaiur sonleumes requite mtrgrtetnuon, Ihr romhumnon of heahh aM structure mlmgs for the 9 trees aer unrvrrtrd In myeWual desrnpbvr lanngs as fugnus PBBtBRID IT a1CHA6 L IBNCN CnNSU{nRD aRa048T IBIRUMT 112m1 n Hmkrn blmiehes or hark mlunes as n icsult of camuucunn eynlpinrnl pasxluC I<x rbaC 9 lan<Israpmq, including nuompanble pWnt species nenrhmgmmss leer root mnfa hlI UragaWli r%rfSS1Ve wW dlslUrMnir of trPY rp1l mIIP4, geuhnq to {rcelr ronhmn, rh VumaBy any landuapr &anlre inside a ore's nwt rune rcsulls m a prrcenmgr of root damage If Ihr prrreutage is signihranl rhr nlTrv IM trees nail del hoe or die ReeommendaHoru The fDgowmg mNgauon suggeslwns am Imm~drd to redurr the relent of onswctlnn damage ID arrrptnblr levels, so that m1omM hers rmi reasonably he nssurcU of suivwal wrthaal tleclmr if any rlumges m these plain omm dumlg cnnslmr non rhr following may rcquue nhemhon I hl order ro retool urr as I rerommrnd That Ihr h1m1 ufgindmg (nr any othrn ansuucnool rmisi ur Incatrd a mmnnum of 7 fact fmm thi Imnk o[ Ihls vac this may rcymrc reloratwn of rhr dnvrwuy, which also most inert this mmininln ClCamtne myUlrfnlPnl 2 In order In retain hers s1 and P, I rerommenA tlmt nn mlanring well for nm other slnminrel br ninswrlyd within I S kt I of rile Imnk o[ entire Ira 3 I suggest the ComswrWm prnlxl Irlu mg Ur prnviUcJ and Lx aced n+ nD1eU uu me allnrhed map Penang must tie ofrhamlmk a mmunum bright of 5 (art, mnumM on strut pasts dnvm IB-umhr3 mlU ihr ground Fenaug most IM m pNce poor t0 the amval of any other matmwls ar eywpmmt and mull reniam m plan anal all rnnstlurunn rs complHrd and gnen find approval the pmircnve fain mg must not la Irmporenty muvM dunng cnnslnlcbnn F'encmq must M bested rxnmly as shown nn Ihr atmeheA map 9 there must be no gradmg, In m•hmg, or sudare scraping lxnealh Ihr dnplmrs of retained uses, 1erNrr before or afkr rhr mnstrm Imo pen<id (coring Is mslallM or removed Whem Ilus nay mnlLl t with dmmage m other reyuurmrnts our attire must Ire ronsullM 5 Trenches for flay ullhues (pas, water, phone, N cabk, rte 1 most he locatM Dutvilr rhr dnplmrs of rcmmM Irrcs unless spivafraUs nuINa1M m1 the enclosed plan Fur any ore where dos cannot tr arhievM, I suggrat x pro}ecI ai boost be retamM to delemmie xaeptahk knxuuns A 2-luDl section of each Irroch ad}srenl to anv urr must Ix Irlt exprsM fur Insprrtwns by our o1Fur G Suppkmemai Imganon oast tie provided to mtamed urr M5 dunng fhr do months )any month mewing kss than I inch of mmfa0) Irngale wain 10 galbns for tech inch of wok dmmeter curry hve weeks thmughout the cunstructmn permd 'fhrc can be aclurvM by Ihr use o(a simpk snake) hose br taCh trff 7 Excavated sod may cwt br piled or dumped )even temporanly) Tinder Che eanopus of vacs PxiPMenn YICNAdL aYICN, Ca1kULnBa BRBUNI9T teeRUARY l1 am1 rase suave MD tRranavanon xecoNaelnenoxs Br THBCNTM PxetmTr 20810 VIRDI nBTe BBMTana R Renrhrs fora drarasge system must to musWc the prtnrcrnr tines rs laud mi the anxrlxd map Foram area when• Ilos l,Imm~ br rr torte J °rir ollxc nmst hr umsullyd y Ng pruning mull hr door 6y an lnlemalwnnl Srlrnp nl ArbolarDluval rrnlfird arhnnst and al I ordmq to ISA Wcslrm Chapb r 4umdanls I Il Landuape palhueys and other ainennn•s Thal om r onslml led uodm Ihr rxmpies of tars rmist Ix ronsrnlrmd rampku I} aa~gnde xnlmnt rnt;rvnlwn Il lundsrayr rznpmnn trrnr hex whuh{ms+Il n,nt rune and/m for arty other lnulsrap featnma moat lx•nn <Invrint rnk lhl~ir,1itlnu+ rhr trunk Ai,unrier from Irfe lnulka Ilowrvl r indinl nrinr lu t mat Ix made d Ihr tmm tin oar h on rlovr Wan 5 lour s the 1 rook dlanrrl, r lu Inl t it r s Inmk and d IM spokes nl sin h a drvgn ,Ire no rkiwr Ih m 10 h I t ap n I d Ilre Ire mmll i of the r mnpv 12 Spnnkkr migahnn mllsl Ir ArsiguM so 11411 n Arxs nDl stnW the IriulN+ot Imes fynlr dap nr wwkm liom Img.llwn is nlbwcd d ur nth Ih1 , amll,ie s ul oak tins 13 lawn m other plants tWt rcqurre freynem ungnhnn mull Ix hmuM ie ,I annul 0120'% ofiln corm Imt men and a nlunmuin .h+I,Inri of sl yr n INnes the Imnk dunirmr Irma Ihr II oak of o rA Ire I s Id Hrndn hrmrtl or simdurv Aging malrnal must not M use A twin atlt the r nnupirs of existing Imes irrraua its unlalblwil n yours urlil Inng of t u uwhi s whrch nrny rcsllll m slgniUr ant iris clam sgr I5 Iflanrlssapr pLuils an to Ix ulslalkA uatlim the rant rum of an n Ik nrl n ahnuhl Ix planer d only unh iom}wtrbk plants n puhhs loon i Wnl colnp,nlhte pkinls I an m ohutwM fmm the Cnhfm nu unk Rnind.umn 1272 Hro ninny Sum NI0 Uakhind 94u 12 15 landuap malrnilslmbhles dnuralwe lxuk, slums hmuig,ilrl uiliv not he dmclly m wutml unh the hock ofa Ina dm w Ihr nd ul damn 17 Iyrain A1sslpitors ur dmnls}outs nwsr tR rekx aN d d to es ul m 161 p,nh ofrhx barge Thr Ihwhargc unlsl Ix UlrerlcJ n uuunrnnn of I . hr I to Ihr suk ul Ih< tnlnN of any In 1 l8 Malrnals ar cywpmrut mlasl not br stored, stt kpikA dumprl under Ihr dnplmrs nl vas, or hoard un site M1m r m rss mnlrads ~nlr Iw6np luon,n ronrrete paint pnMurls etc I mum tx remmrA Tram stir Tg66 9VIV64 MD PR&90eVBnoN R[COMYHIrI rxerxTMraoeexrr woo nRnesnara sa Vaiut ANaeument 1 he valor of Ihr nrrv,sir uldmssrd uunAmg Io 14A SlanUarrls, Nrvr mu r-mlwn, wRA Tree A4 has a vrJur UI $952, ulneh Is rytuvalrnl Ia too Lt un h Imnd i1 rtwl sµ emu its Rr plarenierrts mr sngprslnl Accsplabk native Imr n place meals arc Coast hve oak - puercus rtgnJohn VaIMy oak - (Trrr~is lolmrn Mg 1rM mepk - Arer mmophyMm CnWomin huckr ye - desrvlus calf man Coast I2rdwuM- Seyuom sempenmm~s The rmnlnnM value of xll of rhr. outer sluve3rd trees, whxh m* r xixi nd to In relamM, 14812,189 I suggest x ImM equal t0 25%183,0171 nl Ihru IUtal valve to assure Thar protertxrn Rr sprrdulRr su u Michael Hcn`t' A}wuml,,, r+ni h Cnmt pnnry,,d ji MLRJsI F,nr.lusurrs (dn3i D UITCIn18 7 tee Uata Acrumulatwn Charts Tiec Protectron Hefom UDnng and After Cnnstrurbon Ikotei Irve Frncutg Radwl Trenching Henexdt Tree Caiwples Map { „ • :7 • 0 1449E ' O 3070 9F O 330 9F O 3414 5F 711 S 71 160ID 9F 71 b7B 9F 79 998 9F 74 bB 9F O 659 x O 7N19F 71 9313 9F 76 75699E _ • . ... _ _ __ _ 79 75B 9F ® 1179 9P ]I~D ROOK 71107 BF O 1'•0' %I7'-11'•75D 9F _ ~ ~' ~i 0 ``~ '-'h xmo•.rn5 ~' 7e I ~ I ~- I ~ N'•3' xl8'-7'.7569 BF .. . i ~ V O 1 I I '-4^ %35'•6'.931 I 3 ( S'-1" X6'-4'•144 9F i I 76 ,. I '1 .. _ 17'-7' kb'-PdNI BF, _ ~ 7'7~ , <,J- ,1,~ ~ ~ 75 / 4~~ I ~-~ - 4'-0' MI'-5'.E53 AF ~ ~' I`' ~ ~ ~~ ~ , eF 3 9a (6'•9' .B'-IrBC 5'-6'1~I0S.67D BF O b I i I I 7'-t' %4'•6'.39® 8F ~~~ j I 71 I ~'}II' XII'-6".N00 ~I II 'i ~ I -~~ _- f-: .~ I - - - -~- - ___ - -: , _-- _' ' ___ _- _ ~- --- Ir ---- .._ ~. __._._. _ __ _ _ b'-1' xb'-1'x09.711 BF 2ND i=L00R AREA GALGULATION ~'1'~ ~~ ~'~ ~~~i1~~'r i~~l ' II ~ h'3" x ql•o° 3mn eF .I'<. O 1j1 ~I 70'-p' x 79'•6'• 667 9F °4 O OI 6181 9F O ]]3 9F GARAGE. 6404 SF O 969 9F O 6701 9F O 979 9F O U63 EF to %t 9F 00 7138 SF 7661 9F 10 889 9F II 95 5F 0 ]096 9F U 717 SF I4 40 9F 19 9011 9F TOf4L 79114 Ef 1'-0' x 1'-B'. tID 9F 13 6'•e' k 3'-3". 71J 9F O O H'-b" k 10'•9'• 2096 S II I 1 I,(. I'-0'x 9'-b°• 59 5F b'-10" x 9'-9'. 779 9F I ~ >` .,. iJ ` ,• 1'-1° X 79'•Ir. 7661 ~ 0 ^,` :,~,;~ ry-bq b'-4'~ 1`x05.1669` M'-o9c It•0 x05.965 8F ~. _____ ._ _I IF I ). v.1 i ~ ~ 1 ,rA, ~~ _- ~ 11 ~ ~i ~ I ~ '-~ Y~ ! N'+9' x e'-6'• 67049E ~+I ~ ~ t,__~ ~~ _1_,11 ~~ _ . __ _i _ - - _-_ - f - ~ Q'-1' x U'-0'x09. 913 9F , O (b'•t'. 1'•l0')• 19-3'x 09. D69 5F 15T 1=LOOR AREA GALGULATION eo - 9'-3;x79'-1'. 7138 5F 0 - II'-9' x B'-3'. %4 8F s. • • 9. • ~~\ i i \\\~; I u • Illiiii ~~h 1I'~~'i ~~~~ j.'. ii' ~1~~~ I~'~'' ~I!i~~ ~~j~ ~I .~ 1 I I ~ BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1 I-----~ ~-- -------~ L_ ~_-~ _ f--------- - - e o e ~ ~:a, .~ ,~ • • ~~ Iffv191U~4 BT d -- \\ C k Q i / `~' J ~< / \\ v s z ,,~ ,,, ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ,~~ ~V ~ 0 ~~~ ~~~ ~"I~~ ~~~ ~ ~ (~ ~~~ ~ Z t~fl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~~il" 'i~~ .~ ~ ~ % ~ Ilia''' I~'~~i;~~~, ~ ~°"~ ~ ~ 0 ~i ~ ~dl~ ,Ji~~' 'lil 1, 0Q ~~ ~ ~ ~~ % ';~'~~~ i, '~''~~p ~ , k ~ ~ '.I ~~ ~ °, ° "'w~ .\ ~ ~ ~ w ;~_~~_ ~ Z 9^~ \ \~ ~'~~Ii, ~ C,OURTYARD \ ,",~ ~ d~u~pa,a`u \0. \ '~ LLLL u IC W Q U ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ o LAl1NDRY l`~~> ~, ~~~g~~~~ ~~- 5TORA6E , ,~ ~a ~ ~ a~~~ d ( \ m0 % ~~~~ / / % PATIO t,~ ~~~~~,~~ \ . d~pU VWW ~n ~ ~ ~~~~~~~w ~ ~° ~~ _W ~6., p~ yy 7yy~~F U ~ c^ ip ~ ~vAZ~u o ~' FAMILY ROOM ~~~miQ~[ ---- -- ~ ~ ~ ~ U a I I i t I ~ 0 a~ I I i I ~ `u Q~~ LL~ I I I 1 LJ I I I ~ DININ6 ROOM '/^ w ~o ~ o ~ FF . 100 I / (~ !y u n a I I I ~I - ~~, •, ~ Q ~~~ A ~IVIN6 ROOM I I I I ®~ KITCHEN n NOOK ~ ~ 01 ~~ I I ~ bwb ~°~ II it I J ? ?. ~ / • ~'~ ~' Dd1E 0411{!07 ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ / ; DRNW KR `` ~ ~9~.I0 U7" ~'.m" ~'.11~' p,.,. ~" ~% FIRST P1.DOR PLAN JOB ND Ci11'dN 97'-9" ~~°6~ 6 EHEET9 ~LOOR PLAN • LFETILE FLAT T0.E RXF CHNPCOAL C/T la0 ~~~~~~;,,I„~~~.yG;flP,il~fl~i,p' I'I ~'n I q, I I'~ li I' •(h,1i, C I 1 ~ II' I. i ii I_ -'f` 11'~JI 1•.I.T. r. l;,,,r_far~i ,, y%~til If~[~7,Ti -- TPIn ~ _ _-- _ -_--- ' , ~ --a ~ I', ~~ i' i 'll~__-~~I ~ j I I ~ 'T ._i~~/r13~~irli,~1111 ,~fl~~~~ #il ~f FF 411 ~ AROGE iP 110 ~ _i 1. i ~ - - ~ _ - ,~ ~ i a©®- ~~ ~ ~Il~jl Ill~i'lal 11i~iD''ill~i~~•h'i'~~ ~I ~ ~ ~~i ~iJi~~l,l~l ~i .' Iliiliili i~~~l~l~il ~~ ~~ i~l~~ ~III~~ I'~~I'~~~' L,:. ih''~r,l~~! I~~iI',~~I r 'llll~li'h~il',IIII! gout ~ EAST II~EgT i I I ~ ~~ , °rl \ NORT / ' LEST 51flE E~EVATIDN 50UTH GOLOR 8 MATERIAL SPEGIFIGATION. ROOF MATEPoAL LF£fILE LONG FLAT TILE ROOF CNARLOAL C/f IL30 sluao teat I~LLr noRE KM 633-L F'EWIER FbT TRM COLOR KELLY MOFB LLa19 WNIERL'~BT BTONE vEtffER FRD•FR LEDGEBTONE 6R4r <PF•a01a1 ELEVATION NOTES I l:9' 3 COAT 810000 : aTUCCO xREED 3 4F'PROVED BPAfdC ART8B10R 1 GJ BADDLE 4'D FLAaNNG B Gl LN5TE7 CAP 6 W 0.Ad11NG 4710CY.i TO LL14LL 1 LGETILE FLAT TIIP ROOF CIIAI~:OAL L? 1190 5 aTUCCO BaFIT 3 A1tIC ~BJT REFER TO 41110 YEN1 CALd 10 N'4A' 4PJ1 UY ECREEN II F~/5 7x1 O/ IrB FABGA OR a4fY# 80A® I7 7r REP9IRIM L' 7~ tPoM UU BTUCCO OrER K 970000 JOINT ~ LNE OF CEILNG 16 LIFE a 501FIi n L5E aF e~ IB O' DI4 FRE•FAB COLIfN FS aTI1C~-0KEr 70 7° ° 7' PANTED DOUN 9POIlt 71 b' Ofi METAL GURER 77 LLIOOD Ca~EL 79 8711000 FECE89, 8EE FLOOR PLAN FOR DEFT? 7J 8N000 OYfRFOAM iRM 75 f'FOD-Fli LEDfEBTONE 76 UK1CD YFNDO01 71 YUCD OUILOOKER 78 87aff CAP 7S KETata.E! 90. %' NIGH LLROGGNf BY7F1 fi1,4RDRAIL ~~'~PIJI D~i~l~n Ali u I~ --_----____-- -- --_ •u-fIA C- V. ,: I,q I}al~'{.u,l•~1„ •41 h4'~ n- Tp!n, I ~' ~,0® li ~~IIIr I-1 ~~~IIII~ jI I I ,~ I ill II. 1'~li(ri,' ,r„ -~~+'~I'~~,r~, I III_, II I I ~,s• •1` :,~l~~tii;,'I,L1';f,P_,iIJ I~I~ ',~I'~,~~ LLlllll l+~i ~Il~l .I !l li 'I'~ ifll~~,; Iyy I,~ II-'~~I lllrl Li~I~T(~ _ ~ --- J °111,~ihijlA'~~~I'l~~l~~l~l,~yl I°Ii~IId~J'J,9rll~~~;+'~~ r>:al ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~- r- .I~II~I~~II '~ ~L'~ -a ljlC ,~~•.i'I~~II~C_~=- ~--_-- --- ~~ - ~~--~ © ______ _ - - _~ - - u _ _ 110 T-_= I ~ I I i i I a I ~y~ ~1 0 ® INi I Id'; +,~o~ e•I'' il~ ~II 1.1•. ~li ~~-I'• 'li l,_i 'p' ~~)Y,'i ~I; •,~L ,I ~Nt,'1 ,•I , ~ Iill~ Fs~ L. ~ , i ~~~ ~ , . i, f~~'F,~;',`~Ir, , v ',r~.~~, i ~~ ~I TS Z5 Z 18 KM 699-L FRONT ELEVATION '~'~"r"°~ 'S ~: ~~ "°~ F'EWIER FlOi EAST ~ . ELEVATION NOTES ,JL_ --rl,~+'.'.,~,.,.f~~?"= +,i ~' ~ ~ _ iY~' Ill~ili,'11~ Yl JI~I~~;TI1 .1i~4 BI/ 4-n ,r~ ~, ,IL ~ 1, I "`f a~ '~' I' , J ,'~``~~ I' , ~ ~ ~;,' I' : ~~ ~~ y ily~ I t; I~~ !'_I~ I;+ I'i?i.{!11 :1~,lit iil~'I ~~' h'~u;",~-~<I>F 1^;•.u+,,.. '~ ~~ ~II',IIIJ,' 'iJi~iiu lil 11~ 1~1 '~~Vll i~; ~Ji Il i _ .j"~-C'1, I~II't {' y ~'71 ,'~~+~h~pi'J'~Iy~li;;,W~,I~"i~r,~~,~t~i,~^`~,~ ~,,, ~,:I~~,;,ll-lt[~I'j'I'~~t4 ..,:],.I LiJL~_i:.iLw.1i';I~~I'li'-''I''T I„i-I,i~~= ''', ~ _. l'.Oi~i!i~~r..,[~,Jj lr ~ .-_ _ .,.''3 ~'tra ~ ~,4:~ yrl'-,'~il',4 ~- ;i, , ~ i ~ 46',07 - i f ~' ~'i,, I'~,~~ - - - -----I-~I r~~ ~~,_~' j~ 1 ~- - _ i~~ ,~I,. ~,ti , I ii r ~4. u I f ~~1 ~f'VI . ..C ~' 4 tl !, ~~ ~ l ~~!';G ~,i~~a,, f t~~,~r~ i~ ~ 1 I ~ , l i ~~I,, ~~ l i i; l ~ I, ~ i ~ 1 III I I I li `I 'I ~ I~ i I '~ ~~ lid ~r II ~-_- '~~ ' (i~ ~~ -_ _~~_-_~ r~' , ~I ,~~','y~,+-i',>;' t,4 °1!+dli '~ ?,:r' 7 y ;~ . ~ju;. ,' ;yy„a L I~;~;_ ' u I ;, i ~ I _ !.,{1L ..'~L,. ,--LI_ 11~_; ,=~ ~;~~ ~ fi. 1.1.11. ~JII.1:_,.L-I~T:_'t_~'CU,I~'. 4 la I `11I11 ~ I ~ ' ' iI1~ '~li 'I''' ~~' {'`.t 1 1 I I 'III ~ I ail' i X~, _~UI - !I Ij l 1'(11-~ li ilii~t~+l~,to- '~~I I sx~~ ~ t ~{ ItT{t1~PF1 ~~~r7 ~,~.~~ T~{'"y~~~~}y'tl~~~l 'i' 1V i~~ I Ik lI ~ G..-r_ ~a~ ); h Fy 'f~ ~'_'~a ' ~ I '; Iy ~li~ ; _ I -- - ~ ~~~`-=~=_~~I~- _~~~ I , ,I ~ i , I I ~~ , ~~il ~~I ,I. I i I II ' ~ i I' ~ I - I I I i ~i i III i 13 J KELLI MORE ~' W879 UNNTERCREBT RIGHT 5D~ ~L~VATION •. I,i 4i I' I ,'~, U Ib %1?~1;~~~i~~? 1?`1?