Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2003 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 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, Zutslu and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Barry ~ Roupe Staff. Planners Livingstone ~ Oosterhous, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meetings of November 13, 2002 and December 11, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Pubitc will be allowed to address the Plamm~g Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on thu agenda The law generally prohibits the Plamm~g Commission from discussing or tahmg action on such Items However, the Plamm~g Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communicanons underPlamm~g Commission dtrecnon to Staf f REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954 2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 2, 2003. 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 #02-249 (397-27-19) - FU, 14140 Victor Place; -Request for Design Review approval to construct atwo-story residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one- storyresidence The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 2,990 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,764 square feet and the second floor is 1,226 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22 feet. The lot size is approximately 9,461 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 4-l, KURASCH OPPOSED) 2. APPLICATION #02-136 (397-18-036) - SARUP, 14850 Baranga Lane; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing 2,361 square foot house and build a new single family 5,050 square foot house with a three car garage. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 36,155 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED S-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:29 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plamm~g@saratoga ca us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 3:00 p.Ill. (Note new time) 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, JANUARY 8, 2002 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-249 - FU Item 1 14140 Victor Place 2. Application #02-136 - SARUP Item 2 14850 Baranga Lane LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE' Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council ChamberslCivic 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 Plannmg Commission Meetings of November 13, 2002 and December 11, 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 thu agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing 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 January 2, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public 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 #02-249 (397-27-19) - Fi.T, 14140 Victor Place; -Request for Design Review approval to construct atwo-story residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one- storyresidence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 2,990 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,764 square feet and the second floor is 1,226 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22 feet. The lot size is approximately 9,461 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. (OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #02-136 (397-18-036) - SARUP, 14850 Baranga Lane; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing 2,361 square foot house and build a new single family 5,050 square foot house with a three car garage. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 36,155 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin saratoga ca us s DD _ q l~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Roupe called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 22, 2002. As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular irunutes from the October 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that meeting were continued to the next meeting on December 11, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Roupe announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Noveriber 13, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1 RESO_ LUTION OF DENIAL #02-053, APPLICATION #O1-044 (403-28-034) - AZIZI. 18360 Purdue: Denial of Design Review application to construct atwo-story single-family residence on an 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 (OOSTERHOUS) Acting Chair Roupe removed this item from Consent to be heard as a Public Hearing Item since there is a member of the audience wishing to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for rejecting this application. • Advised that he has lived in this neighborhood for 25 years and has significant concerns over what types of construction is being approved. • Pointed out that the neighborhood consists of smaller homes, from 1,400 to 1,600 square feet. • Said that he feels strongly that the neighborhood's character should be preserved. • Encouraged the Commission to keep up the good work as done with the rejection of this proposal. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as her father's representative, who owns a home in this neighborhood. • Said that she found out today about the Purdue project and is present this evening to obtain more information. • Stated that she is pleased that this proposal was denied. • Said that she was raised in this area and is concerned about architectural compatibility. • Declared that she does not want to see this neighborhood turn into another El Quito Park type neighborhood. • Stated that a house recently approved on Swarthmore is more than two times larger than the other homes in the neighborhood. • Suggested that there should be ways to rein in initial approvals that are not compatible with neighboring homes. • Expressed appreciation to the Commission and sought guidance on what she can do to further her cause. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lara when the project on Swarthmore was approved. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Replied that the large home was approved by staff in October of this year. • Added that she had just learned about the project and the 10-day appeal period has already passed. • Said that she has a petition signed by 26 neighbors who do not support that project. • Said that they are concerned about architectural approvals occurring administratively without coming before the Planning Commission. • Questioned how a home can be doubled in size and not require Commission review. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Paoe 3 Acting Chair Roupe thanked Ms. Lara for her comments and advised that the Commission is not in a position to comment on this approval. Asked Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous to address Ms. Lara's concerns. Planner Christy Oosterhous: • Advised that the concerns and comments raised by Ms. Elizabeth Lara were received after the appeal period had passed. • Added that the applicant has been asked to revise the front elevation of the home. • Stated that the home meets the criteria for review through the Administrative Process. It is less than 18 feet in height, asingle-story and is a plain stucco bungalow design. Acting Chair Roupe pointed out that a number of applications submitted to the City are subject to Adrrunistrative Approval. It is not unusual that this particular matter was not brought to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Expressed concerns about features such as large columns and an eight-foot-long window located within four feet of a fence. • Added that this is the first home on their street that has been torn down and all landscaping removed. This was done~ery quickly. • Said that they are trying to organize themselves. Acting Chair Roupe suggested that the Director could look into the matter. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission is reaching the nexus of how far this matter can be discussed this evening particularly since it is not even a part of this project that is on the agenda. Acting Chair Roupe encouraged Ms. Elizabeth Lara to discuss her concerns further with Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution of Denial (#02-053) for Application #01-044 for property located at 18360 Purdue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-190 - (397-O1-012), SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, 18930 Allendale Avenue: Request for General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Very Low Density to Quasi-Public Facility. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow a parcel that is presently designated Residential Very Low Density and containing asingle-family dwelling to be designated Quasi-Public Facility. The change in designation is requested in order to facilitate a lot line change, which would allow the parcel in question to become Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 - P age 4 part of the adjacent Saint Archangel Michael Church facility. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared. (WELSH) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN). Acting Chair Roupe advised that there is a request for a continuance to a date uncertain for this agenda item. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that the applicant will seek to package the whole project into one application. This project will be renoticed when it comes forward again. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway distract. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Commission has discussed the Gateway Design Guidelines twice. • Recommended that this Public Hearing on the Guidelines be continued to the December 11, 2002, meeting to allow more Commissioners to be present. • Stated that the Gateway Design Guidelines warrants having a larger body available to fully discuss it. Acting Chair Roupe stated that this would represent a continuance to a date certain. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are people present this evening that may like the opportunity to speak about the issue. Director Tom Sullivan said that it is possible to take public testimony if the Commission would like to do so. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said he was disappointed that this process would not continue tonight. • Stated that he would return on December 11, 2002. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Mallory for his email communications. Acting Chair Roupe stated that it is appropriate not to rush to judgement on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 *** • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 ~ Page 5 Application_#SD-O1-001 & ED-O1-003 - (397-27-029), .TAVANMARD/ASGARI, 20440 Arbeleche Lane: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel into two building sites. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single-family. Proposed Parcel A is 11,982 (net) square feet. The proposed Parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. The existing single-family dwelling is to be demolished. One single-family dwelling is proposed on each parcel. The project site contains a riparian corridor, the Saratoga Creek, and several mature trees. The proposed parcels are located in the R-M-4,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation for the proposed parcels is Multi-Family Residential. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two with building sites on each parcel. • Stated that the existing house would be demolished and a new single-family residence constructed on each parcel. • Informed that the property is located on the Saratoga Creek border and is zoned Multi-Family Residential. Multi-Family Residential and Commercial uses are located in the immediate area. • Said that the maximum height for Lot A is proposed at 28 feet, 6 inches and would be a two-story home consisting of 3,800 square feet. , • Said that the maximum height for Lot B is 28 feet and would be a two-story home consisting of 3,900 square feet. • Described the 75-foot setback requirement for the riparian corridor. • Pointed out that the creation of two smaller parcels from one parcel would result in the creation of • two parcels that would have constraints as far as the development of the parcels. • Discussed the Initial Study prepared and said that staff has determined that there are significant impacts as a result of this proposal. • Added that the proposal is not consistent with the Municipal Code regarding development within a riparian corridor and the proposed removal of 12 redwood trees. • Recommended that the Environmental Document be found inadequate since staff can only make five of nine required findings. • Recommended denial of the project with the findings that it is not consistent with the General Plan, the site is not suitable for development as proposed and that the design of the development would likely cause substantial environmental damage. Commissioner Garakani asked Planner Christy Oosterhous when this application was received by the City. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied August 21, 2001. - ,' Commissioner Garakani expressed surprise that staff did not identify these major concerns at that time. Asked if the applicant was aware of staff's position prior to this evening. Planner Chesty Oosterhous advised that it took some time to do the background research in order to come to this conclusion. Added that the applicant is actively involved in the whole process and that some impacts are visible only after the buildings were staked out on the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Zutshi asked about comments and/or requirements from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that no written comments were received from either agency. Commissioner Hunter stated that due to past problems with development near creeks, the City uses more caution. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are regulations about basements close to a creek. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site would need a geotechnical soils evaluation. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 7:37 p.m. Ms. Glush Dada, Project Designer: _ __ • Said that she just recently got involved with the design of this project but that project engineers have worked for about a year. • Stated that it has taken about two years to get before the Commission. • Said that this is an odd-shaped parcel that is hard to build upon. • Stated that they are not ruining any trees and that important trees on site are being retained. Only one tree would be cut. • Suggested that with the value of land in Saratoga, her clients have the right to expect to be able to build 3,000 square foot homes in order to get land value back. This square footage includes the garage area. These are very decent homes by today's standards in the Bay Area. • Said that they have taken a creative approach to be able to fit decent sized homes on,this property. • Declared that the redwood trees can be protected through structural building techniques. • Provided an exhibit that depicts the buildable area on the property. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that the applicant is willing to keep the redwood trees. Ms. Glush Dada said of course. The trees afford privacy between this site and the adjacent commercial property. Added that constructing with piers every 15 feet would preserve these trees. Added that an Arbonst can do a report about this type of construction near trees. Commissioner Garakani asked if Ms. Dada is concerned about tree roots damaging the structure of the house. Ms. Glush Dada said that there are ways of preventing that with installation of metal barriers. - Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Dada if she is willing to reduce the size of these homes. Ms. Glush Dada said that her client does not want smaller homes. This is the typical size home in Saratoga. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the 12 redwood trees. Ms. Glush Dada reminded that only one tree would be removed from the site. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 - Page 7 Acting Chair Roupe asked Ms. Glush Dada about the riparian corridor. Added that the setback standards set forth for riparian corridors indicates that both lots are considered unbuildable. Ms. Glush Dada said that the Biologist could better address this issue. Reminded that the Civil Engineer worked with City staff for one year and that they obeyed the setbacks provided. Acting Chair Roupe asked Planner Christy Oosterhous to clarify the issue of the riparian corridor easement. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the easement requirement for the riparian corridor is addressed in the Subdivision Section of the City's Municipal Code for when a subdivision is being created near a creek. A designated Creek Protection Easement is required. Commissioner Garakani asked about the required size of this Creek Protection Easement. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that it is based upon the biotic assessment. In this case it is a 75-foot setback from the corridor. Acting Chair Roupe clarified that the primary concern is the riparian corridor. Mr. John Bushall, Biologist: • Informed that he prepared the biologic report that suggested the 75-foot setback. • Stated that this project would have increased setback encroachments but that mitigation can be taken that include eradicating non-native species and moving the wire mesh fence on site off the bank by 10 feet and replace it with a cedar split-level fence, and replanting 10 feet of the bank and part of the slope with native vegetation. k • Said that biologically, these steps should mitigate increased encroachment into the setback. • Said that the applicant has done due diligence in working with this site. Commissioner Hunter questioned the potential adverse impacts on the creek from using herbicides to eradicate the invasive non-native grasses. Mr. John Bushall said that the product proposed, Aquamaster, is approved by the EPA for use near water. The process includes cutting the weeds and applying.the herbicide directly to the cut stems. Commissioner Hunter asked why not just leave the creek as it is with the plants already there. Mr. John Bushall replied that they are not native to the area. Wildlife has no use for these plants and the plants will ultimately take over the riparian corridor. This is a huge problem in the Bay Area. , ' Acting Chair Roupe asked if replacement of plant material in the riparian corridor still results in encroachment into the riparian corridor. Mr. John Bushall replied yes. He said however that by creating nice mid canopy and underbrush, this project would create a better situation than what is there now. Commissioner Zutshi asked how Mr. Bushall weighs the encroachment into the setback with the replacement of the non-native vegetation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 8 Mr. John Bushall advised that typically a pristine and high-quality habitat needs a 100-foot setback. A 75-foot setback is recommended here. The mitigation-for encroaching into that setback is at a three to one ratio. If you remove one tree, you replace with three. Acting Chair Roupe asked Mr. Bushall if this project meets that mitigation criteria. Mr. John Bushall replied that this project exceeds the mitigation criteria. Acting Chair Roupe asked staff for its position based on this opinion. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that she would stick to her conclusion presented within the staff report that this development is not appropriate for this site. Commissioner Zutshi asked for further clarification of the purpose for the removal of non-native vegetation. Mr. John Bushall said the intent is to prevent the spread of non-native vegetation, which is a Bay Area wide problem with invasive species. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the creek area is prone to flood. Asked what time of year the non-native vegetation would typically be removed. Mr. John Bushall stated that the removal is done by hand and erosion control measures, such as placing straw, is installed. Commissioner Zutshi asked who supervises this work. Mr. John Bushall said that he is not under contract. Said that they can provide supervision if contracted to do so. Ms. Diana Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Identified her family-owned business, Neal's Hollow, as being located at 14320 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The business was established by her parents in 1965 and she and her two brothers currently run the business. • Said that she is concerned about having two single-family residences on this site. • Said that the division of this lot does not make sense since it is already is at a disadvantage due to the riparian corridor. _ • Said that the stakes for the building on Lot B are in place and appear to be too close to the redwood' trees. • Expressed concern about the potential for future conflict with a residential owner of Lot B over issues such as the lighting and business uses on their adjacent commercial property. • Stated that a limousine service has operated from Neal's Hollow since the 1970s. There is sensor lighting on the site as well as regular lighting. Additionally, there is a school operating at Neal's Hollow and it is important for these children to have quite between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Monday through Friday. Two homes could be extremely disruptive to the school. • Said that the close proximity of the house on Lot B to the shared property line with her site could hinder fire fighting ability on both properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 9 • Stated that there are potential flooding impacts with development of this property. • Advised that their attorney is investigating easement issues for utility and access. • Thanked the Commission for listening to her views. Acting Chair Roupe reminded that the redwood trees would be preserved through the use of special construction techniques. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the stakes for the house aze about half way under the canopy and the trees may not be able to be preserved. Commssioner Garakani recognized Ms. Espinosa's wish to be pro-active and prevent conflict before it occurs. Agreed that these are pre-existing businesses of which any new residential owners would have to be made aware at time of purchase of their homes. Ms. Glush Dada: • Stated that any drainage issues would be solved and that they never let dirty water drain to the creek. • Said that construction hours would be honored and no street pazking would be required during construction. • Pointed out that tall trees; like redwoods, have long roots that grow straight down. Amore spread out tree has more spread out roots. • Added that as long as main roots are not bothered, it is okay to construct within 10 feet. Commissioner Hunter agreed that redwoods have deep taproots. Acting Chair Roupe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:14 p.m. Commissioner Hunter asked how lazge is the parcel. Director Tom Sullivan replied about two-thirds of an acre. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the property has just an 800 square foot house right now and what is proposed is about 8,000 square feet on the same property. Questioned whether typically a house of that size would be allowed on a parcel of this size. Acting Chair Roupe reminded that there are no FAR standards in the R-M zone. Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed that this is correct but added that this is not a typical site. Commissioner Hunter thanked staff for its report. Agreed with the analysis that this is not an appropriate use neaz a riparian corridor. The existing 800 square foot house could be bigger but not two single-family homes with a triangular lot. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this is too much for the lot size and with the proximity to the creek. The creek plays an important role in that area. Stated she would not be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Gazakani: • Said that the main issue is the proximity to the creek. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 ~ Page 10 • Said that he hated not to see the enjoyment of the use of the creek. • Expressed happiness with the mitigation that would improve the riparian corridor. • Suggested a reduction in the size of the homes or incorporating a basement and said that he could support with one of those actions. • Stated the importance of keeping the redwood trees. Commissioner Zutshi said that she too would love to live near a creek but that huge houses would overwhelm the creek itself. Acting Chair Roupe: • Said that he is concerned about the substantial encroachment into the riparian corridor although mitigation would improve the situation particularly with the removal of non-indigenous species. • Said that he is concerned particularly with Lot B and the pressure of creating a small lot in a difficult location. • Suggested a single structure as this proposal is too much for the lot and too much of an encroachment into the riparian comdor. • Asked staff if the Negative Declaration, Subdivision and Design Review would be handled individually. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can simply deny the project with findings. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission denied Application #SD-O1-001 and ED-O1-003 to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels and construct two new single-family residences on property located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None ~*~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the November 27, 2002, meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on December 11, 2002. COMMISSION ITEMS Tree Ordinance Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission that Council would be discussing the Tree Ordinance at next Wednesday's meeting. Commissioner Garakani advised that he has received several calls about the Tree Ordinance. Some find that a misdemeanor is too much and questioned why not increase the fines. r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 11 i' Director Tom Sullivan replied that this could not be done. The City Attorney and/or Judge could reduce a misdemeanor to an infraction. Additionally, once a matter has been corrected, the infraction is torn up rather than pursued any further. Commissioner Garakani added that concerns were also raised about the ability to trim branches from a neighbor's tree. Director Tom Sullivan said that to do so would require a permit. That process gives staff the opportunity to notice affected property owners. Site Visits Commissioner Hunter advised that morning site visits impact her ability to attend Heritage Preservation Commission meetings as the Commission's representative as she has to leave these meetings early to make the site visits. Proposed that the site visits be returned to 3 p.m. Commissioner Garakani agreed that if the visits could not be done between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., he would support returning to 3 p.m. Acting Chair Roupe agreed. HPC Calendar Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission is distributing calendars for a $10 donation. Said that she has a small supply available. Library Commission Commissioner Zutshi advised that there will be a Library site visit during the first week m December. __ COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from September 24, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Roupe adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, December 11, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • 4 .• OgQ~p MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakam, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch Absent: Commissioners Roupe and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 23, 2002. Motion• n Upo motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakam, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 23, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakam, Hunter, Jackman, and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Barry APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 13, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular minutes from the November 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that meeting were continued to the next meeting on January 8, 2003. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he is present to discuss the ongoing problem of 18312 Swarthmore Drive. • Stated his belief that improper noticing occurred and concern that this project underwent an administrative approval as opposed to a Planning Commission review. • Informed that he hand delivered a letter advising of the removal of six 45-foot liquid amber trees without benefit of a permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 2 ,. • Added that work had begun on the lying of the foundation without a permit and that the existing home was demolished without a permit. • Asked that this developer be dealt with according to law and that permits should be cancelled until the infractions are corrected and the project is abated. • Said that he is extremely concerned, has addressed his concerns over several occasions and has yet to see any resolution to his concerns • Added that he has no right to appeal due to the fact that the project was not properly noticed. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Corson which property on Swarthmore he is addressing. Mr. Tom Corson replied the single-story on Swarthmore. Director Tom Sullivan: Advised that the correspondence and issues raised by Mr. Corson have been referred to the City Attorney, who is preparing a response. Added that the permit for the house construction was issued today. Assured that he would refer any new concerns raised this evening to the City Attorney. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as her father, Mr. Ole Lara's, representative. He is the owner of 18324 Swarthmore Drive. • Said that she is a resident of Saratoga. • Asked the Commission to cease and halt further construction of this home: • Declared that she received a defective notice in September in which she was not made aware of the right to challenge by appealing any decision to the Planning Commssion within 10 days. The notice said nothing of the right to appeal. • Added that it was not clear to her that this was an administrative process .representing a notice of intent to approve. • Requested that the Director reconsiders and provides proper noticing with the inclusion of the 10- day right of appeal. Commissioner Hunter said that she assumes staff cannot review the City Attorney's response with the Planning Commission this evening. Director Tom Sullivan assured that the City Attorney's response would be copied to Commission. Ms. Elizabeth Lara: • Stated that she identified the person who removed the trees. • Requested that the Planning Commission takes a closer look and stop construction. " • Said that the project does not meet architectural compatibility and the removal of the trees has resulted in a loss of privacy. • Added that this matter is of great importance to her and her father. Commissioner Barry asked whether the tree issue was forwarded to the City Attorney. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he learned of the matter this afternoon. • r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 3 Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that the plans for this project were not submitted in good faith. Commissioner Garakani asked if this project was before the Planning Commission before. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. The Code calls for administrative design review for new dwellings under 18 feet in height and/or consisting of less than 6,000 square feet. Anything larger is referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Commissioner Garakani asked what occurs if there are objections by neighbors. Director Tom Sullivan said that if objections are raised, he attempts to set up a meeting between the applicant and neighbor to try to work the issues out. __ Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is the practice, when noticing these administrative hearings, to advise the neighbors of their right to appeal. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the notice used in this case is the same notice that has been used for a number of years. It will be changed from this point forward. Added that a consideration is being made for the possibility of setting an administrative hearing instead of simply an administrative notice. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that at this point the trees are down and the house has been removed. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the permit has been issued and the project obtained approval in September. Ms. Elizabeth Lara reminded that work began on the foundation on Monday, prior to the permit being issued. Chair Jackman pointed out that Director Tom Sullivan has a good handle on what is going on with this matter and will continue to work out the issues. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 5, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 REVIEW OF ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED -FOR 14480 OAK PLACE, CUTLER (397-22- 051): The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to review the findings and recommendations of an Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Barrie Coate regarding the impacts to ordinance protected oak trees from the construction of a structure closer than 10 feet to an oak tree. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows: • -Reminded the Commission that on August 28, 2002, the Commission granted an appeal to Mr. Breck. As a result, the City Attorney prepared a substitute resolution regarding a 300 foot section of Mr. Cutler's perimeter fencing. • Advised that the conditions and recommendations by the City Arborist are contained m this new resolution. • Stated that this evening represents a follow up action to August 28, 2002. Commissioner Garakani questioned the adequacy of the bond amount of $100,000 or $25,000 per tree when the estimated cost per tree is $35,000. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the bond is in totality and not per tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the resolution provided as a table item is identical to the resolution contained in the staff report. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out additions to the newest copy. Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing a time frame for the accomplishment of all remediation measures. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is fairly well spelled out but cautioned that some of the activities will occur over a period of years. Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance of having a calendar time frame and recourse in the event that necessary actions are not accomplished. Asked what would occur in the event that necessary actions are not taken. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it would become a City Attorney issue at that point if the applicant has chosen to disregard the Planning Commission and its resolution. Chair Jackman asked Director Tom Sullivan whom should be called to address the Commission first. Director Tom Sullivan replied Mr. Breck, since he is the appellant. Followed by Mr. Cutler. Each can address the Commission for up to 10 minutes. Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Provided a handout to the Commission in which he provided the list of issues. • Said that there should be non-compliance penalties. K Saratoga Planning Comnssion Minutes of December 11, 2002 - Page 5 • Stated that his number one concern is the five tree violations, which have resulted in a loss of visual screening. This leaves them with a blank wall instead of natural screening. • Asked that each of these five violations be prosecuted. • Declared that the aboveground structure footings should be removed. • Advised that the Planning Commission resolution should refer to the whole wall and not just the 300-foot section. • Stated that the bond should also cover the removal of trees, that the tree valuations are too low and that the bond period is too short and should be for a period of 12 years. • Said that what has happened here is not normal and that there should be penalties for the damage to date and not just for future damage. Penalties should be based on damage since April and not just from this December. • Added that an assessment of excessive pruning was not done and should be factored into the resolution. • Said that fill dirt should be removed and proper drainage put in to protect tree roots. • Said that it is unclear to him if his appeal has had along-term effect. • Stated that he wants a full canopy survey of trees and that no trenching or compressing should be allowed. • Pointed out that the trees have declined since April. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if something has been left out of the resolution. Mr. Bill Breck said issues of trenching and compressing. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if he is disputing the depth of the continuous footings. Mr. Bill Breck replied yes. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what he believes the dimensions of the footings to be. Mr. Bill Breck replied that they are five feet wide near his home. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what further building on site is anticipated at this point. Mr. Bill Breck responded that this is just the "tip of the iceberg" as this damage to date is prior to the main house remodel. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Advised that he is here to provide further clarification. • Assured that the City has approved all grading and footing done on his property as well as having approved all tree trimming done. • Added that the Code Officer told him that he could prune up to 30 percent. • Said that it is disrespectful to hold him and his family up as a poster child against trees. • Pointed out that an engineer monitored construction of this wall. • Stated that anger is being misapplied against him when it should be applied against the process. • Declared that he felt Commissioner Kurasch owes a public apology to him for comments and innuendoes made about him at previous meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of );zcember 11, 2002 Page 6 • Charged that he is the victim of racism and prejudice and that one neighbor called him a "dirty Jew." • Said that he believes the Planning Commission has supported this disrespect. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is willing to extend an apology to Mr. Cutler if he feels that he has been wrongly accused and would forward that apology. Mr. Mitch Cutler thanked Commissioner Kurasch for her apology. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler what he means about funds owed him by the City. Mr. Mitch Cutler: • Replied that had he been told before, he would have stayed within any perimeters. However, this was never done. • Assured that he has followed every single rule and regulation. • Complained that he is being held hostage to the mistakes of the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked if he came to the City before or after he started construction on these large footings. Added that the last action taken was to look at the repercussions to how the wall was constructed. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he was following the instructions of the City of Saratoga and work began after he believed he had approvals. Added that his neighbors are upset since the City did not do its job. Chair Jackman admonished Mr. Cutler that no racial slurs were heard at any public meetings. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he heard them from his neighbors. Chair Jackman expressed regret that there appears to have been a great number of misunderstandings in this matter. Director Tom Sullivan: • Clarified that Mr. Cutler originally had approval for asix-foot wood fence in this area. Concrete footings for a wood fence do not require permits. • Added that during a site visit on the subject of trees, it was noticed that the forms for footings were of a size that would require a permit. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for continuous concrete footings for a wood fence. Commissioner Barry questioned whom the gentleman was who is with Mr. Cutler this evening. Mr. Alan Noodleman, Esq., identified himself as the attorney of record for Mr. Mitch Cutler. Commissioner Garakani asked if the design of the fence was approved. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied yes, the 300-foot section of concrete wall was approved. The appeal is about a 150-foot portion near trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 7 • Stated that the tree regulations do not permit the building of a structure within 10-feet of protected trees, unless the approving authority says that it is okay to do so. • Added that he approved the horizontal portion but did not consider it a structure or pavement. • Said that subsequent to his decision, Mr. Breck appealed that decision and the Planning Commission determined that it was indeed pavement. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this is a legitimate process set in Code and that there is nothing illegal in that series of occurrences. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this is a normal set of occurrences. Mr. Mitch Cutler challenged that Director Sullivan is misleading the Commission in that no Arborist report had been required prior to work beginning on the wall. Chair Jackman asked Director Sullivan where the Commission should proceed now. Director Tom Sullivan replied to allow interested members of the public to speak to this matter during the remainder of the public hearing. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Bill Breck. • Asked that the bonds be secured immediately. • Said that this is a huge project that has been going on for years. • Stated that there are still eight large trees that need tree bonds. • Said that the City should collect a penalty for the tens of thousands of dollars in damage to trees. Commissioner Barry asked that Mr. Noodleman, Attorney for Mr. Mitch Cutler, who is standing in the audience taking notes, be seated as she finds his behavior to be intimidating. Mr. Alan Noodleman advised that as he suffers from five degenerating discs, remaining seated for any long period of time is difficult and painful. Commissioner Barry accepted Mr. Noodleman's explanation and relented in her request that he be seated. Mr. Alan King, 14472 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Said that Tree 4 and 5 are on his property. • Thanked the City Arborist and Planning Commission. • Handed his own arborist's'report, which states that trees are likely to decline in five years. • Said that he had several conversations with Mr. Cutler. • Urged the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendations and to put as much force into it as the Planning Commission can. Ms. Letha Matas, 20378 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated that Mr. Cutler is destroying their property and placed a portable toilet next to their bedroom window. • Called Mr. Cutler a "naturally mean man" who has not discussed anything. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 -Page 8 • Asked to turn over the remainder of her time to speak to Mr. Breck. Chair Jackman asked Ms. Matas if the portable toilet has been situated on her property. Ms. Letha Matas replied no but that it is as close as it can get to her property. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Matas how she sees this situation being solved. Ms. Letha Matas replied by moving the potty and fixing the things he must fix. Said that there are all kinds of things wrong. Mr. Cutler was pouring cement despite stop work orders. She said that he is not a nice man. Commissioner Garakani told Ms. Matas that she did a great job expressing her view and did not need to turn her time to speak over to Mr. Breck in order to get her point across. Mr. Frank Matas, 20385 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Stated that the wall has been constructed on their easement and that he would like to see it come down. • Asked that the remainder of his allotted time be given over to Mr. Breck. Chair Jackman advised that speakers cannot simply give their time to speak over to others who have already spoken but rather must speak for themselves. Mr. Frank Matas: • Said that he used to get along with Mr. Cutler for about one and a half years. • Added that nowadays Mr. Cutler just does whatever he wants to do and the City just allows it. Director Tom Sullivan asked if access is blocked. Ms. Letha Matas said that trees have been planted and cars are parked in such a way as to block access. Commissioner Barry asked what the purpose is for this easement. Mr. Frank Matas replied as a turnaround. Ms. Letha Matas added that they can no longer park their boat there while they had previously done so for over 22 years. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that this easement is not an issue before the Commission this evening,' Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided here for four years and her dad has for 60 years. • Said that it is shocking to see oak trees located on Oak Place being removed. • Expressed surprise at the issuance of over the counter permits without Planning Commission involvement. • Stated that she has done some research, including from the City of Palo Alto and UC Davis. • Said that benefits from trees include habitat, shading and screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Barry pointed out that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission has done a lot of work to revise the City's Tree Ordinance, which has gone forward to the City Council. Ms. Tracey Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Said that one of the issues that most concerns her is comment made by the Planning Commission, innuendoes that they have done things underhandedly or on the sly. • Suggested that all issues areaway of backpedaling by the City to cover its mistakes. • Said that she objected to references made by one Commissioner about Canary Palms not being indigenous and therefore not a desirable tree to plant. • Said that much of beauty is due to planting of non-indigenous materials in places such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo. • Said that this influence on the design of her property is unwarranted and that they should be permitted to plant to their own personal taste. • Asked the Planning Commission to reanalyze its position. • Said that they had spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Matas prior to their project starting and the Matases had loved their plans. • Added that they had a friendly relationship with the Matases prior to construction and assured that they have done nothing to their easement. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Cutler about her feelings over the health of trees. Ms. Tracey Cutler replied that she could not address each problem as identified by Mr. Coate but assured that they have done and will do whatever is possible to keep trees healthy. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission is simply dealing with violations and has asked for mitigation on other types of projects in the past. Ms. Tracey Cutler: • Said that she understands but feels that boundaries have been overstepped. • Expressed concern that it is being implied that they (the Cutlers) hate trees. • Added that she does not want to be told what she can or cannot plant on her property as this would be a further intrusion into private citizen's rights, something which she must take a stand on. Commissioner Garakani stated that the cutting down or excessive trimming of trees and the improper construction of this stone wall has brought about a lot of hardship. Asked how to fix this situation so the hardship goes away. Ms. Tracey Cutler assured that they will do what they can do but still it needs to be discussed as to what they feel is reasonable. Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he is happy to comply with most of the Arborist's requests but expects an apology from the City for its illegal activities. With the resolution of the fence issue, he will get started right away. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler to what illegal activities he refers. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that this issue is between attorneys. Commissioner Barry said that she is having a little trouble coming to terms with constructive comments with the comments just heard. Pointed out that Mr. Cutler did not initially allow Barrie Coate onto his property. Mr. Mitch Cutler denied that and called this accusation a complete fabrication. He added that he simply expected the appointment for Mr. Coate's site visit to be made through his attorney. Commissioner Barry pointed out that once attorneys are involved things change. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied if the attorneys work out the issues, he can move forward with mitigations. Chair Jackman said that it appears that the attorneys need to work out issues prior to continuation. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the resolution under consideration is the result of what the Commission asked to do. The City Attorney has helped prepare this resolution. Commissioner Barry agreed that the Commission can discuss actions. Ms. Tracey Cutler: • Stated that all the neighbors are insinuating that her husband, Mitch, is a mean man and does not care about others. • Declared that this representation is not true. • Pointed out that oftentimes problems arise when construction activity occurs. • Reminded that prior to construction beginning, they had no problems with their neighbors. • Said that this issue with the fence and the City (as well as one complainant) is how the contention began. • Said that they had been open about their plans and indicated a willingness to work with neighbors. • Said that this situation has been unfair to them. Mr. Mitch Cutler: • Agreed that their relationship with their neighbors was great for three years. • Added that since that time, difficulties that have arisen are mostly due to one neighbor who has rallied the others. • Suggested that the City and Planning Department be held accountable. Mr. Bill Breck: • Stated that Mr. Cutler feels he has the right to do anything. • Pointed out that he once smashed a surveyor's equipment. • Agreed that the easement lawsuit is a separate issue from this easement concern. • Asked the Commission to stick to the Code, which states that when trees are damaged and/or destroyed, they must be replaced with similar trees. • Said that he is very concerned that this requirement will be ignored. • Asked if the 10 neighbors adversely impacted must file lawsuits to get appropriate action by the City. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 ~ Page 11 • Stated that this has been a horrid summer with numerous violations by the Cutlers that will result is 12 years of trees dying to look forward to. • Declared that he expects the requests outlined in the document he distributed to be incorporated into the resolution. If not, they will be back. • Said that it has been a long time to wait for any restitution. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan if he has had an opportunity to review the document distributed this evening by Mr. Breck. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Barry: • Said that in it Mr. Breck suggests that there are omissions in penalties and recommendations for drainage and removal of fill. • Stated that she would like to have the City Attorney's reaction, that the Planning Commission could discuss mitigation issues and the City Arborist can look into drainage and fill issues raised. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that this item was before the Commission in August as an appeal of an administrative decision regarding building within 10 feet of a protected tree. • Added that the Commission granted that appeal and directed the City's Arborist to prepare a report with mitigations and a determination whether the horizontal portion of the wall is best removed or left in place as well as to establish a valuation on the trees. • Said that Barrie Coate was directed to use the most recent report edition in establishing valuation. • Said that if there are penalties imposed, citations are issued, which are infractions. To impose an infraction the activity should be immediate or witnessed. • Added that the penalties imposed were agreed to between Mr. Cutler and the City Attorney. • Cautioned that the Commission needs to separate this request for penalties from what is before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Barry: • Said that in general she is happy to go with Barrie Coate's recommendations but would like to add a condition that if valuation has not been based on the most recent table, it should be corrected to do so. • Added that soil removal should be done is a way that guarantees good drainage. • Said that during the bonding period, if construction is done in the area (within 10-feet of rootline) use of platforms will be required as a mitigation measure. Commissioner Hunter said that she is being very silent this evening because she is not sure what to do. Said that she finds this situation to be overwhelming and will continue to listen carefully. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the most recent version of the resolution specifically the time frame for accomplishment. Stated that how mitigation will be accomplished is an important issue to her and supported inspections by the City at supportable intervals. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 ~ Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the timeframes included within the conditions with a January ls` deadline, no later than 15 days, no later than 30 days, February 28a', etc. Commissioner Barry suggested the creation of a compliance calendar. Chair Jackman agreed that this would be helpful. Commissioner Kurasch asked if litigation is the next step if compliance is not achieved. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch expressed agreement with Commissioner Barry. Added that installation of any additional hardscape should be prohibited under said tree canopies. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that condition 9 requires a landscape plan be submitted for review by the City Arborist and that soil removal shall be done in a manner that does not further impact the trees with flooding or ponding of storm water. Commissioner Kurasch said that she likes hearing the public feedback and reminded that the Commission tries to come together for the public good. Commissioner Garakani: • Said he would like the opportunity to speak to two things. • Said that law and regulations have to be obeyed by all. • Stated that it appears Mr. Cutler was under the impression he had approvals he needed to proceed while the neighbors feel their interests are in trouble. • Suggested that this is not worth fighting with neighbors and that these neighbors need to get together and go forward, finding what can be done to make things better and working together. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she would support the resolution with the additions proposed. • Said that she is sorry that this has happened. • Pointed out that the Commissioners are all citizens of Saratoga too and are appointed to try to do a job here. Chair Jackman suggested approving the resolution and going forward with the mitigations. Commission Kurasch said that work needs to be done to improve the process and asked staff for the purpose for the bond. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the bond is in the event that one of four trees should die during the bond period. Chair Jackman asked how long this bond would be in effect. Director Tom Sullivan replied nine years. • Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a bond is routine. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Dage 13 • Director Tom Sullivan said that bonds are not uncommon for trees potentially impacted by construction, both on the subject property and/or on adjacent parcels. Asked if the Commission would like a critical start date table in the resolution. Chair Jackman replied yes. Commissioner Barry: • Called it a compliance calendar. • Said that it is clear the decision may not please either side. • Reminded that the legal aspects are out of the purview of the Commission. • Said that there is a common value held by residents to protect trees, particularly oak trees. • Agreed that something went very wrong and that the Planning Commission has tried to mitigate that damage, including working to change the Tree Ordinance. • Expressed support to lean more heavily on prevention of future tree damage. Chair Jackman restated that the Commission supports the resolution with the addition of a critical start date/compliance table, soil removal and the inclusion of the six items for the fifth tree. Commissioner Barry reminded that the valuation table in effect has been called into question. Director Tom Sullivan said that whichever valuation table was in effect when Barrie Coate performed his review is the appropriate one to use. Commissioner Barry asked about the inclusion of a requirement for use of platforms for the protection of trees in the event of any construction near the root line. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this could be a subset of Condition 9. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission accepted the recommendations of the City Arborist with the added conditions stated by the Commissioners as it pertains to the mitigation of damage to trees on the property located at 14480 Oak Place, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:59 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 14 APPLICATION #02-138 (517-08-062) -BROWN, 14775 Oak Street: Request for Variance approval to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house. The existing house intrudes into required setbacks; therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicants seek a Variance to allow a new basement to be constructed below an existing single-family resident, a house that intrudes the front and exterior side setbacks. • Said that the Variance is required to allow the basement to also intrude into the setbacks, beneath the existing footprint of the house. • Said that there are three findings that must be made and staff feels this project meets all three. • Stated that the finding of special circumstances can be made in the affirmative. The lot is unique in both size and shape. It is half the size of the typical lot in the district. It is a restricted lot since it is a corner lot. Denial of a Variance would deprive this owner a common building practice of locating a basement below the footprint of a house. - • Said that this request can be found not to represent a special privilege. This is anon-conforming corner lot with an existing building. This basement will not alter the physical appearance of the house while allowing the owner more living space. • Advised that this proposal does not represent a detriment to public health, safety or welfare. • Said that no trees on the property are proposed for removal and a $2,500 tree protection bond will be secured. • Informed that no negative correspondence has been received and nine letters of support from neighbors were received. • Said that the applicant has provided a site plan that has been stamped by a licensed surveyor. • Recommended approval of a Variance. Commissioner Barry asked why the square footage is not identical for the first and basement levels. Asked if there is a condition regarding construction plan conditions for trucks and dirt. Chair Jackman asked about a zero setback on Oak. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the zero setback is not against the street but rather against the property line. Mr. Bill Brown, 14775 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he is a 26-year resident of this home, which he remodeled eight years ago. • Said that his family, including two children, needs more square footage. • Stated that he is a basement specialist and that installing a basement is the logical way to achieve the additional square footage. • Made himself available for questions and said that some of his neighbors are present. Chair Jackman stated that this is one of the best and most complete proposals the Commission has seen. Commissioner Kurasch asked how long it would take to install this basement. Mr. Bill Brown: . • Replied about three months and that it would take about two to three weeks to dig it out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 15 • Assured that they would keep the neighbors informed of their construction activities. . • Advised that he installs basements in Los Altos, Palo Alto and other communities. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Brown for providing an article on basements. Mr. Bill Brown said that a basement is the logical way to go. Commissioner Garakani asked for a cost comparison in installing a basement over going up. Mr. Bill Brown replied that it is more costly to install a basement over building up. Mr. Ray Persico, 14761 Sixth Street, Saratoga: • Expressed support for the Brown application. • Said that he had needed such a Variance himself and hopes to see this one approved. Mr. John Hollingsworth, 14739 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the next door neighbor and expressed his support. • Stated that he also had submitted a written letter of support. Marilyn & Walt Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga: • Said that they are neighbors. • Advised that Mr. Brown constructed their own basement about nine years ago at which time they too obtain a Variance. • Stated that they can testify that Mr. Brown builds good basements. • Said that they are happy when neighbors improve their homes as this improves the neighborhood overall. Commissioner Barry asked the Marchettis about parking conditions on St. Charles. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti said that it is as bad as it has always been. Mr. Walt Marchetti said that, as it is a very narrow street, parking should not be allowed along it. Chair Jackman suggested that this issue be referred to the Public Safety Department. Director Tom Sullivan said if the Commission so wishes he will make the referral. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti added that if a fire truck were to come down the street while cars are parked, they could not get through. Mr. Jerry Gurley, 14724 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in his home for 33 years and knows the Browns as excellent neighbors. • Stated that they are nice people and that everyone likes them. • Declared them a credit to the City. • Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2, at 9:30 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of De,;ember 11, 2002 Page 16 Corrunissioner Garakani said that this is a very good project and that he is all for it. It meets the requirements for a Variance and he is happy to approve it. • Commissioner Kurasch said that this is the kind of supportable project she likes to see all the time and that it should be cloned. Agreed that it is very supportable. Chair Jackman said that she is very supportive too and prefers a basement over a second story. Commissioner Hunter said that she too is totally in support and finds a basement is better than building up. Agreed that this is a nice application. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that it is clear that staff applied strict interpretations to make the three necessary findings. This proposal meets all the tests and fits into the City's philosophy to build a basement rather than building up as it allows the neighborhood stay the way that it is. Commended the neighbors on their positive relationship. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Variance (Application #02-138) to allow a new basement to _b_e built under the existing house, which intrudes into the required setbacks, on property located at 14775 Oak Street, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2002) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that this item was continued from the meeting of October 23, 2002, as only four Commissioners were present at that meeting. • Said that meetings, workshops and study sessions have been held. • Said that the progression of the recommendations is depicted through the multiple columns. The fifth column reflects the recommendations of the Commission generated at a Study Session. • Gave a rundown on the process, which included additional Task Force meetings on July 26 and August 23. • Offered a new option to the Commission, which would be to recommend to Council that the street improvement aspect, done and going to bid for spring/summer construction, is enough and that these Gateway Design Guidelines may no longer be necessary. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 - - Page 17 • Reiterated that the public area is gong to get done in the next year and that these proposed Design Guidelines are for private facades. Commissioner Kurasch asked why they were implemented in the first place. Director Tom Sullivan said that there was a desire to have a specific plan in the Gateway area. Commissioner Barry asked about the impact on mixed use. Director Tom Sullivan replied that citywide standards for mixed-use zoning is pending and that a Citywide Sign Ordinance update could deal with signs. Commissioner Hunter asked about lighting issues. Director Tom Sullivan said that this issue too could be done Citywide. Commissioner Kurasch asked what appeal process would be in effect with these Gateway Design Guidelines. Director Tom Sullivan replied that a Design Guideline functions like an Ordinance and if an applicant exceeds 50-percent trigger that results in hardship, a Variance can be requested. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:42 p.m. Mr. Al Saah, 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified his property as being one of three parcels that comprise Park Saratoga. • Said that he had been excited about the prospect of these guidelines and appreciates the efforts of Director Sullivan and his staff. However, he now has concerns. • Said that he wrote a letter two weeks ago outlining his concerns. • Said that the proposed buffering conditions would be detrimental to him, as he would lose 18 of 37 parking spaces. • Added that with these guidelines, he could not rebuild what is there now. • Said that this could result in a loss of property value of about 50 to 60 percent in the future. • Said he supports afive-foot setback but not a 20-foot buffering setback. • Recommended approval of the Gateway Design Guidelines without the 20-foot setback requirement. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if his property is triangular. Mr. Saah replied yes. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if there are lots of parcels with similar conditions to his. Mr. Saah replied no. _ Chair Jackman asked for the potential of a Variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 18 Director Tom Sullivan sought to clarify that Mr. Saah's property is actually a rectangular shaped lot and the buffer is five feet while the setback is 30 feet. What is being discussed that would be different is not to allow parking within the required buffer area. Commissioner Kurasch asked how viable such a Variance request would be. Director Tom Sullivan said that this offers good grounds for a Variance. Commissioner Barry said that a Variance might be a vehicle to deal with these guideline requirements. Mr. Saah: • Accused Commissioner Barry of supporting the Guidelines since the beginning and said that he should not be required to obtain a Variance due to an unfair condition. • Suggested accepting the guidelines without the 20-foot buffer zone. • Pointed out that there has never been a survey done on the impacts on properties. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Mixed Use Guidelines were set aside by the Planning Commission until after the completion of the Gateway Design Guidelines. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to put parking in another location and put the building back. Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in her home since 1967 and served on the Task Force since November 1995. • Added that originally both residential and business property owners were represented with the intent to redevelop and beautify the area. • Advised that most recently meetings were more heavily attended by business owners. The July meeting was heavily attended by business owners. • Gave examples of homes impacted by having commercial building constructed adjacent to residential with the impacts on loss of privacy. • Said that she too is unhappy with the proposed buffers and setbacks but because they are not enough. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mallory for her idea on what would be adequate. Ms. Sue Mallory replied more than 25 feet. Commissioner Garakani asked what buffering would be required if the commercial building is only one story. Ms. Sue Mallory replied that she did not know. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has commercial properties on two sides now. • Said that when a major remodel consisting of 50 percent or more occurs, he wants to see current standards upheld. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 19 • Said that he would like to see the Guidelines go forward with the requirement for design review and with no parking allow in the back if next to residential uses but also supported Director Sullivan's recommendation of putting these guidelines on hold for one year. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that he offered this as another option but not as a recommendation. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Walker about the potential impacts to a commercial property owner in losing use of 20 feet of their property. _ Mr. Jeff Walker agreed that this is a tough call to have to make. Ms. Kristin Davis, 20344 Zorka Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is here as a resident of the Gateway area having lived here her whole life. • Said that she is a former business owner on Gateway. • Reminded that her family had nothing to do with the construction of residential units at the rear of Azule Crossing but rather sold the property. • Advised that her grandfather bought this land in 1937 and it was commercial at that time and probably before. • Said that she appreciates the residents' concerns as she lives in a one-story house with a huge two- story home located behind her. • Said that the intent of the Gateway Design Guidelines is to enhance a business district. • Added that she too has been involved since November 1995 but that discussions had been held for decades. Many involved have dropped out saying, "why bother?" • Stated that commercial property owners have rights and are part of the community also. This represents a changing of the rules and their livelihoods are at stake. • Said that all sides have made compromises and agreed that perhaps these Guidelines may need to be put aside. • Said that this issue is important to everyone involved and that she does not want to see anyone suffer. Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Mentioned that he was present at the last public hearing date. • Said that he is a representative of the residents who attended meetings over the years. • Said that a letter dated October 11, 2002, outlines their concerns. • Said he has reviewed the recommendations and is in disagreement. • Suggested that the Gateway Guidelines do not represent the residents and that the City's failure to appoint a balanced committee from the beginning has complicated the process and caused a failure to reach agreement. • Declared that he loves the City and agrees with its long-range goals. • Expressed respect for the Planning Commission's hard work but said he does not feel its recommendations represent the interests of residents. • Asked that their names be removed as offering any endorsement to these Design Guidelines. • Added that he is unhappy with the proposed option to table these Guidelines altogether. • Said that this area has been treated as a second class area. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Mallory what his suggestions are to fix this situation. Saratoga Planning Conunission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Jack Mallory said clear objectives must be developed and the participants on the Task Force cannot be changed midway through the process. Chair Jackman said that she agreed that a balanced Task Force membership is important. Mr. Jack Mallory said that he had had very high hopes. Chair Jackman assured Mr. Mallory of her belief that the Planning Commission can come up with goals. Commissioner Barry said that it appears Mr. Mallory has concern with all possible outcomes. He does not want to see the Gateway Guidelines simply set aside and he does not want to start all over again. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Planning Commission's action will represent a recommendation of action for Council to consider. Commissioner Barry said that the next step is a hearing before the Planning Commission and asked the other Commissioners for their preferences, be it the alternative to set aside these draft Gateway Guidelines in lieu of a City wide Mixed Use Ordinance, which would be a broader set of guidelines. Director Tom Sullivan said that that this is one more alternative recommendation that the Commission can forward on to Council. Commissioner Kurasch said it appears the residents have both process and product concerns. Said that she is not certain exactly what they are seeking per their memo. Mr. Bill Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for taking on this difficult and thankless task. • Said that the Gateway Design Guidelines includes takings from both residents and commercial interests. Commissioner Kurasch stated that these guidelines only do so much and Design Review does the rest. Mr. Bill Guthrie said that he agreed that the most important issue is the distances between the structures. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the existing setbacks are. Director Tom Sullivan replied that right now the distance between structures is 30 feet. Mr. Bill Guthrie said that the proposed changes in the Gateway Design Guidelines are detrimental to residents in this respect. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:42 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that it is part of the Planning Commission's job to look at these draft Gateway Design Guidelines closely and not to simply pass them along to Council to work on issues the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 ~ Page 21 Commission should have worked out. Suggested offering benefits to the commercial uses to make up for the buffering requirements. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned the Commission not to mix up the Gateway Design Guidelines with Mixed-Use Guidelines. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission work more on this and make the residents, commercial property owners and City all happy. Director Tom Sullivan said that one thing both the residential and commercial property owners agree upon is the need to provide some parking in the front. Commissioner Kurasch said it is important to find some consensus. Suggested a 20-foot setback with the second story set back in a step back fashion. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is what is proposed for the rear and side with a 10-foot minimum front setback. Cautioned that there is no reason to hurry and that another Study Session can be arranged. Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission elects to have another Study' Session, it should be because the Commission thinks the document is close. Said that it has been heard tonight that the process did not lead to a document that those who worked on it feel good about. Chair Jackman expressed support for the idea of an additional Commission Study Session in order to incorporate some things heard this evening into a compromise. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if a specific individual project was under consideration here, there would be lots of freedom. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that there was some reason seven years ago to form a Task Force. • Said that this is so difficult to consider. • Added that the idea was to enhance the commercial uses and reminded that this City is a bedroom community and not a commercial community. • Stated that these differences appear almost impossible to solve and that all the Study Sessions in the world may not solve these differences. • Said that initially she had felt this process was going along too fast. At this point, she said it is time to make up minds and send this issue on to Council, who are elected officials while this Commission is not an elected body. ' • Stated that she is not sure the Commission can solve these problems. Chair Jackman said that the Commission can polish them up enough to send on to Council. Commissioner Hunter expressed that she is ready to send the Guidelines on to Council right now and let them be Solomon. Added that Council is elected to make the hard decisions on behalf of the community. Reminded that the City needs a commercial tax base. Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposed Guidelines represent a substantial improvement. f Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 22 n Chair Jackman expressed why not wait to proceed until the streetscape is completed. Commissioner Kurasch proposed having an exclusion for those properties that do not fit or develop a formula whereby the area of net loss resulting from a required buffer shall not exceed 10 percent. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Part 2, Page 3, regarding the applicability section whereas over 50 percent in improvements represents the thresh hold from which requiring compliance would kick m. Suggested that the Commission might want to add more criteria and/or a method for issuance of a waiver. Commissioner Garakani suggested a simple plan to have existing property owners, both residential and commercial, plant buffering landscape immediately so that it begins to mature to a point to offer sufficient screening in the event that the commercial properties redevelop in the future. Commissioner Barry reminded that these relate to future development. Commissioner Hunter stated that she likes Commissioner Kurasch's idea to give an out if a property cannot accommodate a buffer. Director Tom Sullivan said that he is not in a position to develop those sorts of standards tonight but understands the general gist that the Commission would like to have an waiver process under the appropriate conditions. Commissioner Hunter said that Al Saah was eloquent in presenting his case before the Commission and can do so again before Council. Commissioner Barry expressed support for forwarding the draft Gateway Design Guidelines to Council with the addition of minimum standards for lots which would be compelled to comply, including lot length, width and area. Added that the Mixed-Use standards will relate to the entire City from the Gateway to the Village. Director Tom Sullivan added also the PA zones, all commercial and office zones are also potential mixed-use areas. Commissioner Barry said that it will be harder to come up with guidelines for all areas. Director Tom Sullivan said that guidelines speak to intent. Commissioner Barry suggested general guideline statements with implementation based upon Design Guideline issues with all specifics off the table. Chair Jackman expressed her support to move this item on to Council. Director Tom Sullivan said that findings will be needed to help guide future Commissioners to implement goals and policies. i Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 ~ P~:ge 23 Commissioner Kurasch said that she is comfortable having more specifics contained within the Guidelines, saying that she finds them to be clarifying. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Gateway Design Guidelines would be more specific than the Village and Residential Design Guidelines. Commissioner Barry said that she likes that these Guidelines focus specifically on the Gateway. Chair Jackman said to send the matter on to Council. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has more areas of concern including the fact that there is no consensus on the illumination of signs. Commissioner Barry said that signs should be pulled out of these guidelines and dealt with on a citywide basis. Commissioner Kurasch said she has a simple suggestion to page 14 regarding landscaping to require 36-inch box trees to achieve a 20-foot minimum height. Asked if shrubs are included or only trees. Added that there is no consensus on buffers and setbacks. Commissioner Barry said that security lighting (page 16, part 13) should include the added language "shall be the less obtrusive possible." Added that if asked should the Commission deal further with the issues of setback and buffers, her opinion is no. Commissioner Hunter agreed that these issues are too complex. Director Tom Sullivan said that the necessary text will be provided with the drawings and applicability standards. Commissioner Barry asked if Council wanted to send this matter back to the Commission or Task Force, whether they would have the option to do so. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry said that if the Council wants more work from the Commission, it will be sent back. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Commission has participated in the process over the last six months. Chair Jackman agreed that it is time for it to move on. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission forwarded on the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Gateway to Council for its consideration and final approval, by • the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 24 ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-172 (CITYWIDE): Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Second Dwelling Units for various R-1 Residential Zones. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will implement both the City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866. The Housing Element anticipates that 45 new second dwelling units would be constructed over the next five years. Assembly Bill 1866 requires the City to treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner. This new law does not allow the City to conduct a Public hearing to consider the proposed new second dwelling. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the rules of the game have been changed for a significant part of the ABAG mandated housing units, secondary units, with the passage of State Assembly Bill 1866, which will be passed into law next year. • Informed that with this legislation, a City will no longer have discretionary review of second units. • Added that standards can be established including issues such as parking, access, number of bedrooms and appearance but these issues must be yes and/or no issues and not issues allowing discretion. If an application complies with the basic standards set forth, a building permit must be issued. If not, no permit is issued. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that he is in awe of the Planning Commission, having been present all evening, amazed by the work it does. • Offered his commendations and thanks. • Said that he hopes whatever could be done would be done to protect small lots. • Recommended adding a requirement that any time a home is completely torn down, that request be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to approval of the demolition. • Added that the noticing was ludicrous for this home on Swarthmore, having been sent only to ten property owners. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that changes to require this action would have to be made to the Design Review Section of the Ordinance. At the present time, if the replacement home~s_less than 18 feet high and/or less than 6,000 square feet, such action is not required. Commissioner Barry asked if lot size can be a criteria for allowing or disallowing second units under this new legislation. Director Tom Sullivan said that no lot size can be excluded outright but that all existing Zoning Ordinance requirements for a particular zoning designation would have to be met, including coverage, FAR and setbacks. Saratoga Planning Coirimission Minutes of December 11, 2002 Page 25 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will implement both the City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866 regarding how the City will treat applications for-second dwelling units in a ministerial manner without the requirement of a public hearing, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEM5 Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the December 25, 2002, meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held on January 8, 2003. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that the Purdue house denied by the Commission was appealed. Council upheld the appeal and overturned the Commission's denial. Asked that Council refer such situations back so allow more extensive Design Review. Director Tom Sullivan said that concerns of the Commission need to be carefully articulated within a Resolution for Denial to deal with such circumstances as having an appeal upheld by Council. COMMUNICATIONS Written: Facsimile communication from Mitch Cutler requesting a Study Session with the Planning Commission regarding a Variance application for fence height. Director Tom Sullivan advised that Mr. Mitch Cutler is seeking a Study Session with the Commission. Chair Jackman stated that she feels any such discussion needs to be held in a public arena. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that the Commission needs the benefit of a staff report and that this is not a Study Session type issue. Director Tom Sullivan agreed with Commissioner Barry. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 8, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. • MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~, i~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-249;14140 Victor Place Applicant/Owner: Li-Sheng Fu, Architect Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate P Date: January 8, 2002 APN: 397-27-19 Department Hea , ` ~. i iv' ~ __ _. - __ ~- _ ~ W - ~a~- F ~~-• t t --»- ' 3 { t . ~~__ ~_.__--~ ~ Q~~._-_ - , - - . Williams'~~ Ave. ~i'~ R _,.~ f ~- # x as __.:_ ~ __ ~,~~~~m ~ Walnut ~~~Ave~. -__~ - ---- - _ ~___, ~~~.<<~ 4 i y V F ~__. _. ~ .;.. ' ~ N ____._- 0 100 200 300 400 500 ft -~ W E ~ P~~-~ ~ ~. 14140 Victor Place ,. 000001 Application No. 02-249; 14140 Victor Place Proposed Code Requirements Lot Maximum Allowable Coverage: 19% 55% Building 1,226 sq. ft. Paving 572 sq. ft. TOTAL 1,798 sq. ft. (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor 1,764 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor 1,226 sq. ft. ~ TOTAL 2,990 sq. ft. 2,992 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft. 25 ft. Rear 36 ft. 35 ft. Interior Side First Floor 16 ft. 10 ft. *Second Floor 16 ft. 15 ft. Exterior Side First Floor 30 ft. 25 ft. *Second Floor 30 ft. 30 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 22 ft. 26 ft. * The second floor setback was measured to the portion of the building line which is not recessed. The second floor setback was not measured from the recessed areas or the projecting bay windows. C~ ©ooooz y PROJECT DISCUSSION _ The a licant re uest d _ pp q s esign review approval to construct atwo-story smgle farmly residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor azea of the proposed two-story residence and attached gazage is 2,990 squaze feet. The floor area of the first floor is 1,764 squaze feet and the second floor is 1,226 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22 feet. The lot size is approximately 9,461 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. Architectural styles in the neighborhood vary; however, a prominent architectural style is American Traditional including craftsman bungalow. Residences in the surrounding neighborhood aze an equal mixture of one and two story homes. A majority of the residences in the neighborhood have wood siding and singles. The proposed residence reflects a craftsman style. Identifying features of the proposed residence include aloes-pitched gabled roof with eave overhang and triangular knee braces under the gables. A trellised porch is also an identifying feature of a craftsman. The proposed project includes a similar trellis element. The entry porch is supported by tapered square columns. The entry porch is proportionately scaled to the residence and includes a fanlight window above the double doors. The building line of the second story is recessed from the building line of the first story at the front and reaz elevations. Portions of the second story building line aze recessed along the side elevations. The front and side elevations include several bay windows. Overall the elevations include a great deal of modulation and articulation between receding building lines, and projecting bay windows. Proposed materials include alight-gray stucco finish, off- white horizontal wood siding, red double doors, a concrete the roof, white trim, and a stone veneer are proposed. -- No trees aze proposed for removal. The azborist report dated November 21, 2002 requires tree protective fencing and a tree preservation bond. The azborist report dated November 21, 2002 recommends revisions to the grading and drainage plan to preserve tree #3. The azborist recommendations shall be a condition of approval. The attached landscape plan includes athree-foot high redwood fence and slate walkways which lead to the entrance from the street and driveway. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk Building heights aze minimized. The maximum height of the two-story residence is 22 feet. The second-story building line is recessed along the front and reaz elevations. In addition, the second story is recessed at certain locations along the side elevations. Elements which reduce bulk and break up mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched gables, receding building lines, and projecting bay windows. A mixture of materials including t~000~3 horizontal wood siding, stucco, and stone veneer reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment Natural materials are proposed including a stucco finish, horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer. The proposed materials will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. No trees are proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has submitted a petition signed by adjacent and surrounding neighbors which indicates the plans were circulated to the adjacent and surrounding properties for review. No comments or concerns were submitted to the City or the applicant in response to the circulation of the plans. The petition is attached for your reference. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The height of the second story addition has been minimized at 22 feet. The proposed second- story is recessed and does not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. Please refer to Policy #3 above. - Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements. The new windows shall be low emissive glass with low U-factor and low solar heat gain coefficient to realize significant benefits in heating and cooling. High efficiency room conditioning, heat equipment, and water heating shall be installed. Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. The residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape, and minunizes the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 02-049 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for application number 02-049. 2. Fire Department comments, dated November 25, 2002. 3. Arborist Report, dated November 21, 2002. 4. Petition signed by neighbors indicating they have received a copy of the plans for review. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". • ~-00004 • Attachment 1 • ooooos APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Li-Sheng Fu,Architect; 14140 Victor Place WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review for the construction of a new 2,990 square foot residence on a 9,461 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 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 iequired 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 Building heights are minimised. The maximum height of the two-story residence is 22 feet. The second-story building line is recessed along the front and rear elevations. In additior, the second story is recessed at certain locations along the side elevations. Elements which reduce bulk and break up mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched gables, receding building lines, and projecting bay windows. A mixture of materials including horizontal wood siding, stucco, and stone veneer reduce mass and bulk of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment Natural materials are proposed including a stucco finish, horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer. The proposed materials will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Existing vegetation is preserved and integrated into the proposed project. No trees are proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has submitted a petition signed by adjacent and surrounding neighbors which indicates the plans were circulated to the adjacent and surrounding properties for review. No comments or concerns were submitted to the City or the applicant in response to the circulation of the plans. The petition is attached for your reference. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The height of the second story addition has been minimized at 22 feet. The proposed second-story is recessed and does not extend over the entire footprint of the first floor. Please refer to Policy #3 above. ~~0~~ Application No. 02-249; 14140Victor Place Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements. The ---- new windows shall be low emissive glass with low U-factor and low solaz heat gain coefficient to realize significant benefits in heating and cooling. High efficiency room conditioning, heat equipment, and water heating shall be installed. NOW, TIiEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application #02-249 for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the 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 LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks aze 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. FIREPLACES: Only one wood-burning fireplace per structure. 8. FENCES: shall be restricted in height, area of enclosure, materials, length, and sepazation , pursuant to Article 15-29 of the zoning regulations. Any future fencing is subject to planning approval prior to construction. 9. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. • ~~00~0~ Application No. U2-249; 14140Victor Place CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 11. All development review conditions from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 3). to drawings, and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 12. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. CITY ATTORNEY 13. 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. 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 8th day of January 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • ~OQ~O~ Application No. 02-249; 14140Vict~rPlace Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date C7 ~OU0p9 • Attachment 2 • oooolo . r SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2760 11/25/02 04:19pm P. 002 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT • /A means NOT APPLICABLE #: 02-249 DATE: November 25, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE :FU LOCATION: 14140 VICTOR PLACE 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 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.) 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. 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 arithin 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]) 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new. sq. ft. 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. • fu-iaiao ~~~m~ v~ wpa ~0~~~ SARATOGA FIRE 408 667 2780 11/25/02 04:19pm P. 009 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-249 N/A 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. N/A~ 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required a 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 1 l % 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'. 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-azounds: 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. N!A 13. parking: Provide a pazking area 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. • fu-14140 victor pl.wpd VUU~~r • Attachment 3 • ~i00~-13 BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Hortcxnural Car>,sultants 23535 Summrt Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408/353-1052 - TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE FU PROPERTY 14140 VICTOR PLACE 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 November 21, 2002 Job # 11-02-216 • LJ DEC 1 9 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA "~"tIU1TV l~~~rrr n~• . C~OU~+14 TREE SZ%R} E}'AND PRh:SER6:4TTON RECOMMENDATIONSAT THE FU PROPERT}' 14140 }~ICTUR PLACE, SAR.471~GA A.4Slgnment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new residence 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 Plans prepared by LHA Associates, Fremont, CA, Sheets A 1-A4, L 1, and G 1, dated 1 I -4-02. Summary This proposal would expose 6 trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees are to be removed by implementation of this design. However, Tree #3 would likely be severely damaged without mitigation, but it appears that simple modifications are feasible, which would mitigate the damage. 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 50% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 6 trees on this site that may be at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location cf these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The 6 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 -Loblolly pine (Pines taeda) Tree # 2 -Spanish fir (Abies pinsapo) Tree # 3 -Norway spruce (Picea abies) Tree # 4 -Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Tree # 5 -Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) Tree # 6 -Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided }n the attachments that follow this text. 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 6 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: ~J Fine S imens Fair S imens 12356 4 PREPARED B}': MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST NOVEMBER 21, 1002 ~DD~~,C TREE SURY EY.9ND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDA77ONSAT THE FU PROPERTY 14140 Y7C770R PLAC!~ SARATOGA ~ Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Tree #4, the large Monterey pine (40 inch diameter at 54 inches above grade), has 3 fresh pitch tubes of the Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens), an insect that commonly attacks conifers that are stressed in this area. If the tree is irrigated before the infestation becomes too severe, the attack can usually be stopped as the tree recovers. Tree #4 has numerous surface roots that have suflrenrd bark injuries by equipment or vehicles. It appears that most of these have been done by a mower. I made a cursory inspection of several of these injuries. The internal wood in all cases appears to be sound. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction It appears that a116 trees would be preserved However, Tree #3 may suffer significant root loss by the grading cut to create the contour at elevation 469. Tree #3 may lose as much as 30% of its root system, which would be unacceptably severe. An additional cut would be made to construct the proposed walkway between the trunk of Tree #3 and the new residence. Although the cut for this walkway would not appear to be very deep (4-6 inches), this would be in addition to the grading cu If Tree #3 is expected to survive construction, neither of these cuts may be permitted. It appears that a116 trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the location of trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. Location of these trenches must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Trees # 1-5 may decline if they do not receive supplemental irrigation during construction, assuming construction would occur during the dry season of this Mediterranean climate area. Supplemental irrigation means in addition to the annual rainfall. Tree #4 is in the greatest need of irrigation compared_to the other 4 trees. ' Recommendations ' 1. I recommend that the Grading and Drainage plan be revised so that there would not be a cut within 12 feet of the trunk of Tree #3. 2. I recommend that the pathway between the trunk of Tree #3 and the new residence be constructed completely on top of the existing grade for the portion within 12 feet of the trunk. . PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CDNSUL77NG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 11,1002 X00016 FREE SURVEY.4ND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDA770NSAT TXE FU PROPERTY 14140 VIC7i7R PL4CE SARA72~G4 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. The contractor(s) and the owner mast be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or sur(l~ce 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 5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 6. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #1-5, and especially to Tree #4, 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. 8. A full 4-inch la er of coarse of wood chi must be s read over the entire root n - Y ps p zo a of Tree # 1 5. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 9. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted before trenching. 11. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 12. Landscape pathways and other hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing Qf roots. 13. 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 dug closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter from the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 14. 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. PREP,~RED B}': AllCHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTTNG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 21. 200? 00001`7 TREE SURVEYAND PRESERYATI'~1V RECOMMENDATIONSAT THE FU PROPERTY 14140 VICTOR PLACE SARA7i7G9 4 15. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in conta with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 16. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. If any tree were to be sigtificantiy damaged or removed by construction, I recommend that those trees be replaced based on their value. If trees decline as a result of neglect or of failure to follow recommendations for protection and care, I recommend that those trees be replaced based on their value. The combined value of the 6 gees is $21,015. I suggest a bond equal to 50% of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Respectfully subn~ e ~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~ Barrie D. Coate, Princi 1 Pa MLB/sl.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSULTTNG ARBORIST NOG~hIBER 21, 2001 ~00~918 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Hotficultural Consultants ! (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GL05SARY Co~lominaat (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Caltivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Iacladed bark - >3ark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Brancblet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ~i00019 Job Title: Fu Job Address: 14140 Victor Place Job #11-02-216 Measurem ents Condition Prunmq/Cabimq Ne eds Pest/D~sease Problem s Reco mmend . I l I I ! ! I I I ~ ! I ~ I I ! ~ l I BARRIE D COATS ~ I ! ~ ; ~ ~ I = o . and ASSOCIATES ~ j I I ~ m ~ ' ! ~ ! ! o ! ~ .- ' ~ z i ! ~ ! ~ ~ ! ~ W ~ ~ ~ ! W ! ~ W ~ t ; o `? (a a e) ~ s ~ ~ o ~ 2 s $ ! ! i ~ ! ~ ! ~ - F ~ z i ~ ~ Z , ~ z i ~ ~ c~ ~ ! ~ ! W ~ ~ o ~ ~ E c°~ o ~ ~ I ~ ~ 23535SiwaRRoad ~ C ! ~ I ! ~ ~ I ~ ~ _ w ~ ~ I F ~ o: z ~ ~ l Z ~ y E w ! d Z !°w i W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ p a v ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p z ~ a tae c,~«, CA 95000 ~} l ' ~ , , I ! O f~ ~ i U !~ 1 0: !~ W Z o. I O _ O ~ w J I O J O a l w 3 w o. ' yr ! CIF ~ w p ~ j ~ F ~ p ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ !~ I ~ w > t~ W I E Z v~ -- o: , ~ I p Y ~ ~ u. ~ - _ -~ _ _ ~ ~ C7 l~ p Q I~~ Z i O j O j 0 O ~ ~ m p w I w !~ F- ~ F- ~ i ~ w o V Key i Plant Name o ~ O ~ p i ! a LL i J I ~ ~ U ! U ! U U ~ U a ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ! ~ v i = c~ U t ! z a ~ 1 Loblol Pine 27 0 ~ ! 31 70 ! 40 1 ! 1 j 2 I ' Pinus taeda ( ! I ! . in 572 X;27/sq. In. _ ; 15,451 X sp. class 50% _ ;7,726 X wnd. 100% = S 7,726 X loc. 75% _ ; 5,794 Total Value 2 S nish Fk 19.0 21 50 20 1 ~ 1 2 ! Abies ! . in 283 X i27/sq in = ; 7,651 X sp. class 90% = x8,886 X cond. 100% _ ; 6,888 X loc. 75% _ ; 5,165 Total Value 3 N S ce 15 01 17 ~ 35 ~ 20 2 1 3 Picea abies ! ~ ~ t ! ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ! . in 177 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 4,769 X sp. class 70% _ ;3,338 X cond. 90% _ ; 3,004 X loc. 65% _ 1,953 Total Value 4 M Pine 40 0 j 43 60 ~ 80 2 ~ 2 ~ 4 Pinus radiate I ~ ~ ! I , . in 1258 X 527lsq. in. _ ;33,912 X sp. class 30% _ ;10,174 X cond 75% _ ; 7,qp X loc. 75% _ ; 5 723 Total Value 5 Incense Cedar 13 0 ~ ~ I ! 15 ! 30 125 1 I 1 I 2 l ! Calocedrus decurrens ! ~ ~ ~ ! i ~ I ~ I . in 133 X;27Isq. in. ^ ; 3,582 X sp class 70% _ ;2,507 X Bond 100% ; 2,507 X loc. 70% _ ; 1 755 Total Value 6 Mexican Fan Palm 22 0 28 ~ 60 ~ 10 1 1 ~ 2 Washi nie robusta ~ ! i ! ! ~ t I . in 380 X;27/sq. in. = S 10,258 X sp. class ~ ;0 X cond ; X loc. _ - S 625 525.00 r . R. x 50 R hei M Total Value ~~ REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES 5-gal s S36 15-gal =5120 24"box ~ 0 36"box ~ $1,320 48"bo 000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box ,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ORST e 1 of 1•~ ''" 11.21.02 • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants ~ _ (408) 353-1052 - _ Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded-by site-specific instructions BEFORE • Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipmenrt travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. - - Install fences before any construction related equipmert 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 docume~. - Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and Januay. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18"long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or`prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition u~il all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. .. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjac~t to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER • Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation ofturf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. ,i x+000,21 31 I3ARIt11: U COA'I'I~ - ~t~' ~'~' I'z ~~~;e1 val ~ oi~ . , AND ASSOCIATLS - Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists . Y F. f -~i ~S .~ ~ ~ ~ ~. `y~~ _~ ~,~ ,, f"'~\ i ~~ ~ f ~. .r. ~ ~' rk ; ~` ` 1 ~- .- h, ~ ~ ____ .~ Construction period protection 1oi trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property Top of fence hung with fluorescent fla~gin¢ tape t every 10 feet. 1 tf 6' chain link or welded wire mesh ~ 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-ankle post \ f ~ Fenc,e placed at drip line 1 /~~_ or SO% greater tan the tree ~ canopy radius c.!-ere possib.l_e Roadway Fence sitino WIiQh construction is to take place beneath a tre~anopy on one side, the fence should be sit 2-3 leety~yond that construction but between con ion and the tree trunk - - - -~ l ~ ~ -- --~; H construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencin8 to 8' above ground on ~~~ -- trees where construction t~ i~~ will take place beneath ~ ~_- the canopy i~~ J ~~ 8' ~i ~rf ,~; Barne D Coate F,~ Associates (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone ..~- 1 % times the Dripline Diameter -~ !~ L Math/' , I8 ~ he ~~~ er d . ePP Irrigation lateral lines may be installed (12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk as opposed to cutting across the root mass area. , Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet e area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. O N W ---r~-l-'J~' ~~ ~-- __ -.-, - ----- pr ~~~ _ I `~' 3 ~ ~__`~ \ ..1"r r-~"J - =~ - - _ _ !~-= _ Shallow fy~ f~ tio~ ~~_~ absorbing _ %~ ~ O~.a ~ -~ root ti s - ,~~ Yom...-r- '~- r~ -'~~'~'= `__~'Q"' /.~ _ f es trunk diameter,: ='-..~ -~.__ = j ,Vol, ~ ': ,-- - _- ==ti-.;..::. _ ' Lateral line 12 inches deep ~f ~.~ !%`~~ '~ ~'~ ~-Okay ,~• - . i ff r,~~ ~~, ~'~~ .i ~~ „~ ~'C* ti4,~;~ ii'`' [,ARGE PIT70SPORIIDI SHRUBS \ Y/ Y 7- - -f~--- ---r+ - b o o a: _ , I _ ~' - ,-______~F ____ _ y7___~~~__ _ _ ~- '' ~~ +r 466 In fin ti -- ~_:~______ B___ ~(E) Wrbo reW_e_~rrPr _ _ -_ __-_ - - - - - _--- _~T ~__--~ _ _-{}- _ - _ 2 _ > sn JP~~~1 - ~ ` - ~r ___ --_ _~_ ~ - - - v ur~i ; Qc --SAD ~ C ,~~ m I ~ ~ I -'<'~ -- <. s - o ,P - - _ ~~ - 6 ~ _ E-------~-- _ - -- - tltl ,y~1 _ _ '9k( ~ ~I ~ ' ~ I-_____ ~~PfNS i _- ' ' ~ \ I (E,o F 4ie lD IhF 41a 5 • ~ I I i ~ ~, 7n !-- I ~ ~ I e_ as ~orEp t= I ~ ` / ~ t ~~- ~_ ,~~ r ~,~~ .. i ', ~,~ yet ~ ~oNS ~ ~~~ _I ,, ~ c rubes ~ 468 - i /~ __ ,~ ~'f--`rj- ~'N - ~- ~ -----'--- _\ ~ I ,~ s x,. `;~ ~ b ~ ~ i , r. C- 1b ` ~y C 1 b~ ~ r~ \ ,' ~ '\ ~ - - - --46 9 ~ \,, n r ~~ , Q•~62o~ ~ • av°oo oo' ~ -Z5 QS .. 'rt# jo v ~9~' d n . - r~ l , ~. - - -- -- - (~~ e r~ . ,e ~ ~ c~ ~ ~r ~ ~ 1 DRivCvN)' '~ r ~ ~~ - - '----- - - 4------ T'---1-- - - --{-- WM ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~'// _~/ 1~ ~ t! _~_ ~.~ __-_y_ 1~~ ~~ `' P A, ~o ~~~ -. a~~ \_j ~ ~s tEo ouvo ' T ~ QI ~" ~ _ , r i~ X11 J ' __ --I-,J'~_ - .,~,~.~\~° Jul ~ 75 od - ` _- 6~gv u - - __~ =11 °jd p°~F ~ ~~ H S 4Br ~~ O °O~ ~i `~'~~ x rn ~ qq g ~`9~v~i 0 c ~~ ~~ ~e~~> ~ yz ~i ~~ x ~ °~ ~ ` ~. 'b pCY3t A e C ~~ v ~ S~. -__ --__ _ ~ L°-rit ~i„ a _ _ ---- '' E -- - ----- - -- - ~ - - ---- --- ---- ~FZ ------ P~,AG---_-_"- - _---- - z. ~ ~~` ~ ~~~ „~ roro~ ~rrr. bt ,~ ~ ",; ,^~_ \ INA46~, p1' p.r. I I/4 y! o o.wm J°! BnQ~« InnIJJ o' L] qM.~~ 0 0 0 ~j fri • Attachment 4 ., .~ ~ooozs If you have any question, please feel free to call me at (510) 656-8287 SINCE LY YOURS, G • • ~i0002~ y~ 7S VIA MAI.AC3A ~~ =ti = i1--1 LUNG HWA AS50CIATES FREMONT, CA 94339 ~~ ~~ ~ ° I ~ ~~ ARCHITECTS • EIVGINEEIt3 TE1.: (S10) 636.8287 DEVELOPER • PLANNER FAX: (S 10) 656-8980 CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFOR1~iIA CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALF. AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 , Re: 14140 VICTOR PLACE, DF~.SIGN REVIEW JOB ADD1tESS :14140 VICTOR PLACE .OWNER MR. SHAG-Q1ANG CAI ARCHITECT FU, LI-SHENG - TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: This is to certify That ]LUNG HWA ASSOCIATES, Architects & Engineers. has delivel•ed the reduced architectural drawings to all of the adjacent property owners to review the plans for the proposed project nam above. Adjacent property address d wner's~signature Uate 3 1- -~ ~~ a~,//~ i lf' .mil L ` '~ ~ i G7 nn ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ /°~ 1~ D "~~ 6 ~ ~a~~- a ~ ~o~ /' ~ ~ /n ~z la r 4 11 • T U~~ ~~R~~®~~ ~ A~~V~~~~~N~ ~~V~ING 6N~X AftCHITEG7UkAL DW45 -- LC A • I = cotes sH~T .•, ; C' A~2: 517E PfAN FiLnR AREA CJ+LG.d DEFrUIh ~ ~ ~ ~ COLUMN OA ~111>= EARTH s AND FLGUR. FLUORESCENT p,T.O/R COMBSNAiICN PAPER A-3~: RJR P~1h, ~,P -PAN '~ 4 ~ '^' GRID LINE ROCK FILL L 6 ANGLE aT F.O.C. f.O.F. FACE OF CONCRETE FACE Cf FINISH ~ TCWEL DISPENSED ANC RECEPTACLE ,;t~ ' -~GTIDWS 6LEUA"I1dN8 "4 ~Inn~I~nYY ~~ 1p ~pJ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~ ' 0~ Q CENTERLINE F O S FACE OF STUDS PTN PARTITION , r ,- l ~ ~ r V uu llvJJ LL U L7 ~ r ~ i+~ y I F,--~, .... ~~--.~~ SaNO/MORTAR Q OiAMETEP~ OR ROUND ~ . . . fPRF. FSAEPAOOF . PTR. PAPER iCWEL PECEPTACLE y `~ ~ 1 PERPENOSCULAR F.S. FULL SIZE W ~~ CRAWING IUcNTIFICATION A t .~ POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE I IE1 POUND OR NUMBER EXIS TIMG FT, FTC FOOT OR FEET FOOTING DT. OUARP.Y TILE N OII ~ ~ I'1 VV ~~~~ ~^ ,T IN1 NEW ~ . ~ Q 5 - DRAWING NUMBER PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PURR. FUT FURRING ~ FUTURE ~ 27 SHEET NUMBER CONCRETE ACOUS. ACOUSTICAL . P. RISER CITY ~~ SttiViTQA7n ~ ~ ~ , ® BRICK A.D. AREA DRAIN RAD. RADIUS ~ ~~~- ~~ ~~~ ~%Nr,~IITaITY ilFllFl ll~AA^' Z ~ ~~ BUILOI NG SECTIONS ~ ADU. AOJUSiAOLE GA. GAUGE R.D. REF ROOF DRAIN (T '~'~'~- -- CONCRETE BLOCK AGGR. AGGREGATE OALV. GALVANI2EC . REFERENCE - ~-I; ~Dlu~ ~,. ~I~~~ ~~. AL. ALUMINIUM G B GflAB BAR AEFR. REFRIGERATOR 4 3-fi DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER STONEWORK APPROX. APPROXIMATE , . 6L. GLA55 ~ RGTR ' gEGSSTEq ' ARCH. AACHITECTUAAL CND. GROUND REItk . REINFORCED STEEL ~ ~ ASB. ASBESTOS 6R. GRADE ~ RED, AEOU!RED _ DOOR fOENTIFICATION ASPH, ASPHALT GYP. GYPSUM AES1L. RESSL IENT SHOWN ON I/8 SCALE PLANS ~ ® ~ RN. R O ROOM ROUGH OPENIN ~ _,~~ - X ~~ G,. .pr'{ ~ x<u - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ a DOOR NUMBER WDOD FINISHED ~ BD. 0-ARD ~ . . AND, G AEbW000 . '~ ~ ~ 3s o ~ ~ 4 ~ y U' T I~a . .T ~ i 9~ - 2 L-1 HARDWARE GROUP ~ DODA LOUVER ® W000 FRAMING iHPOVGH MEMBER WCDD INTERRUPTED MEMBER - BITUM. BLDG. BLK. BLKO. BM BITllMINOUS BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BEAM H.B. H,C HOMO. HOME, HOSE 8I08 HOLLOW CORE HAPOWOOO HARDWARE w T A.N,L. . B C PAIN WAiEA LEADER ~ SOUTH SOLID CORE n . 9 ip s~c i ea[~ us_~~u ~ ~~~ ~~ xC- uboe,~ ~k ~~~,°~ tr - ql n stauo ~"~~~ ~ F ~ p~4 ~ ~~~ ISITE ~~~ (a~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - J i. '~ ~ < F ~ G, ® PLYw00D ~ - . H.M. AL NDLLO ME ' . . x~ g g ~ WS ~ M rrr xiRO~ I ~ 5 J _ SOT. BOTTOM HORIZ. HOAIZONT AL S.C.D. SEA1 COVER DISPENSER ~ qo~ ' ~ F CS ~ ~ ~ 2 OOA TRESHDLO ® GLASS AB ABINET HP. HGT. HOUR HEIGHT ' SCHED. 5.0. 9ECT SCHEDULE SOAP OISPENSF.R SECTION ~ ,.~ A ~ _ Wi -- V t . ;; - Ux ~„~° A~~`4 ~'~~ uRt _ $~ uY"` Lb C. ~ - - ~ ~ t V - 9 T-2 ~ ACOUSTIC TILE OR 80AA0 . C.B. CEN. CATCH BASIN CEMENT L D INSIDE OSAMETEq . SH, SHR. SHELF SHfDwER - /.,:',~. 91f I A g ~ ~M ~~ 'i~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ ~., C r e 4F'N.N~,+`'~~; ~ scr~a y~ Sti'E ~- `,m~- ~ GYPSUMBOARD CER. C I CERAMIC CAST IADN . INSUL. INSULATION ~ ~ SHJ. SIN SHEET SIMILAR' o oR Un ~. ~ I ~` FY wsa, b ~'~, rNKi~ r. ~' g~ y /-"+o \ ~'~} 'Ay ~ V ~ WINDOW TYPE . . CLG. CEILING INT. INTER IDP ~ . S.N..D SANITaRt NAPKIN CAd~' ~ ~ ~ N' '~~aU' I vI~ ~P ~ , ,~ , '~' ~ ' ~ '0'r ~ ~,, .+`'a ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ GATT INSULATION CLNG. CLO. CAULKING CLOBfT ~ S.N.R. DISPENSER SANI1aPt' NaPkIN 'y _.jl$ ~` rF g s SP °L N \ A ~ d 1 wkxo .~/~ ,~'~ ~ »~~ a T~ MAMN BY )" CHECKED BY: ~ LWVER TYPE RIGID INSU~_ATI ON CLR. CLEAk JAN, JANITCP RECEPTACLE o , by 4 ~ r '~""c' ~~ y ~ . ~ ~~ . ~g1 ~ MTE OF ISSUE:" ~- IDTHER~.iHAN ODOR LOUYER SI COL. COLL+'N JT. JOINT SPEC SPECIFICATION N , . 2 tips r~ ~~ ?' -~i~n ~ ~ ~ A ~ :'ar' ~ ~ ' ' - - ROCM FINISH ~ CERAMIC TILE T ~ CONC. CONN. CONST CONCRETE CONNECTION CONSTRUCTION IT. ~ KITCHEN . S0. SST, SX G SQUARE STAINLESS STEEL SERVICE SINN , V~Y ~ G5 w ' ~~ I ~ Jy~~ y ~u` ~' '4 ~( q 1s J'~ ~ wa gpJ 0,, sY, e 1 1~ ~";~ ~U j A P ~ ~8 + ~ < ~ I ~ tt AEYISIONS~ C~ f0 -0 ^ ;~r ~~° pLA5TEq ON ME1AL LAIN . . . ~L~ y~ ), R N ~~ : y ~` ~ CESLIMG HEiGHi CONT. CONTINUOUS STA. SIDT IDN ,,,,m) \ a , P° r '0 ~ ~ r ~ ~T M yl{TO&..,. ~ y ~ !PI'_,/!.~ ALUMINUM CORR. CTR CORRIDOR CENTER U0. LAN. LA80RAi0gY LAMINATE STD. ~ BTL STANDARD ~ STEEL ba " ~ ~ '~ ~ VArF ~R° '~ ~? ~ ~ \, R~' i ~ m + I ~ ~ I +~ A ~~' "~"., ~ . ' INTERIOR ELEVATION ELEVATION NUMBER , LAV. LAVa'fOAY . STOR. STORAGE ~ ApyFi sy C qB T' ~ ~ ~ ~~ A x ~' ~ `~ `. . ~--"" '~~ ~ ~ e i ' 5-5 . SHEET NUMBER DBL. DOUG! E LKR. LT LOCKER. LIGHT STRL. SUSP STRUCTURAL SUSPENDED exs _ ~.~,u ~ v ~~ 7 ~• ~'"~ 9 'ror ~5 3H m r• t „~ f ~ ~ ~' - - ---~-~- PT P T . . o p i - _~. y .~~ ,~mz ' ~ ` ' . OE O.f . DEi. AR MENT DE DRINdING FOUNTAIN DETAIL NAX MAXIMUM SYN. SYMMEigICAL xiii. _ I °~ ~'"'~ ~ ~> ~ ~ ~ g °'-W" t I:fl~~ x~ . ; w w ^^' . ~ - - ~, ~ .w nvea "e~"c . , REVISION DIR. OIAMETEP N.C. NED7 LINE CABINET TRD THEAO 4 .. I ?~ ~ti~ ~ ' t~~ ~,, ~SaaAroeA- suN'rfYV~F ~ , DIM. OISP. ON. OIME'SION DISPENSER DONN MECH. MEMB MET MECHANICAL MEMBRAUE cTAL ~ . T.B. T. C. TEL. iOwEL BAR T,OP OF. CURB TELEPHONE ~ , ~,~ ~ / V o .~ ~ ~ 314Kk ~/~~~&I J"'~ ~wV rYRrp \V~,N ~' ~ -i ~ ~ ~ y-~, k(J~_--~~r ' ' D.O. OOCR GPENIN6 MFR M~ UFACTUREA. TEA. - TEPAAZ,D e qp~ \~ _:_ L aE ~ '~ __}} ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ MATCH LINE OR_ DDOR MH. MakHOLE T.SG. TONGUE AND GROOVE ^ ..,.. (( - fi ~ ` ~ /poi r ! 'A _ ... ,~~U ~' ~:~ffi ~ @ , ~ - - ~ ONR. 05 DAAwcR DOWNSPOUT KIN. MIR MI NI MVM MIRROR p{g, THICK ~ ' "'- . O.S.a. ORY STANDPIPE . MISC. MISCELLANEOUS T9, r t D: TOP OF PAVEMENT TGrLET PagEP . ~ i ~ V CIN TTY MA SLoc-k Mph -. ~ ' F1)PV~{ !'' ' ONG. DRAWING M.D. MID. MASONRY 6PENING MOUNTED . . T V DISPENSER TELEVISION MTS. - ~ ~ ~-N'~; $~, ~ .. . a-sk c ,,,1555~/p~' Y~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ WORK POINT, CONTROL POINT OR DATUM P02NT' E. EA. E.J. EAST EACH ExanNStDN Ja1N• NUL. MULL]ON . , T.M, TYP. TOP OF WALL TYPICAL - '' 9UILDiI~ 1NfbRMATI,0g1 ,A i ~'F~D~~lA BF ~r '~~~ l OF EL ELEtAiiCh N. NOA7N l',~ GiINER~S ryy~,~,r ~ ENAO. QIA41vcj ~ " ~ TEL: (?H$) /0?-381/p fA - - ELEC. ELEC RIC-'~_ N.LC. N0 OR ~ NOi iN CONTflACT NUMBER UNf. UNPINISHED ~ SdRATG~A ~ CA .' (JWNER!8 ~= I~1'4fl YIG7oR ,~P,L~iCE - ~ - . - - - - - PROPERTY. LINE ELE4 EMER ELEVA EMERGE 'CY . NOM. NOMINAL U,D.N, UNLESS OTHERWISE P'f~alESCT ADr2RE35; , - ~' " ' ENCL E*:L~OSLRE N.T.S. NOT IN SCALE VA. NDTEO URINAL ~OUIUCi _ R-I -~0.1~47x .. , SHEET TITLE:.. - ' ' EP. EL F.CTFICAL PANELBOAAO ~ m I.CJ7 Z.ISl; ~. k4~h0~ 54 CAVE(:' SHEET: 75 - _ EXISTING CONTOUR E0. EOPT EDUAL EQUIPMENT O.A. OVEP.ALL LO'j C!)yEfZF1C~S a I'8•,6Qr~' .. ~ _ . E.M.C. ELECTRIC WATER COOLER DOS. DBGTtIRE ~ -YERT. 'VEST vERT ICAL ' vEBTi RULE - BI:Dra 1i7; .q2'-4' '-- 74 -- - NEW CONTOUR E%ST. EXISTING O.C. 0.0 ON CENTER. OUTSIDE DIanETE2 IO:m,1 , ~ ~ ~~~ Ate' ~1 QNo'F4 Ilb3, l5'A ' . E%P0, R EXPOSEC OFF, OFFICE ~ 1~ ~ '18Y. Fi. j24'S. TBr _. ' , E% EXPANSION OPNG. OPENING N. WEST ~ aCA~- ' 248Q '~ ~ 5 (IHL~. IYlRA4E) ~ _ ~ 0 NEW GRADE ~ EXT. EXTERIOR DPP, OPPOS'. TE N/ N C wITH WATER CLOSET . . Pd~R 3 L b~. . 0 . D.H. oPPOSI'=_ HANG . . ' No. wooD I-27-otq Apl1#. - ~q y F.A. FIRE ALARM X/D WITHOUT 1 ~9h/ ,L `Wj TOP OF WALL F.S. F, D, FLAT BAR F,.O 4 DRAIN PRCST oqE CAST MP.. ~ WA IERPRCOF II~~ FON FUUNC ~ DN PL A7E P NSCT. WAINSCOT y ' . . , yT, wEIGH7 gA ' F.E. FIRE SIINGUISHER P.LAM Fia5T1C LaMINatE < ~~ i0P OF CURB ENERGY CONSERVATION DESIGN CD ^PLSANCE - f E G. fSAE EXt,NGUISHEA CAA. PLAS. PLASTER _ T I HAVE AEV IEwEO"THE CUP.AEN7 STATE ENER6P DCNSERVATION F.H.C. FIRE HOSE .CABINET pLYWO PLYWOOD ~ SHEE N,D„ ' 0 0A~ 7 PAVEMENT GRACE REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. IN MY PROFESSIONAL JUDGc'MENT. wEATHERSTR]PPING & IN9ULA TI ON ON' fIN. FL. FINISH FLOOR -pR, _ pi. ~ pp}R PO1N7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' EXTERIOR WALLS 6 ROOF IN THIS Sfi OF DRAWINGS FLASH. FLASHING P.T.D. ~ PAF.R TOWEL DISPENSER _ 6 SPECIFSCATIONS, CONFORMS. - 1 - - - __ - !. • • e %2PLYWD ~. E9TERpR STUCCO - ~CU,LTY Fqk{ i55 'FORM TRiM ~-,~ fLASHlIIk ~_ ~~ HEAD DETAIL l.wti+a s~M•) 3'=~ o"^' ~. SFAL4NT sR~ua FORM R-13 IuSL' ~J S~ RWF'i1LE o/ 30• FEtY. 0~ Y" ux PLYwa. R•3D INSAL, 2xApRTER6'SEE FNAH1Ny PLON. ~~ Qx 6LOLKING W/ 2d DRILLED VENT Hd.ES ~ Nn. tusELr ScRCEHS. 3- /. U,$.H.C~UYtER FlluTCo WHER6 d1UR5 I 2%'•RE9wD. PaoY19ENaIL6RH~l~ FASUd. ' AS RE0.D. 6YP, Bv; ~16a FL'~SfUGCO o~Mn.LA7x o~2tdYERS 'W4T6P PRQ9F M6HBRgNGE GRADE tD° root k PEER ati OFl ~ ~"pLYVlD, R•1364TT IUSU1r, l1'P. ~XTERIOI~ WALL ~ RR~F OVEKNANfa ~~ RQ ~A~S FI-~IZ AReA Cs11.~ . av „' ~ y n ~ e,~q ~ ewe ~ ,•,~. S ~~ t] ®365.595' 187495° ~ .9 2 ~, 3 , . a V _ 8 l t (.I-rs';5 15T. F~,~~{N. ® Qt.O-187495-11 5.5 r5=676315a N~,n~ J 3'x13.42795m V~ ~' .ila r n 1, ig'"5obe 4o9a 2~FL. 1225.15 6`su'~.J ~ 'T PL~ 1163.75 Q7a7za I TafA~- 2484 $a • 6 I~_ Ca I~~16~ a ~ 3 O Pi qQ- 33F6'' o= 222.75 -168.75@ a274a =' 12.ia j .y=e8°slbp DJ t.oi \./ \.l. V ~.! O `:l `/ 2~~»-'P>-~ Qo4~168.75r2b9 ~222.JSr 11 r16-42JR5 -1aJ5-14.1 .I29S.75'~ ; ~unm""w.,eoawrw,. 1 /2,2n 6"oc. 2~ of 2-Y2~1 6<6 B ~ ~ i TK~LLIS DETAILS Ur7,b~ li Di • goNiN~ R•I' IOtoo ~2E49 ADJUSTED 9ET ~C{C ~( pp{kpNfpRMINb 51TE ~ I-~Sleb= Q44A.54F iRON7, 15°~+59=30= ~ . •pU.oWABLEPIc'r~l2AR~' REAR ; is°+sP=2o"' 2GC0+(IlaoxS)=3»m~ 4 e E~TbiD8,77"x20=15.Q`'?Izi~'q°{5`"2o~•4"il eAoJUSTM~h'T+~Ff~AKEA (2246L9c~N'f.,4oVERlB'). INT~SI9E-7ix.loq,=7,7~= 7-8~.-1`s'" L2=8!2. j2cn-(4,;3x1,5%1=321ax 43.59 ' 2992 ~ f24~e1#r. Htu 4gov&R 19~), 54'•6" ~;•~ ¢o" 15LO" 13~-10' 19~-ou 6~•ou 5~0" APN# 341-27-14 ~ Ncn 32'30"w IiIRo` _ ~ -- 8 B -- •E}• - 8 ®A0. ,yv ~ Id' MAG ®A.v. f~ . i ~ {- ~ ~J sv~, y 3,Kr FdIGE . ~ -__..: ..._._...._. ,.- , - ,. ~ ,---fo ..~ .~.. -- -._ : _. y,... ,_--.-..-.- ,--.:.._ .~ 706E ,r- - ~ , . ,~ I p.~ulrED sEr E I r~~ .. 1 - - ` - -A _ ~ t ~~.. ~~APRIC I 1 -' ~ _ _ 30.01 ' ~ :,.; „.: .,. ~.,.., `~'~,. ~ ~ j ~ - -7-- - ---- - - i j S I. ' ~ 8 ~"PWe ! L--- { ' ,~_~ _ ~~ ( ~.~ l5' o / .,~. ., ; ~ a ~: J ~ FF g7a.5 +y6~.y" r ~ I PORCH 2a'-o" r ~~ ~. i ,. _ T,. • , (e~ Hause Tv FybRA4E ~ ~ 1 ,~ i+, ~ a O . ,~:. EE REMOVeD I.U , I r_ ~_-_ I\ ~ f ~ tl i ~ ~ ~ I I _ ~ . a ~ UHLNUT , ,~' _ .3 ,~'- i I-,` --T ~ _ _~ ~k r I 4- ~, i j = i ~ qyh ~, ~ ~ ~bo4 , i ~ ~: W... s~'dTl::.l, l i ~ ~ i. ~/ 4 .. y ~~ ~ ~-3"">-s~ut~ ~ ~, ;....'~ „ _, ,~,~ _____. -----.-_ - r~ /' (FJVrwDFeyLEC J ~..- ~ TP / ~YIRwT paty: ~.INE ~ ~ ~... p'- 1 _ ~ CSR h ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ^; ~ ~ I ~ / ~+ I 1w.N/fe~~i ~~ i. I ~ t~ ~~ - I I I Id'NU7 '~" PINE (~ I~ Y a5t,:'f&ice ~ O R oVEO L ~ b 'j _ _ -~ 4D LEGEND 0.ay ~~~~,~ _ ~ - - -- ~ '' ~ ~~ . j,- y wM. ,, ~J ~Q ~n w 1 r----'I EXISTIUEi_ELDb~ V' 0" " 12L6 I2'.m 0=l" b'-v" v q=5" I 1 ~~ L - _ L~ TQ.9E ,eB.loYeD - _ , - - bR y4. n Vr", ~,~ b Y , ~-° ~. - -'~ ("'it_J..14-~ p ~ n (~ .PWaPlSEP_.Et# VIGTOFZ I ~.~ ,.-:-- "~~ • ~~~~o ~~~1~~~ ~ 12H.°fL.11NE • • i. i• L~ Q~~ l~ ~a dfl~~~e ~q~~~~e S n r U tyro p, :480 ~o 0 v I$T EL,47e= .~ po?~ : ~>an wE~aNr ~a+c~~e cr-~an ~a~d1~~~9 uo~~o t7 0 WALL: 87GLGO ~ 51DINy WINA7w. V~NY6FRAMC P?aOi.Efald~IFYa . '~RIIA' 2RFa7M. ~ldiHSCOT: sToNE YeNae~ of Sneers dllo~o ~ ~~1J1~1 . dllo~~~o ~ ~~iJ~J .. ~ ~t1U~e d~Q~~o ~oL7~n~U o •' • PLgI~TING NOT~3 ~ . s uW. u. mraxm u etisaas iASlsi.ua vnn tWmlXC uxmus In1 b,~tcr euwtuoa av Alauwnen euxrlXD twwa. N!I'llu Pld~19 OGDYNNBIC. UlQ UFdTIDN pt PLVYe YAnAIAL ]9 tR~rp uuunn{e- a iu am urenes the muRtav or txe uroswe fr t tees InWcu w~ eun uu Au rox ssrYrutDn tuupsn alLr. i [I[SLL Lt 6Utt1VItNI IUPR tYTP1lAl t0'/NJ1LL IHIINI N ~ . , l.I. lUNe W 1810, 16 t0 Ik 6V11We~ iY iN6 tANUSCAPY fpMEARUAV~D. M'.. ' es. tul,vuulhL 1NAW ee iADCep'Ar tee w,m;cue Auxneet u A+nousue . ruASeev or xu wpae. a::nde`is iXALL:e1 wuut teS SeettfDx µD uPADVU ee the ~wpswe :.'~ux]tut cpapeuvut tc txe. srte. -. ~~~. u1'c®.:dua eecvx snAUU uc tun sAUC ei sn our In txvn e1u . 'btAti@la vAliJ ntW kMAINIAIGD AND SxB1U LCCViDX t0 n A-tBDVep'ar txo ulasGes uuneR. ~~ e: ,.... - n exiLL, kszulo a evteD.u enarm .a the sluvAxs. AL CA[U.va ea'rA .xAtt aY MLL~eftANJ6NlC b0[I- IYIe. MAteWAL IX tWf e.tmp. D ms.~ tiL w.:ms xusr lluRa:TLD u Au nas IxCLVDIXC vvxse0plpfCX tiva lvsrµutlpa., p Peweo ArtuiuslAUdttan u olaeetiD sv tee to UNnll CVAAUt(tt ImaLB d10 OACNIpfDYLM1 t00. A PPALDp W SIX Lf~Jirnins xx~o iw_~s roa.arsruA.nm to waev eixu ACfIRAXCe.+.. . t uv LwF,On twsuL Dc A~xou nrz swL to a.ct ura;. -ILL MII tl83SI `DP 1 SA1t NVIVP 9plt, t e!A ' lAGY' JAIL UYCkDR ePIL'<gIDt2lpNPx. _ f3., f WC$.4+ALJ, IXal 6 81 CPde ApN1ULY ]V.N.S TdeLQB IM;An6 t0LL0~'LYa pJ1Htl es~}/}I~ swl l~.s sfii+Dl csL. f aAL. ..,... ' LlA7EZM6 M~SIN W ' MIx.GH ON iT ~ -t-r nw~ scc.,te ~ . ~Ik- -KmiA4.1. I ' ~f-- --~~ixn ~tv naahlFeeo ~I ~-~~ iN~a+~or ~is~~m to' +- -~ - exRNr»+fL~~i'. fTREE,AND SHRUB PLANTING n~Nrs-' ' TRl.`dNIPR WrG~rs - r--PtwuN e-fa~&,n6`Fo.. ~-51R EEI~DIL GAOUND COVER PLANTING ra~its WINO, ;.':4~~ zeE moue . /:ae'auE06Rnae or. /+'' clues Tfe. ', ~ ~_ ' 2-bd (d .V. HAILS. loDyE WL6 PINE STAKE, pUNIN. 4 suK6s P.Ea TREE lTP7 '~ ~ il_.ni , FIWSH bv4oE. '~:..~ ~,. Iii n i Note ~. .,y .~~ LN__~~ ~ Oahe eTFtKe 1=d KIN. Y : Wto NA11 E pdgtH, ' STANDARD, TREE STARING e><aI/' IxI ~ I IA2~ i li 1~4 ~ _a Q s~ QJ 3, NOTES a; ALL ExISTIN9 TKELS b. ALL E,t1s71114 ~+ 3 BETUI.A l}]v'D IS¢, WHITE BfR]i~ 1 I ~.~.. PLAN LIST ~ keY 9iY. Slze ~rANl~a~ NAME (AMMoN NAr+e 3 15 ~ e>;ru~s pENob WHITE ~r~H 12 5Q - CAMELLW SiPONICA 7APAHC3E CdM6L~ld O 3q' IQ. ILiNtId DoME~IG4 NFRVEN~Y 9dNECb I I' ~N I ~ ELEVATION I 3`~wFENCE ]~ETAII- I~z =1'-0° VI4TaR PLACE ~dQ~~ ~1~~Q o~~~~ a~ o D a~Q~~1 • ~~n ,j • 7, aEVlsloes Fs1RTHWoRK cyUAN1TIT'( faRio ARE4 QUJN1rITY (cur) GhWNI71TY (flu.) A I's43.5~ (3a ~ ~~' a o G 5200' 130 D boo19 500 ~~ 51°~4'1 =Ig,q cY 63%2'f ° 23.3 aY TOTAL o. ~~ To urf SD ~~ NOTES` I. ALL (E) GReDE~ PRopERTY LIIJE To REMAIN UNCHANbED.. 3 LEf END .~ P'F ,' FINISH AA~t EL. I-...-I 'f0.2C$:Fl0.6p &RAD> . P ~'~~ EttraE cF f 440 ~XJSIlH.4 .cPN7aUR. ."~0~. E~ttgTlNy coHTaUR. J ` - To q5 C.iWI4ED -- 90 ~P~9_..cFlt(4GIR-. . . .5g µµ. Fg, fINISN sl-+~ y„ ~A` a( 4~' o ~4 t /I ~J ~ B.__. D s~ ~~ Q>a~a~~~~~~Qp ~~a~a~~ ~ I poo°3n'3d'w lal.ao' (E)`NaroPeNCe~(T~> 466 -~-i}-- A--~-~ ~-- ~ -~9-----fi-~--9---13--~ - -e y to Ho ~ i 55.. ~ 468 ~ / -- - --- .~ ' Co / 1 / 1 4d&s I 4s r I'1 ~ ~ y~~.-~_-' p I _ y ~o I _ _ _ / 9 ~ ~ ~ ' I 18 PALM ~ I ~~=fi-_ i ' ~ I I -- -= ~ ~ s i I L J ' I I ~ A ya3s° ~ ~ ~/ I I 1, r I I ~ (E~FF.47a PF 47a,5 3 ~ '~ Ta8B~f41'o+6D, P 6 4°0° ~ / F; ~ '" _ °~9 ~ o f ~ ~ ~ ~. z f Q ,r, ' 14b ,. .., , .,~. ,.. .. .. .,.:._L,._., w . ~ i- ~ k 4 ® B ~q5 9 1 '`} ' t ~ J ®. DftIVEWA~'I ~ 1~ u i6°SPRI+GE ~~ 1 ( "~ a"a4Ve ~ iPRULE 1v' ~~ 1 ~S~CEAIR W I ~!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R~=441;5 ~~1GG~ ea 10~/GNr \~ ~ ~ I / IdNUr e ~'flHE ~ . ~_-_ ~ 0 -- ~`I WM, ~ xj 0 a -90°00 00° *4~ n~ L -~s,4s' o ~b4~? _ i__ 0. `~- 1-I- ;,---i~41 p .~- VIGTa~ R.575.oa' n.II ~~~ b -~- m.C~B ~w~~ a~:~ Z;e OUP=; u`~, fir" ¢.•~'~' aF-~ =~~ ~-. U ~f„ LU<_' ~az~ no. zzaos 6/90/0 3 y ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~0 C~! °iw ~ ~ ~ ~ a W i.~ w ~ V Q 0 ~ ?