Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2002 Planning Commission Packet.~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Planner Oosterhous, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 2002. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 5, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road; - Requestfor Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) (CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 9, 2002, 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #02-130 (517-13-024) - FU, 15000 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 39,986 (net) square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two- car garage is 5,140 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned R-140,000. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION #02-173 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would amend the Tree Removal Ordinance by requiring a person removing a tree to be able to produce a copy of an approved Tree Removal Permit. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #02-124 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would amend the Section 15-19.020 (f) (4) to include provisions that would allow the review and approval of design and materials used in required sound walls. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Consideration and approval of Resolution MODIFICATION) No. 02-043 (APPROVED WITH SLIGHT COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on July 17, 2002 ADJOURNMENT AT 9:14 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 25, 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 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA .~ DATE: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 2:30 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; SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-030 • FU 15000 Bohlman Road LAND USE COMMITTEE Item 2 The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 2:30 and 4:30 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. C CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 28, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 5, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the ~' public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written " communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road; - Requestfor Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6;099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) 2. APPLICATION #02-130 (517-13-024) - FU, 15000 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 39,986 (net) square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two- car garage is 5,140 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned R-140,000. (OOSTERHOUS) APPLICATION #02-173 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; ~- The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would amend the Tree Removal Ordinance by requiring a person removing a tree to be able to produce a copy of an approved Tree Removal Permit. (SULLIVAN) 4. APPLICATION #02-124 (CITYWIDE) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would amend the Section 15-19.020 (f) (4) to include provisions that would allow the review and approval of design and materials used in required sound walls. (SULLIVAN) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Consideration and approval of Resolution No. 02-043 COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on July 17, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive this A ends via e-mail, lease send our e-mail address to Tannin @sarato a.ca.us g P Y p $ g ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 1 Application No./Location: 02-013-DR, 13815 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: September 11, 2002 APN: 503-69-02 Department Head: •_ 4 NpY Lr7 ~Pe, SAIWI7LL5 ~Cf ti7 ~6 64 Qy .~Ny ~C fy_ y Y N 40 80 et Nr~L W E ~. S 9 ,~ 13185 PIERCE ROAD 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/16/02 - Application complete: 8/13/02 Notice published: 8/14/02 Mailing completed: 8/14/02 _ Posting completed: 8/7/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three caz attached gazage on a 1.759-acre lot, which presently contains a single "story residence. The style of home is Mediterranean with terracotta concrete the roof and beige stucco walls. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 02-013 3. Arborist Report dated May 14, 2002 4. Revised Arborist Report dated July 18, 2002 5. Saratoga Fire District report dated Apri126, 2002 6. City Geotechnical Review dated April 30, 2002 7. Geotechnical memo from GeoQuest, Inc dated July 29, 2002 8. Plans, Exhibit "A" date stamped August 13, 2002 • • • Q00002 Attacl~nent 1 STAFF ANALYSIS - ZONING: Hillside Residential District - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not a~nlicable PARCEL SIZE:1.759acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25.6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 640 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. „" • 000003 • PROPOSED ~ _ ; .:. CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 14,999 SQ. Ff. _ 25% oR 15,000 sQ. FT. _ WHICHEVER IS LESS Building Footprint 4,032 SQ. Fr. Walkways, patios 6,550 SQ. Fr. Driveway 4,417 SQ. Fr. TOTAL 14,999 sQ. Fr. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 3,379 sQ. Fr. Upper Floor 1,961 sQ. Fr. Garage 653 sQ. Fr. (Basement) (2,379 sQ. FT.) TOTAL 5,993 sQ. FI'. 6,000 SQ. >; r.~ SETBACKS - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 38+ Ft'. 30 Fr. Rear 220 Fr. 60 Fr. Side 60+ Fr. 20 Fr. Hei ht g Residence 26 I= r. 26 Fr. 1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section C ,000004 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single story residence and construct a new two-story residence on the 1.75 acre heavily wooded, steeply sloped property located at 13815 Pierce Road The proposed home is a 5,993 square foot two .story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage. The parcel is located on Pierce Road near the intersection of Via Regina. The style of home is Mediterranean with a concrete file roof and stucco facade. The plans depict arched windows at each elevation. The front elevation contains a projecting entry portico with-twin columns supporting each corner of the gable roof. A balustraded patio connects to the portico and extends west along the front of the house to the three- car garage. Four balastraded balconies project from the second floor at each window of the front second story facade. The rear of the house contains a balustraded balcony at the second floor and two balustraded light wells one of which has an entry staircase to the basement and a patio. The east elevation contains a 1,425 square foot ballustraded patio, which provides access via walkway to the pool. The rear 200-foot portion of the lot is unusable since the property drops off steeply at the end of the existing rear patio. The steep topography dictates the location and orientation of the house and pool. The applicants propose to create a 190-foot long circular driveway that runs in front of the house parallel with Pierce Road taking access from Pierce Road at the existing driveway and exiting west near Via Regina. The driveway location conflicts with the root system of the surrounding trees. The arborist has recommended that the driveway be eliminated in the vicinity of the trees. This would eliminate the possibility of a circular driveway in front of the house. An alternative is to allow two curb cuts for access but eliminate the connection in the vicinity of the trees, which provide canopy and privacy to the front of the house. Also, the arborist has recommended that the house be moved back ten feet in order to mi_nim;~e the damage of the basement on the root system of the trees. The applicant has provided a Geotechnical report which indicates that moving the house back 10 feet would put the structure in an area of unstable soils. Also moving the house back ten feet would eliminate much of the rear yard of the house. The applicant has not indicated a willingness to compromise on either of these points and staff recommendation is to eliminate the driveway in the vicinity of the front yard trees and move the house as far back as possible while avoiding the unstable soils. NECESSARY FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable 0~~0~5. interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and m;n;m;zing tree and soil removal; :grade changes:: will :be. m;n;m;~ed and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minim;ze perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will m;nimi~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of ,bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and. within the same zoning----- district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods..The proposed site development or grading plan .incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design .policies and ~ techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. ACTUAL FINDINGS DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lot at issue is heavily wooded and the existing trees contribute to the canopy along Pierce Road as well -as to the privacy between neighboring residences. ,Although the footprint of the proposed house does not extend far beyond the boundaries of the existing house the impact on surrounding properties could be significant due to the amount of disturbance that is proposed. The excavation fora 2,379 square foot basement and the creation of a 190-foot long driveway running under.the canopy of four mature ,~- coast live oak trees would have a substantial. impact on -the root system of the existing , %~ tree canopy. Thus the long-term impact of the proposed construction may be to destroy the tree canopy along Pierce Road. For this reason in order to maintain the privacy and wooded continuity that the current landscape provides to the surrounding neighbors, the driveway should be bisected to avoid damaging the root system of the front yard trees. The two-story house that is proposed would not interfere with the privacy of neighbors to the north, east or west since there is considerable distance between the structures on 0~~0~6 these properties. However, the privacy of the neighbor across Pierce Road may be compromised if the existing tree canopy is not retained since this neighboring single story house is closest to the proposed house. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The site is heavily wooded and although the applicant has stated that their intention is to retain the existing trees, the development plan will compromise the long-term viability of the existing trees. In order to reduce the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, the plans should be revised to eluninate the driveway in the vicinity of the coast live oak trees that are in front of the house. The plans should also either eliminate the front porch or construct it in such a manner that does not compact the roots of the trees adjacent the front.~orch. The arborist has recommended that the house be moved back 10 feet in order to reduce the impact of the basement on the roots of the oak trees in front of the house. Given the topography of the house, moving it back ten feet would be difficult since the property is very steeply sloped to the rear and this additional setback would eliminate much of the usable rear yard. Since the plans depict a basement with 2,379 square feet and a 30-foot long light well along the front of the house it appears that size of the basement could be reduced to eliminate disturbing the area immediately in front of the trees. If the light well is eliminated in this area and the house is moved back as much as possible then the disturbance to the trees in front of the house will be mi_nim~ed and the house will not encroach on the sloped area to the rear. Given the topographic constraints of the property this design change appears to be a reasonable compromise. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The two-story home has a number of architectural features, which minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The front facade has a varied roafline with a projecting entry portico, hipped and compass roof elements. The upper floor balconies, balustraded porch and projecting bay window all serve to punctuate the horizontal expanse of the front facade. The rear elevation with second floor terrace and large expanse of , '; " balustraded porch has both hipped and gabled rooflines. The left elevation, which ' ' contains the garage, has a single entry door and a gabled roofline. The right elevation contains a varied roofline, bay windows, French doors and a large balustraded patio with stairs and a pathway leading to the pool area. This design breaks up massing and with the use of natural materials and colors soften the impact of the building. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on .adjacent lots and those within the immediate ~~0~®~. neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural .environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed house is located in an area that has a mixture of single story and two story homes. A drop in elevation vertically separates the adjacent homes to the west; these consist of a single story and atwo-story home, which are not visible to the subject house. The home located east of the site is a single story structure that is approximately 180 feet from the subject property. Given the distance between structures, the visual impact of the proposed two-story structure will not be significant if the existing tree canopies are retained. The homes south of the property across Pierce Road are a mixture of single story and two stories. The home closest to the proposed house is located directly across Pierce Road, approximately 100 feet to the south. The visual impact of the two-story structure on this property is greatly mitigated by the tree canopy and vegetation that exists in front of the subject property. Thus in order to maintain privacy and reduce the visual impact of the proposed construction on this neighboring property it is important to retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. The area north of the site is undeveloped and since the rear yard is steeply sloped, abuts the Santa Clara Valley Water District lands and is heavily wooded, the proposed house is naturally screened from surrounding properties. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The site lan indicates that the storm water will be retained on site throu h a well P g ~' system, which. will drain all of the runoff to the rear. of the property. The applicant has requested that a grading and drainage plan be submitted after approval of the plans. The arborist will review the grading and drainage plan to .ensure compatibility with surrounding trees. Since the stormwater is to be retained on site the .site. development plan does comply with the City stormwater runoff policies. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials .and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade and architectural features which breakup massing. ,; The plan if revised to reduce the length of driveway and minim~e disturbance to the ~~ front yard trees; may conform to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment. Also the use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete file roof helps blend the structure into the environment. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building on the site, which nLnim~es the visual impact on the environment. The proposal if revised to reduce the area. of the driveway .and move the house to the rear complies with Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy by retaining the existing tree a~~©~$ _ canopy, which provides privacy between surrounding neighbors. Policy #4, maximize views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by retaining existing landscaping and maintaining sufficient setback to avoid encroaching on the view shed of surrounding homes. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by locating the main living areas of the house along the southeast exposure. Also the west facing window openings are minimised. Retaining existing tree canopy will control winter and summer exposure to the sun. -_ Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan are made as - recommended above the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Sazatoga Fire District and City Geotechnical consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and mapof July 18, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as faz as geotechnically possible or 10 %% feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be ~~ eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. 5. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry 000009 wells. -- 7. A actin and drainage plan. shall be submitted with the final construction documents ~ g and this plan shall be reviewed and approvedby the City Arborist~ :: _-~: ~ ~ .. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans - -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques. for ITLr~m~7ing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which- depicts the area of proposed enclosure. COMMUNITY INPUT The applicant ,has provided signatures from 10 surrounding property owners. All have indicated their approval of the design. No written or oral communication has been received from neighbors other than these signatures. Fire Protection District The Saratoga Fire District reviewed -this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazazdous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Eaz1y.Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Sazatoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler -systems,16-60-E) S..Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas, which are not constructed as , habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the gazage shall have a smooth, '~ flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/azchitect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. • 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed; by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no 000010 exceptions, no FDC. 8. Drivewa s: All drivewa s shall have a minimum width of 14 feet lus one-foot Y Y P _. shoulders. Secondary access is not required. • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O &t S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4' aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property-twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10,11,13,16,17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at .least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint ; of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root Loss. - The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If tie location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present - condition. 0000~1~ If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would nat survive.construction of--the,driveway.for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations among;them are the following. 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29: -- 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and' located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a min;mum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The following trees are expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnieal Revisions Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on Apri130, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the • • ,; • ~~~~~~ City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002 are: 1. The Project En 'eerie Geolo 'st and Project Geotechnical:En ' eer shall review and J ~ g ~ - J ~ approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Sazatoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved on the condition that revisions eliminating the driveway and the location of the house be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. ,. • 0~~~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 0000,4 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-013 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMINI -13815 PIERCE ROAD Wxirlti=AS, the City of_Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,993 square foot two story dwelling with 2,379 square foot basement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Mini_mi~e the perception of bulk The proposed project triinimzes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete file roof. With attached „` garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to eliminate portions of the driveway and maintain the necessary setback from the protected trees in the front yard, the plan will retain the tree canopy and therefore avoid interference with privacy. 00~©3.5 Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The house is designed such that living areas are oriented toward the high quality view to the rear of the property. If the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the south-eastern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the m;nimal west window openings limit exposure to the elements. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. 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 by Mike Amini for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the .following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map of July 18, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by. the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks;are per the approved plans." 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the arborist report.. .. 4. The location of the house shall. be moved back as far as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. 5. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. _ 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be 000©~.6 retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry wells. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimising the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) S. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/azchitect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. ;; 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required ~~~©~"~ • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O &t S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate~base from~a public street to the proposed building: ~~:~, r; . ,. ; : .:-~ • Slopes from 15% to l7°jo shall be surfaced using 4' PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice, at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the.site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10,11,13,16,17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt. remove buttress Toots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut: This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 ~- as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If the location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not. survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is ~~~®~.8 proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The azborist makes a number of recommendations among them are the followin . g 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified- azborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The following trees aze expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Cleazance with conditions was granted on Apri130, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and ,; ~. 000+3,9 approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review an_d approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay. any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. ,. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. OOOJ.O PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`h day of September 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES:. NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission i This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms .and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 000®21 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 00422 3 BARRI E D. GATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 X081353-1052 Attach~:nent 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIVIlI~NDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 14, 2002 Job # 04-02-071 Plan Received: 4.22.02 Plan Due: 5.23.02 ~ ~~~o~~ ~ JUN 0 3 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 00003 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECDMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this.report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new residence with a basement in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees: This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, at least 6 additional trees would be so severely damaged that they would not be expected to survive. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 15% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are at least 33 trees on this site, which are large enough to be controlled by city ordinance that may be exposed to some level of 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 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 33 Valley oak (Quercuslobata) Tree # 3 California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree # 4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees # 5, 18, 32 California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees # 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 8, 11 Monterey pine (Pines radiates) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # 25' Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 OOOJ24 TREE SURVEY ANA PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMT'dI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 2 SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 33 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, 8, 15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Existing Condition The root collar of Tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collar when conditions are favorable. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing garage, and the existing out building may be highly damaging to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be replaced: ; ,. Trees #10, 11, i 3, 16, 17, and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. Trenching for the footing and the construction of the basement would severe the roots of all of these trees. -After this, the construction activity on top of the remaining root zones of these trees would result in root loss. The total root damage to these_trees would be severe. In addition, all of these trees would lose a significant quantity of their canopy in order to construct the new residence. The root losses and the PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 000025 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIJI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE R04D 3 SARATOGA canopy losses combined would. be quite severe. Root loss and .canopy loss are not separate and unrelated. These trees should all be considered a loss. S Trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28,-29, and 30 would all suffer severe root losses by construction of the driveway as proposed. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located outside of driplines. These locations must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Comments " Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees (Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, and 17), than to risk those trees in front of the house. If Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are removed, I also recommend the removal of Trees #15 and 19, which are poor specimens, primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that Trees #27, 29, and 30 must be preserved, partially because of their large size. The light well is only 6 feet from the trunk of Tree #28. This means that the cut to construct the light well would only be about 3 feet from the trunk. Tree #28 would require a minimum of 15 feet between the flunk and a construction cut to expect it to survive. This same distance is required for Trees #27, 29, and 30. It will not be feasible to construct a circular driveway adjacent to Trees #27, 29, and 30. Construction of the residence on the west side of these trees would cause significant root damage by itself. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is normally required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. In this event, it would not be feasible to construct the driveway between Trees #23 and 24 with the turf block. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and Tree #24 requires a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constructed on top of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed for the other. In the event of the latter, I recommend that Tree #23 be retained because of its larger size and better condition. Bear in mind that interlocking pavers usually require a cut of .12 to 14 inches in order to provide a stable roadbed. The plan appears to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to Tree #1 than the existing driveway. In this event, Tree #1 would not be expected ,. to survive. ~, Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans are changed after permits are issued. 2: I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. Bear in mind that the other trees, such as Trees #3, 6, 31, and 33 have PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 oooo~s TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIVI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 4 SARATOGA - minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require is as follows: Tree #3 10 feet Tree #6 18 feet - - Tree #31 20 feet Tree #33 18 feet 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 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence 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. I recommend that a root buffer Ibe required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees #14, 18, 20, and 21: A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark. chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 5. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of Trees #20 and 21 and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, it must be redesigned. 6. I recommend that Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arborist. C7 7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the canopy 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, the city arborist must be consulted. 8. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 9. I suggest that the root collar of Tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an air spade or ~- pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minimum space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 10. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut offat grade and left in the ground. ' root buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ~~~~IGi r TREE SUR.~EY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA 11. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #1,6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31-during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the-use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 12. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. . 13. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 14. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be built completely on grade without excavation. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the canopy driplines of-trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches2 (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 16. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 17. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 18. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopy driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 19. I suggest that the. species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. "; 20. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 2 radial trenches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 i7o~~IC~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC7MMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIJI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 6 SARATOGA _ 21. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. _ 22. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. The following try Tree # 8 Tree # 10 Tree #11 Tree # 13 Tree #16 Tree #17 Tree #28 yes are expected to be removed. - $2,088 $4,026 $3,608 $4,831 $2,442 $1,204 706 They have values as follows: Total $22,881 This is equivalent to four 48-inch boxed specimens. Replacements are suggested. • However, it will not be feasible to replace this value with small specimens. There may be room for three 60 inch boxed trees which have approximately that value. The combined value of all of the other trees is $185,047. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$27,252) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agr~lia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens MLB/s PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST Respectfully sub ed, M `--~: Michael L. Bench, Associate Barrie D. Coate, Principal MAY 14, 2002 OOOt~29 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMP'I PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 7 SARATOGA Enclosures: .Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts - Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Root Buffer Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST • • MAY 14, 2002 /'~ OV~~~O M.i Job ~: Amini Job Address: ~5 Pierce Road Mea surem ent Con dition Pr unin Catli n Ne eds Pestll)iaess e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS s o -- . ~nd ASSOCIATES @ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ W ~ ~ `~ t~ae~3s3~lo~z ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ z z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 71535 Sun! Road N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ taCaloe,G !5000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gR ~ ~ ~ w Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F a o ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ W ~ Y -- ~ ~ ~ ~ o j ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Key t Plant Name ~ O ~ va = ~ U ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 1 Val Oak 26.0 28 45 80 3 2 5 Quercw lobate . in 531 X;27/sg. In. _ ; 14,328 X sp. class 100% a ;14.328 X cond. 80% ~ ; 8,597 X loc. 85% ~ ; 5586 Total Value 2 Val Oak 29.0 x 12.0 1 45 55 2 1 3 . In 718 X;27/sq. in. ~ ; 19,368 X sp. class 100% a ;19,388 X cond. 90% ~ ; 17,447 X loc. 85% ~ ; 11 341 Total Value 3 Cellfomia t3a 11.0 x 10.0 717 1118 40 30 1 3 4 Umbellularla califomice 13 1118 . in 213 X 127/aq. in. ~ ; 5,751 X sp. class 50% ~ 12,878 X cond. 75% ~ ; 2,157 X loc. 50% ~ ; 1.,078 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 28.0 28 50 30 3 2 5 uole aem nms . In 531 X;27/sq. in. a ; 14,328 X sp. class 90% _ ;12,895 X cond. 80% ~ ; 7,737 X loc. 50% ~ ; 3889 Tote! Value 5 Califomla Black Oak 11.0 13 15 25 1 2 3 Quercus kel fl . in 95 X 127/sq. in. ~ ; 2,565 X sp. class 100% ~ ;2,585 X cond. 90% ~ ; 2,308 X loc. 80% ~ ; 1 38S Total Value 8 Coast live Oak 28.0 36 35 35 1 3 4 3 Quercus tl6olia . in 815 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 18,817 X sp. class 100% ~ _ ;18,817 X cond. 75% a ; 12,483 X loe. 65% 8101 Totl Value REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal ~ ;120 24"box ~ 54~ 36"box ~ 51,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST 48"box ~ 55A~ 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 Page 1 of 6 4) . ~4 Job # 2-071 Ma 14 2002 job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Job #04-02-071 Mea surem ent Con dition Pru nin Catlin Nee da PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D COATS .. ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ , and ASSOCIATES @ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ o ~ ` '' c+oe~ zs3~osz g ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ 235355unilAoad 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z F ~ Z_ Nw v~ Z W ~ _~ ~ _ oyU l5~ LaC ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ v, ~ ~ K ~ W Z , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F a ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O Y c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Key i PIaM Name = v i = v i t 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~z z 7 Val Oak 25.0 28 50 35 1 2 3 . in 491 X S27/sq. in. ~ i 13,247 X sp. class 100% 513,247 X cond. 90% ~ i 11,922 X loc. 65% ~ : 7 749 Total Value 8 Mont Pine 25.0 28 BO 25 3 1 4 Pinus radiate . In 491 X 127/sq. In. ~ S 13,247 X sP• class 30% ~ 13,974 X cond. 75% ~ = 2,981 X loc. 70% ~ ~ : 2088 Toll Value 9 Coast t.lvs Oak 30.0 x multl multl multl 40 40 1 3 4 . In 1824 X 127/aq. In. ~ S 43,848 X sp. class 100% ~ 143,848 X cond. 7S% ~ i 32.888 ~ X loc. 75% ~ i 24 885 Total Value 10 Coast l.lve Oak 19.0 21 . 40 30 1 3 ~ 4 i . In 283 X S27/sq. in. ~ = 7,851 _ X sP• class 100% ~ 17,851 X cond. 75% ~ i 5.739 X bc. 70% ~ = 4 017 ' Total Valus. 11 Pine 30.0 33 60 30 1 2 3 . In 707 X S27/sq. In. ~ S 19,076 X sp. class 30% ~ =5,723 X cond. 90% ~ i 5,150 X loc. 70% ~ i 3,805 Total Value 12 Coast LJw Oak 38.0 x 25.0 311 mull 45 75 1 3 4 . in 1134 X 127/sq. in. = S 30,608 X sp. class 100% ~ =30,608 X cond. 75% ~ i 22,954 X loc. 80% ~ $ 18383 Total Value 0 O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ 5-gal ~ 636 15-gal ~ 5120 24"box ~ 36"box ~ 51,320 48"bo 52"box -69,000. 72"box ,000 Ma 14 2002 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ ORST e2ofg (Il • .. Job ~: A3mimi Job Address: ~5 Pierce Road ~ Job # ~-071 Ma 14 2002 Mea surem ents Con dWon Pr unin Cabiin Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (4ap 3531x52 313355usa9Rad LarC~a,G !5030 Key / Plant Name ~ g 1° ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ' W ~' K W a ~ U' i a W ~ ~ ~ ~ T `~ ~ U~ 7 ~ s ~ F Z~ O a ~5 t~ ~ ~ F Rq ~ ~ ~ u~ ~j ~ U ~ z_ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~' d W ~ a~ ~ o ~ 2 y ~ ~ O_ S~ g ~ ~ V W ~ ~ a ~ ~ W ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ •- ~ ~ Y = ~ ~ o: ~ ~ ~ a OC ~ ~ or ~ _ ~ 3 y W ~ ;E~ Ii ~ G ~ ~ Q o~~ 13 Cwst Oak 19.0 21 40 50 1 2 3 . In 283 X s27/ag. in. ~ S 7,851 X aP• class 100% ~ 17,851 X cond. 90% _ _ .8,888 X loc. 70% ~ S 4 820 Total Valus 14 Coast live Oak 19.0 22 40 35 2 2 4 . In 283 X 127/sq. in. ~ = 7,851 X sp. class 100% ~ 17,651 X cond. 75% ~ i 5,739 X loc. 70% ~ i 4 017 Total Value 1 S Caast LJve Oak 12.0 14 15 20 2 4 8 . in 113 X S27/aq. in. ~ s 3,052 X sP• mss 100% ~ 13,052 X cond. 4S% ~ S 1,373 X be. 50% ~ i 887 Total Value 18 Coast Uvs Osk 16.0 18 40 30 2 2 4 . in 201 X S27/sq. in. ^ S 5,428 X_sp. etsss 100% ~ 15,428 X cond. 75% ~ = 4,089 X loc. 80% ~ 2442 ToEsl Velue 17 l~eodar Cedar 15.0 18 80 30 3 2 5 Cedrus dsodaro . in 177 X 127/sq. in. ~ S 4,789 X sp. loss 70% ~ 13,338 X cond. 80% ~ S 2.003 X loc. 80% ~ 1 02 18 Califomla Black Oek 18.0 18 40 50 3 2 5 . In 201 X 127/sq. in. ~ S 5,428 X sp. class 100% ~ 15,428 X cond. 80% ~ = 3.258 X loc. 80% ~ s 1953 Total Value 0 O REPLACEMENT' TREE VALVES 5-gal •536 15-gal ~ 5120 ~ , W 24"box ~ 5~ 36"box ~ 51,320 1 +~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST 48"box ~ 55,0 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515.000 Page 3 of 6 Job Tifle: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Job #04-02-071 Ma 14 200? Mea surem ents Con dition Pru nin ablin Ne eds Pest/Diseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D COATS o ~ ~ . and ASSOCIATES ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ c~~~lo~s $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~3575SuntAoad t cr u ~smo ~ ~ ~ ~ .. W ~ F ~ Z ~ rn N ~ d ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~- ~ D: y o ~ ae, ~ ~ o: ~ ~ o ~ ~ a N ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ J ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? V W Z ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ q y j ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ W W (7 1y ~ { K i . Plant Name eY S N 2 N U U U ~ U ~ ~ Z 0C j K 19 Coast Oak 14.0 15 30 15 4 4 8 154 X =27/aq. in. ~ i 4,154 X sp. class 100% 14,154 X cond. 15% = S 823 X loc. 40% _ = 249 ' Total Value 20 Coast Live Oak 20.0 21 40 35 1 2 3 314 X 127/sq. in. = i 8,478 X ap. class 100% _ :8,478 X cond. 90% _ i 7,830 X loc. 60% _ •: 4,578 Total Value 21 Coast Live Oak 34.0 38 50 30 1 2 3 ~ ' 907 X S27/sq. in. ~ i 24,501 X sP. class 100% _ 124,501 X cond. . 90% . i 22.051 X loc. 80% _ '. 13 231 Total Value 22 Coast Live Oak 23.0 24 40 30 1 2 3 415 X:27lsq. In. = i 11,212 X sp. class 100% _ :11,212 X cond. 90% = S 10,081 X IOC. 75% _ `•~ ~ i 7588 Total Value 23 Coast Live Oak 28.0 30 45 35 1 2 3 815 X i27/sq. in. = s 16,817 X sp. class 100% = 118,817 X cond. 90% = i 14,955 X loc. 75% _ 11 18 Toil Value 24 Coast Live Oak 23.0 25 40 30 2 2 4 415 X S27/sq. in. = 1.11,212 X sp. class 100% _ X11,212 X cond. 75% _ ; 8,408 X loc. 75% 8307 Total Value 0 REPLACEMENT TREE V ALUE$ ~ 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal ~ $iZ0 ~y 24"box ~ 36"box ~ $1,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 ORST 48"bo 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ,000 e 4 of 6 Job ~• Amini Job Address: ~5 Pierce Road Job # ~2-071 MaV 14, 2002 Mea surem ents Con dition Pru nin ablin Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D• COATS and ASSOCIATES (408)3531054 435355unilAaad LaGfa,G 95030 Kays PIaMName ~ $ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a: ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~? ~ ~ v~i s ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ F 0 ~ 3 ~ ~ U ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ° ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z w `~ ~ w N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ W ~ o ~ ~ W ~ r? ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~ W `~ S ~ ~ ~ < 3 ~,~~,, Z n~ ~ u~, 3 Z W ~ 0~ ~' a. 25 Madrone 8.0 x 8.0 13 20 20 1 2 3 Arbutus rnar¢lesli 84 X;27/sg. in. _ ; 1,728 X sp. class 50% m ;884 X cond. 90% ; 778 X loc. 70% S 544 Total Value 28 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 20 15 1 2 3 83.8 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 1,717 ~ X sp. class 100% ;1,717 X cond. 90% ^ ; 1,545 X loc. 70% ; t 082 27 Coast Live Oak 30.0 30 35 40 1 2 3 707 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 19,078 X sp. class 100% ;19,076 X cond. 90% ^ ; 17,188 ' X loc. 75% ; 12 878 Total Value 28 Coast Llve Oak 23.0 24 40 55 1 4 5 4 415 X;27lsq. in. ^ ; 11,212 X sp. class 100% ^ i11,212 X cond. 80% ^ ; 8,727 X loc. 70% ^ ; 4 709 ' Total Value 29 Coast LJve Oak 21.0 22 40 35 1 3 4 4 346 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 9,347 X sp. class 100% ;9,347 X cond. 75% ; 7,010 X loc. 70% ^ ; 4,907 Total Value 30 Coast Live Oak 21.0 23 40 30 3 2 5 348 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 9,347 X sp. class 100% ^ ;9,347 X cond. 80% ; 5,808 X loc. 70% ^ ; 3 928 Total Value 0 REPLACEMEr1T TREE V ALLIES 5~ga1 ~ $3b 15-gal ~ ;120 ' . 24"box ~ ~ 36"box ~ $1,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 a WORST 448"box ~ ~.~ 52"box ;7,000 72"box ~ ~5.~ Page 5 of 6 Job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road .Job #04-02-071 Mav 14, 2002 BARRIE D. COATS $ ~ ~ W ~ W I and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~' c4ae~~s3loss g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ^~~ ~ ~a 1353SSurailRad ~ ~ ~ W ~ F Z y v_i d ~ ~ ~ `- ~ ~ ~ ~ F C LaGioe,G !5030 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ 4Q w Z S~~ w~O < ~W to d ~ ~ W ~ F ~ N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ 3 LL ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ Key / Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x w x m ~ ~ v v ~a c3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z W z ~o.. 31 Oak 38.0 40 40 40 1 3 4 1134 X S27/sq. In. = S 30.806 X sp. class 100% = 530.808 X cond. 75% = i 22,954 X loe. 75% S 17,218 Total Value 32 Calitomla Black Oak 10.0 12 25 20 1 2 3 78.5 X S27/sq. in. _ : 2,120 X sp. Clara 100% _ =2,120 X cond. 80% _ : 1,908 X loc. 70% _ : 1335 Total Value 33 Vali Oak 28.0 30 45 40 1 2 3 815 X S27/sq. In. = S 18,817 X sP. class 100% 518.817 X cond. 90% = s 14,955 X loc. 7S% = i 11,216 - Total Value ~ REPLACEMENT TREE V ALUE$ ~ 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal ~ $120 \ ~ ~, 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"bo~ 52"box ~ 57,000 72"bo ,000 • 1 ~ BEST, 5 @ WORST ~e6of5 ~~ - _ BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants ' (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 -. GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crnwn -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cnltivar - 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. 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. Indaded bark -Bark which is entrapped innarrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachmenrts 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 photosyMhates. Root Dollar -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. Stero -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. "; " ScatTold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. ~ ' Limb - A major stivctural part. Braech - 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. OOO~J~'7 HARRIS D. COATS AND'ASSOCIATES _ .,.: _ - - - ~ ~ - Horticultural Consultants --__ __ :~: ,.'.,~_- - (408) 353-1052 - - -_ Fax- (408) 353-1238 23535. Summit Rd. los Gatos,. CA 95033;, == ; _ _.. .. 7'F` i :.. .3 _..,q., .tll'S a.fft"'i .f jC S2 ~''S,~C. :~} ~'. ~?.~~= 5-jfl. t3~. p' :f~ ll ~: .-..,'~_ TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION -. - - , .These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE .. ~ " .. _ - . Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This. includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains..: , Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. ~ _ _.-:, ~_ Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. _ _ Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the documenrt. ~ r . Prune any tree parts, which conflict with consrtruction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. - Under no circumstances may any. party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. ~ _ __ DURING Avoid use of anywheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 'h') once par 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER -- Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. - Avoid rotatilling b-eneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. . ; ; .. . _ _ _ . - Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. • • ;, ,i~ s _ 0000$ 31 ~ ____ Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. Top of fence hung with fluorescent flaPgine tape every 10 feet. 6' chain link or welded wire mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-ankle post Fence pt.aced at drip line or 50% greater than the tree canopy radius k!-.ere possible Roadway ~ - - - - _~_ Fence/ /; siting t ff construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath :the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing to 8' above ground on~ it -' ~ trees where construction ~'~ iI~ t _ ~ g' will take place beneath = the canopy ~r~ ~, ~~~ I r~• ~~ V~en construction is to take place beneath a ,~ ~ ~~ t~ canopy on one side, the fence slio'utd be sQ~;i 2-3 leet beyond that construction but ~ between construction and the tree trunk. ~ ~ RIE D COATS Tree Preservation . AND ASSOCIATES Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists ~~ r, Barri D Coate ' I ,: ay ; d ~°FQi;: ~ r` e f ~ _ f~ x F.r Associates - ' ~ 'Radial Trenching -_ _ _::_...~ ~ ::, ~' ~ ~ ' - .~\ , X408) 353-1052 - Drj ~ { ~ ~:. gF~~, 23535 Summit Road ~ /.~-- - `~• , ~ P Cihe .- The Do's and Don'ts ofIrrigation ~ -~ ~ ` Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~ .. / ._,,.......tw.r _ ~~-•s.~-- ~ `~ '*~ l~ A ~ - r a t ;~ ~ Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies ~ __ -, r ~-• - ~ '~ _ ~-'_--~ ~ ,~= ~, 1 HOR7ICULTURALCONSULTANT'S ,:--~w-~.'-"'"=`.x. .~ :,..~.---yr`- ~-•..~_: ~ ~,,,,, ..«t;, •,~d+r , ~ ~f' Cefified',Consult~ng'Arbo st ~' _ ~1-;.-. , ~ ' ..- ,.-. ^^~~ . `r ~ ~ `ate ~ `~~: .~tt, #nf 3' ^r! !i~}uk~l~"j.~ F; ' ;.r { ~ - r Shell©W 'r ;'~ ,f ~~ r ~;, ~`~ ~ {. ,.:.;. - do `~ absorbin yy~ ;- fir, ~<-~ s ~~,- ~. ,,: ~,~ ~.Root~P}}'~otection~Zone ~':-~ ==~' _, ~.~ ,~ - {. F,x,~4,~~J,.~„- g- ~, ,=>- -Yl. i,~y• -i,l 7 t,, fay{ i '~+ f ..Vj 5 '~, ~ ,j' ,.•:~~ .~+~. ~pry,~ ,~J } ~~ <F, ~ , ~ 1:%2 times: the . Dri Mlle ~~'' :_~ ~- ~a . x~ ,,,.., !i• ..i `. i~a/ r ~!; Yr j,~~_ .'"'.:,t ~. may. t' ~" ~w ~~' .~ I ;.y ~Kt;~~~~tta, ~{ t' l :t` ~,~' .c ;/' ~i+' c :,1~ "'^rr '~'!".: _ •:b. fe,.:r%E , 1~. - ~ ..r~ a. Y, ~^ c. i ~; rrr t'!•. art ~r},ip } ~ ~-~, ~ ~ ~';; ~.~k ~ :Diameter -~-~- f ~ `~~ r-. , ~:_. ~2x ~ .~ •~ ;~ Y~ `. ,.~y „ ... 4 . ' , ~- ..n . e ~~ "N r 1 ''r' . o " +':+~i~ r ~ ./~ . ~",. : ~' ~ k . •_y • i f ^~' , •°'~ .at ^~;, f`. r. .~'^r lr -~' ~'~ w- t . t+~ . •:k~! i, ~ ~~:' s iati~ss~~ , r ~,' C r>i:' ,.,.*,,,, :, S.}r r.. .:3 { -.t .rT - •)t„ 5+Sr' ..,• ! f; >.. i +j.~ p S.: ti .. ..,. N• F~ v .,r{, . ii v,~ F '~~~ ~' .5' x..~ a ~.t:My ~~'~f ~ " i' .~7',frir4. .,~: ~ r. \'fj '~g ~l~,'. a.-4. ,. .dC: a7:...: -. _.: ~.. r'..':.d ,.,:. ~b Yn .,.. J: ki "rr r:. `i:- y :.f ,^ ~+~. .. ... +~w:y V„ ~ ,' • F~ ~ .' . ,'..r ~ „' -.?, /y .y-~ .~ • j ~ J: N ~:. ~~n ~i'a~ ~i7~~(~~i4 4'. . ~,~ '. r-. cu. .; ,, ;.:3 .b„ ,'~~. .~ y~. ly~ r~.~.,~-~ c• ~#k eter y~ .~ •.r~ ~.~' .., , - ~ , _ / ~C s C a~~~ ..,. , z a,; .r iR+:~ ti• ':. ~? ~/ :1 el'~ 'J' -yL,~ .'i7.. m 4 +~ t. ~' - r ,:~ ,y, d i.s "~;~ -q ...yai~ .. '~ .+:: . ~~ ::{L } ..J.w. r. ; C I , .Q;:. !. ~ .,n @ ~ y x~':r ,w'eft`. q~..-.,. b ~.. ~~ .~ ~. w- , t`y .~ , r a . r Q ~ ~'~: ~ f': i • ~ ~;,{,'/~~ , ~ t r.' '~ re .;l:.~j ~~ ., }ryy.:i; ':. A ~ . ~~ SN. 'J '':Y"`.~~t ~tic • }. ..fS rq'. •. >. .. :rt GNr•. .#i`,i. ~q .7, ,•.ia v. ,:.~ -z ~ '.'g t' ,J r:r t `1 ~ ri .! fS" au. yf`/r~ +~• :ss, ~ y!~ r ~~- i i:~r~~ ~ p ~k r + .~ 5"~ nY ~ ../• a!;,,i' 3 ~~ :.~.h. ~~fnn, ~ . `::. ~ _ ~ ,:, ~' 7u ' -r. ',^^! .t~ ~f.. a~b ~i i e t 4.. ;. T`##~ Y~ / ~.'. v- J~„ ~ '`~ 1:.." .J. •t.:. ,~! (; :(t ~!• !?(~,' ut, ,,nit ~"7:,'~.~'C..vV' ,.., ry ~.1 .~~•~%~- /'~ "o~:: ~..~. -S..rr r ,~.:'..~V ly~.~ ~~y.(I~' ~'~:. .C3 r,Sr „~ ~, ` s "~" r:..9p {,'tr .q r uJt ~:y ;3~1 >.. ~! .t t ,a, ~ ~;, Y a '}:k"' ~' .;nr .:,!: ~ IYq'~ - , s. .,~ . ay ,~ ~~,; - v ,., e r`. "t' ~ ~. ~ „ t '. ;X`,,". r~g9. f `,^ < ,!' ~ ~, • Fad r r. "~ L . . !d+.'..~, ti ~' ~° ., ~,^'~ o- < 5' 1 :~ v 1 :.i.'Hr :r:`~ M - r,.. z~ '.i - '~:,. ,! 4t L~.,, s ,~," '::`•;"alb~;'`_~ .,:iw :"~~' '< . _. °~ _s" .'G". f ~'t f.. a~. ~ f e. S`r 7'~. ~ . 3. ~" -: A~,. "!`F' tl } }r; ~ otr - A^t• aa^t ,, ''i rY ~t: t ~~;?p+'~I.. 1 J,x~ ,~ r -- ~~r: - ~ dpr ~S- '~~iw J~: ,„,~~~}r~~.1.} ~r~ Y a ~ 1'~ f y~p{y¢P/p4M~~ ~, ,;S q1~ .r~... tl• ! r i ~.• :'y~~' ~ .~! _ h "~-1_~b '1' :'~~r• ; T Sn~.''~~~"i'~ . .~tl~.S t . f 1 ~ - ! - r ~, ~ ~ ~ # ~ b' ~ f ~ 4 l~ i :, 1~,.'i^ `a ~ _ ~~rn anon aafik al .lints ma .lie, instialled ~' .~~ ..:. .: ~ ..... w~, ~r Y :.... ,, , ... - ,., ~n ~ F~ 6 ~~ 1'. inche~..d~e'., .,~n~:h~nd.d(~Qere`""ches.in:are~s ,.. .,,.~:~~~.;+k:J:!}~ .~L.,~ ;..~.~.,,~. - .. ~k~ -a{,}, :~~ :.~ - .. - `~~vrr .~. + ~. ~! ~`,~ .,Ca,,f' f~ .ham in,o~`;~ -,~.. .f; `.` r r. n n ~h~l ow absorb~ri roofs' if ~, R Q A ~ z ,, a .a ~. - .i ;{ ~E,;~, t- ':?~ R yj~~ aY v -.t- ~= y ~~~ - 'e}: i ~'i,. k~ ~' ;,r ';~ ~;y:, .Yy ~f~`r:, ;~yhe,Y~{trenches~are;at right an`Qles'to;the trunk :;~~ ~ { ~ ~£. ~~' , -~ f -~ - a osed to`~`tuttin across` the :root :mass area:' ~ 3 ~~ -~~; £~, ~~a' Mainlines C18~~hches;4deep) must be~'installed outside ~ .~ Y~~ 1 f; 3f '' ,C~~~i1e'roc~~:protection zone~In,n~ case may sprinklers wet ~ ;', ,~. ~ _ r ~;j N ;;~ 1`ea~ ~tl~ time :the 'tx~nl~ diameter of,the trunk ~ }y: f 3; ~ .~, r x~ .> :r . ~ ;. ~ .. y ~>. fR ..,}". M a, srtyi ds_ R py ~..~.~~ ~ rF,.(. ~' + t' gau..Jde a ' ,a. ,~ 1r , ..9Y~ :• .,r. r~..- ~ r ~. of .t~"N~' ~ r _ }1 "'''j'~ _ ~ ~ k } ~'-:~ ~ n -5 ':t i = -y'. : { ,( . Are, y ~ t t~'~e t,. ~` ~ ` F Ti'"4'+ ,n s ~• ~,'~.t w.y~ ~, ,fir. (_t t 8 k.t i y ~ - ~, :f fid ' r.. , t' •i -~ '.:r~.. \ - ~. '9V,r t! y ''~ # per '-~S , {~~. ~ , }7r ~ 4„dRyr~,t . i x. ~?y. Y~ ,1 'et~ r •~-~ tLrtr rK ii.' '~,.f' ~.~ ~.. r - - - f- ', 'r4. ~{t ~ "~~~;~ ~ f4 +tyis~. J ~ ti~y~y~ t ~J a ",~ ~~' ;~ c. S 4: b f n A 1-inch Plywood and Wood Chips Platform Buffer 7 • • for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Er Associates -Horticultural Consultants -';_, ~r -~< (x+08) 353-1052 ~T '=-~- 23535 Summit Road `~` ~'~ ~. , Los Gatos, CA 95033 00001 I~VI,JULIY~V !•1.I~7~Lt1J1 JVV :, ~. _ - ---.- True numbers correspond to evaluation charts. \ ~ P - All dimensions and tree locations ~ `~~ are approximate. - ~ -_ ' ~` - - / ~ ~ - - ~ 1`.\ ~P `n~ ~ .- 7 ~ ' `, O~ ~J,+J'~-dam ~~. ~~ ~ '~ L ._ ~ ~ ~pJ 3~~~0 .. J ' ~~ ~5 ~ is s~. ~ .. ~ ~ 1~ ~ "~;?. ~ S ~ .~.\ . % tom`, :;; ~ ti ~d ` ~ 10 fti ~" _ ~.J'.y. t .~ 1. ~. • h~ • ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~.`j .•w •, - .. _ - - '~. BARRIE D. COATS Attac~iment 4 and ASSOCIATES Horticuturel Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TIC AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: • - Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist July 18, 2402 Job # 04-02-071 A ~~~~o~~~ JUL 2 5 1002 CITY OF SARATOGA ^OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 000043 REVISED 772EE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOTgvIE[dDATIONS AT THE AA91JI PROPERTY 1 . 138!5 PIERCE ROAD SARATOCiA Assignment - At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new residence ~vith-a basement in-the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. ' The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, but are undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. We prepared a previous report regarding this property on May 14, 2002.- Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, at least 5 additional trees may be sufficiently damaged that they would not survive. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. i A bond equal to 15% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. - - Observations There are at least 33 trees on this site that may be exposed to some level of 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 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 7, 33 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #3 California bay laurel (Umbellulario californica) Tree #4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) ,,' Trees #5, l 8, 32 California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees #5, 9, 10, 12- 15, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #8, l 1 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree #25 Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menierii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure). are provided in the attachments that follow this text. PREPARED BY_ MICHAII. L BENCH, CONSULTIIVO ARBORIST ~ JULY I8, 2002 OOOOQ 4 RF.V ISED TREE SUR`IEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT T[~ AMIIJI PROPERTY 7 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA The health and structwe of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ~rafings~for the"33 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as -follows: Exceptional S imens Fine S imens Fair S "mens Marginal S imens Poor S ecimens 2, 5, 6, 9,10, 1, 3, 4,14, 16, 8, 15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27;-29, 3l 32 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedwes recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The root collar of tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collar when conditions are favorable for the disease. Risks to Trees by Proposed Constriction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing garage, and the existing out building has the potential of causing damage to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. -Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be „" considered lost. '' Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations for the footing of the residence and for the basement would result in severe mot loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within about 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the act~l cut would be at least of 2-4 feet beyond of the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide a workspace for construction. Thus, PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONS[JLTING ARBORi.ST JULY ] R, 2002 fl~~~~~ REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIdI PROPERTY 3 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARA'POGA the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree #2$. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system, and it would be rendered unstable, because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for stability. Preservation of tree #28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Also, bear in mind that tree #28 is only in fair health. A tree that is in less than ideal health is less tolerant of root loss. This has a bearing on the proportion of root loss which it will tolerate. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the Location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavation within 20 feet of the trunk. Tree #30 is also a coast live oak that has a trunk diameter of 21 inches. In order for tree #30 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk If the location of the residence were located 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition as well if protection of the root zone between the house and tree trunks is effective. However, this relocation of the residence would put tree #9 at risk unless the terrace is redesigned. This is partially based on the assumption that the proposed terrace is a masonry structure that wouldrequire afooting. If a soil cut of even 4 inches in depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely, suffer significant root losses. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench locations be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. _ Comments Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees behind the house, oak. trees # l 0, 13; 16, Monterey pine # l 1, Deodar cedar # 17, than to risk those tares in front of the house. If trees # 10, 11,13, 16, and 17 are removed, I also recommend the removal of trees # 15 and 19; which are poor specimens primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that trees #27, 28, and 29 must be preserved, partially because of their large size and excellent health. Tree #30 is also , - large but of poorer health, a condition which may be correctable. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. Irl this event, it would not be feasible to construct a turf block driveway between trees #23 and 24. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and tree #24 requires a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constricted on toy of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed in PRF.PARFD BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTINCs ARBORIST JULY 18, 2002 ~~0~? V • • • REVISED TRFR SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMI;'NDATIONS AT THE AMWI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA order for the driveway to be moved. In the event of the tatter, I recommend that tree #23 be retained because of its larger size and better condition. The plan appears to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to tree # 1 than the existing driveway. In this event, tree # 1 would not be expected to survive. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans are changed after permits are issued. 