~ 1~~" ~i~`l i ~ + WEST NORTH ~~~Po'Y' LAETILE CONC. RdT id.E ROOF CVIARCOAL Crt 1130 nt`p t ' STUCCO COLOR KELL7 MCRE 101 643-L 30UTH '~ ~ ~ ~" NOR1N r~wrERroT TRm ccLOR KELLr Mores i W4ri WTNTERDRESr _ BTRff ~~EJEER FTdO-FIT LECCfBTONE EAST 1 i ~''~u"T>(;if~'7,'_f?171~ r~aATrr~-sole! „~"i~i ~~r 1il~i ~ it l u: u ' j'r-~,~1~~,i~.l„ I dull,'"',, '~~' .°j,',''~,~I ~_- ------- -- ----V-'i'_ t-=- I --- I- _~ fhh~ ~! ~~- I , I ( I ~-',r41`'r a u l It i`yytt~.II~Ttt~`~I ~I'~ c`==-- I fll '~, I,il~~~ ~ I,~V SV it ~ ,_ .-~~ FF S ~'~ ti' U ~h ~y, ~i'~ I I,,~ ~~ ~~, - - ---; -~ -~ -- ,, I{ II'7~1',;I,I~'?J,1~_:14>ln17'~h,4i'~,h~li,~~L9`,~f,~liJ'; ',,,~_ ..~, ~1' - - ---=--~_,~~_"~>,1 - 7- - - -- - - --- - - "~ - - 1-T-~- ---- ,I --~'T-- i ice- ~ ~ ~~ I ~ I I ~ I, I'fi~l i II 1 1 I I ~ I I I i B ;, i~ I_=~i II 1 ; I ~ ~~'~1 ~ '' ~ I ~~~ ( --! 1 ~ ~ I 1J-i-' -~ ?I" I I I ~~ ~ _ ~ ~~~ I ~~ I' f ~~TII 'I I,~ " ~' X1,1 {ly~~~ Ifl'1I!tirv-.IirII.IiLYI'il it - - --I' --~-- -; ,, i ,,~~ . '~~I'I~i l LL__J 119L_.,I i; r-- ~ 1===-_ II II II ;~ 'h I .I REAR EL~VATI®~l wESr TP IE! a a cK ~ IOB ~~ a a FF CF BABETIENT 398 I T/8' 3 LOAT STUCCO 3 9TIl000 SCREED 3 AFFROVED SPARK ARRESTOR 1 W SADDLE A'A RABNRYa B W CNRfgY CAP 6 GI RABNRYa Ai ROOF TO WALL 1 LS'ET1LE RAi TILE ROOF CHARCOAL C/T ,BO 8 STUCCO 8OFFR 9 dTTIC YENf RSER t0 ATRC PENT CALCB N7 H"aY PENT W! SCREEN II FiE9 7K4 O! ]r6 FASCIA OR BARGE BOARD n 7r RE/B iRR1 B 1. TRIM W/ STUCCO OvER N sTUCCO,anrr B Leff CF CEILRY 16 LRE: aF 9Off11 n LBff aF &IELF la n' olA Pf8-FAe cau'-7 9 STUCCO KET 30 T w T PABRED DO1N BPdd 31 6" Ofi METAL GUTTER 77 WOOD COF~EL 73 810000 RECESS, BEE BOOR PLAN FLR DEPRI 71 810000 OVER FOAM TRIM 3B PRO-Fli LEOGEBTONE 76 WPDD WINDdU 7T WOOD OUTLOOKER 70 STONE OAP ]B KETBTCPE 30 36° NIGH WROUGHT IAN GUARDRAIL COLOR ~ MATERIAL SPEGIPIGATION: =- _- i = = _=_ - -i==- I ~ ~, lil,l I, ~ ~ II iI i i } t + TTy,'1 i I 1' i, ;~-- yr-n ~F-'.-,~~i ~ I 113 , 'I^ ~ '~I l ~3 Y,il °'I II, i i :__~_ _ 3 ' Ili , ~ Ni i i ,i i 1 1 I I ~ i ' ' ~~ l ' I '' ' i : _ __ I , , _ . , ~'y_ 'I ~ ~ - -- UEST ~~ SOUTH EASt s ~~ ~• I 1 U • JCF. a^~ .~, .'< 3C3 _ _ aC6 .a ,L =cc ?B ,% -- - ~ ~ ~ - - _ --- ---III ~ /i ~ ~~ --- -~~ ,P ~--- ------ - -- -- -- - - - - i - - - !p ; - I a a a ! m M'I s g ~~ S BAH ! ~ -- _ ~3 1`I~ 113 ri f'' 1,~ ~.;-,"" i ~rll~Y.I_ , ~ ~-; ~; ----- ~. , 1P _ _ _ 1 ~ ~~" _ I~1 _ ~ _) __ _ _ __ __ _ ,. ik_ .~ ~ ~ull ~~ GOURT YARD ~ ~ \\ ~ 4a ,} BASEMENT "_ _ _ - .- _ - - fF sLOe. 39e~~D ~ ~' ~se _ .--~ - =1~rp'nr:+~--- - - - - - -~ - P EXI9TItY. GRADE J 9~ ,,_ ~' ,I,',~'~ ill,' I' lI Il l~' Il~li'' I"~ lll;T.i~ ;~1! ~G,'~i~~~il Irilj. I Sri I~'i~_ ~~i~I, 11 ii li J rtlLlJllIIIUIIII_h~~U.iI! - --- m II I I wIc I ~~I~~~ i~~~~~~~~l~l~~~! _-_i=_~_=_____ __ ____ - ' ~-1 6 ~ ~ - - FP BLAB. 40O! -. _ _ _ - 1 BA9ETENi Ff BLAD• 996 SECTION ~-B SECTION A-A~ -' / `~~L~ I~~I II i'~ /j' 11,11 ',IJI u!G / -~~~~ - - - - -- - m ~'~ - 1~=~I 0 o c u w~ -m M M ~ ~~ . \ vx __iq ~\ ~ I I - - - I - - iI- yl' / ~~r_ ~~ _ Vial i~ j ._ ~~ i ~~ Ip~ 1 I~ QI I 111 tR I PANTRY ~ I ~ I ~ N ~ p{q I~~I i ~ -- ~ I~FAMH.YROOMI,_-~I' ~ !~- ~, c. W .101 •ni ____._. _ ___._ ~____~~ ~~!L~` ~~ .3t SECTION NOTES NEW GRADE NOTE REFER TO fRN19VG PLANS iOR ALL hET'BER HIZES NOT ROICAIED , I "L6E TILE' RAT R110F k 7x BLQ7C Al f11D- HEKNT 7 ROOF &EAIHING f1 ]. CRIPPLE STUD 47 b' OL 3 DESKNED WOOD 1Td19B PER f1ANFACIURER b ]x PTDF SILL PLAiE 4 7x ROOF RAPIERS 8EE B7RUC111RAL CR41RYiB H CONCRETE SLAB, SEE 6TPolCTURAL DRA7UMG5 6 CAL6OFAlIA FRAI'IRIG BEE 9TTBICTIRAL DRAYANff ]0 U7 ' GYPBUI BOARD b 9W.C0 O! WIE LAIN O/ 7 LAYERS 71 (LAYER 9Rf " TIDE " k "GIP BOARD aF GRADE "D' BLW PAPER 3] BIELF T 9O1fIT 33 BKT LK~M B 7x CEILIN3 JOIST 74 7x 80LE PLATE 4 R7CFNIALL RA6NtlJG 19 7x ROOR J019T/ 110799 JO19T 10 RUSH BEAM °„~ 9110C11RAL DRAW9VGS 76 BOOR 9HEA1H91G 0 DROP BEAN SEE STf61C1URAL DRAWINGS 71 NAB RAILING SEE DETAIL T7 HEADER 7B GUARD RAIL eEE DETAIL I3 7x4 FRA"IMG 31 (9/7xp BTR6Y#RB dT STAIRS 14 DOIBLE 7x CONTINUWB TOP PLATE '~ 1 IB " MRL PLI'UIOOD 11fftD A1lD 9rB' RISERS 19 7x STUDS AT Ib' OD 91 IN9ULAlION• bEE iBLE 74 CALC5 31 PANTED IETAL GUTTER 93 OTlL1URE BTRFJ 810CTC 31 510000 FOAI'I iRM % 4" BASE BOARD PER OVER CHOICE % b" C2^UH tIOIDRYa PER OIINER CHOICE 31 LOUT VYLLL YY WOOD TOP - %' HIGH ABOVE BOOR id,!.~'=1~5 f"r.. .._ % i0OTMG SEE 97RI1C11RA1. CMAWN99 EXMT6G GRADE I' 9 II! I lL! l++~ ' - ~LI}i:iJl I! I Il it li X1.1_. _r "Ii 1, Ti I "i u -''-- ~ •v~l'I I`I' 1.'.' i I', i~;~il [I `~ .~' ~~4:~I~~ li II ji~P_C'!iI_ -IL~IJi'I~~_,,_ _ _l - - - - -_ _ ry__ _ _ 1 I ~ ~ - X06 _~:~~'~~_~-nay-'i~-- --- ---- -~ I--- --- - goo I I I :I'-~"1"r :~~'~r, rQ, -: ,u~f;~.i 1!111 I;~liileal i'~ If~l~ i• • D ~ 'I i'T;:1 ~'.i,~~''lli l'~~ 6~ a I~ iii, .l~~41 ~~'l~~~ ILi it <]I ,.;Cl; ILIIC~-I - - -- _ - -- -- - --- - i I,i iIG; 'I~~ Iflll'~~ ~~ I il~_I ~: ~'I II hilill~ill~~i~; - ~ . -.-q~~ - 1 ~ ~J~ NEw GRADE ExILTRYa GRADE -'aE ~ - - - -~ - _ -' 9 I ~o- ~ i. Ice - - - - ~f~l ~ eLae• See 1 i •'O . 'r_ SECTION G-G SECTION NOTES NOTES REFER i0 RRAMMG PLANS FOR ALL MEMEfR SIffS NOT MDICATED I 'LIFE TILE' P.A7 ROOF 1 IdYP 9NEATHING 3 DESIGNED UaOD iRCi3 PER MAWFACTUFER 4 2w ROOF RAFiERL 9EE 97Po7CTURAL DRAWRri9 5 CALIFCRtIA FRNiPG 9EE 81181CTIRAL DRN11PtGS L sTUCw a uarrr~ Lanz a I LATERB aF GRADE 'D' BLDG PAPER ~ 9OFPIT 8 7x CEILRG JOIST 9 ROCFAWILL fl-ASNhYs 10 RLL911 BEAM LEE 9TRa.NRA1 DRdWtYd II DROP BEAM SEE 91RIICTURAL DRAWINGS n V/£ADER B 7>t4 FRMIING 11 DWBLE tx CONtlllldl.°+tOP PLATE B h LTwe AT w' or 16 Ix BLOCK AT MID- NEaNf h Iz CRIPPLE L11ID AT Nr° OL fi i, ~f ~L~~ le Ix PTDF.9ILL PLATE . t~A i~~~ ~ , ' .'i l.,1-.~-l il'~i' urt 1, I' ;-'I ~'.I ~~ i Na CONCREre SLAB, LEE LTRICIUAAL DRAWNG6 tl i i i,`{ ~ i'I~' ~i i ill ~ i I~~ll I ~ ~ ~ / -~~ 70 VI GTPdA7 BOARD ,.l'~ l,i,l~h ~ ~ I ~~ ~. ~I~ ~I JI„i I, C!'1 CI!~/ ~ ~~ II IurERero TTPE'x•Grreoarm p I r I jl I 'I ',l i' it ~~~,,' Il Ij_u Ij l l " I' ~- L' n~~ 1' ilil~l~~~'il I l IL~' /- ~'~ 77 dELF L~ -; Iii j1~~~,1j 171 il-~~'I~ i f'r ji ~i ~;l !I',U Il( ti a Ii1 i-~ -- ~/ ~ IL LKT LIfiLIT 4~~~_" ~ i,,~~(I~.~I,~Ilt~lil'i~ ~'t~~i~il~ill~i~I~~LII i7,~~~ i7 I ~ IA :. eoLEPLare . I,IL. li ~~ w~11 ~I~ t,i_., lJ h 1111 I I ----~ ~~~~ IL I. RoaaalLVtwssJOler ~, .;ILII~tLLl~lllll!111,I-_'~.~.~LI I~'l_'u_u~~~~1t1'f.;~l~l,!j_I'J~1~ - - I ~~ u RooRe~aTNa~ --- - -- - --- - - - -- f .. ------:-----=- _- ---'=~Llt-:!l~[L~,,i ~ n wr~RalLrt~eEEDEraIL ,, --- _ -- -- I 1 IB GItARD RAJL LEE DETAIL I 79. (317MD LIRINGEAB AT L?Alp _ i .-_ _ ___ _ .30 14D' MWL PLTWDOD IFEAD ANp D/e" R1LER9 1 ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ N MBJLATIIXJ- LEE TITLE 7A CALC'6 B I I! I ~ i L7 PAINTED hETPL GUTTER o f I ~ i 1 ~ I LL aLnPE Lror~ Bwac ;~ ~ i i ~+ entao TaAM tRm I \ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~~~ aa~ Boa® PER cureR sake I I ~ ~ ~ '~"J~~II ~ % 6'CFmIW MgDMG PER QIlER CHOICE ~ , 4~,~~'~.V' I,_~:Ilill l-L. ,II-~,!i ~ I I -"~9~~1 ~ m ~ ~ ___ _.--- sr wuwau.uvwa~Drar•w'Nrr+aeorgrtaoR x PourrrG eEE LTRUCTUROi DROwnr,L Ty ~~IL~~I!JI''I.-tIIJJl7!U11111~7UIr_JuIIIIt~L! _ i ~ x ~ ~I ~~ ~ il~~~l - ---~.1lll---_ _ --- ~ ~ I I --~ ~ [~L'~_I_,, I e~~ I~~IgyIF ~- ---- ~ (~'I~ ~1~ ~ I ~ ~, ~~ 'I ~ i I i ~ I ili Il ~~;~' - ~ d / I I i - I ~I i I i II a ~ ~ - -1 ~~ ~d, '~' I I ( i~ l - I qq I - I I I ~i ~I 19 -- ~ I ~ I i I .I I !~ I ~ ,_ _-_ _:, , ~, t ~I ' I ~ ~ i I I ! !i I~~I ~ ~ Iii' ~~ FP . JO1 ;~ aoo -- - -- - - -- - i~lf~- --_--- --~-~ -- -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ~n -- - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - ------------------ '~~.C 1~_.r,~~ ---------- ::c- -- - -._ _ -_ __ _ - - _ - - -_ __ _- _ -_ -_ __ _ Ez~ILTDMEG SECTION D-D - _ 3% 1811 GRADE -~ - ~- - - - 61~~1; il' ~~ ~~~irn, ~ -- `- - I ~ 4,,~~; ~1 ~~~~~ ";~i;~~T ;~` ~,I ;~ I ll 'IL ~ 04 BP~.C/7NY ~i FF.AO, ~ tP I ~_ -~I~~ I ` I ----------!1- i ~ • ~' ~ f ~~~ +C~ -{ EXISTPKr GRADE NEW GRADE ffy191ptL IU z ~0 r z~u~i d~~ ~~ UQ~ ~w~ ~~d ~~ ~(VUI f ~WD ~IU 1 o O~Zuj ~~ 0 6 ~~ g~~,~ mao~ 04 ~~~~~~m~ ~~F~~4~W U ~~~~yJ ZZ®~~~~ UIEU~3~w LL ~k`` 0 UIW~ti~ ~~~-'w ~w ~~~~o~~~ T-0W~~jma ~~ ~'u~ ~F~W 8~~~r3jd W4 di~LL ~~~~za.4 ~e~~ff~~~ U Q c.. V C ~ .- 0 ~~5, ~o ~~~~~ ~ ~~u~E ~~~d~~~ ~ro°~~€ Dare muwm ecAiE~ u~'.r-m' DRNW TL JOB NO CNYAN ~~~QD a LueEra 4 " '~ • --=_- -- _-=- =_-- -- =; -_ ~ TYPICAL ROOF NOTE5 I ROCP BLOPEB ~ B / O NN.OJ H x 7 ROGF MATERIAL LFE TILE, RAi TLLE ROOF LOrERkY / \ CONCRETE TILE ROOFS SHALL NOT ~ INStd1LED ON A RDOF HAVMG A 8L0!'E LEBB iH0.4 3 / 9 H 3 ALL EAVES 4ND RAKES SHALL BE O. OH / WOl R 1 PF3~NDE 76 G0. GI VALLEY RASHMi AT \ ALL ROOF VALLEYS (PANT TO MATCH THE RDOF COLOR) 6 PROVIDE SADDLE AND FLABNMG AT H CHASE TYPICAL / V b APPROVED BPARK A]E7EBtOR 1 LINE Cf ROCP OrERHANG R 8 LINE 6 S11BIC11~ 9 b' O G. COPPER GUTTER Y I0 7'~ PAINTED COPPER DOW SPOUTB CONNECTED t0 APPfdOYED DRAM Sl'STEH • I r I H I t / ~. I N ~ ~ ~ SECTION NOTES R \ NOTE REFER TO R7N9RY PLANS FOR ALL MEMBER BIJEB NOT MDICATEp N - { I / - I 'LIFE 11LE' RAT RCOF / , H 1 ROLF SIEATHIIYa / H / 3 DEBKf1ED LLOOD iTdl°A PER MANFACTA~R I ; , ~~ L 7n ~ RAFlER9 SEE STpC1URA1 DRAUJINGB ~` `r 5 CALPORIIA PRV7NG !EE BTRICTIRAL DRAWMGB \h V __-_~N ~M ~ 6 57UCL00/LL11~LATH O/]CATERS I h \ ~' aF GRADE 9' BLCKa PAPER ~' ~ ~ ~ N T 80FPIT vo~ i ~~~+~~--~- -' \ R ' B ]x CEILING JOIBi 0 ) 9 RCOFAUlA.L FIASNSG / ,I ~ RAT ROOF \ 10 RUSH BEAM SEE 9TRUC111RAL DRAWINGS I Il DROP BEAM 8EE STFdICTURAI. DRAWMGS r~ R I Y U HEADER . -- ~ ~ / B 7xi FRAMING _ N DLTELE 7x CONTINUOUS TOP PLATE I - I I ~ ry I V - - ~ 6 ix STUD6 AT Ib" OC Ib 7. BLOCK 4i MID- HEIGHT h 7. cRIP'PLE S1UD 4T 16" OL I, Ip V H ~ ~ b 1. PTDP SILL PLATE ly ,~li B. CONCR(-1E SLAB, 8EE BTR1c11RA1. DRAWPICS _ 70 Vl " GTP5U1 BDA® ' ,I R i V R 71 I LATER 6/8' TYPE " %' GTP f50Af~ ~ ~ ", V N 77 9HE1F ' ~I ~ V 79 dCT LKAIT _ -- { ]J 7x 501.E PLATE } ; ~ I - \ ~ \ 7B 7x ROOR JOIST/ tI0A5D JOIST 76 RCg2 BIEATHING V ~ ~ ~ 71 NAND RAILMG SEE DETAIL I ~ ]B GuaRD RAIL eEE DETAIL ~~I j Y I I H p rs r5) ]xG B1R3lCfR9 Ar sTAIRs I i ~ I 'A I UB' MM PLYWOOD TREAD A`D 5A3" RISERS 3L N&LATION- 8EE TITLE 71 CALC'9 B7 PAM)IdD tETAL GUTTER I I I l i I ~ _- 53 CULTURE DT018+J BRIOC q I I ''' I M Stucco FON1 TRR1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i % l" BASE OOAkJ PER Nl&R CHOICE . ~ I - ' - -- % 6' CRAW MOLpIIYa PER OUNER CHOICE ~ I H ~ H ~ ~' - 97 LOW WALL WI W'JOD TOP - %• HIGH AEOYE ROOR SB FOOTAIG tEE 9TRICTII4AL DRAWNGB ii ;~~i / - = _II =-=-. - ----- - - 1 - - _-- - x =- ' _ - - ~ VIII -- - I , RODS PLAN - - - -- 5~ /o=====____ -___-~~-~ ~\ \ SCALE. 3/W'H'•0' r ~ 97tl { ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ,II , i I s ~\ NNN _ e ~~I I'~ I, 70LICT ,~ _- -~ ~ _- - ,~~'_ __ _,; ~,r>i ICI ~ ~~- ~-_ ~~ M. BEDROOM ~ LIBRARY ~ / rJluy j It _- ~ -- ------ ~;=:-II~_"~ it ~i_.:I~~I~-_= ii--=_ - ----- i~~,i~i~~:=tl.-:._~~ ,I j ~ ly I ~ ~ ~ r ~ '~ I ~ ~~ I'I ~~ ~I ~ ~~~j I ~~ ~- - - ~ ~ ,~ ~11b {{(~~ I I i I ~i l~l 1 ~ ~l._-~~ __J~ ~ ~~- ~I~ - J~~~ I--~-I--~ ~ ,~ ~1,~~6_ af!~._.~ ~~ ~-_~ ~___~-~ ~ - _.~-= -,h-= =~ ~~~_~~W~ ~ N - ~1 ~ PAMILY ROOM ~c~n ~ . ~ -', ~ i i i IP .AOI xaw n~rrwo im. _ ~CS ~ ~?Y~ . __ _ . ~\ ~ _- __ .- _- _ _ - - . __ ~I e. - - - - - -~ -- -- -- ~- -- -- -- - S~GTION ~-~ ~ -- E%IUTM6 GRADE BCN.E~ Y4.1'-C NEVI GRADE lC, M ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: App. #02-083 Location: Saratoga Woods Neighborhood Applicant/Owner: N/A Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: May 22, 2002 APN: N/A Department Head: • • o~ooo~ DISCUSSION On January 16, 2002, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-004 directing the Planning Commission to study and report back to them on a proposal to establish a single story limitation in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood This neighborhood is generally bordered by Cox Avenue on the south, Saratoga Avenue on the east, Saratoga Creek on the west and Prospect High School on the north. The City Council in adopting the Resolution directed Staff to conduct a poll of all of the property owners the Saratoga neighborhood to determine the breadth of interest of establishing a zoning overlay restriction to limit the area to single stories only. The City Council further directed Staff to report the findings of that poll to the Planning Commission who would then consider the issue in an advertised public hearing and report their findings to the Ciry Council. On April 10, 2002 the Planning Commission was presented with the results of the polling and directed Staff to prepare a draft Ordinance, advertise the hearing and agendize the matter. The results of the polling in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood are as follows: Su ort 178 66% of those res ondin 44% of total mailin O ose 82 30% of those res ondin 20% of total mailin Total 260 ~ - - ~ ~_ 65% of total mailing Responding Returned 11 ~ 3°10 of total~mailing MaiU _ Undecided Number of 401 Postcards Sent Out Did Not 130 - - ~ - _ 32% of total mailing Res and The Saratoga Woods neighborhood is predominately single story dwellings. Staff has attached a map indicating where two story structures exist. The map distmguishes between original construction and newer additions. In Saratoga Woods, there were 26, original 2-story homes, this includes three that had finished attics above the garages. In Saratoga Woods, there have been seven 2"d story additions. There are 394 dwellings in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. A restnction such as the one proposed is intended to protect neighborhood compatibility, privacy and character. • The restriction would disallow any new second story additions and disallow any two story reconstructions in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. The existing two story dwellings would be exempt from this ordinance. The R-1-10,000 zoning district allows 60% structure coverage, as such existing single story dwellings will qualify for additions. The map attached to the draft resolution depicts where the exempt lots are located. 0~~~~~ ~n • • • PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice published: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: May 1, 2002 (Environmental Determination) May 8, 2002 May 8, 2002 May 9, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission following the Public Hearing adopt the attached Resolution granting Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and recommending to that the City Council amend the Saratoga Zoning Code by the creation of a Single Story Overlay Zone ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution granting Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 2. Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Saratoga Zoning Code by establishing a Single Story Overlay Zone for the Saratoga Wood Neighborhood 000003 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 000004 Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. APPLICATION 02-083 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission received direction from the City Council to Study and Report back on establishing a single story Zoning Overlay District for the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, a poll of the neighborhood reveled that a 66% majority of those responding were in favor of restricting the neighborhood to single story development; 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 Planning Commission has made the following findings: ^ The proposed restriction is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan indicates in L. U. S.0 that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. . ^ That the proposed single story limitation for the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will protect the existmg cohesive design compatibility. ^ That the proposed single story limitation will comply with the intent of Policy 1, Techniques #4 and #5 found in the Residential Design Handbook. ^ That the proposed single story limitation will comply with the intent of Policy 3 of the Residential Design Handbook which states, "Residential pnvacy is a key mgredlent in the quality of life in Sazatoga. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of all of the issues, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the Sazatoga Zoning Code, Article 15-10.010 by adding subsection (1) to read as follows: "(1) R-1-10,000 Single Story Overlay District for the Sazatoga Woods Neighborhood. Any single 0®~~05 story addition or replacement construction shall be limited in height to the height of the contiguous single story dwellings. The existing two story dwellings within the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood are exempt from the provisions of this single story limitation. The boundaries of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood and the exempted lots are shown on the following map." } Saratoga Woods ~~ ~~ ~; ~~ ~~ ;~ --~ 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet U r~ ~.J 0000.06 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on May 22, 2001 by the_following roll call vote: AYES: - NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: - Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission ~~~0~~ • THIS PAGE HAS $EEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000008 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02- Application No. 02-083 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Environmental Determination for Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing a Single Story Limitation in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood 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 Commission has determined that they will recommend to the City Council that they amend the Zoning Ordinance provisions for the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood, and Whereas, the Plannvig Commission has reviewed the information included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE the Planning Commieion of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the information provided in the Staff Report and from verbal testimony, the Planning Commission determines that there are no environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of the Saratoga City Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, 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 on May 22, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secre to the Plannin Commission ~' S 000009 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 00001.0 • CITY OF SARATOGA INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Application No. 02-083 -Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Single Story Limitations in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood 2. Lead Agency Name 8 Address City of Saratoga, Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person 8~ Phone # ~ Thomas Sullivan, AICP -Community Development Director 4. Project Location Saratoga Woods Neighborhood 5. Project Sponsors Name 8~ Address: Saratoga Planning Commission 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Single Family 7. Zoning: R-1-10,000 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will disallow the construction of second stories on existing single story dwellings 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Single Family homes to the west and south. Prospect High School to the north and Saratoga Avenue to the east. 10 Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): No other agencies are involved. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Biological Resources ^ Hazards 8 Hazardous Materials ^ Mineral Resources ^ PubMc Services ^ UBlities/Service Systems D Agriculture Resources O Cultural Resour~oes D HydrologylVUater Quality D Noise D Recr~ion ^ Mandatory Findings of SlgniBcance D Air Quality D Geology/Sills D Land UselPlanning D Populafion/Housing ^ TransportaUonlTraffic fNone 0®0011 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this infial evaluafion: rL I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a'potentialy signficant impact' or'potentialy significant unless mitigated' impact on the environment, but at feast one effect 1) has been adequatey anayzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mfigation measures based on the earlier anaysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must anayze ony the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because aA potentialy significant effects (a) have been anayzed adequatey in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to th~ earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature pie Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Director Printed Name Community Development Department For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites m the parentheses folkmwing each question. A'No Impact" questwrm is adequately supported if the referenced inforinatwn sources show that the impact sunplydoes not appry to pro)ects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on pro)ect-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g ,the pro)ect will rm~ expose sensitive receptors to pdtutarmts, based on a pro)ect-specific screening analysis) 2 All answers must take account of the whole actiam involved, inGuding off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as pro)ect-level, indirect as well as direct, and constructan as well as operations impaGs. 3 Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checldist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significard with mltigatiort, or less than signiflcard. "Potentially Significart Impact" is appropriate if there is substaritral evidermce that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentialry 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 mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentialry Significant Impact" to a "Less than Signiificant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and bnefry explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced ) 5 Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the Bering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative deGaratan Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the foNowirmg. a) Earlier Analysis Used Identify and stale where they are available for revmew b) Impacts Adequatey Addressed. Iderdflywhich efferxs from the above ct-ecldist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earMerdoctxrment pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mtigation measures based on the earlier analysis c) Mitigation Measures For effects that are'Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures In corporated ' describe the miGgaBon measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sde-specific conditions for the pro)ect. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to ir>carporate into the ctmecldist references to inforrrmation sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previous prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statenmerd is substardiated. 7 Supporting Information Sources: A source flat should be ettac~med, and other sources used or individuals cormtacted shoukt be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the Significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; arM b) the mdigatan measure idermtified, fI any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 000012 • Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Leas Than ~ SignJtlcant With Less Than tdo Impact ~ hnp~ fn-Pact X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat - Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (source #4) X Discussion of Biological Resources Impacts: The limitation of second story construction will have no impact on Biological Resources.. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.• a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source #4) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source #4) Discussion of Guttural Resources Impacts: The proposed amendments will not impose any impacts on archaeological resources. However, specific basement projects may unearth unique cultural resources including human remains, in which case all construction activities is required to stop until the appropriate steps are taken. 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: (Source #4) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Div. of Mines and Geology Pub. 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source #4) X X X X X X X X oooog3 Less Than PoteltHal/y Slgnlf9ca-K W1th Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Slg°~~ M~ga~-wi S/gnlflcar~t h-tpact hrcorporated Impact No Impact c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is _ non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source #6) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source #6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source #6) X X X Discussion of Air Quality Impacts: The limitation on second story construction will have no impacts on air quality. N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any speces identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? (Source #4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct,removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source #2) X X • X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source #4) e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source # 4) X • 000014 Poterrtlally Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Slgntlicar~t frnpsct - Less Than SIgMBcant WPfh Less Than No ~ ~~ Nnpact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project.