2. I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. Sear in mind that the other trees, such as trees #3, 6, 31, and 33 have minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require is as follows: Tree #3 -10 feet Tree #6 -18 feet Tree #31 - 20 feet Tree #33 - 18 feet - 3. I recommend that the footprint of the residence be relocated 10 feet toward the west in order to expect the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. This relocation would require a redesign of the terrace. There must be no soil cuts within 20 feet of the trunk of tree #9. 4. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence 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 5. I recommend that a root buffer be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees # 14, l 8, 20, and 21. A root buffer consists of 6 frill inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is -not acceptable for this pwpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 6. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of trees #20 and 21 and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, the drain location must be redesigned. 7. I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arboris~ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST M.Y 18,2002 0~~~~"r REVISED TkF.E S17RVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMiM PROPERTY 5 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA 8. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside 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, the. city arborist must be consulted. 9. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree which this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 10. I suggest that the root collar of tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the bumess roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an air spade or --- pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minunum space of approximately 12 .. inches around the trunk must be exposed Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 11. Any old imgation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 12. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #1, 6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Imgate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy'circumference. 13. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees: Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. 14. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 15. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation. 1 b. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done ," closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's ~~ trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 17. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the driplines of oak trees. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL I.. BENCH, CONSiILTiNG ARnORIST JULY IR, 2002 UOV~ ~S REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAT:DN RECO1vQvllTTTiDATIONS AT THE AMINJ PROPERTY ~ 13815 PIII2CE ROAD SARATOGA 18. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. ' 20. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation,1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 21. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 22. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated The discharge must be directed a minimum of 1 S feet to the side of the trunk of arty tree. 23. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. • The following trees are expected to be removed. Tree # S $2,088 Tree # l 0 $4,02b Tree # 11 $3,608 Tree # 13 $4,831 Tree # 16 $2,442 Tree # 17 1 204 Total $18,199 They have values as follows: This is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. Replacements are suggested The combined value of all of the other trees is $189,753. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTINCr ARBORIST JiJI.Y 1s.2ooz ;;" OOO~a ~ REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC()r9v~7dDAT1ON5 AT THE AMINI PROPERTY '~ 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA . Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia _ - Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus califorrtica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitt , ~.~.oAti_ Michael L. Bench, Associate•~ `~• ~~ _ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLBlsI. Enclosures: Refer to Report May 14, 2002 ,; ;; • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST JULY I8, 20D2 00050 SARATOGA FIRE 406 667 2760 04/29! .~• Attachment 5 - BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST N/A means NOT APPLICABLE FILE #: 02-013 DATE: April 26, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE APPLI ANT. ~ jn ~ ~ ~ -- LOCATION: 13815 PIERCE ROAD f p11.2.ef? L - 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. NOTE: FIRE FLOW REQUIRED N EXCEEDS HYDRANT CAPACITY.I3R SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. Y~ 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) J 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. {Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. Y~ 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (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]) N~ 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) y J 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8669 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and alI ,~ calculations shall be submitted to the •fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. NOTE: NFPA 13R WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, NO FDC. • lon~anecker-02-013-13815 pierce rd.wpd 000051 SARATOGA FIRE 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-013 408 867 2780 04/29/02 09:46am P, 012 NIA 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrants} that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Y ~ 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. , Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to l l % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. aY B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. , C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a .public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 12: Turn-arounds: construct aturn-azound at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details. shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. ; Y 13: parking: Provide a parking azea for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading; ,: Chief • longanecker-02-013-13815 pierce rd.wpd ~oooo~z • C O OQ ~ ~ @~~ oo ~ [` _ ~ Attachment 6 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENIJE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 Apri130, 2002 Mr. Mike Amini 10566 S. De Anza Boulvard Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: 13851 Pierce Road Geotechnical Clearance Dear Mr. Amini, COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsrnith We have issued revised Geotechnical Clearance for the above referenced project. It is based on the Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated Apri129, 2002. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~~ ' Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer (408) 868-1274 Attachments: 1. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions memorandum prepared by Iveta Harvancik, dated Apri130, 2002 ;; 2. Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated Apri129, 2002. - Cc: Community Development Department, City of Saratoga 00003 Panted on recvcfed oaoer ~- MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Department CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Revised Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Amini,13851 Pierce Road DATE: Apri130, 2002 • Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure tha>~ their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface ;; drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections. and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization,of the Grading Permit. -1- 000054 _ / `i I 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project.prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. • • -2- 000J~S ~ . '~ ~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: john Cherbone, Public Works Director FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review (S0061B) RE: Amini 13815 Pierce Road • DATE: Apri129, 2002 At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of -the subject application using: Supplemental Letter - Geotechnical Geological Investigation (letter), prepazed by GeoQuest, Inc., dated .April 12, 2002. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION • The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing one-story residence, and construction of a new, two- story residence with, basement and. attached garage in the general location of the existing residence. No grading plan indicating the extent and amount of earthwork quantities has been provided for our review. In our first review memorandum (dated February 5, 2002), we noted that the proposed development is potentially constrained by slope instability associated with reactivation of an underlying large landslide (Ols), shallow landsliding on the existing cut and fill .slopes in the northern and central portions of the property, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, downslope creep and shallow landsliding of colluvial and non- engineered fill. materials, and strong seismic shaking. Consequently, we recommended that an engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation be performed to address the potential constraints involved with proposed development of the property. In our second review memorandum (dated April 12, 2002), we noted that the Project Engineering Geologist had conducted an Engineering Geologic Study and concluded that the underlying lazge landsli (OLs) is relatively stable and that the ro osed develo went is feasible from a eolo 'c stand oint. Th P P P g gl P Project Engineering Geologist also concluded that active shallow landsliding occurring in the northwestern ~OOJ~6 ;~ John Cherbone - , ~ Apri129, 2002 .Page 2 ~ S0061B Sportion of the property does not threaten the proposed improvements. However, if additions are proposed for this area in the future, we recommended that additional geotechnical investigations be performed to determine geotechnical feasibility. We also noted that the Project Geotechnical Engineer had investigatesi_the site conditions and provided geotechnical design criteria. However, the two independent consultants' understanding of the extent and thickness of existing fill material was inconsistent. Specifically, on Page 6 of the previous GeoQuest report (dated March 29, 2002), the Project Geotechnical Engineer stated that "Coyle (the Project Engineering Geologist) estimates the house area fills to be as thick as 10 feet." However, no design recommendations were presented for the basement structure to address this fill material. Consequently, we recommended that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be performed to clarify the nature of the existing artificial fill and whether the proposed basement will extend through the fill materials. We also recommended that the Project Geotechnical Engineer re-evaluate recommended design criteria for the emplacement of piers through the existing fill materials (if necessary), especially considering the close proximity of the proposed development to creep prone slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Our review of the above referenced document indicate s that the Project Geotechrucal Engineer has considered our comments and addressed our previous concerns. The Project Geotechnical Engineer states that no fill is anticipated in the area of the basement. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer has reiterated the design criteria for the basement (noting that the basement should be supported on a rigid structural mat) and the design criteria for the house foundation (noting that the non-basement portions of the house should be supported on deep drilled friction piers). The Project Geotechnical Engineer also states that any piers located within 20 feet of the adjacent north-facing slope should be designed to resist creep forces to a depth of 8 feet below ground surface. Consequently, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of permits: ;; :; 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Reviews -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geoteclutical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. ~DOJ~"~ ,--1 _ John Cherbone ~-- ~' April 29, 2002 Page 3 S0061B , The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by.the Project Engineering Geologist Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geologic and Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project -construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The. results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior #o final project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a vis~ review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions aze made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. oOV~4~ r~ i ,1~u 1 29 02 07: 57a i , GeoQuest, Inc. 408-8 Attachment 7 ~.. ~. :~-: .~.. _- :.,~~. GeoQnest, Inc. 29 July 2002 Project No. 02-105 Mr. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild -- 10566 S. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, California 95014 Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW - GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Proposed Moazeni/Amini Residence 13815 Pierce Road - Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Amini: In accordance with your request, GeoQuest, lnc. is pleased to provide this response to the City of Saratoga review of your project for the proposed residence at 13815 Pierce Road in Saratoga, California. GeoQuest, Inc. previously submitted a 29 March 2002 Geotechnical Investigation report for the project (hereinafter "Report"). Mr. John Coyle of John Coyle & Associates, Inc., Engineering Geologists ("Coyle"; Los Altos, California) also performed a geologic evaluation of the property and presented the results in a March 28, 2002 report. In addition, a 12 April 2002 Supplemental Letter was submitted by GeoQuest, Inc., responding to City of Saratoga (hereinafter "City") concerns presented in an April 12, 2002 review Memorandum from the City. It is understood that the City now is considering requiring that the planned house be moved 10 feet further back (north) on the site. Moving the house back would extend both the basement and the non-basement portions of the house significantly closer to the unstable intermediate slope north from the house area. This cut-fill slope is as steep as 1.25 horizontal to I vertical, likely contains up to 10 feet of fill material, and has failed in two places. The City's earlier Memorandum expressed concerns about the proximity of the house to the slope, which were addressed in GeoQuest's supplemental letter. The previous Report, Mr. Coyle's work, the City's Memorandum, and the supplemental letter were based on the placement of the new house at the approximate • - - 2b7.2U Fourth Street, a ~ ~ Snrnlo~a, CA 95117(1 phone 40R.SG8.O1G8 Cax ~OR.8GS.9064i Cmaurer~'spacbel 1. net ~Q~~~~ ~~1 29 02 07:57a GeoQuest, Inc. 408-868-9068 p.2 1 r R Proposed Moazeni/Amini Residence _ Project No. 02-105 13815 Pierce Road 29.July 2002 Saratoga, California ' - ` - - Page 2 location of the existing house. This provides sufficient clearance from the steep intermediate slope to the house such that the basement will be supported on non-fill insitu soils, and the remainder of the house and improvements, provided they are drilled pier-supported, will be provided sufficient buffer from the unstable slope. It also is understood that moving the house may entail the removal of several trees on or near the steep slope behind the house, resulting in further de-stabilization of the slope. The undersigned has discussed moving the house closer to the slope with Mr. Coyle, and bath the undersigned and Mr. Coyle recommend against such a move. This letter consists of professional opinions and conclusions by a consulting geotechnical engineer. The onlywarranty orguarantee made by the consultant in connection with services performed for this project is that such services are performed with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of this profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time, and in the same or a similar locality. ~ ` We trust that this letter- sufficiently addresses the City's concerns. If you have questions, please call the undersigned. Sincerely, ~r1 // ~l ~~ Frederick Maurer, Jr. Geotechnical Engineer ; • GeoQuest, Inc. OOOOf O ~~. ~(~ • ,1 LLL..]]] U ~~ pUG 13 2002 ~rrv oh sniin~ro~n • _ ~~'&, ~. r i+, ~r t~ ~ ~ MOAZENI & AMINI L. I 4'. • ~~ ~~ ,1 PP I j a\\ qr \\ 1l1 Per41Mr { \\ r° ~ moo. ~ r~,~ „ex moo. ° eze• r . ruerolva~xa ~\ \. ro ee ecnoto, ° lurora ~ .zo• • ~ ro et levrto. b n ~ \\ \ ~\ Rr iag7+ r eowi ~ r0 a IIQtOKD. Q~j \\ PP \\ N2' ~ ~ ~ ° ~u ~ ez¢ POOL NOOSE m e tr \ `~ ~~ SITE PLAN ~ ~ ~~' NoT TD 6cdLE ~'a` ' ; ~~ _ _ ° ~~ \ n,~ ~ I ~ I ~ PROPOSED BASEMENT eta `~ R'' SHgIN SHADED AREA, ' 0 O'7i1W ~ !0>DV ;~ ~ I ~ \ PROP05ED MAIN FLOOR Hi ~ ~ I ~- ~ '.'.I 6NOUN SINGLE HATCHED LINE. \ v ~ 6 I a ~ 1 e y 1 ~~ ~~..'~' \ e PROPOSED UPPER BOOR 'F+j el~' ~ ~` \ '` o V SHpW DOUBLE HATCHED LME. 7 ( ~ \~ ~ ~ \ ~FP ~ e22' ° ~. ~ I ~ ~ C ° ~O \ 1 \ \ `~ 4 9'~ ~~~ ,>\ 1: \ \ • . 1 ~ ~` F oV ~ 1 ~ o III -: \ _ . e 1'15 .J '(3 F i i 1' e 16' I ~ ~ 7 4 - ° ~. etl• 0 T G I ° 8' ~ i ee ° ------- --- --- MTS - -- _ - -- - - - - - Py/ L'v NOTE : ~ ~~~\~\ W ~ \ .y THE STORM DR.dMAGE WILL BE REtAIN WITHIN THE PROPERTY iHROWH DRT WELL SYytEM R ee~eaEa a e ,~ c~ 51TE PLAN ~- ~r SCALE: I".70'•0" ~' ,y GOVERA6E a FA.R. 51TE AREA : 16b57 SO. FT.I 11591 ACERS 1 dLLOUABLE FAR SIDS 5O. FT, MAx FIPERNOUS COVERdGE: IyID00 50. FT. TABULATION GARdGE : 693ID090FT. MAWI FLOOR AREA 331900 90FT. UPPER POOR dREd : I%125 50. FT. tOTAL; 599325 6OFT, BASEMENT AREA : 7319 60. FT. NOTE 5EE ATTACHED CALCULATION CF AVERAGE SLOPE AND FLOOR 4REA BY: LEE ENGNEER5.1711 PARK AVENUE , SAFI JOSE , Cd, 951!6 1EL: (1081793.3833 SHEPT INDBX A10 SITE PLdN / PLdNNIIY DdTA dl.l AREA CALCULATION DIAGRMiS A70 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN N.I MAIN FLOOR PLAN A71 UPPER FLOOR FLAN. 4,1 ROOF PLAN, d11 ExTER10R ELEVATION (FRONT) A12 EXTERIOR ELEVdTION (R'cdRl 613 EXTERIOR ELEVATION (LEFt (RIGHT J 65J BUILDING SECTIONS. A52 ~ BUILDING SECTIONS. 6y3 BUILDING SECtI0N6. CL. CQ~CEPNdL LdNDSOAPE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP. RE\191ON9 BY If+~~i~~i;li =~1~~ ~~l~il g~~~ `lil{iril 00 Q r O ~ _ ~ N m Q U Q ~ ~ U W a~ ~ O ~ ~ a N ~~_ a ~~~ ~y ~'~ ~~ 8 ~ ~~ V ~~~ .~ ~~ n~ A1.0 • • ~~ eniln 1 oAtV1 i ~ 111 MAIN FLOOR DI A~6RA~M UPPER FLOOR D 1 ~46R~M BASEMENT aI,~GR~M UPPER FLOOR AREA : H61.75 SG7Fi, GARAGE AREA : 653 SOFT. MAIN FLOOR AREA : 3319 6OFT, UPPER FLOOR AREA : 196175 5G1FT. TOTAL 599375 50F1. 8A5EMENT AREA : 7319 50FT. 101AL _ 14999 SOFT. IMPERVIOUS LOT GOYERI~6E DIA~6R,4M lsls sca.rr. GARAGE AREA. 65350FT, MAPI FLOOR AREA ~ 3319 SOFT. TOTAL 4037 SOFT. RMSWNS 8> g ++ t f~~}jai~~~til, d ~~ g;[~i{III+ij~~ o~ ar O O ~ ~ ~ ~ U Q ,~ ~ U 3 w a a c~ ,~ o 0 ~ ~ Q r- N ~~V~ •~I ~~ V c~ p !8~ LLM c}q 8~~ ~ ~~~ U -~~ i:ern .nu A1.1 PATIO I 936 SpFT. PAi10 7 7008 90FT. PATIO 3 ~ 1475 SOFT. ~ WALKWAY 785 5Q FT. - WALKWAY I AROWD PCOL 1081 50. FT. 5WIMMING POOL 809 SO. FT. MAIN HOUSE ~ d037 5OFi. u.. cw I D ~~, ~~~ i ___________. 10315' for a xm p~ }~ tlelitlSY i 1 II ~~~ e~nl ~ a Cam. ffi~! BA5EMENT PLAN .ENSgNS ~ ~~i}~('~1~~~ ~~i~i>,1 ,> SI~I~Ail~~~ii; g,[~f~llf~i~il o~ an goo _ ~ ~. ~~ Q U Q ~ ~ U w_ ly a ~ ^1 N ~ I- ~ ~ Q •- U7 ~~~~ •~ryM I.I 3 q ~~~ ~ ~~~ SFr 8~~ U ~~~ ~m ~~ ~. ,~,~.. A2.0 • • P[NSIONS B+' ~i~[1~,~~~li ,1 ~ , ! !' »~ ~I~I~dill~t'1 ~,~El~ll4;lllf o~ Qn 0 _ ~ m d ~ U w_ ~- ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q ~~yi CAI g M d8~ ~n, ~$~ w a~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ .~. ~.. .a. ~~ A2,1 • SEGOND FLOOR PLAN XMSiO~ ~ ~~ !~!~'~iji~~ ~ls~ lr~~, ~l,~~~~(i ~, a ~i ,~~~ ~ gi~i~i~~~~lll) oa a n O ~ Z ~ N g °i U Q oe ~ U W yZj a ~ ~ ,~ o ~ ~a ~N b= :~ ~ ~ a ~~~ ~~~ d ~a~l, `' ~!~ U ~.. ~. ..~¢ m ~~ A2.2 • U • ROOP PLAN ac. u~~.r.o. .[YIyONS .r ~~i ,r I ~~ ~I~f~ i~~~li~+ ~i~~j~ll~~~~l o~ a n ~ O ~ d' N ~ ~. Q U U ~ ~ W a a ,~ o ~ ~ a ~~ b~ .'~. V S b ~~~ ~ ~~ ~LL. y ~~~ 8~ ~ ~~~ U -~~ P~ R p0® R. -RO mA4. AO AGM M,MP YMlY A3.1 [i II~~~~~i~;ll li~~~;;~11~~~~ i~ ~;[Ql~Il~i~~i • .] 1317_Y ox. Ta+ FtaiE a ,~ 5 1231~Y Il^FER ROOR LEVEL 1137 naN RooR Level RiN! 6NMION ~~ D a~~~. 6NATION 6NATION 1110Nf 14NA71011 FRONT ~L~Y~4TION !G IlY.I'~C 144 DDL fLf Rdie rMlw oea LexL o~ Qr 0 _ ~ rn W Q ~ ~ U W as (7 ~ O 0~0 Q N ~~y~ icy W ~ 8 ~~ N ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ iii r w omo w. m wem+.a aw A4.1 • .M90N5 B+ i~~~ ``~ "llj 5~~~~;~11~t~1~ ,r ~;Cl~ilhild o~ an goo ~~ WQ ~~ ~ U U W a ~ N ~ OMO Q ~~ ~~ P u ~~~ ~, ~~~ ~~ 8~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~.~ .~ ~~ W m ~~ A4.2 ~. wiE er,~Ana+ LR f1Ot' a N 6NATON ^ 0 Fl1ONf 6NAfION ,7 138.00' A 1laR 6NATION 6NA1fOlI 6NA71OlI A1ONT 6NATON • 13~ tOP Rart @3~ ooR LEVEL IIY .OCR LEVEL arn~a+s er ~~j~l,i~~~li !!11 1 II j , I I~~~;al~~~~il .~ ~;~~l~1I!i~~l O ~ Qn ~ O ~ ~ W Q y~ ~ U W a~ ~ O ~ ~ b~ r~ ~ = V ~ q ~~~ ~ ~~ ~LL T 8~~ ~ ~~~ U -!~ Or R NO 069 h AAP. ur .wa +.w A4.3 r• • • • ~30~ uan. Lenr 10PQ R~r! 131]5' A - - - ~ EL. r01' rLaR D I II a~fi I ~ ~ I Mb LI06E6Y LLtlsY M I~ I4]5' i i ~ g ~ oeL. rcr Rnrtrcr Rnrt --Y urPl~ PLOOR Level IIIIDO' r~r Roar ~ Q1tlQ 1ld~ ~Y tlfJil~Y D_GeR ~SdOC PMI6U NIIO Ilvll 113. ~ ~ 2 FIAM ROOR Ll1tl NNN 0.008 L!V!L 112.00' I@95' Nmuw. rwme LMe. rMieu aa~aae tioule 110.00' NAIWIL danD[ LPl[ Gdl G~GIOR.~P M deLLlSlY ~d 5EGTION A-a ea w•.r•o• moons I!r lil P!~ ~ li ~~~1~~ I~JI~a~lllt~~~ ,~ g;{~~~111~~~d o~ an 0 Z ~ ~ K ~ t U Q ~ ~ U ~ w a~ N O ~ ~ ~~ U a ~~~ ~,~ 0 ~ a~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ "[j'• A5.1 i; iF ~~ u • 5EGTION G-G SECTION B-B • .MS~OPS Br ~~~'1~~ I~~I~e;li~~,~# gi~iii~~~,~il~ o~ Qn O° __ ~ N W Q ~ V U W a a c~ N ~ ~ ~a ~~ b~ :~ V~ s ~ A ~e~ ~~~yy /~ ~°', ~ a~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~. ~. .., ~~ A5.2 rL\ 'b ~~ • secTloN a-e AG ut•.P~O' seGTION D-D • I~t1~, Il~~~ ~~,iia li~~~;i~l~~~ip ~~ ~~~~' 1 li{i~i~~~,iil~ o~ Q~ 0 =gym U Q ~ ~ U W a~ ,~ o ~ ~a ~N b~ S P V ~8~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ -~ a~~ ~ ~¢ ~ ~~~ -1.1T a.. w ro Omm R O91# 1(16t ~~l\ A5.3 4; J,~- RE~15~ON5 ~ I f i i P\~J F\\ `!A V• .\\ \ ~~\~ ~'\ ~ \ ' .k \• i ~~ AROTOSTAPNYL05 N00!CERI ,~`~~~-' '" MONTEREY OAR°ET "- - •\\ ~ iMANZANiTA GROUNDOOYER) r \ 36"ESOk •~I~O ••\ •,, /-NATIVE GRASSES `~ / SEOlUOiA SEMPERvI~NS ;~ ~; ~~ ~; __ rcoa5r REDUaoD1 ;~ _ ~ ; ,~a • of AOER OIROINATUM ° ~ ° $ ~~\ ~' iVINEMAPLEI ~ V -•-.. RF ~ ~ 2r `\ ~ 36" BOk e ~ ~ ~ .... >f ---- \J ~~:"~ ~, ~ OLEA EUROPEA "SWAN HILL" ~ ' ~~ •~. Iq.IVE '?JON FRUITING'? 36.. Elk i' .: \ i ~ - SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS ° 'Y ~ ~ ' oN ° (OOA5TREDWOODI ~ \ ~ 0 C~ ., ~ .. ~ . _, ~ ~~, i ~ ~ , r ~ -- .\, yvf~~ l BOA. "' ~\ ne. ` \ vv ~ ~~ 1 ~ .Sa V .I r ~~ ~, 1 \ , ~a~2 d \ ~ ~ ~ `~ 1 I .~ 'a `~ ` v ~ ~} ~' ~~ ~ `' ~°, 1 ,~ _ ~ Ac 1 ~ \ I ~` '~ o ~ . F{ 0 \ ~ ~ ® ~~,. ~~ , ( ~ ~'ii41"~ • '., I ~^~ ~' I ' ~ ~ ~, • ~ ~ I ', , n - '~~I ~ ~ , ~ i ~ .L t --- ------------ - --r- ~4-~ r - r~+- - ~~.~-- GONGEPTUAL LANDSGAP~ PLAN r ~' ~~ • ~ PP ~. ~O\\~ 'i ~d FII ~ ~'_ C.\I \. ~':'; NATIVE GRASSES OEANATNUS "JULIA PNEIPS" (OALIFORJIA LILAOI ` •~., ,0 I ;' '{` ~ ~~ \, L: \ ~,/ ~ 9 ~~ Gz~ -NATIVEGRA55E5 ~^ 36" eox OLEA EUROPEA "5WAN NILL' (OLIVE "NON FPoIITMG"1 i~i~,r~~~~, ~ ~ ~,an tit ~f~I~e' ~t`~ ~ ,al~~,jl~; ~ ,~ ~-"~ `s;~~i~111~i,~i O O a" 0 _ ~ m a ~a ~ ~ U w w a~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q b? V < x ~ ,~s b ~~ 9pLL `~~ w ~~~ ~~ v ~~~ .r wb ~w -- ~ ~t- soar ~ ~. L. ~. ,llA~. ~ L, • NOTE; REFERENCED ASSUMED B.M.: TOP OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ON PIERCE ROAD IN FRONT OF DRIVE WAY EL.: IDD.IS LEGEND --°-- SET 3/L' I.P. RCE# 28551 0~ -'- FOUND 314' I.P. PER BK. IIL, PG. 16 ~Qti --- DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE o - -~~------ WOOD FENCE ~ -----• ---- CHAIN LINK FENCE e b 99. EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT y° • S 0°26'54' E 90.08' '°' /1 B 150.79 .'~ \\ i I a 50.7] -~ 31 / / ` ;j0.39 I/ I// 022' 1 .68 50.91 / ~ 5029 1 /0. 6 4 95 50.23 ~o '; 5,7 ~ ~ 0 16' /j 3 . X19.1 3 38. C n ~ ~~ 19.8/ °p~ 30.1 ,\i 5022 N '~o c 20 50,04 27.6 30.6 51.02 /~ 16.50 i +' 100. ~i~. ~i ~~~ S 0°19'48' W 360.51 PP ~,, ¢ 96.11 F\\ 95.30 '•f\ 91.9~~~ ~ \\ 95,10\ •.`gE,.94 f s N 41°52'30` E ', i ~ ~~10.86' 5.59 \ f}~,.. f_ ~ \ 022' .70 \ ' {t' a s yo - .. mzo• -. J' '10037 ' i5 I 96.76 10 IS ~' ' 49.1 \ C~Z 9 I I ~~ yI~PP IS x.022' 98.67 ~ ~~,T0231 2 0~, ~ 10226 " _. ~'~ 1oo.7s ~ e ,. '7`.101.0 101.9 PCOL NOUSE R2~ •: ~~SB±.t. ~.. ~ ~ ~. 9~ ?I' 10 75 ' '101.31 4010 012' p235 ~~~105,67. r ~ \ ~~ y~T \ m 10223 2+~ i .~~'103.JJ'~ ~ JD 1~ p•~~06.90 . \\ y Z2 ~ _ i. 'p s:f ~l ~ ~ Jo,~~ 1x,76 '{ .. '~!0&dL ~ \ ~~ ~~ ~ ', A f ~ ~ 105.161 i~F~ y ~ e 0737 ~ 10 ~ 7 'QD ~. 0 1. a ~' 5.81 u i ..i ~ '030 `~ ~7. \ G 021' jOT. •..~. ~.55 SD ~-~ 406.58 C .~ "",0 i + , 108.95 i \ 1. L,A6N .s , J. .\706.41 \, Q ,"110.05 0931 110 ~~ j ' 1 ~ VV ~ `'u + ~~\ X107.62 9T~ORAGE` 0. 1t0.738~ ` X021' 036°~1 .~ \ \ ` m DECO 10.71 C•~'~i,~-"~~ ~`y+ aTD \ ~IOB~60 - +o ozo• o2a ~ •. 6 f C X08.51 I 1 '< ~S uTm ll . o'.. vv 026 9 t ~c I. t c e3o• ~ ° 1 vP ' ~, '~ 5 188 `, ~ 1u.16 c PATID .71 N 59°00'30' E i ', 7sl ~~ 7 26.28' !112.61 Oy \ 9 _ ,. - I 10.09 Y, 5 I \ 't I ' ~ 19 ~;~ _ 12.60 - E. O V \'`. ~1 pp - 0 1 + 12.IA 112.12 0~6' `~~ - :III. ~'~. 1.06 0N' Q2 \,,, ~ ; V~. ^ ~: N \', 228 1 3 I16~(.0 ~+• 2.17 % I P \ 's, ~~J` •~~ .>•112.17 C UJ ~, 11237 F' ' 13.85 \ ,o ~ .77~, ,T'!30' 021' h ~I \ ~ ~~ 12 ,a,: v5 , 0~. 111.5 ~'~•~. I ,~. of J ~ 7 .831132] ~ If .Bt 5 02 ~\ 1B' / N 11112.62 - `u11522 _.__ Ii . ?112.2 - - o X11 , hs us.z9 \ - I -' - -- - ' 9 6 X1.97 ~T~i 111.95 ~~ 3. ~ y10. 116.091\\ - - - 90.3 96. ' 01.91 \ 7 .3B - 9. g -- -...-85. ~ :/9 L' - ~ • 8. _ 85.73 91.28 ~ - 108,10 108.32, ' - ' 79.21 N 59°00'30' E ~ i 10.00' ~ '~~~' `Y 0 I I ~-~ LIJ Q U AREA = 16,652 SOFT. (1.1591 ACRES. ) •~... I(1 v t~;. ~'I S:-:,..i., ~.... ,1 .L ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-130 /15000 Bohlman Road Applicant/Owner: Henry Yang /Daniel Fu Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planne~~ Date: September 11, 2002 APN: 517-13-024 Department Head: 15000 Bohlman Road C~ OQOQIDI EXECUTIVE SLfMMARY CASE HISTORY .. - _ _ Application filed: 7/01/02 Geotechnical Clearance Issued: 7/30/02 Application complete: 8/13/02 Notice published: 8/28/02 Mailing completed: 8/28/02 Posting completed: 8/22/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 39,986 (net) square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 5,140 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review applications by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Application Number 02-130 2. Saratoga Fire District Conditions 3. Arborist Report, dated August 1, 2000 4. Arborist Report, dated June 19, 2000 5. Applicant Statement, dated September 11, 2002 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped 6/26/02 • • • Q~~~~ File No.02-130;15000 Bohlman Road ZONING: R-1 40,000 STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,560 (gross) square feet / 39,986 (net) square feet SLOPE: 19% Average Site Slope 18% Slope at Building Pad GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires grading a total of 650 cubic yards of cut and 650 cubic yards of fill. Maximum cut depth is 6 feet and maximum fill depth is 5.5 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include a grey-brown (Muddy Creek) stucco exterior finish, off-white trim (Worchester), and sandstone stone veneer in an oatmeal color. Carriage style garage doors are proposed. Roof materials include slate in a charcoal brown color. • 00~©03 File No.02-130;15000 Bohlman Road P d C d R i ropose o equ rements e Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 24% 35% Building Footprint 2,450 sq. ft. Driveway & Walkways 3,600 sq. ft. Access Easement 3,574 sq. ft: TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 9,624 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 2,450 sq. ft. Second Floor 2,070 sq. ft. Garage 620 sq. ft. TOTAL 5,140 sq. ft. 5,142 sq. ft.1 - Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft.2 30 ft. Rear 60 ft. 60 ft. Right side 70 ft. 20 ft. Left side 70 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. ' Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15- 45.030(c)(d)). " " z The front building line.is setback 30 feet from the access easement and 60 feet from the front property line. • 000404 File No.02-130;15000 Bohlman Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant requests design review approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 39,986 (net) square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 5,140 square feet. The maximum height of the residence is 26 feet. The site is zoned R-1 40,000. Access to the proposed residence will be provided from an easement originating at Bohlman Road. Geotechnical Clearance was issued on July 30, 2002. Previous Permit History The subject parcel was created in 1998 subsequent to a two-lot subdivision. The two-lot subdivision resulted in the creation of the subject parcel number (517-13-24) address 15000 Bohlman Road and adjacent parcel number (517-13-23) address 15001 Bohlman Road. A design review application was submitted in the Fall of 2000; however, most of the application fees were refunded by the City as the owner decided not to pursue the application at that time. The original application was similar in square footage and architectural style to what is currently being proposed; however, a basement which was proposed in the original application has been eliminated. Arborist An Arborist Report was completed on June 19, 2000. Corrections to that report were completed by the Arborist on August 1, 2000. Documents on file with the Community Development Department indicate that tree #16, a Coast Live Oak, was up-rooted during a winter storm in 2001. The arborist has authorized the removal of several trees if desired by the applicant, but no trees are in conflict with the proposed project and no trees are proposed for removal. Bond monies and tree fencing are required pursuant to the Arborist Report dated August 1, 2000. Design Review A contemporary-style stucco residence is proposed. Prominent architectural features include hipped rooflines, and a grandiose covered front entry porch. The proposed materials and colors include agrey-brown (Muddy Creek) stucco exterior finish, off-white trim (Worchester), and sandstone stone veneer in an oatmeal color. Carriage style garage doors are proposed. Roof materials include slate in a charcoal brown color. The surrounding area is predominately characterized by large-scale two story stucco residences. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural elements which reduce bulk and break up massing, including modulation of building lines and rooflines. The second story is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and 000005 File No.02-130;15000 Bohlman Road stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are in conflict with the proposed project and no trees are proposed for removal. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: Typical lot sizes in the vicinity of the project range from 2-4 acres. Mature oak trees border the rear property line creating a substantial. landscape buffer for privacy. An open space easement in the area provides additional separation between residences. Large lots, mature vegetation, and an open space easement greatly reduce privacy interference between residences. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The proposed project will not adversely affect view sheds in the surrounding area. The applicant has documented a lack of opposition to the proposed project by property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The home will feature the latest in UV-protected window design, high and super efficiency heating and cooling equipment, energy star appliances, attic and ceiling fans, and high insulation ratings for the structure. Both the placement and the layout of the home are designed to take advantages of the solar path. Proposed landscaping is intended to screen for privacy .and shade. Furthermore the landscaping will be designed to minimize water usage. Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. As conditioned, the residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project satisfies all of the findings required for design review approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the. Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review approval application by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~ooooos APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. AttaC~lTriellt I CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Henry Yang & Daniel Fu; 15000 Bohhnan Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review and building site approval for the construction of a new 5,140 square foot residence on a 39,986 square foot parcel (net) ;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 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: - The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural elements which reduce bulk and break up massing, including modulation of building lines and rooflines. The second story is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are in conflict with the proposed project and no trees are proposed for removal. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: Typical lot sizes in the vicinity of the project range from 2-4 acres. Mature oak trees border the rear property line creating a substantial landscape buffer for privacy. An open space easement in the area provides additional separation between residences. Large lots, mature vegetation, and an open space easement greatly reduce privacy interference between , ", " residences. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The proposed project will not adversely affect view sheds in the surrounding area. The applicant has documented a lack of opposition to the proposed project by property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project. • OQ~©~ Application No. 02-130; 15000 Bohlman Road Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The home will feature the latest in UV-protected window design, high and super efficiency heating and cooling equipment, energy star appliances, attic and ceiling fans, and high insulation ratings for the structure. Both the placement and the layout of the home are designed to take advantages of the solar path. Proposed landscaping is intended to screen for privacy and shade. Furthermore the landscaping will be designed to minimize water usage. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry 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, application #02-130 for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 3. The site survey 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 written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 6. Storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development' and Construction'- Best Management Practices. If all -storm water cannot be retained on=site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. FIItEPLACES: Only one wood-burning fireplace per structure. , 8. FENCES: shall be restricted in height, area of enclosure, materials, length, and separation pursuant to Article 15-29 of the zoning regulations. Any future fencing is subject to planning approval prior to construction. • oooo~e Application No. 02-130; 15000 BohlmanRoad CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arbonst's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. All development review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 3). PUBLIC WORKS 11. The applicant's civil engineer shall amend the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan such that it includes all proposed engineered structures, walls, roads and improvements, areas of excavation and fill and existing and proposed topography. In addition, the Project Engineering Geologist shall provide the civil engineer with the locations of the mapped fault zone, and fault setbacks for habitable structures. The final proposed Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to Zone Clearance. 12. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall clarify and/or modify geotechnical recommendations and design criteria associated with the following: • The previous geotechnical and geologic report states (on pages 16-17) that excavations should be properly backfilled and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90%; however, no mention is made of the state of exploratory trench backfill. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall specify whether the exploratory trenches were properly backfilled and, if not, then confirm that a note requiring removal and compaction of trench backfill is included in the plan specifications. • From a standard of practice perspective, small-diameter (i.e., 12 inches and less) piers are generally not appropriate for sites located on narrow ridgetops and adjacent to fault zones because of the susceptibility to amplified seismic ground shaking. In addition, small-diameter piers are rarely used due to the difficulty of providing sufficient clearance between specified steel reinforcement and , sidewalls of the pier hole). Consequently, the Project Geotechnical Engineer , shall consider the benefits of minimum 16-inch-diameter piers for foundations. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall re-evaluate the recommended minimum 12-inch foundation pier diameter and provide modified pier design criteria. • The recommended hydrostatic pressure of 63 pcf for undrained walls is much too low. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall clarify the statement (page 23 of the previous report) that "a linear distribution of hydrostatic oooovs Application No. 02-130; 15000 Bohlman Road _ pressure of 63 pcf should be adopted", or provide a recommended pressure that includes both weight of the soil and water. The Project Geotechnical Engineer also shall re-evaluate the recommended active pressures for retaining walls, and in particular, confirm that design criteria for walls planned for the steep north-facing slope consider the presence of potentially expansive soils and susceptibility to creep. ~~ ~ ~ ~` - ~ '- The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations and Design Criteria shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 13. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project•Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 14. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall ensure_that structures are not sited over fault traces. Excavations created during demolition and construction activities shall be inspected and logged by the Project Engineering Geologist to document the presence or absence of fault-related features, and to evaluate any new geologic information that may be revealed in the new exposures. The Project Engineering Geologist also shall observe and log foundation pier holes to verify that piers do not penetrate faults. Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 15. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. • oooolo Application No. 02-130; 15000 Bohlman Road 16. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 17. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 18. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. -- 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 PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 11th day of September 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission 000011 Application No. 02-130; 15000 Bohlman Road ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • ~ OQ0012~ SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT AttaC~1T11eI1t 2 REVIEW AIvD COIvi1vIE1vTS FOR PLANNING DEPAK'1'Mi:N~1~ /A means NOT APPLICABL)C (FILE #: 02-130 DATE: Jnly 16, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE CANT: FU LOCATION: 15000 BOHLMAN ROAD 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2: Property is located in 3 designated .haZardouS fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) ~' ~~ Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (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]) 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within S00' from the residence and deliver no less than ].000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) ~: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 5,140 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system with FDC at the access road is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. • fu-15000 bohiman rd.wpd 000013 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-130 10: Aire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the f re district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed- and accepted prior to construction of any building. 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or. better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. 12: Turn-arounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. 13: parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the ftre department. Details shall be shown on building plans. 15: Bridges: Aii bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynanuc loading. OVED: dC~ ~ Ci~eP Kr~A~-c~-~ Chief Brnest I~raule • 000014 • I3ARRIE D. COAT'E _ and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408353-1052 Fax 408-353=1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos,'CA 95033 Attachment 3 A REASSESSMENT OF THE TREE PROTECTION DETAIL AT.THE FU PROPERTY BOHLIVIAN ROAD • ~ SARATOGA • : Prepared at the Request of: Mark. Connelly Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga • • 13777-Fnutvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site. Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist August 1, 2000 000©15 A Rtess~ent Qf The Ti+eeProfertior~.Detail 1 At'The Fri P~iperiy BoArlman Rrx+d Saratoga Assignment I met with Mr. Fu the owner, Mr. Liu the architect,- and the surveyor on August 1, 2000. - We reviewed my report of Jutte 14, 2000.1'he ptarpose of our tneeting.was to review the :pavement planned near tree # 16 at the entryway to the property and my comments about trees #3, 5, and 6. In addition, we discussed roadway locations adjacent to tree #1 and the hazard posed by a'. very tall Aleppo pine {Pi-:ur halepensis) which appears to be a coowned tree near the south side of the Fu propery. Discrtssiotr . ~ -- Inorder to clearly understand the evaluation of the affected trees, they can be classified as; . , Exceptional S ecimens Fine Specimens ~ Fair Specimens Margins! S ecimens ]6 . 1 l8 5 6 17 4 Exceptional .specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them is their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to .prevent decline. Fair specimens. are worth retaining but again withouE major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent fuRher decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to .facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant . decline. - `1. It was agreed that a different pavement. design would be used around tree # l 6, a very large coast live:oak at the entryway. The enclosed plan shows that entryway-redesign. 2. We measured the distance. between trees #1 and 2 and between #2; 3, 5 and 6. We found that I had been wrong in disagreeing with the location of those trees as shown on the original plan: My measurement was incorrect and the location shown on the original plan is correct. Prepared by:l3arrie D.': Coare, Consrtltiag Arborist August 1, 2000 • C7 • 000016 A Reassessneent ~f'The Tree Protection Detail - ~ t.The Fs Property Bo%lman Road . Saratoga 3. In the clump of trees #4;. Sand 6, which I had incorrectly located, a 6" diameter coast Iive oak_ which was unnumbered: could certainly be .removed, tree #6 could be removed if desired because: of its leaning structure and a unnumbered small bay tree, (Umbellulvriu caltfor»ica) which wraps around the irunl~ of tree #5 could certainly be removed to the benefit of remaining trees #4 and 5. 4. Tres #1 is dir~ectiy beside the existing. road and two limbs hang over the entryway drive. We agreed that moving the roadway away from the trunk of that tree by 3 feet would be advisable. ~ ~~ 5. Apparently .on the south property Line a large old Aleppo pine is virtually dead. This tree leans at a 60-degree angle toward the southwest, and is currently hazardous. This hazard will increase during the time it remains on site. I would strongly recommend that trees removal. Recomrnetidations 1. Change the' Location of the construction period fence around tree # 16 as shown on the enclosed plan before a~+ construction equipment begins working on the property. That fence must be at Least 15' from the trunk on the south and west side and at the drip Line on other sides. 2. A layer of organic material exists beneath the canopy of the tree, no additional organic material is necessary, 3..Install a soaker hose.at least 6 feet from the trunk of tree #16 but as close to the .projective fence as possible. Tfiat fence must be at least 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. 4. Run the soaker hose at least one day per week for two weeks-and then 1 day per month until November. This soaker hose should run very slowly at 5 gallons per hour to drip into the root zone but not spray: This irrigation should be used inside the exisring fence until that fence is rrioved to comply with the new grading that will be necessary. 5. The. minimum access road which .will travel partly beneath the canopy of tree # 16 must be composed in areas beneath the canopy of tree # 16 tailgated with 3/4- to i'/z-inch gravel. • Prepared by: Barrie ll. Coa~tr, Cons~dting Arborist August 1, 2000 000017 A Reassessment Of The -Tree Protectiol+ Detail ~ At The Fu Py+g•erty Bohl~nal Road Saratoga . No impervious. paviag may be installed beneath the canopy of this tree in this minimum access road area. 6. In October, I suggest that the tree be subsurface fertilized using Greenbelt 22-14=14 soluble fertilizer at 4 lbs/I00 gallons of water. 7. Trees #4, S, and 6. A protective fence section should be installed tv prevent tractors from working in :areas beneath those canopies where that ac4ivity is not necessary. 8. Remove tree #6. and the bay tree wrapped around tree #5 if desired. Tree #6 is, valued at. $1, 192 or equivalent to approximately one 36-inch box native tree. Acceptable native tree-replacements are: , Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak ~ Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Ater inacraplryllum California~buckeye-Aesculus californica Coast Redwood - Seguoid sempervirens 9. I suggest that the driveway be kept at least 3 feet from the south side of tree # I and that existing paving materials up to 3 feet away from that trunk.be removed with a jackhammer and hand loaded into a skip loader. As soon as. any impervious surfaces are removed from the area beneath this tree those surfaces should be coveredimmediately with a layer of organic material .and thoroughly watered with a sprinkler to apply at least 2-inches of water. I0. Retain the existing fence around trees #17 and 18 until project completion. 1 I . lmgate with soaker hoses beneath their canopies as previously recommend for tree #16. ' 12. Bonds A minimum bond of 10% should beheld for preservation of trees #4, S and b unless #6 is to be removed. #4 & 5 are valued at $5,872, bond = $587. #6 is valued at $1,192: A bond for 20% the value of tree # 16 should be asked, to assure installation and preservation offences. It is valued at $22,051: 20% _ $4,410. A bond for 10% the value of trees # 17 and 18 should be asked to assure the required irrigation: They are valued at $17,150. 10% _ $1,715. Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist August 1, 2080 • • ,: • ooools V ~ A Reassessment pf The Tree Protection Detail 4 At The Fu Pron~y Bohl~nan Road Saratoga Item 3, page 4 in our Lune 18, 2000.recommendation. This item is no longer required, the Fu's have complied with this recommendation by redesign of the driveway. The last paragraph on page 2. - In that report, I assumed~.that trees #2, 3, 5 and 6 would be removed due to the retaining wall design. Since I was in error..about the location of those trees, replacement for those trees is not necessary unless tree #6 is removed. Respectfully submitted, ~~-~~ ~ B ate ~ "" ' ~.o'~~ Enclosures: Map of tree #16 . BDC/sl i• . ~.. 1'nepared by:.Barrie D, Coate, CottsrtlWrg At~iotist August 1, 2000 000019 ~ ~ / ~ _ .~_ --~ ~, ~ N / / ~ ~ ~' o h _ ~ 391 ;,~,. ~, ^ R ~~ 24 .- 11 11 ~' .orb ® • -;^ a ~ l -.r P ~, I II ~I ~ ~ ~ -- ~----- --- I I - I ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ \ 1 ~ II I I ~~~_ ~,~~ Fence Lin ~ _ ~ I I I I $I I ~ ~ ~ ,~ - I Illlji ~, ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ------- - --- nn I I I I ~ .7 ~ ~ III I• .~~ ~~•. .~~ ~~ - I ~11 1 I ~~ (ICI \`_ ~~ ~-~ ` ~ ~` .~a. ~I I I ~ ~, - - -- - Construction I I`~ ~ P~' ~ . ~ ` ~ ~ -- - _ And Silt Fencing " I ~- ~ , ~ Ya`17 ' ;~` ` ~ ~~ - _ - - - `~ /~~~ii / / f ill 5 ~ \ ~ ~ '•~ '~ ~I-~ ~r~ `n ~ a~ ~. f ~ , i I. ~ SE M wr F.~ =199`od~ , ~. ~ a %1~ f f 4 • ~ ~ \ ~P'ROS~Ep~R f •EN~ ~~,~ m - lB ;~~ I i II j ~g j - ..._ 1..T 1 1 ~.~....~......1 I `: ~\ t •~ ~ ~ i5 i F~ I . ~ .' i ti ~ `I OZ ~ I ,~ ~ I~ ~ L v-,~ ` ~' pROPOSED-Mll~ 5E~ENT, :_..=-.~~~ •\"•• : ~ "~, • ~~ , ~ :-~:r : EGRE55': , _ •' :~_. Q Existing -ence / ~ O~ , ~ ~ j Construction ~` '' . `b`eg ~ ~ n _ 1~ ?-~ 1C~ ~_;~` _ Frotecti~e I~ - ~ ~ / ;Period Fence" ~ ~' -~s,"-•~-~ _ ~ _ - __------ - -_ _.. O -~% '/ RocK WAIL .~.. ~ ~ ~.~.---~ ---- ----` ____. ~~~~, ~ ~ ,rte;/~o~~~~~~ 786, ~ ~ -_ ~`~-_ -_---_-- ,,~~ ~, ,. SCALE: 1'~ 20' /~, ~ ,q A% ~ `~-. -5 _ ; ~ , BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (~08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE TREES ON THE FU PROPERTY BOHLMAN ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of IVlar)f~ Connelly Community Planning Department City of Saratoga .13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist June 19, 2000 • Job #06-00-152 Plan Received: 3une 14, 2000 Plan Due: ASAP • 4~'-~6~'-/23 0 ~000~1 Assessment Of The Trees On The Fu Property gahlman Road Saratoga Assignment I was asked by Mark Connelly to inspect the trees on the Fu Property across from 15001 Bohlman Road in Saratoga, as relates to potential damage of or removal of them during construction of the planned new building. Summary I found nineteen trees on site of a size large enough to be protected by Ciiy of Saratoga ordinance. AlI but two of those are coast live oak trees. The other two are northern California black walnuts in very poor condition and in my opinion should be removed. Unfortunately, several of the coast live oaks on site are currently infested with oak bark beetle {Pseudopithiphorus pubipennisJ. This is the one of the two insects, which :has caused such devastating loss of mature coast live oak trees in Morin Cou~y and in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It will be absolutely esse~iai that the affected trees be sprayed with ASTRO insecticide. immediately and again th early August in the hopes that it is not too late to save these trees. This pest control measure cannot wait for any other activity if these trees are to preserved. Discussion One of the largest trees on site and certainly the most prominent is tree # 16, around which a, driveway is planned Compaction of the sail and installation of impervious materials over this large a proportion ofthis trees root system would certainly cause its decline, and death over a period of years and should not be allowed. Tree # 17 a large coast live oak, has a very thin canopy and is in poor condition, probably due to the soil cuts on the two sides beneath the canopy, which would have removed large quantities of absorbing roots. ': It will be absolutely necessary to begin a biweekly irrigation of this tree immediately to get the root system working well again if:it is to be preserved. Note that the plan which was supplied to tas is erroneous in a very importa~ way, in that tree #~4 is not shown on the plan and the trees #4, 5, and 6 are shown 3U feet from their actual location Prepared by: Barrie D. Coats ConsuTtitrgArborist June I9, 2000 000~2~ • .4ssessmerrt Of The Trees Un The Fu Property Bohlman Road Smatoga 2 Unfortunately, this difference in location results in them being either directly between or directly adjacent to retaining walls, whose construction would severely damage the root systems. Recommendations 1. The retaining wall shown intruding beneath the canopy of tree # 1 must stop at the canopy mazgin. 2. Either change the locations of the retaining walls adjacent to trees #4, 5, and 6 or expect to sacrifice those trees. Inc reality, I corild imagine sacrificing trees #5 and 6 which are poorly formed even though they are healthy, and removing the retaining wall at least 10 feet from the trunk of tree #4. 3. Change the location of the entryway drive to be at least 15 feet from the trunk of that tree #4 in a~ direction. This may be entirely impaactiical and may actually require that the building be moved toward the east several feet to allow a new garage entry angle. 4. Install a soaker hose 6 feet from the trunk of tree # 17 and tum it on to run for 8 hours at 5 gallons per hour once per week for four weeks and then every two weeks for the rest of the summer. 5. Install 5 foot tall clrainlink fences on steel posts driven at least 18 inches into the ground which are spaced 10 feet or closer apart precisely as shown on the enclosed plan before any construction work or construction equipment appear and maintain those fences precisely as shown for the duration of the project until all contractors leave including painters and plasterers. 6. Install a silt fence precisely as shown on the south side of trees #8-15 to prevent any soil from being dumped down hill over their root zones. 7. After true locations of trees #4, 5, and 6 are identified by the surveyor, the protective fence will have to be provided for whichever of those trees can be preserved. 8_ Retain the existing protective fence around trees # 17, 18, and 19 as currently seen. 9. Locate the protective fence around the tree # 16 once a new procedure for paving near . that tree dripline is established. The value of trees which would probably have to be removed including trees #Z, 3, 5, and 6 is $3,761. That is equivalent to two 36" boxed and three 24"boxed replacement trees. Acceptable native tree replaceme~s are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrrfolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Tan oak-Lithocarpus dens~orus -- Big leaf maple - ~4cer macrophyll um Califonua buckeye -14esculus catrfornica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirerts • Value of the remaining trees #1, 4, 7, &15 and 16-19 is $93,523. Prepored by: Barrie D. Coats CorateltiegArborig June 19, 2000 40®423 Assessment OjThe Trees On The Fu Property Bohlman Road Saratoga 3 I suggest a bond for 25% of the value of trees # 1, 16, and 17 ($44,385) due to their importance and their high risk of damage to them (25°io = $11,096). I suggest a bond for 10% of value ($2,976) of trees #8-15 ($29,756) because of the ease of their protection if the protective fences installed precisely as shown are protected and silt fences are installed precisely as shown, and a bond of 20% ($1,991) of the value of trees #4, 7 and 19 ($9,957) because of the relative ease of protection if theretaining wall near tree #4 is moved Bonds would total $16,063. Respectfully submitted, ~~ B oate ~~~ C"- -" Enclosures: Tree Data Charts Map Protective Fencing Silt Fencing - Western Bark Beetle & Ambrosia Beetles BDC/sl ' Prepared by: Barre D. Coate, CottsultingArbortst tune 19, 2000 • •i •' ®00024 Job 'Title: Fu Property Job Address: Bohlman Road Job #06-00-152 _ Tune 19, 2000 BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES 1408) 353 1052 13S3S fuooi Yo~d taefala,U 95030 eY # Plent Name 1 Coast Live Oak uerCUS a HAolla . in 2 Black Walnut Ju lens hfndsU . In 3 Black Walnut . In 4 Coast Live Oak 5 [7 Oak ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ I~~~h 11 0~ I y Z F of W W W ~ it1 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ' ~a I "~ ? ~ ? Z,~ ~w " ~n ~' 0 7 w s .~. _ ~ ~ U t ~ Z 2~ 2 2 ~ y lq ~ O O O 3 ` LL ,~ m ~ m m ~ w tr ~ = Z O O~ O~ O ~~ II1f -' ~ w W ~ z ~ ~-- o o O O G a ~ O ~ oC m x x~ w t w ~ O w w V ~ o 0 o s rn x rn v x ~ v~ v v o: ~ a ? F ~~ F ~ ~ z z ~ 28.0 28 40 40 2 2 4 ~r 815 X $27lsq. in. _ ; 16 817 X sp. doss 100% _ $18 817 X coed! 75°~ _ ; 12 463 X Ioc.100°,G = ; 12,483 Tolal Value 8.0 7.0 4.0 918 20 30 3 4 7 ~ ~ ,~ 4 75.8 X S27/sq. In. _ ; 2,045 X sp. Gass 30% _ $814 X Cond. 30°k = $ 184 X loc. 70°,b _ $ 128 Total Value 19.0 20 30 20 2 4 6 .. 283 X;27/sq. In. _ ; 7 651 X sp. Gass 30°k = S2 295 X cond. 45°,G = ; 1 033 ' X loc. 70°h = ; 723 Total Value 20.0 •• 19.0 2212 50 40 4 2 8 5 ~~ 458 X;27/sq. In. _ ; 12 312 X sp. GeSS 100°Yo _ $12 312 1 • X cond. 45°,6 = $ 5 540 X loc. 75°~ _ ; 4,155 Total Value 12.0 14 25 35 1 3 4 I 113 X S27/sq. In. _ ; 3 052 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3 052 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 2 289 X lac. 75% _ ; 1,717 Total Value 10.0 11 20 12 1 3 4 1 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. doss 100% _ ;2 120 X cond. 75% _ $ 1 590 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,192 __ Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 ' 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 72"box = 0 ~ Plof 4 0 O Juh '1'itl~~u Property :., ~. BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES 14081353.1052 13535 fumai pwd la Gila, CA 95070 KeY ~ Plant Name 7 Coast I ive nab 8 ICoast Live 9 Coast Live Oak 10 Coast Live Oak- 11 12 Coast Live Oak Job Address: ]man Road Job #0~-152 une 20~~ Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs I ~ ~ ; I ~ PesUDisease Problems Recommend. I ~ I I 1 0 ~ v .- ! 1 ~ ~ , ; ' i i i , , ~ t 0 I J ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ! i Z i i H ! ; '~ I W ! ~ I W W ! ! Q 1 !~ ; i I I m ~ ! O~ f x , I ~ I rQn ~ m ~Qn f o '7 i 1 i i LL i i '~ i F- i U' ? i Z i~ i (~ i W i O I t ~ N~ uj ! n! O ~ v i W i~ W i i i N r i .... ~ Q I Z QZQ i Z ~ O i Z i~ I W I~ 1 1] 1 ~ 1 f- ' (~ O l y 1 W I H ! I ~ ® I '~ I w ! _~ ; F W i ? i ~ I (~ i d I W ! ~ ,n z ! `~ I >' ! R: 2~ a' ' ~ ! ~ Q i N I i 2 ' .- ~ 2 1 Z Q J 'i 2 i W i Q ~ Z! W ~ ~ ~~ i°! (aj ~~ g W ! F O ~. ~! I ! W !° ~- f~! O! 2 U I H !~ ~ Q: , W i Z i a ~ O O~ W I J J Q I 2' I Z d 1 1 i ~ f- F- t x l ~~ i ° ZZ Z Z t Z t W i i U (q ! o: ! O!° O O S I LL! J ~ ; I ! W = i W J I 7 ' ° ~ ~ > ! i i ! ~ ' W.. i Z F.- U I > ~ -Y ~ U U _ i ~ ~ Q o ~ ~ ! m ! m ~ w ! a ug I F ~ ' O ~ ~ ! ~ f ~ ~ I w ! m ~ ~ t w I ° I ~ ~ O ~O W ! W I tOi O ~ ~ ° I o f o x ; u~ x v, v ! x v v ; v ; v ! o: I cQi = a ? tom- ! o ? Fx- ! ~ ~ i ! z i ~ rc 12.0 ! ~ ! 13 ! 18 ! 15 1 ~ 2 I 3 !! ~ ! ! ! ; I ! _ ! I ! ! ! t I I ~ ~ I t ! ; ; ! i ! ~, ! ! ! ! ; ! . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp. class 100°!° _ $3 052 X cond. 90% = o $ 2,747 X-loc. 60% _ $ 1,648 ' Total Value 14.0' ; ~ 17 t 30 ~ 20 4 2 j 6 ! ! ~ ; ~ I ; I I •• tl ! I 4 I I I i ' ~ I I ~ I , ~ ! ! 1 ~ I ! ! in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4 154 X sp. class 100% _ $4 154 ,X cond. ,45% _ ' $ 1 869 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 1,122 19.0 ! 22 150 140 1 2 3 t ! ~ I ~ I ~ Total Value I ! ' ; i + I ~ ~ ~ i I In 283 X S27/sg- in- _ $ 7,651 X sp. class -100°k = $7,651 X cond. 90% = o $ 6 886 X loc. 60 /o = $ 4,132 -- - Total Value 17.0 19 ! 