- a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source #1) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but - not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? (Source #2) a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source #2) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source #2) X X X X Discussion of Aesthetics Impacts: Since a basement is an underground structure there will be little or no visual impacts. A City Arborist Report is required fur proposed basements and any other type of construction that are in proximity to protected trees as defined in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: !n determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are sign cant environmental effects, lead agencies my refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Side 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 Qrogram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source #1,2) • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source #1,3) b) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. (Source #1) _ Discussion of Agriculture Resources Impacts: No discussion is required. X X X III. AlR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) maybe relied upon to make the following detenninafions. Would fhe project.' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (source #6) b) Yolate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qualil)r violation? (source #6) X X 000015 Less 7ban Poterttlal/y SlgnHlcant Wflh Less Than ~ 'Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Slgmflica°t Mltlgatlon Signitfcant Im t _ P~ Incorporated Impact P~ areas or where residences are intermuced with wildlands? (source #4) X Discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No discussion is required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project.' a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source #4) X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net defiat in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support _ existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source #4) X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source #4) X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source #4) X e) Create or-contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source #4) X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water? (Source #4) X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source #5) X h) Place within a 100-year floor hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source X #5) 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? (source #4) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (source • O[I+001 ~ Less Than ~~lY Slgn/fleant YYfTh Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): 31gm~ ~ ~~ Impact #4) X Discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: See item #VI. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will include a provision requiring that all proposed basement projects obtain an analysis from a certfied hydrogeologist to address any groundwater and potential drainage issues. This will be a new provision; previous basement projects were not required to obtain a groundwater analysis. Discussion of Land Use and Planning Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will provide Planning Staff and applicants clarity on the definfion of basement, and will specify requirements for all proposed basement projects. The planning review requirements will address any environmental concerns -such as groundwater and soils -that may occur on specific basement projects. The zoning amendments would therefore have a positive effect on the environment. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the projecf.• a) Physically divide an established community'? (Source #1,3) X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source #1, 2, 3) X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source #1, 2, 3) X X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project • a) Result in the loss of availability of a +mown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source #1,4) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (source #1,4) Discussion of Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts: There are no known mineral resources within the City I~mits. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source #1,2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? Source #1,2) X X X X 00001'7 1 Issues (and Supporting Information Services): LB58171an PoLertdalfy Srgnrflpnt W/th Less Than ~~ I M/trgatlon Significant ncorporated Pact r r. No hnpact #4) Discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: No discussion is required IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the projed.• a) Physically divide an established community? (Source #1,3) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction overthe - project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specfic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source #'1, 2, 3) X X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source #1, 2, 3) X Discussion of Land Use and Planning Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will provide Saratoga Woods Home Owners clarity on ttre restriction of second story constructions. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source #1,4) X b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (source #1,4) X Discussion of Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts: There are no known mineral resources within the City limits XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels m excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source #1,2) b) l=xposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source #1,2) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vianity above levels existing without the project? Source #1,2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vianity above X X X • • 000018 Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Less Than ~Y SI~tHicant YVith Less Thant No Slgnlllcartt ~ SJgnfficant hnpact _ MtPact ~ hnpact recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source #4) • b) Does the project include recreational facilities or - require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source #4) Discussion of Recreation Impacts: No discussion is required. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the projed.~ a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacty of the street system (.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #1,4) b) F~cceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source #1,4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source #1,4) d} Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source #1,4) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (source #2,4) fj Result in inadequate parking capact~R (source #4) g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (source #4) Discussion of TransportatioNCirculation Impacts: No discussion is required.. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the pr~ojech. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the - Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source #4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X X X X X X X X X X 000019 (i, Less T/lan PotentlaNy SJgn/flcant W/th Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): ~m~~ lYib- S~n~ r impact recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source #4) X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or - require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source #4) X Discussion of Recreation Impacts: No discussion is required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: WoWd the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #1,4) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source #1,4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source #1,4) X =• X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g ,farm equipment)? (Source #1,4) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (source #2,4) . f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (source #4) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (source #4) Discussion of Transportation/Circulation Impacts: No discussion is required.. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project.' a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source #4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ' X X X X .• ~~~~~Q Less Than -- PotentlaHy Stgnlflcant W1Mt Less Than No S 'Issues (and Supporting Information Services): S ~~ Meted S~m~ Impact wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ebsting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ebsting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) 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 ebsting commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source #4) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source #4) X X X X X Discussion of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts: No discussion is required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X 000021 SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan - 2. City of Saratoga Municipal Code 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance - 4. Planner's knowledge of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5. FEMA Flood Insurance Maps, Community Panel Numbers 060351 00171-0004,0004 C, 0002 C 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD] Guidelines • • 0®0022 ITEM 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Depamnent - MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director May 22, 2002 Zoning Code vs. Handouts ZONING CODE PROVISION Tree Protection Setback of new construction from existing trees Tree Protection-City Arborist A Tree Removal Permit is required for any tree that has a 40" circumference A tree Removal Permit is required for Oaks that have a 32" circumference 15.50-110 states that new construction must be setback from existing oak trees 10 ft and from other trees 8 ft. In Article L5-45.070 (10) - Application requirements provides that the Planning Director can require any additional exhibits or information. Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) speaks to renuirfna f'.fty Arhnrist HANDOUT PROVISION The handout states that a permit is required for any tree with a diameter of 12" or for any Oak that has a diameter of 10" Mute Tree Removal Handout does not address City Arborist. Design Review Handout indicates that if there are mature trees on site that a City Arborist review maybe necessary. ISSUE reference maybe on that is better for visualizing the size of a tree, but in the end it is the measurement that counts. 12" diameter does not equa140" circumference, i.e.; nd = c or 3.14x12"=38" section is not clear as where to measure from. Staff is of the opinion that the measurement should be from the dripline, most contractors think they should measure from the trunk. The ordinance needs to be clear and it needs to be part of the handout. Under what conditions will a City Arborist Report be required? Conditional Uses 15-55.030, Variation to Standards. Handout for Use Permits is mute on the issue of "Variation to Standards" - We have discussed this issue; the Code has no limitation on the degree of variation allowed. Once that is clear, it should be discussed in the Handout. Variances This part of the Zoning The Handout contains a The information in Ordinance fairly standard list of four items that an the handout is not application for a variance backed up with cannot be submitted. Zoning Code sections. Maximum In Article L5-06.630 Slope In the Design Review There is a Allowable is defined by the following Handout the formula for substantial Building size formula: calculating average slope difference between is: "Net" and "Gross" Average slope =.00229 IL areas. This affects A Average slope = .00229 IL the allowable size A of new structures. Where: Where: I =Contour interval in feet I =Contour interval in feet Most cities use (at intervals of not more (at increments of not more "net" area for this than five feet) than five feet) calculation. L =Combined length of ~ L =Combined length of contour lines in scale feet contour lines in scale feet A =Net site area A =Gross site area expressed in acres expressed in acres Setbacks Article I5-12.090 uses the The handout uses "Rear While the Planning terms "Single Story" rear lsc~2na„ Commission has yard and "Multi Story" made a rear yard The handouts do not take recommendation in into consideration sub- this issue it is clear standard lots. The after reviewing the handout does not address handout to the requirement for understand how increased setbacks for the practice has new structures or taken precedent additions over 18' in over the Code. Setbacks Article I5-45.040 requires one additional foot of setback for every foot of height over 18 feet. Mute The ordinance section is pretty clear if it a new house, the question arises about additions to existing houses. Is the requirement~~ • • • • • • Allowable floor Article 15-45.030 sets out The handout is mute on this While handouts can area the floor area standards It requirement. not contain also provides guidance for everything that is in required floor azea the Zoning Code, reductions. For example in almost alI new homes some zones a 1.5% floor azea and additions aze reduction must be made for taller than 18'. every foot of structure over _ 18'in hei ht. Staff would request that the Plaruung Commission give direction on as many of these issues as possible. Please keep in mind that we do not need to decide everything at one meeting If additional information is needed please let us know. Any item that requires a ordinance amendment will have to come back on a future agenda after the required public notice. 