55 (40 1 ; 3 4 ! ~ I ~ ! ~ ! _ ! i I ! ! ! I I I I ~ i sq. in 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6 125 X sp. Gass 100% _ $6,125 • X cond. 75% _ $ 4 594 X loc. 60% _ ' $ 2,756 Totaf Value 32.0 1 38 60 60 3 2 5 ! 1 3 I I ~ J I I ! I sq. in 804 X $27/sq. (n. _ $ 21,704 X sp. Gass 100% _ $21,70a X cond. 60% _ $ 13 022 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 7,813 Total Value 24.0 I ! 27 -! 55 ! 45 1 2 I 3! I t I ! ~ ! I ! i ! ! i ~ j ! ~ ~ ! ~ ! ! ; ~ ~ ; ! ! sq. In 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12 208 X s class 100% _ $ 10 907 X loc. 60 /° _ -- -_P $12 208 X cond. 90 /° _ ° $ 6,592 Total Value KEPLACEMENTTREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 75-gal = $120 24"bux = $420 36"box = $],320 48"box = $5,000 52°box = $7,000 ] = BEST, 5 = WpRST 72"box = $15,000- Page 2 of 4 `~ Q O )ull ~ 3ue: t'u t'ruperty Job Address: Bohlman Road Job #06-00-152 une 19 2000 Measurementa Condition Pruninp/Cablinp Needs Pest/Diaease Problems Recommend. I ~ ~ I i ~ I i I i 1 ~ -. I~ ~ f 0 BARRIE D, COATS 0 I l I I l j ! '~ ~ ~ ~ vi I and ASSOCIATES ~ : v ; i _ ' -- r '? t w I w W ' (4081353.1052 ! w ~ ~ ~ ? i "S Z j ~ I ~ j ~ W ~ " t ~ ~ ~ "' O ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ !!~ _ i i l i ~ i I- ~ O ~ z l ~ (9 ~ ~ O ~ h ~- ~ W i 33S35fumoiAad W' ~" j I= I t? z l Z l O l Z'~ I W ~ lY i 0 i ~ i ~ i U O `' ~ -~ ~ K la Cata, U 95030 y ' ® I n ! w ~ ~ ~ ~•- ug ~ z ( ~ I in t o w ~ ~ h ~ z { o I ¢ I o: o_ w f d ~ ~ o_ } ~ o: _ ! ~ ~ z ..~ z I w t ¢ ( W I w I o_ .- ~ 3 ` () ~ ~ ~ ~•- ~- I 2 ~ i f ~~ -- I~ H t F=- { !_ ~~ z~ z I z ~ z~ ~ h ~~ cn ~~ ~ o i p I p p 3 LL I~ ._, x ~ x '' = t aggwg ~ Q~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 t o i w I ? ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ } x # c~ c~ cn I cn ~ ~ > (eY # Plant Name p ~ D~ Om ~ O = a W I C z!~ p~ 0 p~ p i~} m ~ w w 1 ~ z i 1- F p? p O O F- O IIII a: rY o: o: w ' ' ~ w ~ i O O w 1 W ~ W w v~ x 1 ~n v x v I v v~ v~ tai ~ a ? -~- o F- II o: x z I z i o: a; 13 Coast Live Oak 24.0 I ~ 26 50 ` 45 2 I 2 4 ~ ~ ~ _ 3 I ~ .. J I ' ' ~ i s . in' 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12 208 X s class 100°k = ° - P• $12 2D8 X cond. 75 ~ _ $ 9,156 X loc. 60% _ $ 5,494 14 Coast Live Oak Total Value 12.0 10.0 20 25 30 1 3 4 I ' ; ~ + f I i ~ s . in 152 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 41104 X sp. class 100% _ - _ -_ $4 10~ X cond. 75°~ $ 3,078 X IOC. 60% _ $ 1,847 15 Coast Live Oak I Total Value 15.0 19 40 30 2 2 4. 1 I ~ ~ 1 f 1 s . in 177 X $27/sq. ln. _ $ 4 769 X sp. class 100% _ $4 769 X cond. 75°,6 = $ 3 577 X loC. 60% _ $ 2,146 16 Coast Live Oak Total Value • 34.0 34 50 150 2~ 1 3 i ! t 1 ~ ` t i i s . in 907 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 24 501 X sp. class 100°k = $24 501 i X cond. 90°~ = i I - $ 22 051 X Ioc.100~° - $ 22,051 17 Coast Live Oak Total Value 24.0 '• 24.0 34 50 60 3 2 5 1 ' ~ ~ I ; ~ 1 .. .. . s . In 677 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 18 279 X sp. Gass 100% _ $18 279 X cond. 60°~ - $ 10,967 X loc. 90°~ - $ 9,671 18 Coast Live Oak 20.0 14 14.0 11.0 38 ~ 50 i 60 2 ~ 2 4 = ~ I = 3 3 i ~ ~ ~ in 514 X $27ls in. _ I 1 ~ ' q ~ S 13,865 X sp. class 100 ~ _ $13 865 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 10,398 X loc. 70% _ $ 7,279 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 7 =BEST, 5 =WORST 72"box = $1~ P~f4 .~ • n ,.', Jc~b 7'iF1~Fu Property REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 man Road Job # 152 une 200 0 ~ Recommend. ^' `~s ~ I 0 0 i a 0 i __ ~'o ]=BESTS=WORST Page 9 of 4 cty. !~ O O O • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ©0003 Attachment 5 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Henry Yang and Daniel Fu, Applicants DATE: September 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Documentation of reviewing the proposed plans with adjacent property owners 1. Address: 15001 Bohlman Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Cagans Visit Date: 8/2/2002 3:30PM Mr. Fu and I had reviewed the proposed plan with Mrs. Cagans in detail. She is glad that we finally will start to build on the lot. She graciously showed us some highlights of her 5000+ sq ft 2 story new home, which included stone floors, slate roofs, and copper gutters. Mrs. Cagans liked our design and believes this project will be a nice addition to the vacant lot next door. 2. Address: 20959 Hidden View Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Judi & Jim Craik Visit Date: 8/2/2002 4:30 PM We had reviewed the ro osed lan with Mrs. Craik in detail. She is also in char a of the p P P g water association for the neighborhood. She liked our design and feels large open homes are essential. for a family of any size. She has showed us a fantastic view from the 2na floor game room. She and her husband managed to find their 6000+ sq ft home in need of more space. 3. Address: 15015 Bohhnan Owner: Mr. &-Mrs. McMain Visit Date: 8/3/2002.4:30PM • Mr. And Mrs. McMain met us on a Saturday afternoon and reviewed the proposed plan. They have no real input on the style of the home, just glad that we will start to build soon. After reviewing the landscaping plan, we agreed that we have sufficient landscaping screens between the two properties. Also, that the 2 homes are offset in location and ; ; privacy will be preserved. ' ' Applicant Statement ~0~©c3~ .: 4. Address:. 15027 Bohhnan Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Sampos Visit Date: 8/7/2002 6:30PM - - - - - We met with Mrs. Sampos. The Sampos had also recently completed an 800 sq ft addition and kitchen remodel. Mrs. Sampos recommended a general contractor to us. They had commented the fact that, 5000 sq ft seems to be the most comfortable for most families, which is similar to what they have now. 5. Address: 20972 Hidden View Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Jaswa Visit Date: 8/7/2002 7:OOPM Mr. & Mrs. Jaswa weren't available at the time of our visit, They are out of town for several weeks. We had a brief conversation with her sister. We exchanged phone numbers and advised her that they could call us at anytime with questions on our construction. Daniel and I couldn't help noticed the spectacular backdrop and 7K+ sq ft grand estate complete with an indoor swimming pool. • Applicant Statement 000032 ~.. H __ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ 1 !-r .~ r Q / l ~~/ K / ~_, K ~~ ;~- 'b s _ _ lD r` ~ i ~ ~J~ ~ ,,; x y O O y~ J z ~? ~~ O ~~ ~~ `'' o o~ O ~• ~' y~ ~• V a UuU 0 Q~ ~~=- City of Saratoga Design Review Project #02-130,15000 Bohlman Road NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES: 15001 Bohlman 20901 Hidden View 20912 Hidden View 20959 Hidden View i• 20900 Hidden View 20972 Hidden View _ _ rnthltt; 111t5C:Hlt'TION/DATA ~ , ~„°°° n r GENERAL NOTES .~ CONTACT SCHEDULE /PROJECT DIRECTORY >~~,»a~ NEW RESIDENCE FOR: APN 517-13-024 CIIYDFSARATOGA S,ryptymq d eD 0.ba, mmmmle. and mde oeeeeary m y,ieg aodc ;, COMMUNffY DEVELOPMENT PHONE:(408) 668.1222 mouse,ploumlepedfxmiommaddmealeo~im CTTYOFSARATOGA FAX: (4081867.8555 13777FRUiNALEAVENUE E-MAIL•~LANNING®SARATOGA.CA.US _ 1dYR6h40NSIDDIlY: IRS DAN - SARATOGA, CA 95070 mepeoa3mlaPepaleemoaeedekruimedtheaed;. nq ~P~eQ"~e'~~`h~htm~°~°°d"'~I~`P"am'~ ® • DANIELFU PHDNE(408,626-0333 D ~O~P ~ d.me. ,3792 PIERCE ROAD FAX (4o6-er24io9o 1® HITECTURI SARATOGA, CA 95070 E~L41L: DANIELFU~MINDSPEED.COM M1IY .ved~ferdlm6ooaedaa °'°°"~°~'°°~``"~"d"°t~`°''~'~~'d 15000 BOHLMAN R®AD SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 ~ a~~~SREPRESENTATTirE _. ._.. _... ~DR.~LDil~li a Caau~mrduHaaplq~d~dNadPmommd'oed6baark. -. _.. , _..._.. .... _ HENRY YANG 1348 MAN DRIVE PHONE:(408 866.08.18! 65014932277 F - ( esewarm.ne~mraew ~..,.w~.a.®n FSAA~UTIONS OF DBAWD4U8 AND 8118 a Tha Canons duo eeale8y ammo db dm and ohe0 tlmmsrhy.lmihoeme himWl/hmeUue6dlaidosmEroan~hemeapedtlmwni. Dmm tlose epeeifimpa ml m du dnerhq n ^ seam a Pmble, ha m oa 6 1Le Cmuoaa ehdl vedl' hoadoa, lneh.'dhdoaa nod tamme d dmdmdndaedm~iaaeauthermgof[endbaah. D1mdt~ hhi dr Omnemrs domed m 6ne nab oath ammmieemd m heee amiad eu dmamp, ad m ono moped mi emdm® ed m hone mode dbmeoee mmedm.pn}am8hbhtd Noamodmps8lbomaidaadtoraoreRaltly h®Lilme m eaepry aids mo ebne h. ihepnub ehoD W mID moo ~ arh amdidoa a m/ tlden cabop vat PoflTBC1TON OP PII AND PROP~IY: e. P10alda eheD 6e ameimd m oD dm Fa do Pmmda d pens (esmdiy to~pb}em) ad pepagt Tb Sdrq ponooa d eppmble bae, builder W mimommadne6dlbeabesetl. hloehloml,agoipmteddlhmrdeduUbe gemmd aa~od m eemdmx edlh memaMalP dtlen mmt edida d dm Aland d Amdm Pieemdeo m Camoctim, PdilhMd hT dm Amedmd Geeuol Cmmmoa d Ameeieo, m dp mtm ihm ooeh poehiom n mou mmenadaddtee~podeb. h 1LaCameeoor~Bdlpomm~DNra~sidtaadoded~mleadra hmeiada end tlr h1o o mmn1. e. TheCoeumaduldhvmemoDomNxoomnmfmmo]eaahadhaetlbda. To dtie end 6dede.ddl obo diryae, aaC pud oAd porn tlm poses nod oD aaL eumie4 and bah p~ ml mmpaal anmumaa a m pededa omimaiaed om dined 61 e4pAa aahme ral pnimbd/ m elimmm p,nm aasegam iyal m d anmmimd pmaa. oDNarRUrnoN-1eeRODS, • mma+aduDOWIBDIOD?aaphlmDedp~9dka6ena~ibmfaammudiw mom, orthede, ~ oegoam a paemoe a hr edery pxmaime W pepemf in omoenia vidt dr amk eaohdl oaVlmR a7ooph7te DaipdBdhlabe mpmoible to Camonas- Wlme m mpbl PmR+~1 P DUST CANIROL' the ash mdoda dou and m negohad m obm eel aIm ooierm m ad ehae db du, aehAumeambdmimadarahidm . 1 DOU AX. (108149322)6 LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 E-MAIL• HENRV.YANG®PORTALWAVE.COM KENC~~UO, ARCHffECT PHONE: (6591572.8195 ZOOPHYTE DE5KiWBUILDER FAX: (850)572.8185 710 VILLAGE LANE E•MAIL•ZOOPHYTE®BUILDING.COM FOSTER CRY. CA 94404 ~/ :,. pRp1HCTTON OF l?UIDDDIB ne em~a m,~,.ac m 6mmm w~e~ea el me mead a~aa R.a mbepemmedlamahaawd;,mrhdre6imnsmmpdateadida maamnd~e°mpamem~aaam~elmNeR. ~~~~~ poseden feel aab i Oemd Ooeeoea, eam dmesh redoes Leedom d du ZOOPHYTE DESIGN/BUILDER epee6iaoameulmmoopeediemmmoompam®omohompa~adou. n cu.i..utt l..~sr•. • rnsra:e nit's, r.si.rnos:ci.~ • ~iaru~ rr.i.r:rnu~r • r•ss: rsa.sr,.elvs ~nrnsrrcixrn.urnr, rou ... ~ ThaCaeQemordttDreOtlmndmm/dmcomedaiboavemhaptlmhdldmB, ONID-l9 pe®m ad me a~ ~6 sea eed edty mm td8a<d m dp Csmonoe. dm bon eoeomolaom d mm aumide nod otlor tpbbLh mad h 6b.emlblae a aeR a• b1.~tlu amplolea a ask d.bu. eobomumaa 0. Nao~mdYaatal~~ hb mak epe+9moa, ~ normde, Dom the b>MIeB eedmr pemsa debir, owRaal ~• P ammmeoa for. eA~ he hm mpom3le adia ndebfA. ad drY 6e mpamYe fa deowp d he aodc l7rmmg . ice. w>m9 d d aher ar6 Boier ash mead a ~ dmring a . n~ io du epdifeedom ~ b Wm ro hidiam dx reposed aamdm m oho dme d sapam d tme oad otlc the moues .u wmpleda d ash, the' cweoaaima naPmdde.moa~Ir. emB sae eu dimr, mmo~s d Pte. ...._ .. era,ae.me~mahhomom~8amjaot~edwaad~OBlaerheva3 mrDee.ebeaelem,D l d bl 6 INDEX OF DRAWINGS ~ -- mea r® ~ y bd~el®addm.a `... dmdeeeaduolauedmm~drdlhaeieomdadpdiekAdleq+dp~adpmet. ,.. _ . .. eahthdlhede®dmdtaome6eFh<ooamf:mddlemgaryY6dadR~ '' ARCHftECTURAI . pAsr a4aD k amp else a nymm N•me d. mewl syeao». aagme p rnim frJBdm, dm u6rt Bxrma and aPLCe hmor6 ... T-1 TRLE SHEET, GENERAL NOTES, PROJECT OATH _. aoAtionmf Imgc an m the Apeed d /1WN0t. Fim01, ld saris d the - boild~admimdimmaadupomdm86eo®imrydeaadiogaadadam A-0 SRE PLAN. datuadflodmpamdtluho~q,shbpoimmadooum~mdeolaad A_i FIRST FLOOR PLAN & REFLECTED CEIUNG PLAN hudaemekaadpo8dad ' e. iY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~ A-2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN & REFLECTED CEIUNC PLAN mma6bpompem,OpTiE7toolemearl,elemf~mbedaablatraeod A=J ROOFPLAN~ cbu~edrmmdrmem0oaeeotiademnlMreidmm6omprymaaui8da :. ~_;:... ~na'~~ A-4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS d QamAr 4~• •'"vtl' ~"~''G0s ~0m °~ ~ ehmnn& wadmldorymtmadm0bepadomemmoo~ddodappm~edh A-5 BUILDING SECiIONS rhe~adiheitmamhambeemeed 7heCamumsshsDbowll - ,apmoibb~fa eer dmtye m a1 odeoe a wh6eae emad by as d p_6 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS cleniug numide. A-7 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS New Single Family Residence 8000 Bohlmao Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Planing /Design Review #02•]30 Fu Residence Project i USCOYERAOE _ -. PROPO BUILDING (HOUSE 8 OARAOEI 2,450 SD FT REAR YARD PAVEMENT 1,000 SO Fi FROM YARD PAVEMENT 600 SD Fi CONCRETE BIKE TRAIL 500 SO Fi D iIVE_VYAY ~ GARAGE AREA IExauDINO EASEMENn 1.500 SO Fi TOTALS &050 SO Fi 6,050 SF!43,580 SF-13.B89o 6,050 SF! 39,986 SF-_ 15.13 M~r ~~~~~ * C~m2e @ ~~d1C STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WENDY HSIEH, SE PHONE: (406)365.8718 BAY BUILDING DESINGERS FAX (408)226.8427 467ARCHCOVE000RT EMAIL' WENDYBBDIIAOL.COM N SAN JOSE, CA 95111 ~ CML ENGINEER ~ KIRKEBY ENGINEERING PHONE: (408)984-0331 , 2391 FOREST AVE FAX (408)984-0331 (~ r SAN JOSE, CA 95128 'r'1 w LANDSCAPE DESIGNER Z L] FENGSHI CHU PHONE: (408) Z55~804 a PSI 1141 S. STELUNG ROAD FAX (408) 255J804 ~ W CUPERTINO, CA 95014 ~1 OEO•TECHNICAL ENGINEER Z WAYNE TING 8 ASSOGATES, INC PHONE: (510)623.7768 44360 SOUTH GRIMMER BLVD FAX: (510)623.7861 Q~ FREMONi, CA 94538 PLANNING DATA & TA®UL ATIONS PROPERTY ADDRESS 15001 BOHLMAN ROAD SARATOGA,CA95070 APN 517.13-024 LAT 1, PARCEL 1, TRACT 7888, BK 706, PG 10 & 11 Q {il LOT AREA 43,560 S0. FT. (GROSS) W 39,986 S0. Ff. (NET) V as7a sD. FT. (EASEMENT of om1 z • zoNING DISTRICT 81.40,000 W SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~ HEIGHT UMIT 26 FEET rr ~ REQUIRED SETBACKS FRONT: 30 FEET SZDE: 20 FEET REAR: 60 FEET ~] PROPOSED FLOOR AREA PROPOSED Revfsiam HOUSE & GARAGE s' oearo~ am 1 FLOOR /D 2,450 SO FT 2 FLOOR GARAGE 2,070 SO FT 620 SQ FT TOTAL RDOR AREA 6,140 SO FT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE SLOPE AT BURRING STiE 18.4% 41 BU)G. PAD CROSS SEC. AVERAGE AVERAGE SITE SLOPE A 7 CDNiOUR INTVL • JUN 2 G 19.41% PER KIRKEBY ENGINEERIdG CALCS (SEE GRADING PLAN) ALLOWA6LE FLOOR AREA CALCULATION AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE REFER TO GRADING PLAN TOPOGRAPHY BY KIRKEBY ENGINEERING -19.41%OVERALL NET SRE AREA ADJUSTMENT (100% • 10%-2X9,4%) X 39,986 SF =28,470 S0. FT. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 28,470 SF-15,000 SF =13,470 sa. Fr. 13,470 SF / 1000 a 13.47 =14 _ Scab /~`~ ~~ S~ ~ E~ I • II USE 4,050 SF ~ ((14 X 78) a 1,092 SO. Fr.J S MAX. FLOOR AREA IS 5 1 heet Number , 42 SD. FT. FLOOR AREA REDUCTION DUE TO BLDG. HGT. -NONE (81.40,000 ZONE •r- Il ~.~ • r d ~~ 246' m ~ ~ ~ ~~4 ~~ , ~ ~~ll l~ j~ ~'~i 1`~ ~ ; ~ ~' li li ~ i ~'i(~I',i III 1ljl~lll~~,. ~P~R~ y~~ IIj~ .; ~, ,'~I,~I,`lii~ l j~ ~l ~~ l ~~A ,,iliiljil ... _ ~ ~ II~ I I lai,lll,.~ ~~. ~~ IE Alllj $I~~ii'i ~` Ni .I ~ ~ 1 l; ~i+. ~~ ~ t ~ w y l ~, ~ ~ t i t 1 I~ ~ ~' 3T &5,i~ 1 I ~~~,~ (F~ ' ,,pp ~~ FRUN.' ~~l 11N~ ~ ;~ l ?off ,, ~dl',f ~ , ~~ad ~p7kb tl /Ii ._ }p'~ ~/~'~i it ~ ~~ ~ ~ Rl ~ '~~~. 8h" ~ /l ~~/ it , i \ ~ /'/' ~, /5 j l/~ ~ fy~'~° ~. ~r-' ~. /jB1i~ / i '// { i , d~t4 r `~ ~ :-~ ` ~~ ~ ~~ '' ~~. ~4~ •~ t~°~~ ~ '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ \` ~;'`T 1 ~ ~` r ~ l ~. i / / ~„ ~P _ S,P~ l --~~ ,F, y -h~<a!! ~-' S3~D;.- 1 1 T~,. a'. t i -, _3 ~; 1 ~aeEw ' n °"° yjex4"K ~ sE •~ aaow o ~ . .~ ~ - ~ttv ,~ t 9 . i „ly / - le~...w.w ~ ~ ~ ~1• n tl ( l ~, ;~ ~ I . I r~ I if ~ r ~ ~ Ilj .lee MC /fir 1 RD ~ O - I i ~' - r /OfuA r l a q ! I 1~....,.•v ~ -- - a~. ° .° v ~ SITE ' ~ r I ~ q ~ ~ ~./ O jL i I '. ,~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ` ~ ; i . _ I = FO~f~U I~c~l~ I LJ7 3 8t0- , ~~~ soa' f45 .._ _..... 4 ._ ,a i ~9~ ' t: -__ I~ _\\.;.---- -- 0--=---- ~, PARCEL 2 s~ 8tD- `: en' s.i~ I ~ ~ F c~I ~ s, fl i1} I ,~s ~ ~a, 800... ,, . J ~ • ~~, ~,, ~ ~~~~, ~ ~ 190- , , ~ / ;' ', ~ ~, ~~ a ~ ~ , i I I l ~ - ~ ~~ ~~ a f ~ ~ `~j I ~ • I ~ ~~~~• , o 4~b ~ '; ~ a,.~, ~ ~~~ / _ /' . / t ~` PROrfcnvE fENcIN~, VI i TY NO SCALE RESIDENCE - ... .. .__....._.•.~...ro......... EXISTING GRADf-••~ ~~\ SECTION "8-B" "''~^~, -- RESIDENCE ~~ , -F.f~ 03. GARAGE, ~^.~~. EXISTING GRADf-•~` "--,, , S_ECT1~ A=A- - - ---- ..--- --- SCALESI HDRIi. 1tiY0 VERT. 1'• f01 51APf DENSITY, O.Gb xD ~4 238; t9.4% NET lDl43,560-3 3 4rD/w fASEMfNT~ =39, 986 S.f SLOPE REDUCr10~°~1d09G-JD'/-2x9.4%)x39,986=28,4)0 S.E MAxHOUSE SIZE=4,o50+18~¢7~~o°°-k 5,142 S.F ARY Fill C. MAX. CI17 ° 6' MAX. FILL= 5.5' TOTALS 1650 1650. GRACMMG NOTES NOTE: Ttc ~n8 ie emprwed eugxtk. 1 Atl ¢a6np is eutled bdmavmkn by meC&y. PamtteearepndlWNaymp ro111'de Cajd Saekpa m (e08) dB8.1261 m bem dOlpae Aurae mN d ary P~B~ Y Apprwmdtln pan appbeadyktle eer+mkn.pmertent mldampatamdlNaeBlemdl malaieA. TNsaypamdcea mlmderary apaedeNybemerpddc papayadnpArole - prdpedydd7ms. Appraaldtldepen donnd dmotlhaeaPVlwm danJhrmmMma6e. ' . Prwdaed orroraranade me ei~ecttd rakwmm steam bYriareepastNeuAedlesam ml ours rerAmm ehau tledaain. 3 Hmel Ce tle reepais6dpedMe Pamtlaeaepmdk WaA9y. keme mld pgetl ld UrOmywm . ledian ~ Tle Pemiweeaapent NBtlmQadn de etrnA, eitleamke end etl otler p0lerylAed-rmyina.. tlean. ameaq ramie aondl6m. na apaA d eaA lodeaoa~dl dabq mrel Ae IenaredAml dle pdtitly waver Vdperb saint oanautAaiam lden mnpePndre laopd. Pt aQaopy. DrePedY. Pnrme a pWk elml Ae rlldrfarMtl k a de8ll, de amu9eEN amaalon s MaamnpweAapedmrodkarJtenaawaekoanpryvAlhlnemadsmraamtllmraMg~e '~r ~i IlFwereree utlnd kr®raane pemaimCa. e ra keuleell kraaan on ue eee nweeemriroprmdand wen eels drA Aenmbdaae0a aAan~ed azawrg roaartd regmetiaeeadrimam bytle Sena qma VmIeYNfma i]IOMl. Cae Ia0111~•3800 Em, Id80 k amrpe kr qmk! dAmeatlan d eawel a6atla/riaM1.. - 7 TlnsplandonnalapprweNaremwmdA«c.kpopdmarrenermpmmlhaMamlmtled~ Lee peeenreAm mess eedMnm cantle Cly OomnnWy Dwekpnrd 0epmalap: ' 8. Tho CNtl Enpnem, MeaIn0.M1MAy, 27BTiereai Arewe,8m.lwe, G180129,hndeepam' tlrm tmFd b axrply edN Oa Yrmmp mronna 4Oe P~19eveedaOW nidrt@ nVdrm, PreWrm M TemieatA aWdalm Oeoemher A 7qq. 9. al BadlnA enetl rndonm to ayproradrynXkatlempmaapd Mreon armlelAm Mnb. N1 lFmlay soh ehml Mobcervm and ppdra Ay Me mN mykeer. The mh enpoeer, Terraeamdr shell Aa mtllkd atMmtaBhoWe before AepYroAp aggrslhp d6~lmp wenba lidtll BTd•t'lAB6. ano6earad and wappmrmprmelgrMdaA be rmooaadutl . rapam wWr obeemtlon of MepajeGmA anOYra. ro. arms,e~.ranewpeaeowrmehw.aaoemAste`.nd+~ruta°danrrer+agad eppaY M tle gredor W PoMk Woda I BmIUTES EXISTMi TREE TYP. - ~ O X13 I T~\ I \ 75 97 86 810 1% \ \ Q2 INDICATES F%lTECTIYE FENCE iTP. 1 I ~ \ ` ~+ \ \ 5EE NOTE °) iHiS SHEET. ~ \ II ~\ ll_-__\ I ~8 I I , ~9 1 I 1 \ \ \ 1 \ \ TO PROTECT EX15TPdi iREEB WRINb LChSTRCTION PERIOD, ALL NOiES'WD I ` I I I .-` I~`1 ~ A~ \ \ \ / ~ \ (ELDI"Pff?®ATIONS MTHE CITY ARBOR REPORT DATED JIVE I~. 7®00 MD TIC OI I \ 1\ \ ~ ( \I\ ~ LETTER DATED A1XaU57 I, 7000 A5 THE FOLLOWMG: I \ ~ I. MSTALL 5 FOOT TALL CHAM! MK FENCES ON STEEL F'05T5 DRI4EN AT V 1 ~ \. ~ / \ ~ -. - _ - - - - - - - .- - - - -- - .~ TSO ~ RT PF£LISEL T A5 8FA'rM~IEfEFORE ANY LGN6TFa.1LTION WOPoC OR ~ ~ I I I I I 1 \ \~ \ \ \ ~ i I CQ:5TRILTU7N EpI11P11EMf APPEAR AND MAM7AIN THOSE FENCES fR'cCISELY ~ W 2 ~ I ~ ~ , I \ ~ - -...-~ \ \ I L~E,4~MGLUDMG PAMT9~ AND PLASIERE .R9 IMIL ALL LLNTRAaoRS V ~ W I ~ \ ~ \ I _ I ~ a I 11 I I I I ~ \ \ \ ~ 7. MBBT®T A 91~LT~ AHY SOILI FRR1 BEPiS DU1PED DLLLN HILL OvERT~ = W I I I I I I ~ \ \\ \~ ~ ~ \ `' ~ \ I THEIR R00T ZONES. N Q 6 N I I ~ I I ~ ~\ \ \ \\ i i \ \ I I 3. A FRQfELTNE FH~ICE SECTION SHLUtD BE INSTALLED i0 PREVENT Z ~ K aQo 1 I I TRACTORS PROM UICFICRG M AREA BENEATH T410BE CANOPIES CF TREE'4 ~ < I r I 1 I ( I l \ \ \ ~~ ` ` _ I \ y AND 6114gRE THAT ACTMTY Ui NOT NE[ESSARY. ~ ~ Z \ 4. REIAMMS THE E%181M6 PROTECTIVE FENCE AROWD TREES 9'i, IS AHD H 3 / I I I I I I \ ~. J lA1TILL PROJECT CQ'PLETICPL I I \ \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ y \ / / \ ~ I I 9. tREE'Ib Was R3IOYID. II / / fgTAMPIC~~IW.L SEE CML DR i I \ 6. a LAYER ~ OF3sd11K: MATERIAL Ek15T9 BENEATH TIC LANOPT CF THE TREE, NO ~ `` I~ ADDITIGNAL ORaIJIIC MATERIEL IS NEGE98ARY. I, I I ~ ~ ` ~ ~ \\ ~\ I I I I ~ \ 1 7. I ~ u~ To n~P~tEC~TNTE ~ ~B aF TREES 7 ~ I I 1 ~ \ I 10N THE SOAKER AT LEAST ONE DA7 PER WEEK fOR TWO WEEKS PND THE I Q / I I I I I I I ~ I I DAY PER MWTf4117TfIL NOYtMBER I / I I I I I I 1` I DBMS/IWY AND PARCPYa ~ ^ / I I I Pf87PO8EL RE8IDENCE ~EL~• 800.70' ( ~ \ ~ , \ ~ I TO DRIPO iF~E FY.'OT Z011E BUT NDT SPRAY AT 5 GALLONS PER HOllR B75 ~ MDICATES FRQTELTNE ~ I I ` FF. EL. a 80750' I I ~ \ °.,@ NOTF~ 9 THIS SHEET. ~~ 1 / TN15 IRRIGATION SHOULD BE USED MSNE THE EXISTRYa PENCE IWTIL I ~ I I I I I / ~ / ' i i ~~~MOVED TO CGMPLY WTH THE NEW GRADING THAT WILL 8E I ~ ~ ~ / B THE MMIMJI ACCESS ROAD WaICH WILL 1R6VEL PARTLY BENEATH THE CANOPY / / / ~ I II I I / `/'~ / ~ `I I I I 'IB TAILGATED WTH 3/4• TCGMR4~A5 B•?~ATN THE CANOPY Cf TREE NO A~ERVIOUS PAVING MAY BE METALLED BQEATN THE OMIOPT OP TFIIS TREE _ M ri118 MMIMMAI ACCE9916DAD NiEA 4 /' I ~ II I 1 /~~/ / / I / I I g M OCTOBER TFIE TREE SNWLD EIE 51J09'JT~ACE FERiIL17ED U41NG GREENBELT ~' ~ ~~I Q 1 I ~ / .~,~ ' - / / / I 77-14.11 BOLIDLE PERTILUER AT 4 LBB/100 GALLONS CF WATER 870 ~ / 1 X f ~ 1 I1 B01/ / - ~~ J I ' ~ - / / / ~ / 1 \/I I 10. f~MOYE TF~E K AND THE BAY T1~E LLRAPPED AROIPD TPiEE '5, . QZ . (7'( 9J 1 J / IL THE DRWEUI4Y SHOW.D ~ AT LEAST 3 FEET FROT'I THE SOUTH 51D8 ~ n, I I ~ I - ~ ~ / / ~ ~ TREE 9 MME THAT EXISTMi PAVItG MATEPoALS UP TO 3 FEET AUNY FR71'1 / / Q \ ! r ~ ~ / / ~ 1 THAT TIaJdC BE RT510VID WTH 4 JpGKI{dt'0'ER AND HAND LOADED IMO A W / ~6 ~ ~ _ ~ - ! /500 ~ ,/ ~ SKIP LOADER ~.. / ~ V A I I 8' WDE ACS#6ATE CONCTffiTE / ~ ~ 1 ~ I / / / ~^""/ \~ ~ \ \ ~ WaLKWA'~WN• WISE SYpOTN BMID / ~ ` 13E~8OAGiTMi THIS TREE iWSE SIA~ACEA9 °~+HOULD BE COrERED IM~DI~LY ~ / \ \ \ ! ~ WITH a LAYER OF OFYANIC MATERIAL AND iHCROWIILY WATERED WITH A / / / ~ \ \ \ \ /\ \ \ f \ \ / / ~ 9PRNKLER t0 APPLY AT LEAST 2 MCVaE9 OF W4TER ' / ~ ` ~C \ 1 \ 1 / 1 \ I 815 I / On 1W . N / \ / / f ~ - /- 4 ~~I ~ -r -- \'~ / / i I ( ~, ,~ / / / / i / / ~/ / ~ / ~~ / / "~) />f' / ' /oRIVEWaY ~f ~ X17 1t I / / !/ / 1Y ~ / / ~ Q 1 , i / / / C / I } Ut~ICA1E5 PIdOTECTIVE TYP I / / ~ ~ / / EsE tE •n I i19 ~ NOTE'4 TMls ~ I ,95 III I / / / / / % ~ ---- ---- -~ ~ 7 _._____ __________________._ _ ._ - ~ X18 ~/ ~' // //' / ~~ / liK\~/ ice/ __ _ `- I ~ l90 C F ems / ~ / / / ~ ~ / / / i i ~~ i f!1 / / o / /~ '~ ~~ /~TeS 0: o / / / .p O -- ~--_ - ~ rc r // ~/ ~~ ,TBO ~ ,,. ,~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ / / / i ~ / / / Dau 6l6Q00 '~ '/ Stab 3!37.1'•0• / ~ ~ I i'~ , i '~ /'~ / /I 800, ~' .'I/ ~ , ~ ' ~ / i ~ Drawn rec i V ~~ ~. ~ % SCALE: 3/37".I' 0' '~ ' 517E PLAN '°b "'~° ' ~ / I I 5M~L I ~ n I .. '',j I~ ~ 87 5 813 BI0 1 , ~ ~ B: \ i i ~ I 1 '1 ~ ii I ` ~ ~ ~, { 190 ~"~/ // ~ B~ 195 ~ //~~~~ ~~ ~ ' II __-\~-~#1J__~ `~.` ~ ~~ ~ \ r ~ ~ I I ~ ~I i I ~ I iI ~, '~ ~ i II 1 I I~ ~ ~ I ~ i I I r I I I II / I I I I I~ I ~~ ~ ~ 1 8'~ ,l ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I Q ~ ~. ~ j ~ 6~ G I / ,, ~ ~I ~ ~ ~I ~ 875 ~ I i I I ~ I 875 m i I ~ ' ( I G3 f 4 f l -. ' B.e ~ I I I LALLN ~~ ~ ~~ ` T3 ~p I / / I L~~ I - = a ~ ~' ~ ' / , / ~/ ~ i , ~ e®a` ar> I / 0~#Z / ~ sb BI PR0PO8ED RESIDENCE FF. EL •80750' ~li G3 ~ _ ~ ~\ 873 / S 81 ST ~ I LALLN \~ -- ----------0014 ---0~1_ I ~ X13 I X12 I I vv - - I - '- "1 1O'G' I i I I 1 ~ DRIVE~Y atrD PARCMG / garago / / FF. EL .800.10' I I / / p / o / c~~ / ~8T4 / 0 - ss / i / 56 n ~ ~ / LN111~1 i ~ / ~ i / / !~ G4 / ~ ss I I I I I I t ~ I GI I O • ° / I T1 1/~ I / ~1 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 I _~ ~ ~ KE90tMlILAI NaMHCC(41CN HAI•E) 812E REIMIS TF£E TI PRL38I8 SIlBN~tEI,LA 7'E~DW.A' l9EEP9G Gff18Lt') B GAL n ccaa7a FLORroa RL9RA !DOGWOOD) a GAL. T3 PTfNB cALLERTANA 'ARISTOCRAT' (ARISTOCRAT PEAR) 8 GAL TALL BfBQIIB sn Po7a7o vsrE arclairHES Ra+raH7E;u s GN. an osnaHruls FRAGRar(s reueET ~n~) a GAL. 873 P)98A15 LN887CERASUB (EFY+LISH LAUREU a GAL 874 PHILADeLPWB V9doSLALIa ll'IO'cK ORANC$) 5 GAL 875 ALYQ's`(F@ u srs11l (SELF H~Spl9) 8 6A,L aH~ BI WLIPMIOLEP91 arou BALLERak' S GaL B7 LAYMIDItA AlYd18TIFOI,L4 (BlGLIBLI LAVAFlDER) 5 GAL ~ CISNS IJCfJi78 ( B fiAl. g,I CW711B MYB~DUB fROCKRCBE) B GAL ss cEamrwls vast sTAa ruaLD Laac) s GAL SS PIITOSPo~M TOBIRq VARIEGATA' (VARIEWTED T 9 GAL B1 CNA@!p'~LEB ~DELI6VR' (FLCUER 01@CEl 6 GAL. 00 ACeR PAL11AtU1 'EVER RED' (DI88EG11PI 4 ) B CoAI. GRQQJDGO/ER GI VWCE MMOR rDWARF PEPoWaKLE) FLAT t7bt G7 HEUANnIEnn NIdt41LAR4Fl rels+R~ FLaT 7°aa Gs cERast~rlta~lrosattsNOlu.N.sse'Ew Flat aoc G4 L/OlfONA MOHfeVNEH618 (TRAILRlG LAIVfN1A) G 74ba ewecas~naa ALL PLANT® AREa9 (Except TuFf a(D BENEATH nE cANOPr of tHE TREE) SHALL RECENE A TOP DRE88NG CF MILCI179lLC(1 SMALL ~ REDIIpOD BARK CHIP8, 1'~IAN 6R8m (9/870 9l4 MCM Dldh@7ER). !d7 SHREDDED BaRK IS ACCEP(ABLE. / / s- ~ / I / ~ / / / ~ I 53 ~ \\I ~ / i ~ ~ , 1 ~ ' DRVEWAT n' I ~ I / / / ,~,,yy / / 0°'/ '' / s3 j 7 ~ \ ~17o Il I G ~ B / ~ ~ / ~ ~ / I I I . / ~ Npl tE5 3'~ ~f0 4°~ COBBLE ~ 19 ~ I ~ ~ „- ~ / ' ~ i - ~ _ f'~~i /~ ~ '---- - / ------- ------- - _ / / i ~ / / / / / ~ ` Y ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ 1 B 1 ~ 19 0 ~/ I~'o ~ / ~ '\, ~ ~ ~ i i , ~ ~ // m \ ~ / leg i ~ ,ri V ~ / I / `I i ~ ~ 1Bo ~ ~ ~ /~ _ / ~ / / I ~ ` / I / / / ' /' \ / /~ ~ / / / T5 ~i ~i ~ 800 / ~ ' / i ' - / ~ ~ ' / ~ ~ / / / /~ I % ~ / CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN SC • ° ~ ~ I ~ / ALE:3/37 •t.0 I N a U I '~ F U ~ pg ~ gN n~ ~~ N Z a W Q J a a W V Z O U ~ a ~ U G1 ~ 0 C ~ a O ~ N ~ O RtiJ a ~y J Y. _ m Data 90]!00 ecAle 9n7.r-m" Dram ha Job 719¢0 9rsx L-2.0 or 9na@I. whic4 will ..."- -_ ' ,•,..•",°'•°'w• °p7 meaner . aoildaed perform adegoauly the dada requied by the gaeml design will h m ~ in the equil end atiafettay, providing We autuid m proposed is of equal quility, _ _ opiedon of the ARCHffECf. Subsdtudom.sliall be mbmitted in aritiog, ioduding - _ VERIFY ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE WORK WITH aampks, sRcificasiom, tea«pans endduaa ~ - ~ THE FLOOR PLANS AND FOUNDATION PLANS. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY rtgoiad by ARCHY!'ECT. ~ . No mbstiudan shell be mrde wisham wriun a~roval of ARC}Ql'ECT. ~ AND ALL DISCREPANCIES FOR CLARIFICATION. SEE CIVIL 6 LAND SURVEY PIAIvS FOR SITE ARCHfTECf's decision io rrwmsraedng m'utiade etfep ahillbe final, ~ ~ BOUNDRY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY WADE HAMMOND, LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO' LIABILITY FOR CORRECTNESS OF SURVEY ' INFORMATION. MARY FACf[.17TF.S: (CONTRACTOR 1'O.PROVIDE ALL EXCEPT AS 0; .ROOF DOWNSPOUTS / RWL SHALL BE CONNECTED TO DAYLIGHT WITH CONCRETE I a Tetephme 4 SPLASHBLOCKS I OR PIPED UNDERGROUND ANO DIRECTED TO AN APPROVED STORMDRAIN ZO~~f~H0~ b. Wuer:(Areilableonaite) OFF SITE. SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FURTHER HOY(I~~YIVOE c. Elauicilpowa i INFORMATION. O d ToiW PatiOdw ~ ~~~'~ r LD r 7 y~'1~~g ( VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD. Co-0RDINATE SITE AND FOUNDATION DRAINAGE SYSTEMS .mss _ . y~~; IAS60FPRRAfISFg: ~-~~ - ~ -~° ~ ~ - ~ ~T~ I! WITH EXISTING GFUIOES AS PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. SEE SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE .. ymstuulJel6aamr,nerw " / PLAN FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. oanale sewm•TSSOemtlm The Concacmr shell confine the use ofEit eppmevu. the stooge of his materials, and the ~ _ ~ .. opeadon of his wakrrcn m Omits iodiased by law, adiaaroe, penmts a dvxdom M ~ ~~ SLOPE 7 PER 5.-0' AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCE FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 5-0" FROM THE PERIMETER AT AREAS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. OWNER and shall nest unressaiobtyeacmrrbx du pranisa with hie mmeriels. SPACE: I'-2J~ ~>FSI Concuta shill not kud a permit eoy pars of dK ecuemm m 6e IoedeM wilh'a wd ht thuwillendmgaiaaefay. g ~~~ ~ / ALL SITE GRADING, FOUNDATION, EXCAVATION, BACKFlLL, SITE PREPARATION AND * C~'YB~6 COMPACTION, ETC. SHALL BE PER GEO•TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. SEE SOIL REPORT BUILIDNC CODR COMPLIANCE: )) \\ r DY WAYNE TING ASSOCIATES. AO wart ssWl empty with appliable coda end code erooduds which govern each ~ ; ~ ' CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION-OF ALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS. CONTRACTOR phae of wort, iaelud'mg bin va limited tin CegfwoieBaOding Cads (CBC), lhdform / 70 PROVIDE ALL NEW UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND/OR UPGRADE EXISTING AS REQUIRED. BuOding C.ods(UBC), Nasionil Eltt>riul Cade (NEC), Utoform flumbing Code (UPC), ~ /~ ~ CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMRS AND APPROVALS AS REQUIRED BY C and ill epplirabk sum afGlifomu6hxal coda aruendoent. oodles leg'ulesiov. Theca ~ / GOVERNING AGENCIES. ~ r codes sha0 goram as minimum apedfuadons aaka rutted aapecifief otMawiu. _ ~ - - - - - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ -- ~. J / N vl 1 W SITE DEMOLflION -DEMOLISH AND REMOVE RESIDENCE, DRIVEWAY, WALKWAYS, O ~ DBTAD, DAAWDIGSANDII87AUC110N3: ~ '\~ 1 / ~ a ti, CONCRETE SLABLS, SIDE FENCES, ETC... AS REQUIRED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATE ~ I, ~~,~ N y`~ / OR FILL SITE AS REQUIRED PER PLANS, SOILS REPORT, AND CBC REQUIREMENTS. ~ QI a U work O required ip a menne tlms meta is bnpmsibk w product Tim olau wod, _ ~° ` 39 (~ f . ~y rt3T, ... ,~ a-~ ._ . ~... - ,w, a .... r m should diuaepurda spur among CamavvW Docummq request inttrpreudoo -"_ a 2410 , . ® t ^ ~ ~, ~ - - - :...u~ - - - , •• - - ~ ~ {y hdom preaccdivg wish wort DCsmtrMmfaiLt to nuke susA rtgasi, oo emuu wi0 '~. "-. p ter`, ~ 1 sll y ,F __ -'-~ ~'g ~ P"1 theaeRerbe emenaivedfarteiluamwryan arorls in eeuisfaaay mmrea. ~,. ~ m m ~t• ~ .. M ~- _ . .~.~., l; c; _ - ,' 8\`L. ~J o i ~ 1 III \\~ ti $ S £ ~' v-_~ _____ .h ~~4, ^ b. Should aMia oaurma6esaeen diewmgs aspaitrations, CanoatiorOdeemrA ~ I I Il I111~111'I \\ ~ s 1 +~ III~II I\~~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ •~°~ ~-Z --~---•-'_.-_- -- ~e ~ ~ Q'e ~ I~~I m have eadmeud on roue expeesiss: way of doivg work, nnlea A<shell have asked I i I I , ~ t~ ~ t~'~ ~ - .. _.. ~ ... . ' ~~ Peril I I I II I ~ 1 i\ 1 i• I I Illlllll`. . ~. ~ ~ -- - ~ a Q La fm and obuived writmn dcdaioo bdorc wbmusiw of u so which mnhad I I I ~I I 1 I I ~ i I I I t ' ~ : ~ R ~ ` la ~ ~ - '' -- - _ W mmamriils will beregvved ~ I I 1 ~l~~ y~, d ~ y I 1,1t1~11'~\ \ ~. \ ~ ~ ~~ - --O ---- -- -- ----- I ; ~I~ 6'iFJi.