000003 a i THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK E.. • X000004 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 17, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Michael S. Costa (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-806843 j Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Section 5496.8): Property: 19848 Prospect Road Agency negotiator: Dave Anderson, City Manager Negotiating parties: Grace Methodist Church Under negotiation: Instructions to negotiate regarding price and terms for purchase of real property. Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Richard Taylor, City Attorney, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Streit requested a moment of silence to honor the late Burton Brazil, founding Mayor of the City of Saratoga. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 17, 2002 " Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of April 17, 2002 was properly posted on April 12, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Oakley Brooks, Saratoga News, noted that Apri126, 2002 would be his last day with the Saratoga News. Mr. Brooks introduced his replacement, Kate Carter. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Mayor Streit noted that the Planning Commission has requested that the City Council place an item on a future agenda to discuss the hillside development occurring in Santa Clara County but within the City's Sphere of Influence. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AGENDIZE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 21-27, 2002 "VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit noted that this proclamation was read at the reception for the volunteers held in the preschool. 1 B. RESOLUTION COMMENDING MAYURI NAITO- SARATOGA VOLUNTEER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit read the commendation and presented it to Mayuri Naito. 2 April 17, 2002 1 C. RESOLUTION COMMENDING BETTY FELDHEYM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he has known Mrs. Feldheym all of his life. Councilmember Bogosian stated that as long as he can remember Mrs. Feldheym and her husband have always been advocates for affordable housing in Saratoga. Mayor Streit read the commendation and presented it to Betty Feldheym. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -FEBRUARY 12, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that Item 2A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he was absent and would abstain from the vote. Vice Mayor Baker requested that on page 10, 6th paragraph, the following words "seems like a pro business "should be changed to say "does not seem like a pro business ". WA.LTONSMITH/ MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0-1-0. 2B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -MARCH 12, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3 Apnl 17, 2002 2D 2E 2F 2G FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDING MARCH 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR MARCH 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he feels the Planning Commission should not have made the decision to direct staff to re-poll the Saratoga Woods neighborhood regarding the proposed single story overlay; this should be a Council directive. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this item be agendized at the next City Council meeting. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE THE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2002 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE DIRECTION TO RE-POLL SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING THE PROPOSED SINGLE STORY OVERLAY, THIS ITEM IS TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1-0 WITH BAKER ABSTAINING. -AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH YEO BAI LEE AND HEEJA LEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement and release. BAKERIBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH YEO LEE AND HEEJA LEE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. RESOLUTION FOR MURRAY-HAYDEN PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt application. TITLE- OF RESOLUTION: 02-023 4 April 17, 2002 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE MURRAY-HAYDEN PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR MURRAY- HAYDEN GRANT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. RESOLUTION ENDORSING AB 2351 INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CANCIAMILLA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt application. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-024 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING ASSEMBLY BILL 2351 BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ENDORSING AB2351U. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2I. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK -APPROVAL OF AYSO USER AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve User Agreement for three years, waive payment of Use Fee for one year, Approve prepayments of use fee for years two and three of User Agreement. Vice Mayor Baker requested that Item 2I be pulled from the Consent Calendar. -Vice Mayor Baker stated that he attended the PRC meeting at the time this agreement was discussed. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the commission did not come to a decision regarding prepayment of use fees. He supports the agreement, but is concerned on what basis did AYSO estimate their usage in the future on the mix of resident and nonresident. Mayor Streit stated that the agreement is the same as Saratoga Little League except AYSO did not contribute enough to get the fees waived for three years so they are willing to prepay in order to finish the park. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, 12357 Saraglen Drive, stated that the PRC does recommend accepting staff's recommendation # 2, to waive the payment of Use Fee for AYSO for one year in consideration of donations made to the Saratoga youth Fund, but in regards to staff's recommendation #3, it did not come before the PRC. Chair Clabeaux stated that since the PRC did not review the terms of the agreement they cannot take a position on this recommendation. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like the PRC to have the April 17, 2002 opportunity to review all of staff s recommendations before Council approval. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he could support the prepayment but is concerned about the maintenance fee of $1.2,000 and the fact that the PRC did not have a chance to discuss the recommendations. Mayor Streit and Councilmember Bogosian noted they were willing to approve the AYSO agreement as is. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE AYSO USER AGREEMENT. MOTION FAILED 2-2-0-1 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH OPPOSING AND MEHAFFEY ABSTAINING. This item will be returned to the Parks and Recreation Commission for discussion. 2J. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR FY 2002/03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLE?TION: 02-025 RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FY 2002-2003 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-026 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FY 2002-2003 BAKERBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FY 2002-2003. MOTION PASSES 5-0. BAKERBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FY 2002-2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None C 6 April 17, 2002 OLD BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER -CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson reported that the City has been working with stakeholders to develop new Public Safety Center at the corner of Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue. The Public Safety Center would include a new fire station and a new Westside Substation for the Sheriffls Office. City Manager Anderson briefly reminded the City Council that the Ad Hoc committee was formed consisting of various stakeholders. The Committee was charged with exploring conceptual design options for a Public Safety Center. The City hired ATI Architects and Engineers to facilitate the conceptual design process. The Committee developed conceptual plans containing three basic options: 1. Includes the three existing agencies on the site; Sheriff, Fire and Post Office without using additional parking at the Federated Church 2. Includes all three agencies and utilizes additional parking from the adjacent Federated Church 3. Includes only the agencies, with the Post office or Sheriff's Office moving from the site. City Manager Anderson noted that the 50% conceptual design milestone was presented to Council on March 6, 2002. At that time City Council directed the Ad Hoc Committee to further investigate 1) Option 3-3 which oriented the fire station on Saratoga Avenue with the front setback large enough to accommodate fire apparatus backing into the station without utilizing the Saratoga Avenue, keeping the post office in its existing location; 2) and an option placing a new fire station facing Highway 9 featuring a drive-thru capability. Since March 6, 2002, City Manager Anderson noted that the AdHoc Committee has been refining the two models per Council's direction. They are represented by conceptual schemes "A" and "D". City Manager Anderson noted that the City hired Keith Higgins &Associates to perform a traffic analysis on each model. His analysis details the benefits and problems inherit in each design based upon the traffic related criteria agreed to by the AdHoc Committee. Frances Chan, Architect/ATI Architects and Engineers, described Scheme A & D: Scheme A • Back in Fire Station-located on Saratoga Avenue • 4,000 sq. ft. of additional Fire District support space located at the Contempo building including room for fire fighter training and storage • Contempo will need some seismic upgrade/remodeling to house temporary Fire Station during construction '7 April 17, 2002 • Egress at Oak Street intersection will be developed by modifying existing parking located at the south portion of the Contempo Building • 69 parking spaces provided • $4,950,000 Scheme D • Drive-thru fire station located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road with adequate front apron to facilitate off-street parking back in movements • New design for larger fire station at 14,000 sq ft. required which will incorporate training facility and storage requirements • Existing fire station will remain in operation during construction of new facility • 73 parking spaces provided • $5,688,000 Mr: Chen noted that although neither plan has full support they both address issues and concerns of the AdHoc Committee and both have merit. Curtis Jewel, Postmaster/USPS, noted that he supported Scheme D for parking and safety purposes. Ernie Kraule, Chief/Saratoga Fire District, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, thanked the City Manager and the AdHoc committee for all of their time and effort. Mary McGrath/RRM Design group, 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, presented Saratoga Fire Districts recommendations. Scheme A - • Meets 25' front and side setback on Highway 9 • Does Requires setback variance at rear • Meets height limitation of 30' • Meets density requirement of the City • Expanded footprint allows staggered mass • Public plaza at corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd and Big basin Road for gatherings with area for public art/fountain or other features • Allows widening of both Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue • Allows back in maneuvers to occur without pulling into pedestrian walk or auto traffic • Provides the best response scenario for the Fire Station with the right hand turn to the busiest direction • Allows response to west direction directly through the intersection • Provides adequate parking-66 required/69 provided • One-way entry at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road • One way exit at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road • Long dead end parking isle • Projected $5.2 million • Projected $4.8 million cost without major reconfiguration of parking Scheme D - • Drive thru bay 8 April 17, 2002 • Larger front and back apron combined with parking driveway to create 200 feet of drive apron • Meets front setbacks • Meets height limit • Monolithic mass to maximize parking • Sound impact to Church and residential neighbors • Steeply sloped parking at the corner • Building finished floor 10' above corner • Parking lot at the corner ofSaratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Big Basin Road • Requires Caltrans to install a signal at Oak Street • Increased possibility of travel thru Park place • Requires the public to pass through the working yard of the Fire Station to access Highway 9 • Provides single drive thru bay without stacking • Allows for improved ease of operation for only one frontline vehicle • Requires back in or moving a vehicle to accommodate other first response vehicles • Response time delayed due to travel required thru Saratoga-Los Gatos intersection • Allows for widening of Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9 • Adequate parking for fire station and post office-66 required/77 provided • Projected $6.12 million -increased cost due to increased building footprint, increased site costs, removing Contempo . • Property exchange with post office required Ms. McGrath explained the pros and cons of both schemes: Scheme APros - • Meets City criteria for bulk, mass, scale, most setbacks, height and density • Creates public space • Addresses all traffic concerns and increases ease of operations for Fire Department • Most affordable • Avoids complex land swaps with post office, only requires parking access/agreement Scheme ACons - • No drive thru • Costs are above current bond funds available • Requires property negotiation between City and District • Requires off-site improvements that are not currently funded Scheme DPros - • With adjusted footprint, allows for drive thru of two front line fire apparatus • Setback, height and coverage goals • Allows for widening of both Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue • Allows adequate apron for back-in without pulling into Highway 9 traffic 9 Apnl 17, 2002 • Meets parking criteria Scheme DCons - • Facility provides an imposing elevation to the corner with the roof peak 40" above Saratoga Avenue • Places parking lot in most visible location • Eliminates public plaza • Requires major response load to travel busy intersection with potential delays due to traffic congestions • One drive thru bay for three front line vehicle minimally increases safety and efficiency • Least affordable • Requires land swap with Post Office and City Ms. McGrath noted that the Saratoga Fire District prefers Scheme A. Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief/ SFD, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, noted that the SFD are not good neighbors on how they enter the street and both schemes would correct some of the problems. Assistant Chief Duncan noted that he has 25 years of experience in Fire Safety. Referring to Higgins & Associates traffic report Assistant Chief Duncan stated that 77% of drivers headed north on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road are speeding, 52% of drivers headed south are speeding, and 2% of drivers both direction on Saratoga Avenue are speeding. Assistant Fire Chief Duncan discussed the need for four bays or three bays and stated that they only need three. Dennis Bacon, Captam/SCC Sheriff's Department, 14374 Saratoga Avenue, explained that Sheriff Lori Smith apologizes that she could not attend tonight's meeting. Captain Bacon expressed his gratitude to all of the AdHoc Committee members. Captain Bacon noted that from the beginning the goal of the group was the pursuit of the best interest of safety for the citizens of Saratoga. Captain Bacon noted that the West Valley Substation, in its current location, is centrally located in the community. If the station were to be moved they would not be as responsive to the community as they have been for the past 16 years and they would risk losing the momentum of comrnunication they have gained throughout the community. Captain Bacon noted that they would like to stay in Saratoga. David Dolloff, Chair/ Saratoga F.A.C.T. Committee, 20385 Sigal Avenue, thanked the Council and ATI for a job well done in the face of tremendous adversity. Mr. Dolloff noted the design process that the AdHoc Committee participated in was a flowed process design to best meet the traffic and parking considerations needed for the Post Office, Sheriff's Department, Federated Church and the Village Green Neighborhood. Three points are irrefutable in both designs 1) Fire fighter safety is vastly improved by not using Saratoga Avenue as parking and a maintenance lot 2) The intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9 would be upgraded with new right hand turn lanes 3) Both Schemes A and D require the use all of the Contempo property to meet parking, flow, or building considerations. Mr. Dolloff noted that Scheme D is the only plan that meets the F.A.C.T .Committee's criterion for site locations. 10 April 17, 2002 Meg Caldwell, Co-President/Village Green Neighborhood Association, 20201 La Paloma Avenue, noted that the Village Green HOA represents 93 homes located on Oak Place, Park Place, Orchard Avenue, La Paloma, Spaich Court and Lutheria Way. Mrs. Caldwell Noted that it is their hope that all parties involved in the proposed Public Safety Center address the traffic safety, parking problems, and design concerns of the Village Green Neighborhood. Mrs. Caldwell discussed the cut-through traffic in her neighborhood. Mrs. Caldwell noted that the Village Green Neighborhood supports ATI's recommendation of the following design features: • Installation of a median strip along Highway 9(near Oak Place and Oak Street) • Installation of a signal at Oak Street and Highway 9 • Ingress and Egress to and from the triangular block onto Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue via the alley Mrs. Caldwell stated the City should force the Fire District to meet the following requirements: • Eliminate cut-through traffic through the Village Green Neighborhood • Prohibit use of the Village Green Neighborhood as a parking lot • Preserve the historic integrity of the neighborhood Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the Village Green Neighborhood Association taken a stand on which scheme they support. Ms. Caldwell responded no they have not taken a stand as a group on which scheme to support, but they hope they have been clear on what they expect. Brian Styslinger, 20375 Park Avenue, noted he supports Scheme D. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, noted that he hoped that this process would have turned out different; with a design that allowed the Sheriff's Department to remain in the Village. Mr. Whetstone described some of the advantages of design Scheme D over SFD's design Scheme A: • Impairment of post office operation - Scheme D provides improved access for customers and allows safe pedestrian access to the Post Office from the Village. • Proximity of station apron/driveway to intersection -All three traffic experts agree that a fire station on the corner was and still is a bad idea. • Temporary station - Scheme D will allow SFD operations to continue normally in their present facility until the new station is completed. • Reduction of emergency vehicle traffic on Park Place and Oak Place • Drive-thru, 4-bay station • Intensity of land use • Pedestrian safety • Extreme complexity in building shape Mr. Whetstone noted that SFD made a presentation opposing Scheme D to the Public Safety Commission meeting on April 11, 2002. Mr. Whetstone described Chief Kraule's opposition to Scheme D: 11 April 17, 2002 • EIR requirement J • Appearance of corner • Effects on neighbors • Prediction of vehicles crashing into fire engines • Effect of fire station location on response time Mr. Whetstone noted that the Professional Fire Fighters Union recommends drive- thru stations. Arvin Engelson/Federated Church, 20381 Sea Gull Way, noted that there are significant benefits driving from both schemes. Mr. Engleson noted that the AdHoc Committee has gone as far as it possibly can, but there are still a lot of unresolved opportunities. Mr. Engelson noted that a landscaping plan has never been mentioned in any of the AdHoc meetings. Mr. Engelson noted that the Federated Church supports Scheme A. Wade Meyercourt, Foundation President/Federated Church, 16187 Greenwood Avenue, noted that there is not enough room on the site to accommodate all occupants. Mr. Meyercourt noted that for the past 80 yeazs the Federated Church has been constantly improving their site. Mr. Meyercourt noted that if the Sheriff's Department is relocated either scheme could be approved, but the Church favors Scheme A. Jerry Bruce, Treasure/Federated Church, 14320 Saratoga Avenue, discussed the fact that neither scheme provides enough parking for all of the agencies at the site. Rob Slump, Chair/Saratoga Federated Church, 15961 Quail Hill Road, noted that Scheme D is not esthetically pleasing. Mr. Slump noted that the Federated Church has been a good neighbor for the past 80 yeazs. Mr. Slump noted that Scheme A better serves the community. Mr. Slump noted that in Scheme D the entrance to the Village would look like a pazk and ride lot. Mayor Streit requested a ten minutes break at 10:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Mayor Streit requested that Items 4,5,6,7 be continued to the next City Council meeting on Apri123, 2002. Councilmember Mehaffey and Councilmember Bogosian noted that they would be absent on Apri123, 2002. Consensus of the City Council to continue items 4,5,6,7 to Apri123, 2002. Bill Morrison, President/Sazatoga Firefighter Association Local 3875, noted on March 21, 2002 the Council received a letter from the SFD that stated the Union is opposed to a new fire station at this location. Mr. Morrison stated that the firefighters are not opposed to a new station at any site as long as the following conditions aze met: 12 April 17, 2002 1. Install a controlled signal light at Oak Street and Oak Place where the firefighters would have control over the light 2. Build a large enough apron on the front and back of the fire station Mr. Morrison stated that the firefighters support a four bay configuration and strongly support a drive thru fire station, eventually would be necessary. Ben Bubin, 16880 Bohlman Road, noted his personal preference is Scheme A and suggested the process be expedited so this station can be built. Margarite Chapman, 21221 Canyon View Drive, noted that her concern is the response time from the two proposed fire stations. Willys Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, noted that he was Heritage Preservation Commissioner and although the Commission has not taken an official stand on either one of the schemes he is sure that the Commissioners would all agree that a parking lot at the entrance of the Village would be of some concern to them. Marlene Duffin, 212 Canyon View Drive, noted that she has been a resident of Saratoga for 34 years. Ms. Duffin noted that she was present tonight representing herself as a private citizen and also a member of the Foothill Club. Ms. Duffin noted that she supports Scheme A.~ Mary Grant, President/Saratoga Foothill Club, 20211 Pierce Road, stated that the Foothill Club supports Scheme A. Ms. Grant noted that Scheme D would create too much of an impact on the Foothill Club. Fred Drinkwater, 21250 Canyon View Drive, noted that Scheme A provides the faster response time for medical emergencies. Mr. Drinkwater noted that he opposes Scheme D. Stephen Campbell, 14482 Oak Place, noted that he is a longtime Saratoga resident, Federated Church member, and Village Green homeowner. Mr. Campbell stated that he supports Scheme A. Rita McCarty, 19235 Harleigh Drive, noted that she was representing the Foothill Club and noted that she supports Scheme A. Anita Schiller/read a letter on behalf of Denise Michel, 20375 Park Place. Ms. Schiller noted that Ms. Michel is the Co-President of the Village Green Neighborhood Association. Ms. Schiller stated that Ms. Michel suggested that the Council only approve a design that 1) insures the safety of residents in the Village Green Neighborhood by preventing cut thru traffic 2) prevent this neighborhood from being used as a parking lot 3) preserves the historic integrity of their neighborhood. Holly Davis, 14478 Oak Place, noted that she has lived on Oak Place for 25 years. Ms. Davies noted that the Fire Station is currently located in the perfect spot in town. Ms. Davies stated that she supports Scheme A. 13 Apnl 17, 2002 Fran Andresen, 19952 Garnett Court, noted that he is a Public Safety " Commissioner and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Andresen noted that it is extremely important to keep the Sheriff's Department in Saratoga. Vic Monia, Granite Way, noted that he really does not support either scheme, but if he had to choose one, it would be Scheme A. Mr. Monia stated that it has been the Fire District who has delayed this project not the City; the District chose not to follow the City's code. Mr. Monia asked why the SFD has not considered other locations in the City. Hal Toppel, Attorney/SFD, 660 West Dana Street, Mountain View, asked the Council to consider Scheme A. ~Mr. Toppel stated that in order to consider Scheme D property would have to be acquired from the Post Office, which the Post Office has never been willing to sell. Phil Steward, 20345 Orchard Road, noted that he has been a resident there since 1972. Mr. Stewart stated that he supports Scheme A for the following reasons: • It was preferred by the Fire District • Esthetically more pleasing • Response time would be better Brian Styslinger, 320375 Park Place, noted that he supported Scheme D. Mr. Styslinger stated that he opposes Scheme A because he feels the station on the corner of Saratoga Ave and Highway 9 has caused most of the traffic and safety problems in the village Green Neighborhood. Mr. Styslinger noted that he does not feel that Scheme D would increase response time. Kevin Schott, 19036 Saratoga Glen Place, described a recent accident that happened on April 12, 2002 on Saratoga Avenue because of backing in the fire trucks on Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Schott requested that the City consider uniting the two-fire district, which would eliminate the need to duplicate services. Ed Ferrel, 20877 Kittridge Road, reiterated the main objectives for the AdHoc Committee and noted that everyone has lost in this process except for the attorneys. Bev Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, congratulated the Council on the tremendous public support and participation on this project. Mr. Phipps noted that he supports Scheme D. Mayor Streit asked Ms. McGrath if it was feasible to add a 4th mini bay for an ambulance in Scheme A. Ms. McGrath stated it probably is feasible. Mayor Streit asked Chief Kraule if he could prevent his employees from parking in the Village Green Neighborhood. 14 April 17, 2002 Chief Kraule stated that preventing parking in the neighborhood would take some internal enforcement and he has begun discussing the problem with a few employees who have been parking there. Mayor Streit stated that he sees this in two separate issues 1) neighborhood issues 2) public safety issues. Mayor Streit noted he supports a traffic light at Oak Street and a median on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to help decrease the traffic in the Village Green Neighborhood _ Councilmember Bogosai noted that the process in designing this fire station has become a political one. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he attended many of the Ad Hoc meetings as a Saratoga Fire District resident. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Scheme A is a better plan then what was presented by the SFD last year. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Scheme A includes a large apron that allows the engines to turn safely, new turn lanes and improved visibility on Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Memorial Arch should be relocated to Blaney Plaza and the SFD should cease the litigation immediately. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission fast track this current design. Councilmember Bogosian stated with consensus of his colleagues he would like to direct staff to implement traffic safety measures in the Village Green Neighborhood. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Council should find a way to relocate the Sheriff's Department in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the Federated Church allow the Sheriff's Department to use their parking lot at least until the end of the year. On a final note Councilmember Bogosian thanked Mayor Streit and City Manager Anderson for all their time and effort they put into the AdHoc Committee. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the City of Saratoga will never get a Public Safety Center on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9 because the Post Office will never sell their property. Vice Mayor Baker stated he supports relocating the Sheriff's Department somewhere in Saratoga. Vice Mayor Baker stated that no matter what scheme is built he would not tolerate the use of the Village Green Neighborhood as a parking lot or as a cut thru. Councilmember Mehaffey,stated that he supports a light at Oak Street. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he prefers Scheme D. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he feels the process the process everyone has participated in has worked. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she really hoped that the City would get a real Public Safety Center. Unfortunately, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the discussions came down to the essentials and what was best for all of the stakeholders and the community at large. Councilmember Waltonsmith pointed out that both Scheme A & D both need to find more parking spaces. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that the City is suppose to give the SFD 16,000 square feet of land and asked what is the City getting back. 15 April 17, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she supports Scheme D but is willing to accept Scheme A. Mayor Streit noted that he has been involved in the AdHoc Committee from the beginning and is disappointed that a full Public Safety Center is not being built. Mayor Streit noted that part of the reason was lack of funds and the site is not- big enough for all three of the agencies to stay. Mayor Streit stated that the City is committed to finding a new location for the Sheriff's Department. Mayor Streit stated that esthetically Scheme A is better. Mayor Streit noted that he concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith that the City should get something back from the SFD in return for the 16,000 square feet of land. Consensus of the City Council to work with the Saratoga Fire District to develop Scheme A. 4. REPORT ON STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CREEK CONTAMINATION INCLUDING DRAFT ORDINANCE REMOVING BELOW GRADE EXEMPTION FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff to schedule introduction and first reading of septic abatement ordinance amendment following a public hearing; provide direction to staff regarding establishing of sewer lateral inspection requirements. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the Adjourned Meeting on April 23, 2002. 5. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRIAL UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the Adjourned Meeting on Apri123, 2002. 6. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AGREEMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the Adjourned Meeting on Apri123, 2002. • 16 April 17, 2002 NEW BUSINESS 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 12623 QUITO ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution; award bid; and authorize execution of contract. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the Adjourned Meeting on Apri123, 2002. - COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that the disposition of the Oak trees at the Heritage Orchard be brought back for Council discussion. Vice Mayor Baker stated he would support Councilmember Bogosian's request. Referring to a letter Council received from Mr. Jack Mallory, Vice Mayor Baker requested a status report on the disposition of the wall located at 12240-12250 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. OTHER City Attorney Taylor stated that he would not be at the May 1, 2002 City Council meeting; Attorney Witter would be attending. City Attorney Taylor noted that he was going to the League of California Cities Attorney Conference. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 1'7 - April 17, 2002 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FINANCE COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned City Council Meeting on Apri123, 2002 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. ' Mayor Streit called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Vice Mayor Evan Baker ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 7, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 7, 2002 was properly posted on May 3, 2002. Mayor Streit requested that the Council add an emergency item to tonight's agenda in regards to the - purchase of property located on 19484 Prospect Road. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADD AN EMERGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None - JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ~Rn~ Mayor Streit welcomed the Saratoga Business Development Council. 1. INTRODUCTION Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator/ Staff Liaison introduced the following SBDC members: Marylyn White, Chair and Dick Wood. Mr. Wood stated that SBDC has been an excellent way for people to come together as a forum of residents, merchants, business owners and city officials. Councihnember Bogosian asked if the SBDC meetings are open to the public. Chair White responded yes their meetings are open and public. Marilyn White, Chair/SBDC presented the SBDC's report. Chair White noted that she would be discussing the following topics: • SBDC Mission Statement • Background • SBDC today • Future Goals Chair White read SBDC's Mission Statement as follows "SBDC provides a regular and informal forum for business owners, residents, city officials, and other interested parties to meet and discuss Saratoga business issues including promotional ideas and retention outreach". • City Council Meeting 2 May 7, 2002 R Chair White noted that former Mayor, Don Wolf in November 1994, created SBDC Chair White informed the Council of the following projects SBDC is responsible for: • Farmers market • Directional signs (winery, parking, brown directional signs) • Team Saratoga - • Hiring of Economic Development Coordinator • News racks • Co-op ads in Saratoga News Chair White stated that most recently SBDC has: • Taken an active role in the Village Beautification implementing such items as: o Decorative lighting, o Benches and trashcans 0 1st tree lighting ceremony • Gateway Improvement Project • Co-Op ads in summer concert program • Downtown parking study • Creation of a marketing brochure Chair White stated some future goals of SBDC as follows: • Providing input in the business attraction process and helping to define desired business mix • Helping to retain existing business • Initiate more outreach to home-based businesses • Increase sales tax • Utilizing the history of Saratoga as a promotional tool for prospective visitors • Development of a historical walking tour Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that sometimes there is not a lot on the agenda at the SBDC meetings, but the meetings are held regularly which helps build a coalition between people so when a problem does comes up everyone knows each other and the problem can be addressed and solved faster. Mr. Wood stated that the SBDC is made up of a diverse group of people with a strong core. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if their website is up and running. Coordinator Surdin noted that SBDC has a few pages on the City's website listing such ' things as: the wineries, lease space, and a promotional section for SBDC. Coordinator Surdin noted that future items such as: things to do in Saratoga and a shipping guide should be available soon. Councilmember Mehaffey asked how the SBDC and the Chamber are alike and different. t City Council Meeting 3 May 7, 2002 Chair White noted that most of the SBDC members are also members of the Chamber of Commerce. Chair White noted that she does not see a conflict between the Chamber and SBDC. Chair White noted that the two groups are different for example, the Chamber brings people from neighboring cities and they have about 350 members. Chair White stated she feels the Chamber is doing an excellent job. Mayor commended the work the SBDC has done over the years. Mayor Streit thanked the Saratoga Business Development Council for attending tonight's meeting. OLD BUSINESS (continued from 05/01/2002) 3. SARATOGA LIBRARY BUDGET UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to cover additional costs and increase contract related to the Temporary and New Library. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff is requested that Council approve the following: 1. Authorize an additional charge of $3,000 to be paid to Field Paoli for which the City will be reimbursed by Thompson Pacific for redesign costs associated with a material substitute 2. Authorize an increase to contract with William Scotsman in the amount of $1750 for the upgrade of commodes at the Temporary Library 3. Authorize staff to expend up to $20,000 for utility trenching, disconnection and reconnection costs associated with the Temporary Library resulting from the expansion of sacred heart Church Councilmember Bogosian asked staff if the City Attorney has reviewed the original lease agreement. Assistant City manager Tinfow responded that the City Attorney has review the lease agreement and stated that the lease is vague enough that the City could challenge the Church's request, but he was unsure how contentious the Council wanted to be with the Church. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would agree to splitting the cost of the under grounding with the Church. Councilmember Bogosian stated when the City negotiated the lease with the Church for the Temporary Library the Church knew exactly where their new building was going to be built. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supported the recommendations staff has presented to Council this evening and does not want to have bad feelings with the Church. City Council Meeting t} May 7, 2002 Mayor Streit noted that the Church have been very good neighbors through this whole project. MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF $3,000 FOR REDESIGN COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A MATERIAL SUBSTITUTE, AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE TO CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM SCOTSMAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1750 FOR THE UPGRADE OF COMMODES, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXPEND UP TO $20,000 FOR UTILITY TRENCHING, DISCONNECTION AND RECONNECTION COSTS. MOTION PASSED 3-1-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING AND BAKER ABSENT. Mayor Streit welcomed the Finance Commission. JOINT MEETING WITH FINANCE COMMISSION 2. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, introduced the following Finance Commissioners: Chuck Swan, Chair, Richard Allen, Emily Garbe, Sam Ochi, and Alex Tennant. Director Baloca noted that Commissioner Jim Hughes had a prior commitment and was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Chuck Swan, Chair/Finance Commission, presented report. Chair Swan read the Commission's Mission Statement as follows "To advice the City Council on matters relating to the finances of the City including budgets, financial reporting, financial procedures and controls, resource preservation and asset utilization". Chair Swan explained the Finance Commission has been charged with: • Reviewing the City's annual audits • Reviewing City's budget process • Make comments and/or recommendations to Cit council • Other tasks assigned by the City Council • Review and comment on management letter for m independent auditor • Review annual budget • Monitor infrastructure physical inventory relating to GASB345 implementation • Review and comment of City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report • Review and comment on sections of the revised Finance Policies and Procedures manual (which has been in the process for a year and a half) • Review and comment on City's and Library Fund's investment strategies • Recommended and implemented City's first capital budget • Coordinate with Citizens Oversight Committee (one Finance Commissioner will be attending COC meeting on a regular basis to keep the Finance Commission up to date on the Library Project) City Council Meeting 5 May 7, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she appreciates the Finance Commission initiative to interact with the COC. Chair Swan noted that after Assistant City Manager Tinfow and a member of the COC came to a Finance Commission meeting and brought the Commissioners up to date on the Library Project, the Commission was pretty comfortable. Commissioner Allen noted that he was the appointed Commissioner to attend the COC meetings, and the first meeting he will attend is on May 13, 2002. Chair Swan explained the Finance Commission's activities planned: • Develop metrics for City • Complete Finance Policies and Procedures Manual Update • Review budget format with goal of making it more accessible • Review audit process and preliminary financial statements for FY 01-02 Chair Swan noted that that was the end of his presentation and the Commissioners were available for questions. Mayor Streit asked if the Commission had any comments on the proposed budget. Chair Swan noted that the Commission had four areas of concern: • Presentation • Optimistic revenue projections • Optimistic cost reductions • Pie charts Chair Swan discussed the Finance Commission's recommended changes and noted that for the most part they approved the draft budget. Mayor Streit thanked the Finance Commission for attending tonight's meeting. 4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AGREEMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that on May 1, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian requested that this item be re-agendized to seek specific direction from the City as a whole concerning discussion topics addressed at the Apri123rd Council meeting. • • City Council Meeting 6 May 7, 2002 City Manager Anderson stated that Councilmember Bogosian asked for clear and unambiguous direction from Councilmembers to facilitate discussion between the Council Subcommittee chosen to meet with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce to develop a draft agreement. Clarification is requested in the following areas 1) Length of term, 2) Open meetings requirement, 3) Council representation on Chamber Board, and 4) Reporting requirements. Councilmember Bogosian asked that each Councilmember state their position on each of the items of concern. Mayor Streit stated that he supports the phase out but feels Celebrate Saratoga is an important event for the City of Saratoga and should have a separate agreement. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Mayor Streit on the 36-month phase out proposal and in regards to Celebrate Saratoga the City should negotiate a fee for service and require the Chamber to provide the City a complete accounting of all costs. Referring to the adjourned City Council meeting held on February 12, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she feels the offer made by Michael Fox, Chair Elect of the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, to take over the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce is a good idea. But, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that if she doe not receive support from her colleagues then she would support the proposed 36-month phase out. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he supports the proposed phase out for monetary contributions, but feels the City still needs to interact, communicate, and cooperate with the Chamber. In regards to Celebrate Saratoga, Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the City should continue to support the event on a contract basis. In regards to open meetings, Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he encourages the Chamber Board to have open and public meetings, but when the City is no longer involved, the City cannot make them have open meetings. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that as long as the City is involved with the Chamber their meetings shou~d be open and public. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that open and public meetings should be in the contract and the Chamber should consider the City as a member. Councilmember Bogosian stated that open and public meetings should be required except for personnel and lawsuit matters. Mayor Streit stated that as long as the Chamber is using a City owned building for $1.00 a year all of their meetings should be open and public. In regards to Council representation on Chamber Board, Mayor Streit sited the Hakone Foundation agreement, in which two Councilmembers sit on the Executive Board until the Foundation is on their own. Mayor Streit stated that at least one Councilmember should be the Chamber Board.- City Council Meeting '] May 7, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian noted that he concurred that once the City has no ties to the Chamber then the-City does not have to be on their Board. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with her colleagues. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he feels the City should be on the Chamber Board even if with the proposed 36-month phase out. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that representation on the Board would keep the lines of communication open. In regards to reporting requirements, Councilmember Mehaffey indicated that he feels that their services should be based on what is good for the City and if it the services benefit the City. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she wants to know what services does the City receive from the Chamber. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that performance criteria should be clearly laid out in the agreement. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Chamber should be accountable for the level of service the City contracts for. Councilmember Bogosian noted he would support specific language in the agreement listing all of the services the City wants. Mayor Streit stated he supports fee for service not performance based. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that accountability is the key. Councilmember Bogosian thanked his colleagues for their input. EMERGENCY ITEM 19848 PROSPECT AVENUE PURCHASE AND ESCROW Dave Anderson, City Manager, stated that staff needs Council's approval on the following items: 1. Authorization to execute property purchase agreement subject to complete review by City Attorney 2. Approval of a 3% deposit in the amount of $135,00 and an appropriation of funds from unallocated reserves 3. Approval of appointment of Wayne Haraguchi as Agent of Record WALTONSMITHlMEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGE TO EXECUTE PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. Cary Council Meeting 8 May 7, 2002 ' WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REQUEST AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM UNALLOCATED RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,00.00. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPOINT WAYNE _ HARAGUCHI AS AGENT OF RECORD. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH BAKER ABSENT. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Referring to recent comments, from Don Whetstone/Saratoga resident, in regards to his concerns of the Conditional Use permit issued to the Saratoga Fire District, Councilmember Waltonsmith asked that the Community Development Director, Tom Sullivan be directed to conduct a full review of their permit. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he recently had a resident approach him in regards to the feasibility of installing an electric vehicle charging station. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he discussed the costs with the resident and found out that the Bay Area Air Quality would subsidize the cost. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that this item be agendized for a future Council meeting. -~ Councilmembers Bogosian and W altonsmith both supported Councilmember Mehaffey's request. . OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Meeting 9 May 7, 2002