~`~IdlY.lll(''1~t\~`~.~\~\~ ~~~` ` ~-„'- .g- MANFAC111RRR5DDtECITONS: e 111 Ijl I X14 i I I I I I I I I t `~`p~~s ~~~ .. ~~ ti` •' - - - I - - -'UI . 111111 It I I j I I I II I .\ ~ ~ t\ ~ ~ 0. -~-_~ 11~_.- - '-- -- ~I ~ v, Merefadure:d udder, metaieO, egaipvau shell h 1 III 1 I I I I I I i, ;III ~, ~ \ \\\ \ \~\~ ~ ~ \~\~ ~ C------- ' K» 5 L1~I 1 ePP~ 'mulled woowed. (,~r• r I I I ~ I I I I m I I 1 rl j i I^ E \\ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ \ ` . ~ ~ ,1, ~~VV O emced, used; ekmed, cwdisiaud ee pa rlurufeeoerer'a pdnud direcdrxis aokss ' LJT ~ ! I I I r I ' ~ _ h `• \ \ \,~ ~ . \ ~ ~.~ ~` - ;I' RfAA S~E r7,~. spuified othawiu. I l~ l/ 11 i r~Aht I ~I I1 I ~I ', .gp t ` _ , r '. '^ rl J iii I la~l j'l j i !q i ` \\s ~ ~ ~s r~ ~ .. ~~ - _ /; i 11 I twos s ~~ ~/l~rtirt.~l f l~II~ I\\ \V v ~ ~ ~y. ~~. ~~ -''~'_c' ~ ..;~~ ~~, ~, entosvc3oen conNEC'no>~s: ~-:;,IJ~~fI o 11 ~ I, . _ ~ ~ '°"° O \ ,,~ ~ v~:~° \ h t~ • All uuchls3au, oomwcdaos, a fasuninge of say nemre sre m be avd ~ ®'!~I 11 r '~ t II r ~•~~. _~ I V\ # r~ ~~ si 1 I pertnenrndy seated m cmdosmena sdth bin pteetice; Cmtieda i3 sespomibk for ~/ i j li I ! III / t r I t ~ ` ~ ~ ~ .~, '..r'" "'VVV ~ ~ I`\ t I A/ vj pmridmg dram eocading.ro ghee cardniana Dmvinp show aol _- vimmou r~5 -P ~'9~S-Lr~ ~ i i jl~~~EI J ~ ~ Is'~r 1. . m auiss cootrxmr; do ea ONmwe uuh demiL Y~u9 ~. ~ ~ \ ~~ ~\°o \` I \ §' ' they 1'pY ~ a f . Iw±ell] v "o f ~ ~.._ ~. ~; \ r \ Q 4( ~ ea .. To un•o,a[n ••neYne'er[laanaewawsi ~ 1 yw,'' )sl~fsls0a: `• ~~ a'I ~ ~~ ® ie r; .~ .j ~ \\ , II ~d:c~ ~ - O • ea.»~:anl '__ 1,620/ a,"" '~ /IjJ /11 / 1 J I t I h ~ + .v .lt` ~~v:assrawiaes ~ ~ ~--~-`.-„ \ ~ ~~~ ll_r I' ° /~ ~ / / s , ~I "~~ ~1 INtl'aa3a•W n0`I ~' ,-''~ ', ~ ~ I vs'f QI /// / I 1 ~• ~ I ~ SARA70GA,.,11 ~` , ' / ~i i sf / / / I / I t~I ¢y / ~ ~ ' / I / ` • GARCf.'N5:'~ .I I •. ~ t6 ~, / ~ i ~~ I `'' I ~ / / ''~ q, 11 !! i gl~ w .. lV ~~' `' PP.R~EL d • r ~ %~ ` i C 5S AOA6 a ` : -u-` ~~~\ t - `` { w I k000! Ocs: `N.. ~a1/ I low :Y % t ~// ~:1:pRAES ~E EGRE~S.E.IS~MENT 1 ' ~" -_.. \o \1y11~\ i "as"'' r ~5 r~ ~ ly'T° ai ~~ _ .. ~8 ,~ ~ / pyT Ay. • ~ ~ %iN6 t~oe'~' r ~ ® f I 1 ~ M'`A^ a ''.} r r' r N F I ~ C ' ~ I .1 ~ y e i i , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:.,./ , ` /so a / /I I 1 ~\ 9N~", aa"d' a ~ O I11 eciox YoCS"" ~ / ~ ~ ~` ~ ~~ ~/, _ ~ ~' ~ ,~NI )h / i~b ~:r ? ry ~ ':. \ 0. _ M ` fa°Nw,~sn ~. ~i ~` ` r % ` / ~ i4~ l~~ ~^~ ~ ~~ ~ Djdf ~ -~ - - ---- - -------- / / ~ tau t °' ~R VJ --~ucwaII. ~ ~~ ~ ~~/o~L~" k ~~;i ~~1~/ .'C/// ~ /aDCxw t~~ ~° - ~c----"- - / ~ ,4r<~' ^ ~ 6' c ., tl, I I v2 rA \ ~ ~~ -;o'~~ Id ~ ~ ~~`'•-__________-________- = - ,, ~ ;{~ ~ _ v;; Revblana rwcsw sfi t~ \/ gerseep•e n s. ~/ ~. :~'. IJL7~-' ~ ~ ,. 6 - _ - yf' ~eK~+s610A i~a7 ~ i" 5 Jy ~ _~~ P- .. ~~~+~_ 'u° _~ ..~_- / /~"~`Y...d ~ 1~ TES ;~ "'~',; ~a9a4eus ~tlB Jc . Ip., 4, _,f otoa ^/. ~.°'~ Qe= ~ - e.9 @ ~ _53 _ "_'~ ~ ~ I eel' •'~ ., + 1 OFSAMRL£ aX wwt j/ l Nts ra•rewuuat ~ _ ~ ® ! .w -._ ~~ --_-_ ~~ // / // ;a ' OB s • / . ~, ~'~'>aal Zorn ~~ --~ i ~ ---~=~ // ~'d 3~0 '~. a / ~'. ~ira a W ":. ...wea'Jeemi be,a ~''°.' q ltss~--==' - ~ xA F ~~ ~~/ j: m t~ewunet ~. Q ~e "'®. / ° r , a n // i ~a.7/1•V.U.eil1 'S}3 ~ ~J; E ~~ ~ ~ ~S~ ,jA -' , a -f d i / r ~ to ~ ~/, ~4"` /a ~ ~M ... :~ ~ ~ w" ti ;~;'~ ~ & ,` / w v :SITE PLAN ~ / ~ , ! ~ $ " > ` '"°'' zero JUN 2 62002 lp 1 „ t /"",,~~~/ ~~ 12'INGRESS 6 E6REJJ E4JEMENT - ~ t3 • ~" ~ SCALE I" ° 20' / / r ;g' , ,._ ,~ ! Scale ay N ..PEItNI JSJ'0$Ze2. + ~ ~a.. ~ ( I c ~ ~,`, -'f ,.`-~.i 1Bd N 69~DA 671 ~ ' i ~ !` v r 0.0: 623 N 30 ~ 5D.' ~ ~.~ : • { _ ` Ne'17'la'w 1111 I Y eo5 ... .: ~. 1 r` •LANOSOf MCMA/NS 10836.(04 '+ ia3a v ~Na le7~>;V/e~33 `t7i o6 / ~ BUILDING CODE DATA ~ a SheetTNe % OCCUPANCY R3N-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 5~ WIATTACHED GARAGE / L CONSTRUCTION TYPE V, NR q ONE HOUR CONSTRUCTION AT GARAGE I RESIDENCE COMMON WALLS & CEILING Sheet Number BUILDING CODE 1998 CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODES ALL APPLICABLE CURRENT CODES TO CITY OF ^ _a SARATOGA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 8 STATE OF I{ CALIFORNIA (CEC, CMC, CPC, ETC...) • ARCHITECTURAL NOTES ~-- a ~ . . 1. Aft WnsbLlcBon shag 8. Afl habhable spaces shall be provided whh naluml light and ventlation. A minimum Total window site is 10% of room area with minimum 72 o e b _ 12. New tdleLS shall be 1.6 Ibn Bush l ntm fatal Uearances es k pa l 18.Raofug materiah shaft be Clews 8 minhnum asphalt / Wmptsiton shingles ~h I l f Y30 f l ' " ' $ ~ camPH witli the 1998 Cal'rfomia Cafifamia &ridlrg Code. Mechanical CMe Celil i p na le. : - Provide mebhaniwl ventilation at bathrooms and laundry. ~ of 30 inches side to side and 24 inch nee s ce n Bo e o e t war 12 COX Ya ph/wood roiled wkh Bd al6 arM 12 oc. . (EJ E%ISTNG , om a Phmbirlg Code, Caflfomie Elearical Code end the City Aniendmerlts. ~ 7. Minimum ceikng height in habitable spaces's T{". Bathrooms antl hallw ~ f 73.Sfawem ~ tuMshowers shall be provided wiN temperature, andla A9.All..attiq areas wdh al least 30• of headroom shatl-have a minknum eaess ~ 11'x30" Atti til lb h o enki (N) xEw (R) ~~~ 1 ~ nM xak ~ dra wings Mdisae and ays ~mey have minimum ceiling heghl of T-0'. ~ ~ - ~ pressure WMroI arlDacab vaHes. . c vert a n a P eN be anasquare mot d veM area far 9 each 750 sq. ft of attic area ~ (REL) RELOCATE . p as arB disWVered on Ble plarl$sal : Me sBe ar dimemion ere rrot dear confect d7e payM~ upW dbcwe dimensions are to fare of stud unleae rated dhe~se ry.. All ~ . 6-. Stair shah lave"a maximum riser M 6 Indies, ~a minimum (reed width or 9 inches, and a minimum overall wider of 38 i ~ 14.Prowde ~~~ wall surfacm to 70 irlr3im above fbor at eB showers and Wb/showers. - . 211.IMeria gypsum board shell be T2 irMdl urNess--IMNed othewse. Provide SB' ~ (T) TEMPERED D~'~ ~~ 3 Provbe b ~ ~~ smoke det a ' nches. Minimum head clearance shall be 6'A'. Winders shaft have minimum &irxdl wide bead, with minimum 9 P 15 i e X sum board ai welh in e e . A'Pp 9YD 9 m9 WIPPDnrcS SaCDrld flow living area erM at the new atluctural members in the garage ~OEIAR REFQtENCE A_I e as in e9d1 eu ~m°nl adjacent hallway, P 10 tt kR d inch wide Dead bratty T2 indres in from narrow end. . rar de seismic sh PPm9 and pressure rellef drain to outside at the water . gICEr ~ e8~ N p%re~ ~ ~ eroonneped smoke ete new bedroom arq 9. Slahs shall be provided wRh handrails r S pe actio 700 above Bua slabfired appliances at the garage shall be minimum 19 inches g .21.New windows aM Iesa doors shell~be double-glazbg:.Maldmum U•vabe ie I Drawl N0. 4. Safe Glee N rag s required at all glass doors, windows wfthin 24 irtU d n 3.3.3.6. Mounting igM shaft be between 34 end 36 inches above the treads. HaMmil shall be `Wntinuoua. ~ t6.lnsulete all duchvak in uMeated spaces par Tula 24 Energy Compliance 0.75 per Title 24 Energy Compliance documems. Vary rough openings erM ~ operdng~types witli manufactuer. Veriymbimum.egress requirements with A-I sECnoN REFERENCE SH[ET N les of a os edge, windows widdn 18 bdWS d a ova ' surface, ft, of a stair Iandklg mn~ wBhin 5 , and glarir al tub d ove 10 ~~~ doclnrnms. manufacturer. 0. T , g. an ah r encbWres 6' ~ s~Rq .rooms slsB ba id d r ' ~ ~~ stairs shall have walb and ceilings protected wBl7 5B" type X gypsum board. 77.Exlerbr stucco sid' shall be installed over 2 I ag ayers of Grade D paper over " 22.T'dle 24 Energy Canpliance requiremails br insulafbn are as hlbws: All ~, ~~ stall have R•13 Batts All rertadeled wal5 shall have R 13 b p aL N0. I OE A-I DETAIL/ELEV. RLTEREIICE ov e P wfth. emeryancy egress wlndwvs providing IM Idlaxiny dmieFSions: 14ainmum sill height le 44 inches minimum peara le 17. Elaancal outlets at bathrooms, et kkchen Wumam at the gara e and l th 376 COX ptyvrood nailed with 8d at 6' and 12' oc unless noted otherwise. Provide weep eased at sill line. Minimum eased clearance's 4 inches to aoB . • a s. AB raw ariflng aM attic areas aheY have R30 bath. Aft new-raisetl Boors ft N h 19 b R sNEEr ~. , rea 5.7 eq. fl, minimum d~ropeningwidsr is 20 knches minimum deer opening height is 24 kx;hea. , g , a e exterior shall be GFCI proteaed. Exterior outlets shall ba weamerproof. - - and 2 inches b patio, s a ava - ass. - - . j 1 1 i I ~ 21DV RER-PIACIE o rIODR RECCPIACLE d IFIEPIIONE JrL% O UNCI104 BO% ® IHERNOSTAT ® DOOR BELL CtFC. ~Pw1EL ---F NOSE BIB ~ SNCIE POLC SWRCx +ri 3-over s7mcx Hh~ /-WAY SWITCH N SM7fCH N7R7 pYYER +Ab~ WAIERPNWF SBIIIGI pMCNS10N TO CENTERLINE . of GRID. -.pMEN6gN TO iACE OF STUD OR SIRUCIURE. - ~ p H6 O N16 0R ~CLEPR OIM EN90N. / l ' 1 DOOR NUM6ER O wHOOwl MIMBER ~ . REY761pN (aouD AROUxo REVlstox) SNEEI NOIE - REFER TO NOES ON FACN SHEET ~] REFERENCE POINT 8'-0 CDLND NpOM FLWREBLTm Llp(T 0 REassED nuoRESCEUr oDMwucHr wRFACE YDUNRO INCwasaNr ® Euuusl/L~cl7r coxeNArlDx INR "' - LIDM TR1p( WITH Fi%iI1RE$' OR ® 3gpplY REWSiFR ~ LDw wALL RCC67ER . T TDE 14Gf REDhTER ~ SkglrE DETECTOR RENRN REGRIER IS FlRE SPPoNIgER - __ . NS S7 r a Cx ~ CRW W FAU7 WIQ7RUP7ER 11YE $NTCN DI,PLEx RECEPTACLE - 12- ABO4E FWa 51aD ROat, U.0.M, ' ~~66 -FT WPLE% RECEPfACLC ON (710Ut7D . . fWAI MEPoiVPr[R DIIDRDP(Df RECEPFACIf E YTERIdt wall (A) LxmsoR nNISH Ai: 7/9'CEM. PL D/ M1L U7M At MOW 9DNC AY. YAadNY OR WILE. WALL W/ YW. BITUMEN KYa. AT DU7pDE (BI WP. NFNBRANF B1: GP1aL 'D' BLDG PAPm (2 DYERS) (G) RYND. SNGiNNG a: f/a' Wx 0.YWDW cz s/a• cox PLrxooD (D) FxAwxc ol: 2x1 sTws 02: 9xa $TWB 03: Y7L FURRIxG (NAi 7AAIX) (E) wsuunax n: w-IS s i/Y eATp Eti R-le feAT n E3: Acournc eAtr E1: PodD IN91U7MIN (F) ptYWALI FY 7/'1• cw. eo. Fz s/e- cm. W. Fx s/a' Trwrx• cm. eo. n: w.P. GYP. ®. ik p11. AS9. B0. (C) N7ERgt nNrsl GI: 11AN9ET TILL M Cz MORTA9 SEi 71LB TERIOR WAL ro) rRAUwc ,,.~ m: a+ sTUOs Dz aw sTUOs (E) N4R.A7MY1 Ft: R-17 (3 1/2' BA71) F2 R-19 8A77) ~-C ~ E3: AOp75 GATT L4. Popp INSVUnw (F) DR1tlALL Fl: 1/1' GYP. b. F2 e/e' CTP. B0. q: e/a' 1YPE'X GYP. B0. F+: W.P. cYP. W. /` F4 CFk ASB. BD. `N (G) INIEPom FNI9M a: 7MNSET TF.E 02 YptTAR SET TAE WALL TYPES: EI WAIT ASCUBLY (AI,Bi,Cf,DI,Et,F2) : W 17ypFR, I~- {A1,eI,C7.02.E1,F2) ~- (AI,BI,DI,D7,Etj3) ~- (ALBI,CIAI,EI,FI) ©- (AI,BI,C1,Di,EI,FS,C 1) ~- (F2, 01, F2) 2~- (F2, 01, F2) 1~- (F2 Dt, F}) ~-_ (F2, 02, F3) Z ~- (F2, 07, F6, G7) ~- (F3, D1, Fa, C7) o-_ (F2, 01, E3, F2) ~- (F3, D1, F3) TYfl^AL WALL iTPE3 ZOOPH~Y~ ARCHITECTUIIE .@9BflLt1A1 !e LBIAkf IkW. fRa19 011. tl Na3r WUl`IIW IDWNIIOxadINFG7 6Ep ARQ,~ Jur`~ ~+~;°Fo ~~ * ~'~. N M ~ 1" z ~ ~ U d o A ~I ~ ~~~ Q W°~z ^U ~ MMM~~r ,III ~ p/®~ a IMq 0 3 ° W O z JUN 2 61002 sale ~ "_ :ou Project Sheet TItk3 ~- .. _ ..N -.:: Sheet Number I a p; ail ,utectncai Notes: Heating & Plumbing Notes: Interior Notes - ~: ~. . QBbrbeYydmaCamemrdEY5Y0melmdmWtm~C®mye¢xm ~ Efm~mmdmodmomJn6rma7bmmmedspnQmtlelmmm7.Nm~a it B6mem~moWirdmeCaaam maaa 5ukmmm'.nNeA edroiryep... -Llmmxw,wm4eQ«d~depiMleWround Amin .. . phmemmeedgmm+aR76e0emx'eaedHhnmp®1mYamatae®~«ty~~ mo~mtlameo6caodmommmmnlmmaem.mp eoaevmlaovo srym,agmakt .. ~.:' ,' , ~ eom A HeatednaAmeBheimdt6eteedmmik9mnaeuratmhey6ry,faaay PA.m~mm~me.ah.TmcamwmemBmtapanmkraamarimmmq man ~ mDRSnNAno7r-iac~mm~~,nmBe~,a~.urra~,mm;~rraa e>emoemompmrntrdmpyilCmmuaim6h,vgegdiuepeunmmeAamm•aeed G..a't ed9rae aommedTmBltmtN~CmR{igaA>Dd9e WdPef for eA~ peeue.Bmeamd EeaglmdaEmgPoabe oU lAaeodmemmh(aef~M A Hraeol me Amebhp~mdl emBmTmnhbd eMUWB:9metoadmce dB eO ~ 6M Comey m151m:mdmemtey®emmm Tm SAmomcemfelm0 amen and WY , eueotim pna mo®mmeujmy.smtie meermtwah ~dwu6 fihuenmefy m<Anmim and Opm. me Cmueu«unklyeardei8dra ugmdAmms« mamnapim d~7eameo &edmmy4llmdr}mlal+loR °~r'ms,4eedaemmm.liata.e (Q ellpmdo,1tammdfaertgevd endtWlrymme6lebaerdemvitfae w~dmeym meommda®plmm d.aa. ~ ~ _ wlam«®uaae.>mm«w yynaom;emo ee m;+.~e h me o.oa.~me ARanafa!wPO.a~aam •Behmed aom, mmn aha.ir . yni4d Amdde GPI pataaho itr elMec<pwla ~ A The Haug Cmesoz mail pwiac a cmapNe imxd•efr enemy e}Rn fa m: ~ . 014 Pmluoeaiaipiravwow, EemrtlOmml0al@IeTA ~ A Ymi6emh vm O.ua aEme seed hAmnmdeBeahneuiehm em tiwa ~ tAVeumeBmsam: ddelmodiuaaeallvpnm.iLcmemNNkayeoml.lend ~ em eppoaet AB mpnieb eod rgaipoem+MBkmnykmibed~mun Duoaia ~ .. ~. All ppm ve9eoW mfeare6~meldnuycnududdtxa~K m6 udka oven omad'neepolirdimtduim me0klm tapomWiydme0medfmmna. AB dna 'meBbeelamlbymeOoonP~aph4meG6ammap~ mEBameBmcp ~'~a~6o~ifa~ ~dme exatkotimu da0 mppry n~iOrn eod me ~ epa,!'xam. eoi t«ammmdd puew odmodMme~GYP9UM $~~ ~U305TSf~W C~ma%wehd mwB "ueryadtlP,®mAbmdudl lrq"krdm A hmllatrm9etEm meeai4dmm~nbtiameBgeim ede«mm haeb mmCBL•IIIIE2l eeaiprtpatarp '~ nmm a rtpm Hell he me mepmmUHry o1 me GmeN Cmuocmr. GtDI meemlkolam+0ta «km06y tlxpuoa, . . _ ... ... . . ...... .. ~ ......::_. _ . All nim«pye®wi~aum AeR~k~ooldaim(dmda mBtm Ta,e ne6 rdra eoau ll"oamem mutmtmeu W Pmehh ed mem0 em elafitd fiemm,ai6a m^he epdBd bTUeOmm. LnPeBBemmAmme>~mpperteam6t~Yete A The PYmEmr Cmeeamr Adlpnidee~o~eeyerm fa raria eSa.omDreeioy.ihpmem emO Seopamoe,trmemel~pmreG uWau. AB rtaaljdm of syp®PallhmdemD atsa enema. A66~mmljaem,bdlaa7ttomh4mWUe9 akapWn .. >) ABtemeKdekmdol BemaemE~EeRALO,aeimemmvlmapalBdgOmoa. Osma emO eoMtrlmeelmleBrCyp,pAaeeEfftlmamempdm3epeheB~c W 7he0auN OnemtrYm pmrikml4meABN«C Wmm me~Som. Omvamuo edm eB Wmeaeeu elm ad emeperormmdeimymFmefe Own mail mme eailANaui~fa fide6a d.A.Ldy ryeuiBelm memmige. ihe0emetOmeunmeV eeVd 6omVmmealor~eLRAGesaWfirmfimmmeU hew UL Udry eedlCThmd traU+eamhmmm at®C 7) Pmameemgeemetr5dvmx 6Anelm mtm8~mmuemeSmTmay me b M e mia dl~fm'ihnwmm.'E7.e«.pwmmamioedumtldue AR.mpped eun ehA kemued uua4 Eumee eaf u me ' 0 41kk{8aeauQhkTV;9lpmPVti+lmt(abaefamMmOeea;mmmegeum' n n cme A arype mSndpam Uleeas paBm6 91~Faroeehm:mu'sPmba 4T!Pya4nmaugreRetad9Repermumatrhn sp u om likpm iadgylhP.m.~pemw6eaam.armmdOmw«. ' - e~fmogmmsYeermvy. q A8 asmiq aamtr wrR maapd a etw~ emu m emelT.apped a . e>mmhe9m ngmdmmmmfuq ioKmeA Iq Awmemmlmmmd!7mme®MrrhBmemmexmm0aa4aq~u~n VVINDOIN/DOOR SCHECULE. '1 ® ~ ,\ A ® C' D E F G PRENCH DOOR SLIDING DOOR PIXEO CASEMENT DOUBLE FI%ED SLIDING •. BIDELITE HUNG t t~ I H I ~ I J K BAY N'INDOw BAY WINDOW - GKTLIGHT SLIDING DOOR ICASEMENT) IDOUBLC HUNGI W! GIOELlGNTB NOTES TO WINDOYd, SKYLIGHT & GLA39 DOOR SCHEDULE I 41 vrnows 6xvumrrs Ara mANSD4s To eE oiw: GIAffD o~sAATED. z Au iTEluO+000rs io ~ SN(tFD ~ 3 P~7,44F 1Fl.PEfLD BASS AT ALL FV7AfU0U6 LOCATgNS AWdrID l0 Sff RATS 1, ALL BEGfi0LM/8 9YYL HAVE Ai ~q( ONE OBE WegUY WrKYi {~T$ THE l8C BECKON FOe EXePA FEOIFEL6NB • 5715E tFf REIA OPEWBIE AfFA ~ N' K4A1A1 NEf C1FM YFAHf • 7V fYLA1l.M NET ClEN7 WDM THE 310' S4D Wt1'AW S7i41 NO7 EXCEED M ABO+E THE RA1 BOOR 0000.9 TO FXTFAOR MAY S416FY fXne+G RE6.lffTfNfB EGPs85 WMlOW& MNi(®©SFE R.VG EOR~IOGTgNB 5 ALL v,RapDVS 91418E RYA® v7000 tR1E59 OT7£RWlSE NOl®N 5019XAE B K-fa~'vxOCAV INNFACRfBr L$FE SPECS . T: vERHY 9lvlfdff twaFAClUitbi ~ BEE SPECS B All cf~le.rawoW A/O~HETIpi f siv+o Doan SHALL Iy1YE'FLR1 n9T WeAne+s7rsr~r+3 AVA®®, B„ Al ~IEwae pooas TO HAZE T14rE9oL178-BEE 9 ECB ~ - TI Ai 06CN ~HeWwP1E t0 BE SEIfEIED.BY oWrsl~ ~ SFECB ~~ tt Sffi EIEVA1tlN9 iCN riV11CMlAW FXIFAfM 000H SVRCS'MD OPERATgt1' Allyn wod'.mwlmEyatleaAat mtllmmB aome(mdm alhani«epedfamMPaaa.oa ehdl rdlormmW ~' udamme wA peromme eoJdim aolud by the WO~RORK P749II11fE OF CA'i1f0ANIA DvIC4 Tm ' c~ camama as Pe+ ~e.~a«dal ula amp r modAep rat 6e6eeP ma mgcm mew aeliwi®~... : -- ' Do oa mam m7um ov .~ ~ ~: . ~ I I I I I ~ \ 1 I I I I _J _J A B C D E f SWINGING PAIR PAIR PAIR POCKET OOUBLE _ SWINGING BI-POLD ELIDING ACTING Q II O.H. GAR4GE I _ NOTES TO DOOR SCHEDULE '' I ~ 41 DoDR sTnES wtTM oA'IEwtaa+lEDT. z 41 EXTEwDq cools ro HAKE q11 PEgfklFq NFATHEA slydaauc ~ ~ - 3 ALL SXIEROR W000 DOORS TO HAZE iHIE9QD6 BmYiO'D Ql NQ-0 AT R:90ENCE, L£TAL Ai GKtKiE A 5ff P,AfS FOR DOOR SWNG OAECTON MA.OPEMTQN s vRav SEIECTON a oooR fVADWAlE vales OWIER . 6 " ALL OOCR 92E5 ARE NOhCW. 4fl8Y g71X310iENBA Ydgi M4mFACTLP@t 7. ILl OOClS TO 8f PFM DgADE RgDD Oq AK90HIE - S~ 6FEOS ~ ~ ~. 6 PROvtOE 0.0SFA9 Ai ALL OOGG NWGD'~C ~ .. Aocxva®elmommeutmgeaemomao~yudBeeyaoa~.AtiaeaPa6eaeem0~auaoeQ mom.we9hyo.ma. cmew« AApnideme0ovmm ~Aamd.eaa ®lomghmmaeraatian. AO on Baame Ai6mmmm bme 0eea, Piana®mememdme.od CamemAtC~meOnnd - n] npnammeu®agi«dmimtrllen Oomoy aWa rt{vitmBa~eeroaeamDaaot4 eapa ad Pd;eufi«ummA9 m tee.ed r Porrided y ate. Tramearemaaae~plPAalwe~eA~Pmea~eoamm~enmeo.meaG~dcmma,~aam «aemr « rem d a~ d~u 1m.eh~ me.uplmam~ aeo elmdy mumim typuepeieA e«ee; rem«enb e>,a.a. ~ RdA ra «d, r~we 4d~ o..a mPmw «~e+rmla w ®e n e,~.e,;~e,o, d ,p<.o.ut>ecmmlrmrc~aAmmeameagmeD.oaaatiommalatmu~aa.da.w~aam~eaem mta gad6uoam e«dd n eAgmm7lemo ~ atiaM. Csmwcp.awA meieee.ue. SeB m mie.d.im m ' Cmaema, P>Q m ahieet immmom ~ I _~ -1 ~OP'~ ARCHITECTURE 9ggAN.iATW~- >?00114 U!. 0.1110 CR, p M101 WPlII6 mO1m®Fm1e11012i V~~BEp Aq~,~~O * C4te~ ~ ~~~P DOE Cfl~ ['/ 1e'I r Pi W rayy F-i Qd _ ~W 1~ A rr~~• ~1 W ~-, • wAp~ Mm r~r, IMF B r O 0~ H W U MOM F4 CJ 1~I sn»Be1i~nne "~'V~ ~_L ,„ ~,; ,. • ~~^"~ • TYPICPL~:11 PtiCll ~. ~d rn1ra151oPVEnaooP®nAr~GaUlxEOnAl~nlxG:coxo~ SlATFS C1A55 A ROOFING DR OOMP.5H8VGlE PER WDF/MANUFACNRFA 0.EQUlilEMEMT (SEE 9BYBC SEC. 5507) ., k I r 1+~ ~~? 4 IN d I" ~~d • . [C80 APPROVED SKYSIGHT Q ROOF FDIEPIACE CHIMNEY CAP85PARK ARRESTOR PROVIDE ATTICI ROOF VFHf 4D tOP8BOTTOM (COR-A-YENTSYSfEN) '~' ~ ~ 'y ~ ~ Iy __ _ _ I ~- b `~ DisrAU POOFD7G MATERU1wl ego FELT loR es elx. vnvell OvER atDx . ~~' ~v -++~.~-~~ PLril000 ROOF 91FAiHlNGW(7%~l6'D.C. AAfIfl15 W1R-3O DmRAT1(q~®Z7( - ®18 O.C. CER1NG10t5T5, 55" (OR 518"TYPE>n GYPSUM 80AAD CEAING • vaovn>Ea~tcRADEnnapDDATExi~EAVEAREa ~~ -~ t~ ~ _ ~ a- I ~ ~ ' RARI WATER SHEDIDSSDPDLG ROOPS SMALL BE CAUGHT BYGUTTERS AlANG - THE SAVE TO PREVENTGROt81D EROSION, GUfIEIt EMPTY INID YERTfUL . DOWNSPOUTS OR LEADERS, DISCHARGE INiD A DRY WEl10R STDAM GRAIN ROOF PLAN'. SCALE 1M' =1'-0" FLOOR AREA CdLCULATION PROPOSED I 1~ FLOOR _~~ =355 =no =940 =150 "- =4 SUBTOTAL =2,450 SQ. FT. ~ ® =sio suBTOru =3,07o sq. Fr. PROPOSED 2"0 FLOOR ' =2711 B =szo =eso =340 SUBTOTAL =2,0705Q.FY. ToraL FLOOR aREa =s,a4o sQ. Fr. urraasew,Naae~ LOOP C~ ARCUITECiUR~ ~, .~~~ »~~~D~a~ MONH IDR°@F®1®fA •~'~AR~I ''4y, ~,, Y ~ * GTJ82° ~ ~'?atu~' O ~ ~ N C ~ M !` H ~ ~ a W~ ~ U d • 0 ~ A w 0 W ~ ~ U A ~ a W ~ 0 ~' Ii W ~ z ,ale JUN 2 6 2aIZ I O81e III lice ~' U heel TNe fi41~C~I.A¶aIJ heel NLRnIH'r A-3 ceuoaomewP _. ~ . ~ ) :, ~, .. s~I~ol~c P~ GENERAL SYR~®OLS• ~, tl~ - TYPR714:12P71[N . ° iYP1Ul51DPR®ROOF @ FtATCELAL B CATHFDRAt C:7LING; OONOtEIE • RADI WATER SHED 6Y SIORNG ROOFS SHALL BECAUGHT gy GUTTERS ALONG ~ . SUTB pA4AR00FDIGOR D>MP. SHDxiE PER ~lMANUNICIUAEA THE.FAYE TO PREVENT GROUND EROSION, GUT'tHt EMPI1'iN10 VERnUL (E) IX6DNC ~ -~-.y-~-~- DIMENSpN TO CENNRt1NE OR CHID - REQUWBIENi (5&98190 SFG 1507) OOYMSPOUT50A IFAOEAS, OISCFWRGE INTOADRYWELL D0. STORK DAAU7 ~ (N) HErr 7 -y-- DIMCNSN7N TO FACE Of PLYN000 (OR SYSTEM (R) REMOVE I TO 51UD AT WALL WINO fLYAWO) l1ATALLA00FQNi 141TERNLW1630F&T (OAdLS BLDG PAPFA)OVE0.44TDx ~ (REL) REIDCATE 1 DIO M~EN90N~T~~ Of FlNSN OR ' • 0.YWOOD a00F511E1Tx01Gw17x ®IG•DL RAFlEA.Sw/R•30 DISIIIAnoN 82x • t®DAPPROVED SAYL1O1RpRDOF .. (>) TEIPERED _ ~O~~LS @15.O.C C7LU~ 101515, 45'(OR 518'TYPE A7 GYPSUM aDARD 0?81NG FD~tAff aDM1EY W 8 SPARI(ARRF3TOIt I[E~~ ° RtONDEq/GGRADERYM~00DATF]~OGED&VEARFA PROVIDEATTIGIROOFVENT~TOPBBOTTOH(EOR•hhVEHTyYSIkTI) . AR N0. ~~ I A f- COIUNN UK - 1 SECTION REFERENCE `J ARCAIT~C~U~~ d A-I I P SHEET N0. 1 (/'~~ IY 'A I ©\ /REV190N (CLOUD AROUND flEV1S10N) t~~'ml~fl A2 No. ~ J T BUADDIG EIFVAlIC11 REFERENCE ~~~~A~ID .-. ...__ -I ~¢ A-1 saE'r N0. a SHEET NOTE REFERENCE RNL N0. H O• (E) D ~q~fF. ._ ... . .....:.. .... . ,. ~ ~ ' WALL OR DETA0. SECTION REiEMNCE ~ ETRSIWC ORWF '9 0~ u...., A-T SHEET H0. ~ f4.0' * C•~E'U6 # NEVI CRADE ' 8'-8 CER4TG HCICHT ~~ ~,,~N P i ~8TC0.LyN" 1dtI0It I)E~dGN C®NCEdAT ' °, •-; Iv :~ ~ ~ ~R 1 N ~ -- - ~i ~ --- ? l\ ~ ~ ` i.. ~ ~ eJ •J a ~ .°.•. .a.... w .... . ..., ~ .a 1 I I}•- -a ~ R °er.p s I ' r ~ ° .II ~ • ~ D NORTH ELEVATION: ~- -- ~ - - J `1. ~ R>mEttlnp arALL• ~ ~ A o - ~1 ._•d..i...:L::n ...L.... L..t I SCALE ll4'~1°-0". ° 3fb4T5II1L1.0 EYIEiN)R WALL fIIIEiII W(METAL UIH TYYnl BUDDVIG PAPBI - ` ~ ~j QIAYERSOFGRADEDE11a0DdGPAPB!)OYERV4'm7(RYVWOD(AL90REFER SPECIALNUTE$' i N, " ~ -- T~1 ros~tsaF.ota~whx®1s'o.cmroGeR'passaAT>a+ • Foundation to be covered and bacldilled to natural contour with only G" exposed. ~ I Y+Il'1 VJ ' snxmFtNm+®TRaaATwcmowsArroDOORS. • Stone facet with earth tone colors shall be used just below the stucco wall sill. ~' ~' ,' I .-.. ? :' • . w -. ~~ .... °• Q ° ~~®~~~°~~~~° • Floral boxes shall be used with designated windows as specified. ~ ° ~~ . ~ ~' ° ~~ v . ~~ is ~ a L~MM ~J wt10nli ~ .BALCONY DETAIL W ~u.o I ~ ~ O O -• rRfD OD ~ z +1r•r <, sPNd eEnEDI I•nnROOD FuE Revisials t1IIG ~ ru ~" ,j, -•~° ~ •~p~p. F sP~ -~-H-~~°Ldl ~Jdi~~uUiI~C~~U~ ,~. ~'e re SCE 0 C o.C 7 ~--S-f-~ 1 Z~16 FL09A .BOX DETAR. ,I,_Ir~ aam JUN161002 ya SCala II, hII snATU o:ER eaaF uTx c~ swo ron -•-1 Project '! do SheetTRte -gip 1\ ItV . .. ICO 1~ SOUTH ELEVATION • D°"~P""E°"~'G PMT - • SIDIIE VBTEER ®AL~TTARfiI ~ t~ ~ J II,II of IiOAQDNTAISTE$PIPEAAa]NGOeALNNY TFPIGILR.WR:Rh'TDGRYWOOD,G'WEDTDFU)OR)O~ISWl2%O1fi' ~~ ~ 0.G706TSWIR•19R151MTx1TT818'MUtO7AWL5PAC? ~. ° JrDIA2f[E<EGFRGESURAtlW118'SQ.BA~814'~.CAPITAEPER ~ 51UDCD '0184ntFSTOR'AAQIDRT1IRAL FAC/IpE lRR1PIIIED"' PROVD)E CROSSV@IIII'TG AT OTAWL SPAO:ARFA • PAE•{ASTGFROaALUSiAACESY5TETIBY'aEMCRBI'oR•AAaTIFCnAL1l -'• I SheelNUmtNN FACADE UNLP1[TED' COLUMN DETA~ '" I p-4 • ~~_ o ~ ~ ..w SO%LD8R9G ~NFl~.SDP~ scars • TYPICAL 4 :II PRLH • TYDICN.SIOPPEDRWF~FLAT®.dRGRCRTMEDRAL~ILRRG:NNfHETE SLATES C1A55 A 0.00FDNi OR COMP. SH[NGIE PER CODF/NANUFACIURFA REQURIEMEMf (SEE 9B'CBC SEC, 1507) • DRSTALL ROOFDIG MATEAW. WI d30 FELT (DR B15 BIDG. PAPERJ OV61 &'CO)( PLYWOODROOF SHEATHING W/ 2%16' O.C. AAFIBLS WIR•30 DbUTATR'Ri R 2% ®16 O.C CEILINGlODi1S, N' (OR S/d'TYPE 7() GYPSiRA BOAAD CED.DK, • PROVIDE A!C GPADE PtYW'OOD AT E%%ISED EAVE AREA • PADi WATER SHED BY SLOPING ROOF59RNL BE CALtdYI BY GUIIEP.S ALONG THE EAVE TO PREVEMGROUND ERCGION, GUTTER @IPIY INTO VER1iCNl DOWNSPOUI5 OR IfADERS, DISCHARGE IFIIOA DRY WELL 00. StOAM DRAIN SYSTEM • 1CB0 APPROVED SIO1]GHf ~ ROOF • FOtEPIALE CHIMNEY CAP R SPARKARR6fOR .. PROVO)EATTICIROOFVBif@TOPdBOTiOM(WR-A-VBIfSYSfEN) • SCOAT Stucco DlfERIOR WALLflNISH WI METAL U1H IYVF[WADR~PAPER Y! DYERS OF GRADED GUIDING PAPE4~ OV9t K" COXPLYWOOD IAt50 REFEA i0 SHEAR $CHEOUIE) W/ 7A ®Id' O.C.SIUDS b R•131NSUUIpN ' • STUCCO flN4HFDIRIM AT WMDOWS ANDCOORS. • PROVIOEW~SCREFD R-0SNCCO WALLSRtPUIE LOCAL! • DQIBLE PANE GlA2WG • S,CNJE VENEER®ACCEM AREA • HORUONTAI S1EEt%PE RANING 03ALCONY • IT pA.2-%ECEGFRC CODIMN WlIB'30. BASEb 11.50. CAPIIALPER "CHHACRESI" OR'ARCHIIECNRAL FACADE UNUAdi®" • PRELASf GFRC BAU131RADESYSIFM BY"CHEMCRFSf'OR'ARCHIfECRIRAI FACADE UNUAW®" ' TYPlCRPIOgt:Tl'TeGPLYwDDO,a>kDroFwoRmosrsw/>x®is'ocmms w! a•19 DRwuT[al a ]8•dmL owwLSPAO: • PROVIDE OlOSS VEHTDIG AT CaAHt EPAD:AAEA WEST ELEVATION SCALE U4' =1'-0" EAST ELEVATION ~~ ZOOP ARCHITECTUR€ names9nll. xsal: ailwa aONdtudLlORHWl,aIN/ >.~~~~ 5g0 ARDhiT 9~ Iii ~~,, * ~~ -~- ~~~ D6 CAI~~' O ~ C N O ~ ~z ~" ~+ x o ~ w ~ W "a ~ d U Q C A d . ~ A ai 0 0 W w °~ z U d ~~p W a °~ 0 W O yy ~ I~-~ ~ o;l~e'JUN 2 E 2D02 ~ J~ro~l Project Sheet TrRe ~/a~1~1 _IoN Sheet Nhumber Fi-~ SECTIaN o, a ~~" ~ ~ , '. ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Project Description 02-173 CITYWIDE City of Saratoga Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director September 11, 2002 N/A Department Head: City Staff and Captain Bacon of the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department have met to discuss simple methods that would ease their enforcement of City Tree Removal regulations. The proposed ordinance amendment is the result of that discussion. This amendment will require anyone removing an ordinance-protected tree to be able to produce a copy of the approved permit. If the person removing the tree(s) cannot produce a copy of the permit, the Sheriff Deputy or Code Enforcement Officer will then be able to shut the job down. In the past the Sheriff Deputies have been reluctant to do so as they-did not feel they had a Municipal Code section to back them up. This amendment will provide them with sufficient ordinance authority. The proposed amendment is the addition of a new clause or section. The proposed language of the amendment is as follows: "IS-50.130 Possession ofan Approved Tree Removal Permit • A person or fjrm removing an ordinance protected tree as damned in section IS-50.050 shall have in their possession a copy ofan approved Tree Removal Permit. Upon request of a City of Saratoga Code Enforcement Officer, Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputy , , or other City Official a person or firm removing an ordinance protected tree shall produce the approved Tree Removal Permit. If the person or firm cannot produce an approved Tree Removal permit all tree removal activity shall be suspended until a permit can be produced or obtained from the Community Development Department. " ~~Q~Ol J~ ~` Staff Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution, which recommends to the Ciry Council that Section 15.50.130 be added to the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • • Q00002 d >f • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment to Section 15-50.130 to requirement any person removing anordinance-protected tree to produce an approved Tree Removal Permit upon request of a Code Enforcement Officer, Santa Clara County Sheriff or other City Official; 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 following finding has been determined: ^ The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is needed to ensure that the removal of ordinance-protected trees has been approved by the Community Development Department. _ __ NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: That Section 15-50.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: "15-50.130 Possession of an Approved Tree Removal Permit A person or firm removing an ordinance-protected tree as defined in section 15-50.050 shall have in their possession a copy of an approved Tree Removal Permit. Upon request of a City of Saratoga Code Enforcement Officer, Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputy or other City Official a person or firm removing anordinance-protected tree shall produce: the approved Tree Removal Permit. If the person or firm cannot produce an approved Tree Removal permit all tree removal activity shall be suspended until a permit can be produced or obtained from the Community Development Departrnent." PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on September 11, 2002 by the following roll call vote: 400003 +. r~ ~~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • • .ooooo~ • ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 02-124 CITYWIDE City of Saratoga Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director September 11, 2002 N/A Department Head: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City Council has referred this item to the Commission for their study and recommendation. Currently, Section 15-19.020(f)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance allows sound walls to be required by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission upon a determination that such a fence or wall is needed to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of commercial activities. This zoning code section does not address the approval of materials and design for aesthetic reasons. The proposed ordinance amendment will allow for the Director or Planning Commission to consider the design and materials in the approval process. Belo_ w please find a draft of the proposed amendment. Language to be deleted is shown with while language to be added is shown as in bold italicized font. "15-19.020 (f) Screening, Landscaping and fencing • (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this subsection (f), the i'`larnmig Community Development Director or the Planning Commission may require the installation of a solid fence or wall up to eight feet in height along any property line that abuts a residential district, upon a determination that such fence or wall is necessary to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of the commercial activity upon the residential use. In the case of an existing commercial development, such fence or wall shall be installed within sixty days after the requirement is imposed by the Piamung Community. ' Development Director or the Planning Commission, unless a longer period of time is allowed by the Director or the Commission by reason of extenuating circumstances, including, but not limited to, the installation cost of the new fence or wall, or the value of any existing fence or wall to be demolished, or the cost of removing any existing fence or wall. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission based upon a finding that the design, color and materials of the fence or wall will not adversely affect contiguous properties d~0~1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Ado t the attached Resolution which recommends to the Ci Counc' p ty it that Section 15-19.020 (f) (4) be amended to include aesthetic review of any required sound wall. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution • • ~oooo~ ,y i • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attachment 1 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment to Section 15-19.020 (f) (4) to include aesthetic review of design, materials and color of required sound wall; 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 following finding has been determined: ^ The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is needed to ensure harmony between commercial and residential land uses through the control of the design, color and materials of required sound walls. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: That Section 15-19.020 (f) (4) is hereby amended to read as follows: "15-19.020 (f) Screening, Landscaping and fencing (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this subsection (f), the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission may require the installation of a solid fence or wall up to eight feet in height along any property line that abuts a residential district, upon a determination that such fence or wall is necessary to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of the commercial activity upon the residential: use. In the case of an existing commercial development, such fence or wall shall be installed within sixty days after the requirement is imposed by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission, unless a longer period of time is allowed by the Director or the Commission by reason of extenuating circumstances, including, but not limited to, the installation cost of the new fence or wall, or the value of any existing fence or wall to be demolished, or the cost of removing any existing fence or • wall. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission based upon a finding -. .. Od0"003 r. ~. - ,. that the design, color and materials of the fence or wall will not adversely affect contiguous properties." PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on September 11, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • ....~ C COMMISSION ITEM RESOLUTION No. 02-043 -- Granting the Appeal of Breck regarding an Administrative Decision Conditionally Allowing Pavement within Ten Feet of Oak Trees At 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga, California CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECITAL OF PROCIDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND WHEREAS, pursuant to the issuance to Mitchell Cutler ("Applicant Cutler") of City Building Permit No. 02-00001510 on June 26, 2002 for the construction of a concrete wall on the property known as 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga, California and also known as Santa Clara County APN 397-22-051("subject real property"), the Community Development Director of the Ciry of Saratoga made an Administrative Decision granting the zoning clearance required by City Code Section 16-05.030(c) by approving construction a concrete wall and footings (including piers) located adjacent to such concrete wall, subject to specified conditions for the preservation of City Ordinance- protected oak trees within ten feet of said footings; and WHEREAS, William F. Breck ("Appellant Breck") filed an appeal to the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission as to the above-described Administrative Decision, contending, inter olio, that approval of the concrete wall and the footings located adjacent thereto constitute a violation of City Code Sections 15-50.110 and 16-05.030(g); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held_ a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Appeal of Breck on August 28, 2002 at which time the Planning Commission considered the written Staff report with attachments and an oral Staff Report, and all interested parties and members of the public were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and, in fact, Appellant Breck, Applicant Cutler, and others, provided testimony and documentary evidence to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, based on the entirety of the evidence before it, the following findings have been made by the City Planning Commission: ^ That the recital of procedural and factual background set forth in this Resolution is true and correct and supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and ^ That the Appeal of Breck applies to all Ordinance-protected oak trees potentially damaged or impacted by the construction of the concrete wall pursuant to City Building Permit No. 02-00001510 and the footings located adjacent thereto; and ^ That said footings constitute pavement and the totality of the concrete wall constitutes a structure, either of which determinations renders City Code Section RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 1 of 6 °~'s ~~ 1~ ~1 ~? ~~~~~~, V ' /^J~~ 15-50.110 applicable to the construction work which is the subject of the Appeal of Breck; and - That damage has been caused by construction and placement of said footings and said concrete wall within ten feet of Ordinance-protected oak trees and additional damage thereto will occur in the future unless Applicant Cutler complies with conditions imposed by the Ciry Community-Development Director and additional conditions imposed by the Ciry Planning Commission in order to be consistent with the findings and purposes of City Code Article 15-50, the City's Tree Regulations; and WxE>t~S, the Planning Commission has determined that the burden of proof of all facts required to grant said Appeal of Breck regarding an Administrative Decision has been satisfied. DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve and determine as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the evidence submitted in connection with this matter and thoughtful deliberation thereon, the Appeal by Breck of the above- described Administrative Decision is hereby granted and the City Planning Commission hereby assumes the role of approving authority under City Code Section 15-50.110 as to any construction on the Cutler's subject real property to which such Section is applicable, including, but not limited to, the concrete wall which is the subject of City Building Permit No. 02-00001510, the footings adjacent thereto, the concrete wall which is the subject of City Building Permit No. 02-0000310, and any remaining concrete wall(s) or footing(s) proposed to be constructed between the Cutler's subject real property and the Breck property; and Section 2. That the Planning Commission hereby imposes the following conditions on the concrete wall which is the" subject of City Building Permit No. 02- 00001510 issued to Mitchell Cutler on June 26, 2002 and any footings located adjacent thereto: ail 3r.,. Y S~ 1. That the City Arborist inspect and prepare an Assessment Report to the Ciry Planning Commission detailing the damage caused by construction and placement of said footings and said concrete wall within ten feet of each Ordinance-protected ,' oak tree and the probable additional damage thereto which will occur in the future unless Applicant Cutler complies with conditions imposed by the City Community Development Director and additional conditions imposed by the Ciry Planning Commission; and RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 2 of 6 ' ~'~O 2. That the Ciry Arborist prepare a recommended Mitigation Plan to the City Planning ~G/ • Commission for the preservation and remediation of the health of each of the ~ v ~~ damaged trees described in Condition 1 above, including a recommendation as to ~/ whether the health of said trees is best protected by removal of said footings and/or concrete wall or allowing said footings andlor concrete wall to remain in place _ while imposing additional mitigation measures; and That the City Arborist_prepare aValue of Damage and Bonding Recommendation Report to the City Planning Commission addressing the value of the damage caused by construction and placement of said footings and said concrete wall within ten feet of each Ordinance-protected oak tree and the probable additional damage thereto which will occur in the future unless Applicant Cutler complies with conditions imposed by the City Community Development Director and additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, and recommending an amount and term for a bond in favor of the City assuring funding to pay for carrying out all of said conditions in the event the Applicant fails to do so and to guarantee the replacement of any of said trees which dies within a specified reasonable time period recommended by the Ciry Arborist; and 4. That the Assessment Report, Mitigation Plan and Value of Damage and Bonding Recommendation Report required by Conditions 1, 2 and 3 above be: (a) completed as soon as possible and not to exceed 60 days from August 28, 2002; (b) provided (upon completion) to each Planning Commissioner, the City Community Development Director, Applicant Cutler, Appellant Breck, and the owner of each property abutting the subject real property; and (c) placed on the next reasonably available City Planning Commission Agenda for a duly noticed Public Hearing to enable the City Planning Commission to consider and impose any additional lawful and appropriate conditions on the construction of said concrete wall and the footings located adjacent thereto; and 5. That no additional construction shall occur on the subject real property nearer than ten feet to any Ordinance-protected oak tree until the final decision by the City Planning Commission as to all conditions to be imposed pursuant to the Public Hearing held pursuant to Condition 4(c) above and unless such additional construction is consistent with said final decision; and 6. That the following actions shall be completed by Applicant Cutler immediately (taking practicalities into consideration): all tree protective measures identified by the City Arborist in his April 22, 2002 Report shall be put in place, including, but ~ not limited to, removal of all fill dirt within three feet of the Ordinance-protected trees, including, but not limited to, the one identified as tree number 1 by the City Arborist in his April 22, 2002 Report; and RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMII~IISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 3 of 6 7, ,'~~ - ;~`~: ~.~ `,~% ' .~ That when construction near the Ordinance-protected oak trees does recommence ;~~ ~`~ on the subject real property, a licensed arborist shall first be retained by Applicant ~' ~;~~~, Cutler (or his, successors in interest to the subject real property) to supervise- such ~'/ construction and to ensure adherence to each condition imposed by the City Planning Commission pursuant to the Public Hearing held pursuant to Condition 4(c) above; and 8. That there shall not be any further construction on any concrete wall or within ten feet of any protected tree on either side of such wall on the subject real property until all City Code enforcement matters pending as to the subject real property have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Section 3. Pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.090, as to an Appeal of a decision by the Community- Development Director made pursuant to any of the provisions of Article 15-50, the decision of the City Planning Commission shall be final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council. This Resolution shall be deemed effective on August 28, 2002, the date of the action by the City Planning Commission on which it is based. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission; State of California, August 28, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BARRY, ROUPE, GARAKANI, HUNTER, KURASCH, ZUTSHI AND CHAIR JACKMAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: , Secretary to the Planning Commission RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 4 of 6 ~~ • NOTICE OF DEADLINE TO SEEK TUDICIAL REVIEW ti ~-~ . ~'`O ~Y ~ ~'~~ i~ ~ ~°'.' ,~ ~4 NOTICE TO APPLICANT MITCHELL CUTLER AND TRACY CUTLER AND TO APPELLANT WILLIAM F. BRECK: THE APPEAL OF WILLIAM F. BRECK REGARDING FOOTINGS AND A CONCRETE WALL WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES HAS BEEN GRANTED. IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS DECISION, THE DEADLINE TO DO SO IS GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.6. ANY SUCH PETITION SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN THE 90TH DAY FOLLOWING THE DATE ON WHICH THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL. THIS DECISION BECAME FINAL ON AUGUST 28, 2002 AND WAS MAILED BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, INCLUDING A COPY OF THE PROOF OF MAILING, TO MITCHELL CUTLER AND TRACY CUTLER AND TO WILLIAM F. BRECK ON (DATE. • RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 5 of 6 ~. v~. //// J/ h; V PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I certify and declare as follows: ~'~, -, ; j,' ~, ~~: ~.~ f • ~, > ;,,,, r :i „t,; ~/`~ , N L1 . I am over the age of 18, and not a party to this action. My business address is City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale, Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070, which is located in Santa Clara County where the mailing described below took place. I am familiar with the business practice at`my place of business for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United-States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On 2002 the following document(s): 1. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Granting the Appeal of Breck regarding an Administrative Decision in relation to Allowing Pavement within 10-feet of an Oak At 14480 Oak Place - was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage fully paid to: Mitchell and Tracy Cutler 14480 Oak Place - Saratoga, CA 95070 William F. Breck 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 I certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. Dated: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL OF BRECK RE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROTECTED OAK TREES Page 6 of 6 `r MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JULY 17, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:00 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) City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (2 cases) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported that the City Council held a special meeting on July 10, 2002 and directed the City Attorney to file a response to the petition for review submitted to the California Supreme Court in the matter of City of Saratoga v. West Valley Mission College District. The decision was supported by a vote of 4-0 with Councilmember Bogosian abstaining. Mayor Streit announced that during closed session this evening, the City Council approved a settlement agreement in the matter of Saratoga Fire Protection District v. the City of Saratoga. The agreement was approved by a vote of 5-0. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that in light the Council's decision this evening to approve a settlement of the Fire District litigation, Councilmember Mehaffey moved that the Council reconsider the decision made on September 25, 2002 to deny the Fire District's application. Councilmember Mehaffey further stated that thanks to the good work of the AdHoc Committee the Council has a basis to direct the applicant to develop a proposal based on Scheme A including public parking in exchange for the City's transfer of the Heritage Plaza and to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he understands the Council cannot vote on this motion this evening, but asked that it be placed on the agenda for the August 7, 2002 City Council meeting and that the City Clerk schedule a public hearing for reconsideration of the Council's decision. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Ann Sullivan, Secretary to the City Manger, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Rni.i, CAi,i, 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 Joan Pisani, Recreation Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 17, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of July 17, 2002 was properly posted on July 12, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, noted that a year ago she came before the City Council requesting that the City preserve a walkway on Quito Road that has always belonged to the City of Saratoga. Ms. Jensen noted that she thinks it will soon have a fence on it. Ms. Jensen noted that Quito Road was moved over the centerline was painted 8-12 feet to the east where Quito Road was formally was and it became curved where it was formally straight. Prior to the renovation of the bridge, Ms. Jensen noted that there was a walkway on her property and a walkway on her neighbor's property, which was the only place pedestrians could use on Quito Road. Ms. Jensen noted that when the width of the bridge was widened the water District made it 56 feet wide of public right by taking of 40 additional feet from the property on the east side with an easement. Ms. Jensen noted that she donated the land for the new walkway and a flood easement. Ms. Jensen noted that her neighbor is relatively new to the neighborhood and was not aware of the widening of the road and the easements when he applied for the permit for his fence. In order to get his property surveyed Ms. Jensen noted that her neighbor used a 1924 description of his property, which has Quito Road placed 56 back in its original location. His survey now shows he-owns the walkway. Ms. Jensen requested that the City help her with this issue. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, noted that this was the fifth time he has come before the City Council this year. Mr. Breck noted that 1VIr. Cutler still has.not installed protected fences around the protected trees. Mr. Breck sited several violations that he has noticed on Mr. Cutler's property in which the City is not enforcing: 1) Violating UBC 3307 2) New permits are still being issued to Mr. Cutler 3) No penalties for cutting down protected trees 4) Project did not go through the City's Design Review process. • • City Council Minutes 2 July 17, 2002 COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Baker directed staff to follow up with Ms. Jensen and possibly agendize the issue at a future Council discussion. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he would support agendizing this issue. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested Mr. Breck receive all the information he has requested. Councilmember Mehaffey asked why the tree protection fences were not up yet. City Manager Anderson noted that he would talk to staff in the morning and report back to Council. ANNOUNCEMENTS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS Mayor Streit announced that this Saturday the City's Attorney, Richard Taylor, was getting married. Mayor Streit presented City Attorney Taylor with a gift from the City Council and a gift from the City Manager's Office and wished him well with his future wife. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING MAY 5, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 5, 2002. MOTION PASSEDS-0. 2B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. City Council Minutes 3 July 17, 2002 a Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 2B of the Consent Calendar be pulled. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he was absent on June 5, 2002 so he would be abstaining from the vote. WALTONSMITH/BAKERMQVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH MEHAFFEY ABSTAINING. 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JUNE 26, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JULY 10, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. CLAIM OF CAROL HUTCHINGS; CLAIM NO, GL-053529 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to reject claim. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ABAG TO SETTLE CLAIM NO. GL-05347. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIL VTA FUNDING RESOLUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. City Council Minutes 4 July 17, 2002 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-048 _ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TIER 1 FUNDING FROM THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PROGRAM FOR REACH 3 OF THE PROPOSED UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD TRAIL PROJECT Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2G of the Consent Calendar be pulled. Councilmember Bogosian asked for a brief description of the funding resolution proposed to Council tonight for approval. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analysis, responded that resolution before the Council tonight has been requested from VTA as part of the application process for Tier 1 funding for the bicycle program. The purpose of the resolution is so the VTA can earmark the funding for the City of Saratoga, it is not a commitment on behalf of the City to except or spend the funds. Analysis Bloomquist noted that the funding would be there if the City ever decided to go forward and participate in the program. For the record Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Council is not endorsing the approval of going forward with the construction of the trail, the proposed resolution indicates that the City wants to reserve funding should there be consensus of the neighbors bordering the trail that the City go forward with it. The resolution indicates that the City would not loose share funding from the county. Vice Mayor Baker concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and noted that the City does not have consensus of the neighbors nor do they have all the data to make a decision. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he concurred with his colleagues and added that his concern is that in the resolution it states that Saratoga is the lead agency. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if it was solely the City's decision whether or not the trail gets built. Analyst Bloomquist responded that it completely up to the City. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TIER I FUNDING FROM THE VTA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. REQUEST BY SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY FOR AN UNDERGROUND PIPELINE EASEMENT THROUGH FOOTHILL PARK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: WALTONSMITH/BAKERMQVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AYSO AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 5 July 17, 2002 2I MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TWO STOP SIGNS ON HILL AVENUE, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND MONTALVO ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: _. Adopt resolution. - TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-236 RESOLUTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TWO STOP SIGNS ON HILL AVENUE, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND MONTALVO ROAD WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TWO STOP SIGNS ON HILL AVENUE, AT THE INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND MONTALVO ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2J. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF FARWELL AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-237 RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF FARWELL AVENUE WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF FARWELL AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2K. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF HERRIMAN AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2K of the Consent Calendar be pulled. Councilmember Bogosian asked the specifics behind the request. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that she attended the Public Safety Commission meeting. where they discussed this issue. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the driveway at this particular property is %2 circle and when cars are parked between the ingress and egress of the driveway it prohibits the property owners vision of oncoming cars. City Council Minutes 6 July 17, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the property owner recently was hit while trying to exit her property. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the property owner is requesting that the center portion of the two driveways to be painted red. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded yes. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that this item be brought back to Council at the next meeting. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the August 7, 2002 City Council meeting. Mayor Streit requested that the Chair of the Public Safety Commission be present at the next meeting. 2L. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF TAMWORTH AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: MV-239 RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF TAMWORTH AVENUE Vice Mayor Baker and Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2L of the Consent Calendar be pulled. Councilmember Bogosian noted that his concerns are the same as the item prior. Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to the August 7, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BRUSH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-053 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BRUSH Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer reported that the resolution before the Council this evening City Council Minutes '] July 17, 2002 represents the second step in the Saratoga's Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. City Clerk Boyer explained that the County has sent owners of the parcels requiring abatement informing them that the hazardous vegetation must be abated. City Clerk Boyer noted that Judy Saunders from the County Fire Marshall's Office was present tonight to answer any questions Council may have. ,. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m: WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BRUSH. MOTION PASSES 5-0... 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-REQUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce ordinance; place on next agenda for adoption. Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Vasudevan explained that on June 19, 2002 the City Council reviewed the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to requirements for basements. The City Council raised several issues and decided to continue the matter. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff has revised the proposed amendment _ to reflect comments raised by the City Council. Planner Vasudevan noted that following revisions: • Definition of "basement" on hillside lots • Development requirements for basements and lightwells Planner Vasudevan noted that also at the June 19th meeting Council did not make any comments regarding the proposed requirement that there shall be no basement beneath accessory structure. Accessory structures are restricted to one-story and are typically used as pool cabanas, garages, guesthouses, or storage sheds. In addition to limiting the off haul of soil, the planning Commission felt that the use of accessory structures sYiould not be intensified by adding a basement level. The City Council should discuss this requirement and decide to modify, delete, or keep this requirement as proposed. In regards to cabanas, Mayor Streit noted that he supports basements under this type of structure as long as it's within the setbacks and within the structures footprint. , Vice Mayor Baker asked if accessory structures with basements need dual entries or exits. .City Council Minutes $ July 17, 2002 John Livingstone, Associate Planner, responded that those requirements fall under the building code depending on the proposed use of the structure. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that basements under an accessory structure is beneficial as long as the structure meets the setback requirements and is limited to non-inhabitable space. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that basements would help reduce the sprawl and property owners get more usable space without the appearance of bulk and mass. Vice Mayor Baker noted he does not support building full basements under accessory structures because the permit does not restrict its use after it is built. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Andrew Barnes, 14377 Old Wood Road, noted that he is currently constructing a house including a basement. Mr. Barnes noted that he has a problem with the definition of a "basement" and a "daylight basement". Mr. Barnes thinks that that the square footage of a basement should not be included in the total square footage of the house. Councilmember Mehaffey asked for clarification on the definition of a daylight basement. Mr. Barnes explained that a daylight basement is a house on a hillside where half of the house is underground. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he does not disagree with Mr. Barnes in regards to daylight basements. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that Item D should be removed. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, suggested that "accessory structure" be added to Item A in the ordinance. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE DISCUSSED AMENDMENTS FO REMOVING ITEM D AND ADDING "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO ITEM A. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE, WAIVE THE FIRST READING, AND PLACE ON THE AGENDA FOR ADOPTION ON AUGUST 7, 2002. MOTION ASSED 5-0. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -SINGLE STORY OVERLAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce ordinance; place on next agenda for adoption. City Council Minutes 9 July 17, 2002 z Vice Mayor Baker recused himself from discussing this item and stepped down from the dais. John Livingstone, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that on January 16, 2002 the City Council adopted a resolution 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. Staff conducted a poll of all the property owners the Saratoga neighborhood to determine the breadth of interest of establishing a zoning overlay restriction to limit the area to single story only. Staff provided the findings to the Planning Commission who in turn reported their finding to the City Council. The results were as follows: • 401 cards sent out • 260 returned cards • 178 (66%) support • 82 (30%) oppose • 11 returned maiUundecided Planner Livingstone noted that the Saratoga Woods„ Neighborhood is predominantly single story dwellings. In the Saratoga-Woods there are 394 dwellings. There are 26, original 2-story homes these include three that had finished attics above the garage. There have been seven 2°a story additions. A restriction such as the one proposed is intended to protect neighborhood compatibility, privacy and character. Planner Livingstone noted that the restriction would disallow any new. second story additions and disallow any tow story reconstruction in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. The existing two story dwellings would be exempt from this ordinance. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:SOp.m. Dan Watson, 18796 Westview Drive, noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. Jeanne Holst, 2306 Kosich Court, noted that she has lived at this house for 17 years. Ms. Holst noted that her main concern is the. loss of.privacy. Ms. Holst noted that the CCR's of this neighborhood .forbid second stories. Ms. Holst noted that she fully supports the proposed ordinance. , David Gremer, 12388 Radoyka Drive, noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. Sarka Barbarossa, 12430 Curry Court, noted that she purchased her home in March 2002 and fully supports the proposed ordinance. Doug Boling, 12481 Saratoga. Creek Drive, noted that he opposes the proposed ordinance. City Council Minutes 10 July 17, 2002 Pat Neargarder, 12400 Radoyka Drive, noted that he moved to this neighborhood 13 years ago and the single story look is what attracted him their. Mr. Neargarder noted that he supports the proposed ordinance. David McEachron, 18966 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. Marcia Fariis, 18983 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that past surveys of passing an overlay has been as high as 90% in support. Ms. Fariss noted that most CCRs limit the height on houses. Ms. Farris noted that she supports the proposed ordinance. Carl Nielsen, 18921 Cyril Place, noted that he has lived in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for 30 years. Mr. Nielson noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. -- Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the lots are large enough to accommodate single story additions. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the request for this ordinance came from the residents not from the Council. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she fully supports the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Mehaffey asked City Attorney Taylor if property owners could request a variance. City Attorney Taylor explained that if a property owner can show the Planning Commission that their property is unique compared to other surrounding homes. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he supports the proposed ordinance with the exception of including the area north of Cabernet Drive because there are several existing two-story homes. Mayor Streit noted that he fully supports the proposed ordinance. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE, WAIVE THE FIRST READING. AND PLACE ON THE AGENDA FOR ADOPTION FOR AUGUST 7, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-1-1 WITH MEHAFFEY OPPOSING AND BAKER ABSTAINING. 6. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE MANNER IN WHICH MEMBERSHIP TERMS ON CITY COMMISSIONS ARE STAGGERED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce ordinance; place on next agenda for adoption. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Traylor explained that the adoption of procedures regarding city City Council Minutes 11 July 17, 2002 Commissions, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance revising the way in which membership terms on City Commissions are staggered, so as to -- avoid the loss of a significant portion of Commission membership in a single year and to increase the frequency with which members of the community have an opportunity to apply for positions on City Commissions. Currently most commission terms are structured that four terms expire one year, none the next, three the following year, none the next, and so on. City Attorney Taylor noted that the proposed ordinance would make approximately an equal .number of seats on ,each commission subject to appointment each year by staggering the expiration dates of the terms of the Commissioners on each Commission. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m: Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE, WAIVE THE FIRST READING, AND PLACE ON THE AGENDA FOR ADOPTION FOR AUGUST 7, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 7. AZULE PARK -CONSIDERATION OF KNOLLWOOD COURT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve inclusion or exclusion of pedestrian access. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the March 20, 2002 City Council meeting the 100% Azule Park design plans were approved; however the decision to include a pedestrian access from Knollwood Court was postponed until a full Council was present. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he was absent on the June 6, 2002 City Council meeting when this item was discussed and since then he has reviewed that tape of the meeting and noted he is ready to proceed with the process. Conrad Kumata, 19987 Knollwood Drive, noted that he oppose the access to Azule Park on Knollwood Court. Anwar Ghazi, 12241 Marina Drive, noted that he oppose the access to Azule Park on Knollwood Court. Mr. Anwar noted that this access to the park would change the character of the neighborhood. - _ _ City Council Minutes ] 2 July 17, 2002 Annette McPhail, 12239 Marina Drive, noted that she oppose the access to Azule Park on Knollwood Court. Ms. McPhail noted that she thinks the access will create added traffic and safety concerns. Herman Lao, 19974 Knollwood Drive, noted that 26 households oppose to this access at Knollwood Court. Mr. Lao stated that he feels the only reason this access is being proposed is to alleviate traffic for the other side of the park. Gregory Gates, 13226 Montrose Street, Parks and Recreation Commission and Azule Park Task Force member. Mr. Gates noted that a survey was sent out to residents surrounding Azule Park and 53% wanted the access. Tom Soukup, Goleta Avenue, noted that he is not for or against the access but feels closure to this debate needs to happed this evening and move forward with the construction of the park. Mark Frazier, 20308 Knollwood Drive, noted that he supports the access on Knollwood Court. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he opposes opening the access to Azule Park on Knollwood Court. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the neighbors do not want the access trail. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she supports opening the access on Knollwood Court on a trial basis. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that if the neighbors experience trouble, Council could close the access. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he feels the trail should be opened two months after the grand opening of the park and Council review the use in one year. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he feels if people were going to drive to the _ park they would use Goleta Avenue. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports the access trail open on a trial basis. Mayor Streit noted that does not support opening an access on Knoll wood Court. Mayor Streit stated that he feels it would change the character of the neighborhood. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE INCLUSION OF ACCESS_AT KNOLL WOOD COURT WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE OPENING BE DELAYED 2 MONTHS AFTER THE GRAND OPENING OF AZULE PARK_AND SECONDLY AND CLOSE THE ACCESS ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME IT IS OPENED. MOTION PASSED 3-2 WITH STREIT AND BAKER OPPOSING. 12. VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) OPERATOR'S FACILITY AT THE WEST VALLEY COLLEGE TRANSIT CENTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. City Council Minutes 13 July 17, 2002 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained the background of the Valley Transportation's Operator's Facility at the corner of Allendale and the ingress to the Transit Center. Concerned residents asked the City to help facilitate a dialogue with the VTA and the College regarding the location of the restroom. A sit meeting was held between residents, VTA representatives, College representatives, City staff, and Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith. Director Cherbone noted that VTA agreed to delay the completion of the restroom until alternative locations, which were identified at the site meeting, were investigated. VTA has been adamant that they do not have any funds for the restroom relocation and the College although supportive of the relocation, has indicated that they will not, participate in funding its relocation. However, VTA has agreed to provide additional landscaping and screening of the restroom at its current planned location to make the restroom as unobtrusive as possible. Director Cherbone noted that VTA has indicated that. they need to proceed with construction of the restroom as soon as possible. Jim Pierson, Director of planning and Development/Valley Transportation Authority, noted that he started working with the college quite a while ago to upgrade the transit center at West Valley College. An operator's facility is necessary in areas where there is a layover area. Mr. Pierson noted that VTA worked out the details with the College. After VTA had the College's approval VTA sent the plans to the City and the operator's facility was listed as a future _ project. Currently there is a foundation and utilities, but nothing else has been done at the site. Mr. Pierson: noted that when VTA.heard the concerns of the neighborhood and the City about the location of the facility VTA agree to meet at the site. Mr. Pierson noted that VTA does not have the additional funding to pay to construct the facility at an alternate location. Mr. Pierson noted that after several meetings the group has narrowed down six different alternatives to two. VTA has agreed to pay for additional screening. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Pierson how many major transit centers have operator's facilities and are they located in neighborhoods or in industrial areas. Mr. Pierson responded that VTA has 6 or 7 operator facilities and most of them are at light rail centers. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Pierson if VTA sent the plans for the facility to the City out of courtesy. Mr. Pierson responded that VTA didn't need to send the plans to the City because the land is exempt from the City because it is owned by West Valley College City Council Minutes 14 July 17, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker asked if there has always been an operator's facility at West Valley College. Mr. Pierson stated that the drivers would have to go on campus to use a facility. Mr. Pierson noted walking around the campus at night brought up security issues for the female drivers. Mr. Pierson noted that he did note realize that the proposed operator's facility would become such a problem. Jeffrey Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Road, introduced the neYv chancellor for the West Valley/Mission College District, Stan Arterberry. Stan Arterberry, Chancellor/West Valley Mission College District, noted that West Valley has agreed to the new location of the operator's facility and will work with VTA to construct it. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Arterberry if he knew what an operator's facility was. Mr. Arterberry responded no. Mr. Schwartz noted that he would like to address the Council as a resident and not as a West Valley Board member. Mr. Schwartz thanked John Cherbone. Mr. Schwartz noted that the placement of the proposed bathroom on the corner of Fruitvale/Allendale Avenue by VTA is mistake and was not fully thought out. Mr. Schwartz noted that tin the beginning the College did not understand what an "operator's facility" was. Mr./ Schwartz noted that the neighbors were never noticed about the project. Nai Hsueh, 13897 Yerba Santa Court, noted that the neighbors were noticed after the construction started. Ms. Hsueh noted that if it was not Mr. England's leadership efforts the neighborhoods would not of known VTA's plans of a restroom on the corner of Fruitvale/Allendale Avenue. Russell Hume, 13833 Yerba Santa Court, noted that he does not object that the bus drivers need an operator's facility; his objection is to the proposed location. Brett England, 13896 Yerba Santa Court, noted that there has been two new proposed locations; 1) move lower into parking lot with additional screening 2) move toward the rear hill. The new sites would cost approximately $430-$630 thousand dollars. Mr. England requested that the City Council ask VTA to stop construction and look at to alternatives. Robert Lee, 13864 Yerba Santa Court, thanked Councilmember Waltonsmith for all of her time she has invested in the issue and requested that the City Council ask the VTA to stop construction. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, noted that he supports the neighbors' request to stop VTA's construction until all options have been examined. City Council Minutes 15 July 17, 2002 Malcolm Brodrick, Dean/Administrative Services/West Valley College, noted that ,When he saw the plans of the transit facility he did not see the operators facility on the plans. When the construction started he was surprised of what was being built. Mr. Brodrick noted he supports both alternatives: Mayor Streit asked Mr. Brodrick what option he preferred. Mr. Brodrick noted that he would support what the neighborhood wants. Mr. Pierson added that VTA would try and identify additional funding to help defer the cost of an alternative location. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would support moving the facility as far away from the corner as possible. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the design of the building, for whatever use, is not appropriate at the corner of Fruitvale/Allendale Avenue. Mayor Streit suggested an AdHoc Committee be formed composed of a few neighbors,. a council representative, VTA, and West Valley College to find exact cost of alternative locations and pinpoint funds to construct the facility in a timely manner. Vice Mayor.Baker volunteered to participate on the AdHoc Committee. Mayor Streit thanked the VTA representatives and all the neighbors for participating in tonight's discussion. Mayor Streit declared a 10-minute break at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. NEW BUSINESS POTENTIAL USES OF THE GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review site use options and direct staff accordingly. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that on June 5, 2002 the City Council approved a contract with Noll and Tam Architects to complete Phase 1 of the Grace United Methodist Church Renovation Project. Phase 1 included a condition analysis of the existing buildings, a CIP .scope of work, and a cost estimate. This work was complete and the report delivered to the City Council in July 5, 2002. City Council Minutes 1( July 17, 2002 Director Pisani noted that subsequent to review of the study, the City Council directed staff to agendize a discussion of the potential uses of the site. Director _ Pisani explained the following options available for usage of the site: • Move the Senior Center programs to new site and move Sheriff's Office to current Senior Center • Demolish sanctuary and education buildings, purchase library portable and move Sheriff's office in portable on Church property • Demolish sanctuary and education building only, for office, recreation and community meeting room usage, deferring the rehabilitation of other buildings on the site • Demolish existing buildings on the property and provide grass and irrigation for open space and sports league practice • Mothball existing buildings and utilize open space for day use park Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she thinks the Administrative Building and the Fellowship Building are in good condition with a few renovations. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he recently visited the sight and was not impressed. Councilmember Bogosian suggested using portable buildings instead of putting money into the existing buildings. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City paid more for the property then it had. Vice Mayor Baker noted that it is a great piece of property, but the buildings are in bad shape. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the estimates that came in were overpriced to do adequate renovations to use the facility as a Senior Center. Vice Mayor Baker noted he is not willing to spend the money to make this property minimally useable. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supported the purchase the property, but he is not willing to spend $1 million dollars to upgrade it enough to use as Senior Center. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City should moth ball the buildings and use them only as day use. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like to find a way to at least use some the space for recreational and/or senior programs. Reverend Judith Stone, 19848 Prospect Road, noted that she was the former pastor at the Grace United Methodist Church. Rev. Stone noted that one reason the congregation decided to sell the property to the City of Saratoga was because of the City's proposed uses "civic uses". Rev. Stone noted that the Church could not afford the necessary renovations. Art Okuno, 21811 Via Regina, noted that he is a member of the Taiko Drum Group. Mr. Okuno stated the Church has allowed the Group to use the Fellowship Building to practice in and also a space to store their equipment. Mr. Okuno requested that the City Council continue to allow the Group to use the facility. Joan Gomersall, 19817 Veronica Drive noted that she represents group of women who meet regularly in the Fellowship Building. Ms. Gomersall requested that the City allow her group to continue to use the building. City Council Minutes 1'7 July 17, 2002 v Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, suggested that the City should try and build some type of affordable housing on the property. ' Peter Marra, 12560 Wardell Court, requested that the City Council continue to allow the Taiko Drum Group use the Fellowship building. Councilmember Bogosian asked City Attorney Taylor if the City could legally continue to have the building available to different groups; such as the Taiko Drum group, without having to trigger ADA requirements. City Attorney Taylor noted that he would look into the questions and report back to Council at a later time. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would like to see the grounds maintained and find some community uses for the property. City Manager Anderson noted that daily presence on the property would help prevent vandalism. Director Pisani explained that would cost the City approximately $13,000 a year to maintain the property's landscaping. It would cost approximately $20,000 to moth ball the building, which would include changing the locks, sensor lights outside, continue paying PG&E and water service..Total cost to do nothing on the property except having a nice landscape would be approximately $33, 000. Vice Mayor Baker noted it is the .City's responsibility to keep the property from becoming an eye soar. Mayor Streit noted that he would like to see the City work with the neighbors to repair good neighbor fences. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to return to Council with a cost proposal to renovate the large Administrative Building in an effort to have some activity at this new City property. 10. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS - GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase and appropriation of funds TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-054 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2002-2003 BUDGET AND. THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $4.5 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE, PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19848 PROSPECT AVENUE (APN: 386-26-070 & 386-26-071) City.Council Minutes 1 g July 17, 2002 Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained the background of the City's acquisition of the property located at 19848 Prospect Avenue. City Manager Anderson stated that tonight the City Council is considering the final purchase authorization and the appropriation of the balance of the funds to purchase .the property. If the City Council authorizes the purchase, City Manager Anderson noted that he would sign the documents that will implement the purchase agreement and appropriate the funds. City manager Anderson stated that the City should assume ownership at the end of an escrow period that would be complete prior to the August 16t" deadline. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2002-03 BUDGET AND THE CIP BUDGET TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19848 PROSPECT AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 1. VILLAGE GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION -NTMP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager. Tinfow explained that staff began working with the Village Green Neighborhood Association in January 2002 to address parking and traffic issues experienced by area residents. There have been two meetings-the first kickoff meeting to explain the process and get underway; and a second, in which the results of the traffic data collected were presented. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that since that time the residents have completed Phase I of the program and in May requested Public Safety Commission (PSC) permission to begin implementation of Phase II. Assistant City Manger Tinfow noted that the Public Safety Center process was coming to a close at the same time the NTMP was getting started. As part of a review of traffic impacts to Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue, the idea of looking outside the neighborhood for ways to ,improve traffic issues such as cut through traffic and speeding was developed. A median on Highway 9 to curtail the cut- through use of Oak Place was one idea that was generated in overlap conversations among members of both groups. Assistant City Manger Tinfow explained that staff has worked with VGNA to determine the appropriate process to move forward. Staying within the NTMP guidelines would require VGNA to collect signatures in support of the median from the property owners immediately adjacent to the median and 60% of the remaining households represented by their association. • City Council Minutes 19 July 17, 2002 Assistant City Manger Tinfow noted that that the current NTMP document needs - revising given the City's current experience with the program. In going through the process with the neighborhoods, staff has identified several areas of~conflict with in the documents as well as parts of the process that work better if tailored to , the particular group. Staff will work with the Public Safety Commission to refine the NTMP document/process in the coming months. Jerry Bruce, Federated Church, noted that the Church shares the concern for cut through traffic and the drive for a light at Oak Street with the GNA. Denise Michel, 20375 Park Avenue, noted that she was the Co-President of the Village Green Neighborhood Association. Ms. Michel noted that her neighborhood has tried to maintain their historic characteristics. Ms. Michele noted that 800-1,000 cars a day that drive through Oak Place and Park Street. Ms. Michele noted that those streets are used by commuters mostly from Los Gatos trying to et to Highway 85.' Ms. Michele noted that the VGNA appreciates the help from the City. Ms. Michele noted that the VGNA has not voted on the light at Oak Street they have only discussed the median and speed bumps. The VGNA is willing to corporate with the City in anyway to alleviate the area of traffic and take back their neighborhood. Councilmember Mehaffey asked where the proposed median proposed to re-mediate the traffic from Los Gatos to Highway 85. Ms. Michele responded yes and also the reverse direction. Ms. Michele noted that a "No Right Turn" sign would also be installed. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the volume of cars that go through that neighborhood is excessive. Vice Mayor Baker asked if the City installed a sign that read "Local Traffic Only" are there any legal ramifications. City Attorney Taylor noted that if supported by traffic studies and is good of the majority of property owners there are no legal obstacles. Councilmember Bogosian noted that many people in the community support a light at Oak Street because it is difficult to get out on Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would be willing to take the VGNA out of the NTMP program and suggested forming a committee to develop a process and find out what'the neighbors want. Consensus of the City Council to form a committee; to include Director John Cherbone, a VGNA representative, Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember .Mehaffey, a member of the Saratoga Fire District, a member from Federated Church, and a member of the SCC Sheriff's Department. City Council Minutes 20 July 17, 2002 17. APPOINTMENT OF BUILDING APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appoint members to the City Building Appeals Board. Richard Taylor, City Attorney presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that On July 10, 2002, an appeal was filed with regard to decisions made by the City Building Official on property known as 14480 oak Place. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) creates a board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of decisions made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the UBC. The UBC adopted by reference in Article 16-OS of the City Code. The UBC provides that the members of the Building Appeals Board shall be appointed by the City Council. City Attorney Taylor noted there have not been any members of the Building Appeals Board in the City of Saratoga for many years. City Attorney Taylor explained that staff is requesting that the City Council appoint members to the City's Building Appeals Board. The following people have agreed to serve as members of the Board: Steve Benzing, William Bean, Paul Belotti, and William Brown. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPOINT BENZING, BEAN, AND BROWN TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 8. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that Change Order #3 for removal of the concrete found in the existing building footages was completed at a final cost of $10,109.36 other change requests total $56,338 for work like additional HVAC duct routing, and represent all contractor requests made to date. Many requests are dismissed or are negotiated to smaller amounts. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the Budget Summary also shows two other significant changes: • The architect's change order total was increased to $52,000 to reflect the $3,000 change order approved on May 7, 2002 that will be offset by a Thompson Pacific credit • A placeholder of $80,000 for additional architect's services under "Estimate of Changes to Contract". The Citizen Oversight Committee requested that a "worst case" dollar amount be developed and carried in the summary • Amounts paid-to-date City Council Minutes 21 July 17, 2002 ,. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the construction remains on schedule. The construction completion date continues to be February 28, 2003, and the library will open in Spring 2003. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for the update. NEW BUSINESS 13. ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize additional charges and expenditures. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant CityManager, presented staff report Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that that staff was requesting Council authorize an additional charge of $13,338 to be paid to Field Paoli for subconsultant O'Mahoney & Meyer to design a telecommunications and data network cabling and termination system for the library to assist in preparation of scope of work for RFP purposes. Secondly, Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff was also requesting Council authorize expenditure of not to exceed $11,000 for performance of mold remediation work and inspection fees and award bid to American Technologies Inc. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND EXPENDITURES FOR SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT. Motion passed 5-0. 15. SCHEDULE OF FEES - FY 2002-2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-056 Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained that on June 5, 2002, that City Council recommended that Finance Commission conduct further review of the proposed fee schedule with the presence of the Community Development Directory. Finance Commission met on June 17, 2002 to review the proposed cost recovery structure, Implementation and administrative process, and to also compare the fee and deposit practices of other cites. Finance Commission motioned approval of the 2002-03 Schedule of Fees with the recommendation that a review of the cost recovery program be provided during the mid-year review of the budget. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 2002-2003 SCHEDULE OF FEES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 22 July 17, 2002 ~' 16. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE S STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Select amember ofthe-City. Council to be the voting delegate. BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER ANN WALTONSMITH AS THE CITY'S VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2002 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if staff has ever heard back from the Monterey Bay Area Coalition. City Manager Anderson noted that he would check with staff and report back to Council. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 23 July 17, 2002