•I CC d ~ ~ ~iN~ 7RdIWi4E fl,d•{ Dale I I/4 / O 2 saeie YBt' ~,aa orawe .roe Sheet Ql7 ~ or sneers Y _.. e4 ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: I Date: I APN: App # 02-136/ 14850 Baranga Lane ViniSarup John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~~~ January 8, 2002 397-18-036 Department Head: w 3 ~ w ~E s r ~ 'ir ry S'.'~:. `~ V~ ~~~ ~4"_ .~ ~~~~~~ppp G, 'f tv i, °~ s~,v CfISp ~; Ave. ;, ~,, ~~Y -~* ~ ~~ . .j ,, _ A l i ~_ e , C ~ m J 0 •0 80 120 180 200 N LL ,C 14850 Baranga Lane • ~i00~01 CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07/05/02 1U28/02 12/23/02 12/23/02 12/19/02 The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to demolish the existing two-story house and build a new two-story house. The existing house is 2,361 square feet and the proposed house will be 5,050 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The net site area is 36,155 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMEN~ATIOIJ 1. Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Ciry Arborist Reports (2) 3. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • L.J ~iooo02 File No. 02136,• 14850 Baranga Lane STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 47,572 sq. ft. gross, 36,155 sq. ft. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 17% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit. The applicant is proposing 290 cubic yards of fill and 230 cubic yards of cut. The basement is not included in this calculation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal 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. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: M~mum Allowable 33.4% 35% Building Footprint 5,050 sq. ft. Driveway, Patios, Pool and Walkways 10,830 sq. ft. TOTAL 15,880 sq. ft. 16,650 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 5,050.4 sq. ft. Lower Floor and Garage (Basement) not counted (3,608 sq. ft.) TOTAL 5,050.4 sq. ft. 5,766 sq. ft. , Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 129 ft. 30 ft. Rear 87 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 27 ft. 20 ft Right Side 27 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages Existing N/A 12 ft. C:UvlyDocuments~Bardnga Lane 14850 SRdoc ~ oO V o~ File No. 0213F.,14850 Barartga Lane MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be a light brown color stucco with dark brown trim and a Navajo White highlight trim for the columns and windows. The roof will be an earth-tone multi color mission style. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 5,050 square foot residence with a 3,608 square foot basement andthree-car garage. The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural styles. Except for the one elevation with the garage, the home will be viewed as a single story house. The home will be set back further from the street than the existing house which will be demolished. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will use the slope of the lot to place the garage under the proposed house. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building. - • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a light brown color palette which will help the proposed structure blend in with the hillside and trees around the site. The applicant has also proposed a landscape plan using native trees to integrate the structure will the environment. Policy 3, "Avoid-Interference wah Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by minimising the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The landscape plan calls for use of native evergreen trees to provide year-round privacy for the property owner and adjacent neighbors. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent propemes. The structure is fitted to the grade to reduce wall exposure and provide wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. C:~iv1yl)ocuments~Baranga Lane 14850 SlZdoc VUU~04 File No. 02136,• 14850 Baranga Lane protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. ---- Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing athree-car gazage. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove five of the 32 trees on the property. The Ciry Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The applicant is proposing 11-replacement trees of which seven are 36" box and four are 24" box. The Arborist report only recommends eight trees. The City Arborist reports dated July 24, 2002 and October 11, 2002 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for tree.protection. Fireplaces The applicant plans to have three gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace. Correspondence S No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. Conclusion The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the Ciry Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious` coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • C:VvtyDocuments~Baianga Iane 14850 SRdac c ~OO~OV • Attachment 1 , • ~00~0~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Vini Sarup;14850 Baranga Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,050 square foot residence on a 36,155 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the proposed project r_onsisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Poli 1,"Minimi.Ze Perce tion o Bulh" The ro'ect meets this olic in that the ro osed 9' P f P J P Y P P house will use the slope of the lot to place the garage under the proposed house. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the -- building. • Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a light brown color palette which will help the proposed structure blend in with the hillside and trees around the site. The applicant has also proposed a landscape plan using native trees to integrate the structure will the environment. Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by minim~ing the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The landscape plan calls for use of native evergreen trees to provide year-round privacy for the property owner and adjacent neighbors. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. The proposed home will be • located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping. ~~0~0~ • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The structure is fitted to the grade to reduce wall exposure and provide wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation andhigh-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Vini Sarup for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 12, 2002, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building, grading and demolition permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management c;oo~oos 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. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minim~e use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. PUBLIC WORKS 13. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit and final Geotechnical clearance if deemed necessary. CITY ARBORIST 14. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated July 24, 2002 and October 11, 2002 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. CJ ~00~09 c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 15. Prior to issuance of a Building, Grading or Demolition Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the Ciry Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 16. Prior to Final Building approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 17. The applicant shall submit one complete set of plans with the Building Permit submittal to be routed to the Ciry Arborist for review of the final landscape, irrigation and grading plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 18. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 19. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per • stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure. proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler shall be installed by a licensed contractor. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 20. All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus 1-foot shoulders. 21. Slopes form 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. 22. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 23. Provide parking for two emergency vehicles at he proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire District. G00~~.0 24. The width of the security gate 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 the plans. CITY ArrORNEY 25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will-expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of January 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission AITEST: 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 ~-oo~;u Attachment 2 • ~i00~i112 BARRI E D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Surnrnit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~08J353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIVVIENDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 14850 BARANGA LANE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Kristin Borel Community Platming Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist July 24, 2002 Job # 07-02-136 Plan Received: 7.8.02 Plan Due: 8.9.02 ID~ ~~~~~~ r) uu p~G 1 3 2002 U CITY OF SARATOGA ~nMMUNITY DEVELOPMEtaT X00013 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIvIENDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new residence with a large 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: l . The construction plans prepared by Memarie Associates, Saratoga, CA, Sheets Al-A9, dated 6-03-02. 2. The Landscape Plans prepared by Hoag Land Design, Los Gatos, Sheet L 1, dated 6-02. 3. The Grading and Drainage Plans prepared by SMP Civil Engineers, Morgan Hill, Sheets C1 and C2, dated 7-3-02. Summary This proposal may expose 32-trees to some level of risk by construction. At least 3 trees are to be removed by implementation of this design. However, several other trees may be removed or so severely damaged that they would be considered a total loss by the installation of the driveway. Some of these trees (not included on the plans provided) appear to be located on the adjacent property toward the east. It will be essential to accurately locate these trees, and to consider design revisions for the driveway. Replacement tn~es, 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 30% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are approximately 45 trees on this site, but not all of these trees are large enough to be .protected by the city ordinance. There are 19 trees on this site and 13 trees located on adjacent properties that are large enough to be protected by the city ordinance and may be exposed to some level of risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these 32 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this property has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The Trees #8, 9, 10, 11, 17-19, 21, 22, 24-28, and 32 are not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations on the enclosed plan are approximate. The 32 trees are classified as follows: PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST JULY 24, 2002 ~0001~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMEPIDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 2 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA ' Tree #1 California sycamore (Platam~s racemosa) Tree #2 Silver maple (Ater saccharinuin) Tree #3 Corkscrew willow (Salix matsudana `Tortuosa') Trees #4, 5, 7, 14, 15 Apricot (Prunus armeniaca) Trees #6, 10, 11, 13 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Trees #8, 17, 18, 19, 20 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees #9, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # 12 Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) Tree #30 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. 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 32 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S imeas S ecimens S imens S imens 12, 16, 31 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 6, 7, 13, 14, 2, 4, 5 11,21,22,23, 15,17,18,19,20 24,25,26,27, 28,29 30 32 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot sigtificantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, and #32 are located on adjacent properties. I recommend that these be treated as Exceptional regardless of their condition. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 24, 2002 ~i00015 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMEENDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 3 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA Tree # 12 is a large blue oak (Quercus douglasii). It has a trunk diameter of 28-inches at 2 feet above grade. It has a canopy spread of approximately 45 feet. The blue oak species is somewhat rare for the lower elevations of Saratoga and is known to grow considerably slower than many of the other oak species indigenous to this area. Thus, the preservation of this specimen and the 25-inch diameter blue oak located on the south side of this exceptional specimen will be of major importance. The other blue oak located on the south side of this exceptional specimen Tree # 12 is not included because of its location. If Tree #12 is adequately protected, it would not be necessary to provide protection for this other large blue oak. There are also two small weeping atlas cedar trees in the frontyazd that are well worth transplanting to the final landscape. Risks to Trees 1by Proposed Constriction Trees #1, 3, 30, 23, and 25 are in conflict with construction and would be removed should this plan be approved as presently proposed Also, Trees #22, 24, 26, 29 and 32 would suffer severe root losses by construction of the proposed driveway and would not be expected to survive. The soil topography in the area adjacent to the east side property boundary between Trees #21 and 28 slopes downward sharply toward the east. If the driveway were to be constructed as proposed, it appears that a retaining wall would be required on the east side of the proposed driveway to address the existing elevation drop. This is not addressed by the Grading and Drainage plan. However, I fail to see how the proposed driveway can be constructed without a retaining wall unless a major cut is made to address the elevation change, or unless fill soil is planned to build up the shoulder of the driveway on the east side. Building up the shoulder would cover the root zones and the root collars of Trees #22, 24, 26 and 32, and must not be allowed. A major portion of the canopies of Trees #22, 24, and 26 appear to be in conflict with access of the driveway at the location proposed. Thus, it appears that Trees #22, 24, and 26 would not survive even if severe damage to their root systems could be mitigated. Trees #22, 24, and possibly 32 (depending on its actual location) are located on the adjacent property toward the east. If Trees #22, 24, and 32 are to be retained, the driveway would have to be redesigned. An alternative would be to obtain written permission from the neighbor to replace Trees #22, ?_4, and possibly 32, if this tree is actually located on the -neighboring property. The plan proposes to construct a large basement and a swimming pool. The soil from these excavations may not be piled, even temporarily, inside the driplines of existing trees. Neither may this soil be spread under the canopies of trees or spread in a way to adversely affect the surface drainage of the existing trees. Retained trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation; and may • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 24, 2002 ~,oo~1s TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIvII~IDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 4 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA _ include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. --- Ifany 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. For example, if trenching to the existing power pole adjacent to Tree #27 would be required, the location of this trench must be done as shown on the attached plan. In my opinion, no preservation protection should be required to preserve Trees #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, l 4, and 15, partially because of their less than ideal condition and partially because of their low value. For the same reason, no bond protection is requested to preserve these trees. Recommendations l . I recommend that the exact locations of Trees #21-28 be surveyed by an engineering company. This is necessary to determine which of these trees are located on the adjacent property toward the east and to provide a more accurate evaluation of the risk to these trees because of the location of the proposed driveway. , 2. In order to retain Trees #22, 24, and 32, I recommend one of the following alternatives: A. Redesign the driveway. B. Obtain written permission from the neighbor to replace these tines. In the event that the driveway would be redesigned, the following distances would be required in order to expect the survival of each of the trees noted: Trees #21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 32 - a minimum of 8 feet from the trunk that -- must bepreserved and left completely undisturbed. Tree #25 - a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk that must be preserved and left completely undisturbed. Tree #29 - a minimum of 12 feet from the trunk that must be preserved and left completely undisturbed. 3. I recommend that the pruning of Trees #22; 24, and 26 be limited to a maximum of 20% loss of the total canopy. I further recommend that this pruning be supervised by the city arborist to assure compliance. 4. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 5. I recommend that trenching from the power pole adjacent to Tree #27 must be done as shown on the attached plan. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 24, 2002 ~00~1'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 5 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA 6. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. However, the notations for fencing on this map are incomplete, pending the decision regarding Trees #21-26, and 29. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2feet-(minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place a 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. The contractor(s) and the owner mast be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 7. 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), unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. 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, unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree that this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 9. Any old irrigation lines, server lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 10. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to any retained tree that suffers root damage of 15% or more of its total root system. Supplemental irrigation must be applied 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 soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 11. A fu113-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of any tree that must receive supplemental irrigation. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 12. Excavated soil must'ot 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. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 14. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. . PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST JULY 24, 2002 ~00~18 TREE SURVEY AND PP.FSERVATION RECOMIv~NDATIONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 6 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA 15. 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. l 6. 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. I suggest that the species of plarrts 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 plarrts compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 19. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 20. 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 ft. to the side of the trunk of any tree. 21. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. It appears that Trees # 1, 3, 30 would be removed regardless of the location of the driveway. These have a total value of $3,865. This value is equivalent to 3-36 inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. The following equivalents are provided depending on the decision to relocate the - driveway: Tree #22 - $2,020, equal to 1-36 and 2-24 inch boxed native specimens. Tree #23 - $2,059, equal to 1-36 and 2-24 inch boxed native specimens. Tree #24 - $1,200, equal to 1-36 inch boxed native specimens. Tree #25 - $2,807, equal to 2-36 inch boxed native specimens. Tree #26 - $2,424, equal to 1-36 and 3-24 inch boxed native specimens. . Tree #29 - $3,681, equal to 3-36 inch boxed native specimens. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 24, 2002 C~00~19 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIuIIvIENDA'1'IONS AT THE SHANTI TRUST (SARUP) PROPERTY 7 14850 BARANGA LANE, SARATOGA Tree #32 - $ 972, equal to 2-24 inch boxed native specimens. Bear in mind that 36 inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24 inch boxed specimens a may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees aze secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. I suggest a bond equal to 30% of the total value of the trees that wil l be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacemerrts are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia • Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Rc~,dwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully sub , Michael L. Bench, Associate ,~, C,~Q-~c~ Bame D. Coate, Principal '~1 MLB/s. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, Turing and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map C PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 24, 2002 t~00~20 a _ BARRIE Do COATS ~` and ASSOCIATES Horticu[ural Consultants 23535 Surnmit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353_ 1052 October 11, 2002 John Livingstone, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Shanti Trust (Sarup) Project 14850 Baranga Lane, Saratoga Comments: 1 reviewed the revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by SNIP, San Jose, Sheet C-1 dated September 10, 2002 and the Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by Hoag Land Design, Los Gatos, Sheet L-1, dated September 2002. I have also reviewed the sketch faxed on 10-3-02 regarding the detail of the concrete paver driveway. Trees #8-11, 17- 22, 24-28, 31, and 32, previously not included on the plans provided, apparently have been surveyed and their exact locations are now included on the proposed plans. Trees previously thought to be at risk of survival (#22, 24, 25, 26, and 32) would be retained and expected to survive in good condition in this new design. As a result of the revised plans, the trees that are in conflict with construction are trees # 1, 3, 23, and 30. The trunk of tree #29 is shown to be located approximately 6 feet from the proposed driveway. The paver driveway is shown to require a soil cut of approximately 8-inches in depth. This is shown on the Landscape Plan and the sketch faxed on 10-03-02. The Landscape Plan also shows that the paver driveway would be secured around the edges by a footing that would be a depth of 12-inches. An 8-inch or 12-inch depth cut proposed for this construction would result in too severe root loss to expect the survival of tree #29. However, the manufacture specifications for paver driveway construction requires that the subgrade be stabilized. The proposed plans show only the minimum required for stabilization that I have read in manufacture's specifications. Depending on the soil type, the actual depth of the soil cut for paver construction maybe 24-36 inches. In my experience, the typical soil cut is usually 12-16 inches in depth, sometimes greater. ~04i~21 • Even if the minimum stabilization were installed as proposed, it would be too severe to expect the survival of tree #29, but I am aware that the "minimum" is not always actually used. On the west side of the trunk of tree #29 a light well is proposed to be constructed at a distance of 10 feet from the trunk. The cut for this construction is typically 3-5 feet outside the location of the proposed-wall of the light well. This alone would result in severe root loss to tree #29 that this tree would not be expected to survive. In order to expect the survival of tree #29, all of the following mitigations to the plans would be required: 1. The cut for the light well would have to be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunk. This would require a redesign of the light well plan. 2. Any portion of the driveway within 12 feet of the trunk must be constructed completely on top of the existing grade. Concrete would be an acceptable material, but within the 12 foot area this construction must be completely on top of the existing grade. In the event that concrete were to be used for a section.nearest this tree, soil could be backfilled against the edges of the new driveway so as to form a beveled edge. If this were done, the fill soil must be no more than 2 feet in width from the edge of the new concrete. Another alternative would be to allow removal of this coast live oak, which is valued at $3,672, and require replacement with new trees. This value is approximately eq~~ivalent to three 36-inch boxed native trees. Respectfully sub ~ , --- ,~, e.a~_. Michael L. Bench, Assoc~i-a~te~ ` ,~, a~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal Encl.: Map (Tree Fencing Locations) MLB/sl.. 2 ~00~22 i `f • •;CC J;;SVCj di;ia YicaCi~o;l~u nc.,v,;u,..:,,uauLi;,~ a. u•~ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Sarup (Shand Trust) Property, 14850 Baranga Lane (40813531052 23535 Sunmil Road ~ •~!+"`~^+ for: los Gatos, CA 95000 City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: October 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 07-02-136A Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. rKo vY ~ 1 i• ..I ~ I~,, i -~I ~j ~ X11 111 ~ `I`/ m ! ~`! y, ~ 4N.rlq, ~1.1 ~ ~` ~',1 1,~ aN' r--~-- ----^-- r.r• •O.~i I'p~ 1`` ~~ O` ( 1 \ ~ P ~ ~ 1 '°° `vll e~. P l O O~ CI O `y . ~~ ~:\• LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS TREE LEGEND - - - - TREE PROTECTI VE FENCE - " - " - PROPERTY UNE - - - - - - - - SETBACK LINE I 1 Eslslltlp Trss 10 Remaln • ~ OVND IRON PIPE AS NOTED - STREET CENTERLINE - ' -' E OVERN[AO POMERLINE w POWER POLE Wu WA IER METER >< i Eslslinp Trees to Oe Remove0 P ~ C vuBUC uTIU RES EASESIENT 'Ow TOP OF WAIL .••. 'O' tOP 0! FOUNDATION '1' GROUND ELE VAnON ~. ROw uNE Propofe0 RePlotemenl Tree .NV IN V[RT r FINI$M FLOOR cs cARACE sue 40w RIOMT OE WAT r-ZO TREE/ 10 PER ARBORIST REPORT _ ~~ 2 '~ ^Ippi [MCIC• osm•Tv 1\".. i. :~ -~.~1 '~~L•1 T4 ryy. 9 :• ' .a {~.\ a~ .1 ,; a • ~6 • F ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ V~~~N~~Y M'~~ 1 ~~5® ~,4~~NG?~ LANE, 5~R?~T®G?~, ~,~L I F®~N I?~ ~~~~ ~0~ + ~r ~~Y~Ttt~I{ ~r It ~ ~f ~}.'I~f;L { y -0~Ji 7 f lyl Fi yt. YI 7 ~ ~ ~ , f p t II { t" 1 ~1 i Jj~ ~S 1~1~ I ~~{p~rl III: p } I1d ~.~t~-H lyf ~ ~I'~~~{ ~ {7 ~ I 1 '~~ ~I ' I ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ j { 1 I~'. tYt f I I '~i ~~ ~ r i+ '~4 + 1 H-+h~ 71 r r 7 ~{ , 1~ `1 1 ~ t I+ I r +!~~rl~~~~~~ , t1 r' ~ r~'~~j I ~~ 14a .: I ~ h'^ ~'" x ~ ~~ ~Tf " 1.~~~r ~ ~,.yr ~~~~ +~ ~ ,,, , I ~ r1 ~ ~ 1 , I t~,rr ~~~~~~#' 1 r ~ ~I 1~ d 1 1 1. ~, as ~, ~ I~t ~ ~., f l l" 7 f( 1 Y °I '~ T ~i 7~ " ~ i i I-~ f i ~ 1~ i= ~ 1 ;7 f~ a nY{T-~ a r ~ ~ 14 rt~ I t s TI r ~ l l ,,,~t - W ~ l~ ~ ~~~ l I i I ~1"1 I~ rr ~+-~-II + 1 I ;~ II r r F / -- ~ h _ _ ~_, 1~-ir Ir _ T'1~ U- i ~~t ti~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ li~ t~ i 1 ~ ~ i I. _ I ~ ~ ~- - I ' , f l - I ' ~ ~f .1 ~ L ~ l ~ ;~ I_ _ __ I I _ ~~ ~~~ i i I __ J ( I _ _-~ ~ _ ~_ _ L ..~_ L-. ~ ~ ( _ ~ I I ~ 1 ~ - ~ I ~ ~® ®® ~ ~ - - - 38 j~~~ f -- - - o - ----- - - --- , . , : I ~-.-~ 1 ,-- - -- --- 1 ~ L1__ _____________________~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ PRELIMINARY ~ DE516N REVIEYV SUBMITTAL ^ BUILDING DEPARTMENT ^ PLAN GHEGK SUBMITTAL ~ ^ (NOT FOR GON5TRUGTION) APPROVED FOR GONSTRUGTION SKEET INDEX G®NSULT~NTS P~®JEGT D~T~ A-0 COVER81ffEt c-1 ror-~~goI~DARY 1-muNER ~~?~ axt~iea~1-17~mi APN: 397-IS-036 SETBACKS PROVIDED REQUIRED ~-g GRADING J DRAINAGE PLAN L-I OGNOEPTUAL LANpBLAPE PLAN sARAtc~aca 7- ARCHITEOTIAtAt. MEMARIE ASSOC, INC, tEL. r4061996-n4a 17701 SARATOGA•9WNYVALE ~. PAX (4081996.1142 ZONINCs: R-I-dD,000 LOT SIZE: 4'1,5'12.d SF. FRONT REAR 129~•2'~ 3p~_0" l' " ' ° A-~ AREA cALwLAnoN SIJItE ~ D sARArcra ca 9sm1m REDUCTION FOR 11q SLOPE: B -ll -0 50 Aa srrE PLAN RIGHT SIDE 21'-I" 20'-0'• A•3 BISEMENT P'LMl 3-LANDSOAF'E AR :FIITECT NoAU LAND DESIr~ TEL. t4mei 35a-~ l4'1,5'12.d-02dxd1,512.4=36155) 36,155 SQ. FT. , LEFT SIDE 27'-2" 20'-0" A•4 PIRSt BOOR F'I.FW A-6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 43E. MAIN STREET, SI11TE B PAX (4081399.0067 L09 GAT09, GA 95030 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 5,766 SQ. FT. A-b ExtERIOR ELEvarlONS AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 16.98 /~~~i ~.~,/~~~.! A-1 &11LDMG SECTIONS A-6 EIl11LDING 9ECTICNS A-9 ~ PLaN 4. CIVIL ENGINEER 8MP ENGINEERING TEL. (4~! 314.4606 1711 PARK AVEN{1E, SUITE 706 FAX (408) 7b~-9630 SMl J09E CA, 98@b TYPE OF OCCUPANCY: R3/ UI TYPE OF CONST: V-N n LOT COVERAGE rGV~5,05~.d SF. 10.6 ` ]i' I IM 15 8803 I O BUILDING HEIGHT: 24'-6" PERV OUS C VERAG ! , SF. 33.d ~ E ,~, EXISTING AREA: ~~~ ~ `~~~ - FIRST FLOOR: 1,891 SF. ~ GARAGE: 4'f0 SF. PROJECT ADDf~ESS: 14850 BARANGA LANE ~~`~ TOTAL: 2,361 SF~ l SARATOCsA, GA ~~ ^~~~~~ ~~~ I APPLICABLE C ODES 91 UBC, 9l UMG, 91 UPC, 96 NEG i ALL APPLICABLE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED NEW AREA: /~ -------------- (~-~~` ~ I INCLUDING TITLE 24, 1998 CBC FIRST FLOOR: / 5,050.d SF. BASEMENT d GARAGE: ` 3,608.'1 SF. 10TAL: 8659.1 SF. ~~1f 1~ ~~~ ~~ FIRST FLOOR : ~ 5,050.4 SF. ' ~ 106 ~ , I 102.0 SF. GOVERD PORCH a PATIO: I5 ~ ~ ~ DRIVEWAY, POOL d WALKWAY: 9,586.3 SF. 202 q ~11 LIGHT WELL: ~ 541.6 ~, 1.1 ~ ) y LANDSCAPE: 31692.1 SF. 666 ~ j TOTAL: 4'f,512.4 SF. 100 q i R'eY181GN6 Qj 08.79-0i ~~-~-~ Qii-IB-mi o --- o ~~ ~ X ',vv~//`,, ~zYv a~~ Imo ~~~ ~~ ~~m L°u '~,~$,~~ `~ ~~`-G ~o~~us~lr ~~ogo. ~ m~a?~oe~l a~~~~~~~ E~~~~~ ~~~~Z~Z ~ } 4~-W =~~=3u~ u=W~°Z~~ ~~~~~ ~ i d~~~ ~gQgW6Wq`~$ ~WN FW jW ~LLW~~z~° i U~~mFFW WWZZ _ w ~mu~~33V W~ aZULL ~.~~za~F Z ,~c c P U ~~ g O y~ C V t y W ~a~S'~ h u.c, ~O~PPs `NU^~ ~c icy ~ - C°85 W`=I~Hs DATE: 08/Yi/0i SCALE, Nrs. DRAIIN: 7L Joe No.eawurGA ~~°QD Gf BHEETB ~,. • -, 1 Y x ,"el R WET nsoD I /J~~` 1 , i FNO. 1/:'LP.J I ~ s' \ ~ ~ LOT5 a ' 4,6~.' ~,,4~ R ~\ 1 / to ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \~~~ 6 4`'f~~ ~ r Y 1 ~~'~\~ ~ MM1TO ~1 1 N t• O 1~ 7 m t ~ T ' A ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ - _\ - ~ _ -. A ~ ' ETNNING WNL y ~ -,. ~ a+j?>, - ~ ` W/GONG GUTRA I U' ~ -' pS~ 1 AOOE PRdIEL`Y~oN Y 2 ~VBatEA \ ' _ ~ I"X \ ~~ , INIE'W~WAtE ~ ~ _ A , s zd T Ny 4 ss f \ \`~ m{r~ ~ ` T~4159 \ ~ ~ y , ~ e ~ ~ A 1 t -'- 1 ~ ~^178 WA 1 ,~y~~p'~ ~ ~ ~. y ~. , - I1 F. IN .4T6 ` pRLA41. \\ ~' RT' 04} t ~ t 00 ~ U A,. MV4fi5 \ \1 VN Nl q,N n o~ F 5 ~ .~.` o/' 1 aW h}., ~p51Y IY CLNC \ ~~ \ m p \S' , .h 2 ~ ~ a; :. 1, GUTTER {~ 4 N9t ~ 6417 ~{Ad ~ \ ~ 2 .~ TOE OPtFiLL D' ] ~~5. \. 1 ~ ~a \ 4 F \ N ~ ~ E401i 1RR ~~~ `. <'AO ~\ , EL. 40000 ~~', \~ \' i ~ 1 .i ~ ., % % ~1^~ `~!a' R I ~.(0 ASSUMED BENCN NARK A \\ H ~tlh ' RQAOVE FENCE Cw 1 ~¢E~ -'raoT~~lcw ~ ~ \\ ~ 1 c~'~ 3 ~,a~e 5 .. t ~ .a t , . '~ a a ~ +F~ ~~o . iafa>~ v Nfi" ~ ..t~~ v ~ ~-, G 4 ,~ ,e.n -v ~ r~ \v r, ~ <;\ i. \ \ y Z ~~ % ~ f MPS ROCK ENERGY yY. ~ \\ ~ - 6aN l x ImslPnmA 4S ~ ~~ e"~~ L ~pW v~7a 1 9v . ~\1 E ', l pT9 116 t 6~„~' A !~ ( A 4 ~Y ' t "t LN ) <~~t'~(I,P ',1 ~ O t lt2t EAATH/MDLCN SWAIE ~'~ ~~ ~ + \ 0 2z MIN. ~1~ ~ ` A \,\\ A ~ ~ ,,~4~ ,~W two t\a 1 ~., t , 0 '-SC t WW,, ~ '~. \\ ~4 ~~ ,'!\ \ ` l\` REMOTE IX. BLD0. `~ \` ors \ \ \ t x. n I~ \\\ „~vM1' 1 s~ ~ \ ', g\, a LEGENDANDABBREVIATIONS TREE LEGEND `"~` ~'2~,`~ ~9 y\ I , ti 4 '~~ L~ tl~ \ ~ I 1 ~. h t r ar ~ 5 ~ TARS , _ ~ v ~ L4zn ~ Tv - - _- PROPERTY LINE ~ `r 1P t5'7 .,1~ 1 ) I 3 ~ ~n_ \x-..{, - % :am~9 ~ ,~v r~ ~ ~ Y ~~~ - - ---- SETBACK LINE } Ex'sting Tree {a Remain ~~xDA ~ _ ^ ~ ' ' •' - FDUND JRON PIPE AS NOTED `.< `,.1b I ` ~ ~ ~'` ~~- j . -- STREET CEN1fftt1NE ~ r ` - ~ „ ` ~ ~~~~ .. o- / t \ 1•ry~ EVEN I _ ~ E- OVERHEAD POY,ERLINE ~~ s ~ ,e~y{J' '~~a` ~ { j ~% PP POWER POLE - .r v ~ i~\; VYrM WATER METER X ,' ERisting Trees to be Removed I :~,~ t q0 t`.~ T 4>{ ~__ ~ ~ ~~\ 1 ~E,~F P.0.E PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT ` 1 ru' rp' 1 I ~` ~ P ~ T W` ~y,~ C l$7 - TOW TOP OE WALL ~- ~ y, t t >g SE, ~\ 4i3 ="_ s _/... ly - - TOE TOP OF FOUNDATION ',I \ ~ 4.- ~;.e4, , ~, Yom'! 1 m G 417 GROUND ELEVATION y` g ,~ ~ FL - FLOW LINE {R)iKEE9 (T,mJ ^ rw ~ ~ "- 1 ., lNV INVERT ~ Proposed Replacement Trae R S ~g -e ~i ,, .2r FF FINISH FLOOR ~ a » 10 ~" z 6 GS GARAGE SLAB d,L6~R a'3 1 a aWy j ~ ~ ROW RIOH7 OF WAY fps 4 ` 7-20 TREEN 20 PER AR80RIST REPOftT ~ _ 1\ LOT AREA = 47,572.39 SQ. FT GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. APPROVAL OF THIS PLWS MPUES ONLY TO THE E%CAVTTION, PGCEMENT, AND COMPACFION OP IMI7URAL EPRTH M47ERWL6. THIS APPROVAL OOFS NOT CONFER ANY RIGIrtS W EMRY TI EmiER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR lI4 PRIVATE PROffRIY OF OTHERS APPROVAL OF THIS PUN N50 DOES NOi CONSTINiE P-PftOVA1 OF ANY INPROVEMENIS. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AAE SU8IECT TO )iEVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORRIE6 AND 411 iHEA REOUIREO PERMITS SINLL BE OBTNNED. Z. li SMALL 6E hlC RESPONSIBILITY OF RTE PERMIREE TO IDENTRY, LOG4TE aN0 PROTECT ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. 7. THE PERNRiEE OR AGEM SHA1L MAWiNN RTE STREETS, SgEWA1X5 AND All O1NER PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN A CtFAN, S4FE ' D U8A8tE CONDRION. All SPIl18 OF SOIL, FOCN OR CONSIRVC710N DEBRIS SH4LII BE REMOVED THE PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERtt DURING CONSTRUCTION APID UPON COMPLE710N OF 1NE PROJECT. ALL ADJACEM PRCPERtt, PRATE OR PUBLIC SHALL BE NNNTNNED IN A CLEAN S4FE AND UBPB CONOIRON 4. Pll GRAgNG 5144LL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH MANNER TO COMPLY WIIN THE 51ANOAADS ESTA8L6HEP 8Y 1HE AIR DUALItt NNdTENANCE DISiR1CT F'OR NRBOPolE PAITTICUUiEB, ' 5. ROOF DDWN SPDU15 TO BE DISCHARGED OJER A 24" L NC CONCRETE SPUSH SPUSH CHRISIY PPODUCIB OR APPROVT:O EOUPL SURVEY NOTES 1. ALL DIS7ANCE5 AND DTJENSIONS ARE SHOWN U! FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 2. BASiS OF ELEVAPON, TOP OF FOUND 7/4" IRON PIPE, DISTANT 100 FEET NORTHWESTERLY 4F MOST EASTERLY PROPERTY CINiNER ~I ELEVARON 400,00 J. 9A518 Q< 3EARINCS , THE BEARING BETWEEN FOUND IRON PIPES CN THE EAST PROPERLY LINE WAS TAKEN AS 5 152fi'00' 6 PEA 1RAC7 NAP FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 1953, ON BOOK 46 AT PAGE 8. 4. THIS SURYEV WAS BASED UPON A R17S flEPORT BY FIDELITY NAIICNAL GddPANY, ORDER No, 4004383-8. DRIED JUNE 7. 2W74 UTILITY NOTES 1. CONRACIOR SHALL vERIFF THE LOCAnON OF ALL URLm PRIOR i0 coNSrRUCnGN 2. CONNECT SANITARY SEWER PNO WATER LINES 70 EKISiINO SIREEr LITERALS. J. CONNECT 6A5 AND ELECTRIC LINES TO E%ISRNG STREET UTERAIS, PER PGd{ $70.NMRDS, If 4. CONTRACTOR SHAM COOROIN47E ANY D6RUPTIONS i0 6iING UTItl7Y SERVICES WRH ALUACEM PROPERTY OWNERS. 5. ALL ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE ANO GAS E)(TENSIONS INCLUDI G SERVICE LINES SHALL EE CONSRiUCTEO TO THE APPROPRWTE Lnl tt COMPANY SPECIFlCATIONS ALL URLItt DISCONNECTIONS SI4LLL OE CORDINAlEO WRH THE CE61CNA1ED VRLItt COMPANIES. 6. PRIOR TO 1NE CON57RULTION Of OR CONNECTION TO STORM GRAIN, 54NITAliY SEWER, WATER NUN OR ANY OF 1HE DRY NRIi`IES, R1E CONTRACTOR SNNL IXCAVAIE. VERIFY AND CALCUUTE AU, PoINTS OF CONNECTION ANO Ail URLIIY C~SSINC AND INFORM THE OWNER/ DEVELOPER OF ANY CONFLICT 9R REWIRED DEVIATIONS FIROM THE BANS. CUfNE ALK~'U,IEM QATA CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA 28.00' 4212' 1 86'11'47" ® 3500' 47.67' 39'34'16" ® 23.50' 147.68E 31859'1t' (4' 35.00 3Z.fi8'I 57'29'58" ® 20.00' 38.98' 17178'39' ® 7000' ]3.37' 76'77'38" ® 33 44' 30.68' 52'34'43° 40.00' 45,OB' 64'34'00' I MA%. AUTOMATIC ANO FENCE BARAN E -~~ 'WIDE) ''alas Eat~TNWORK TABLE FILL CuT 24o cY 23o cY ~~ SM~' COMPANY ' GI VIL ENGINEERS, _ ~ - 12n Page avErwE, wITE 2oa SAN JOSE CA, 95126 lEL (408) 472-5062 TEL: (408) 31hd806 . Ae: (406) 267-8670 E-MAIL: SNPENgNEER50 YAHOO.CON OWNER: DNI SARUP ~, ~. ,.0. BOX 492 MORGAN HILL, CA CCPYRWHi ©7W2 SMP COMPANY crnL F1+dxEERs Z D. a Q ~ Z Q ~ Z Z Z ~ 0 °z Q ~J d ~~U Z o Q~ ~ W m O Z ~ ~ ~ T Q Z AW N ~ D. W a M O rn M Z a Q ~~ .9/3,/02 -Rev sign: 'Added trees 8 71 1)-22, 24-28, 31, 32 Joint Utility Trench 8/3/02 -Revision: '. Updated proposed replacement ` trees per landscape Plan. ' 10/17/02 -Revision: Updated proposed replacement -trees per Landscape Plan. ~~~~ ~~( OCTOBER 17, 2002 D smlA. 8 T~~' 1"=20' a ~ mm 1/ ~ Dalgnm er • I'w'~ } A.A. ~t chtt •N Oravn 6y P ~ ~~ M.A. ~/j~ Jab 4. ,dfQiEdn~ao9yyf, (~(/q 224~.~. ^~~ ~ ~r dd ~dl Sheet C-1 ~; r, 41>s,~ wE,a .,Safi ni ~ T ttaam FND. ~• IP. -l , 1 ~ ~ ~ l ~ L0T 5 4~sp ~ ;i e 4 ~ 1\1121 l ~,, /1 ~ dR9'61 \, 41B~6f ~\ } ~`~ ~, ~ ~ l 4 _y i s 1~ 4w.ae , l "'I ~ ~ ~,~ 1 aar. ~~' ~ -~ \ riot / ~~ I 1 ` K' nr~ ,r~ ~ ~ , ~ \ st- 1 1 ~\ _ ~ _ \ _ _ ~ . 916. a - A~'tl 1 4t1.w ~//.~ 0 A / ~ ~ ~~ ,~ 1 ~ V \ 1 \ ,C 1661 ~ ,A 1 /// '~ % \ `x.4¢4 t' S .~ ,`.~~ '. C ~~ ..tl .' 7 ~ 1 4II, ~\ -~ - ~• l \+ ,~ ,. , , ~_... ~ ~ 1"344 ~ ~ ~ ~•. ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ _ v~„, 4~~ 1 ~ ~ t i ~ ,-V~.~ 4a1w1 \ M ~o°M 1~w. vw~ _ w 1 fl `~ ~~ ~K V` 4aam S' $p ~%\ \ Paµ'a[enunlS2e, bP. `' -~, \ ~ ~ 'l \\~\\\ ~~ i ~~~ ~' ~1 - ~ ~ ~', ~ ~ - ~ m F _ fnvs': V lib EYVLP. V i 55 - ~\'~9 41686 91625 ~ ' J ~/// - ~ t ~ ~ ; \ ~ ' \ \A ~,.o , ..' •1 \ 10. B x: ~' C\// ' 1 \ ! r 55 ._ \ m P9r 1°0.° ip. ~, ,. \\ d l . 1V; el BWV \~~ SQ, ~. .. i3D n ¢GE~ t, i $ ~..,, j\ A. ~ ~ ^., . V) 4 wok ` 1 jff 'T~'~ 40934 .n \ a~~ \ dOBAi '. \ a \` 81106 ~~ 'µS l ~~ ~ ~ yv \ ~ 41121 w946' , t wa ~-~ BGZO>~\ ti2`I' ~l :02 M1 ~ L I ~~~ 1 ~ ~ a ' '~ 1 wweae~~.. ~oareweem,were x ~ti -g `9 1 ~ ~ ' - - 0016X G ~ 1~ ~-~~ i ` ,d ~~ ry >; ~ \ ~: 1 1. 2h ~ g ss•Nw NUw ~wwNcm __--- soa b~n,x. ~-1v,4a samm'~nawd SmFettcae~faMna! ,Ja ., l9.-,, --B~tm BBflmeAmytte Jfi \~ ~_ `~ ~ ~,~. ~`b 4,1.41 ~ ~~'~ \ ~a k, \\~~ ~ ~ \ _ 1 ,Q I ~l a»\~ \ R t J ,. ~ pfd ,Y~ ~EARRi/MI ql l~ 9 u NN 2 //I ~~~~ 1 Al p~-~l~ ~ v ~ ~ ivy' ~~ 4iA.V1 41116 t~~ I ~~~~ •~~ 9 ~\ `! c 1 T~' 6~~ ,i u ~ ~ 1 I ~~ 1 - i 1 ' 1 - ~ ~ , ~ 1 ~ ~,~i ~ ~ ~ IRe6od ry r~re~onw~.x. na ~ `~.~ ~ ~ 1 1 4i ~ i ".ro - ~ ~ }. ^. 36 ~~ ~ R inxpdxGmlentiggtlM n-- EXISTINGTREE LEGEND' -NO BJTANICFt Nh'i~E ~OtAMON NAME Au1f0'n' . ^•Ya'tS.rymaee e _ Awa¢kMVn SUVx Mqn ' Bvfenaxa' 9-a T,n..~ Co9~+e*WU'v dsh anreu 9pm4 lha N P B wan. PAn V9 a mM14l i P 0ya! 5Nan ' Spwhfmmpmww, utF trwtl C4N; FYNe~ feaMUA f,`ak ' 1C nusrsfhn MuN WV aem~ wan ay ~~ 11 PMamQNU Mmbzl PTe R9tS 1 OuNmutlNipNi BW WF ~ P9:s I ~ '3 Paee~b Mmb?YPM PR'wf 89rMw Ppnm Nan ' t§ Prvriwa'mdim Ay24 16- WBmw CoWLxeOM 9or R_N?6! Rene g _ '. > 9?BU14,M~M!rs C.saNe9, 3 P4:?. " IB 9pueYearyMm CweRH'nwod RNdn 1f '~\ 1 ~,: 18 7g E , 7.do I ,'~ ~ ' ,e ~~»v.,.~.~r~R G~N,R~P Rv~ PROPOSEDREP~CEMENTTREES i m ~ CwaRMnoW ~~, '~i a Uxmuvw amureut Rrr 5YM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME d1r SVE 9 Prvnuaxrraiixa Atiaw ~ tt sawmx~rcl+'m» c4alwa.aoe ~ a aemvPma coaNUrsra4 1 a tt D~m„yem cmNU.<oa. wan zs o.waapema cmueoa Rcmn a mmm~ neaa v9mraa n oewngaoN ueaureoa Ran ', - aw,~mKa9 cmnu<aw RNm ss Sven=myema.+soam cmlam~m 3 ~• 1B WaGUaeRFO§' Cmw Vre OaV Rw.m9 N' _ on,wmm. vmavcr. P.mnn _. 31 aurc,aeowma cssu~o9x RNan . o1 a,ea.ynap co~amaoa adan n ^I SNAL: ~ CmaNO ~gkrvlPeraweMa•Itp. Iz' w I~ea rn,9Eem .creel Pmmnfno, nP ~i~ 421 io- , ZOVE4 _ its ~~~~' R.C.W. "~ T Prtgmetli lR'9dwPVG 41~ Inwdeniuunea. \ ~3H'r Wel9~\ ~~T \ ;wanww:w~Dr94rc r----- arESnNDS•wcR PErvce BPRANDA~'~lE', (5D~ ~JIDE1 8. I 't 9,,~~ Get cmnxticm eweslmewv nv iie°pam r.4n^ras . 4 '~ ~intdrockmg oared storedl'adu~ameN+eM ' ,J tlB'rgrw9parsire Pw. Front Elevation ~ ,~,~L ~ GOROPETE CURE WlpBBPRiB B. EXTEND 6" 1. PoDT NG IT NElDw FMISH DRO^E 1 IRIEPI.DGNNBPAVINO B90NEQM"A^KJJ~ ~'-'~ ~coNCRE,F SnNO ae•coMV<^rED ease ~~ l u ADCHNI.UTAPACiE0511BC ~ TYP. r ~ IF .. ~I.~ ~:II`.... interlockln Pavin Stones r.vrr w~INM IAni~aac. ~9~~m Prtmlcpnttetba9etlhn,try. c~~ob,.ra,~~wan it CONC.9M9 rw,w9 eaRne AC PA>;IM1~6Y DlxFn -~ _f 1~=- i i C ~ °m m N rn ~ QN U ~~ •i-C mm k C'm 0 C ~ J~ N i m a .I Q, ~N ~ a~a I ~ ~ n o' $ Q~~. ~~ =I [m I O~ Wv a (--~ ~{ ~~ 9 ~ w I ~ ~ o I ~I~ m ~~ ~~ ~^ i~ a i Q m N F a~ ~ ~~ ...I A ~ ~ m ~ W v! C m Q% ~ ~ ~~ ~m o a ~C rn~ N ~ o a` 3 E ~~ $~ ^@ U ^ N i b. _ ~ >; a ~ ~~~ (___ a, W U w •~ '~ F q9L W tl L! N ~___ _~ SHEET NO: L-1 _~ ~~~ 0?'vtxl9gxl gnygM;S `>~~' ilk Gl Simmear Ftunlam ~ T Roxbury bunwn' ~ \ \ 1 by3mieweu FOnmv ~ ~ '1' J h~.~~'' 1PSC'.reca~ e _\ Founta `--sutmvdeam I 0`~,% ! O 191 8F. I 0.~ (i 1339 BF. i' fy1Rp!¢ 1 LOeER PLOOR 113.9 BF. 0 8669 8F. Q/ 731.18F. 11 1 7113 ff. ~~,0// 1173 BF. ' - Q 6513 8F. Q 1748 8F. - - Il 691 EF. . ~ ~ - 05816 9F. o ~~. O 4185 5P. 0 7051 8F. . ' O ii8.19F. 0 240ID ~. . ~ 0 YBJ SF. O lB19P. ~ ''. _ it 2mb Ef. ` 1 ' }// O 1ID 8F, ' ~ isT FLOUR 5p50J 5F. / • _ TOTAL, 9,1643 I i '.I ': 1-_\~~ -~ oa- i -_ t ~ _ ~ i ~ ' i O ~% 9 z II'-10" . 7 ' ~ I YJJB BF _ Ib'•ID° x I-0° . 16 ti°. \ 1 ~- _ ~ \ a T.._- i ~: j it __ ~ ~+. ~ ~ ~i - - • I __._ .___.__ __._ ~ ' K _.__- .. f r T _ .. _ _ -_ _ ? _. ~ x 4 . ~ ~_~ , i ! i I ! I ~__._ .____ ___ .f s ~' h it I !~ 0 i -; i ~~ ~~ -- ;~ ~, ! ~ , , ~ ~; ~~ ` ~~ ~~~ ~~ - K .I I y 0 ~ ~ I I I . I 13'.6•x19'-0•. BB189F ~ ~ ~I _ ~ . ~ i __ ', , ~ i 30.5 x 71=i 65198E i~ .~ I ~I i . ~ ~ ' ; ~ I i' I I i ~`--- -~ li I! I ~ I ~ .-. _ _ _ _ ~. ~11 t ~ ~ _ ~ I _ ~- 1 • --- - `~1e =0^zb :'9'BF.-- - I ! - (\ 31'1'x6'-5'.21065F. ~ v I ~ ~ ~ 7 I IJ 6 O _ ~ \ \ ~~~ Ji i i ~!, 13'-IP x J'-8x , 1173 BF. ~ _ . ~ __ ... __ _ _.__-. . _ ~ 1, -- li i ~ i I I ~~I i~ r I I I O i ~ III ~ I I E i~T li ~ 11 it ~' . ~ 14'-I"x8.4".7t139F. ~ I~ . Ipp ~rl µ I ~ 7T-1•x71'-8"•J785 II ~ 8F ,'. ~ ~ ',. ~ 'j '~ 7 I ' I I ~ U ~ H ~ 7 r=-,7 ~ ~ ~~, ~,~~II(-~ I it j ~'{~,. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Ijll; ' I~!~ I ~ , , I I I ~ F- ~ ; ~ ~ ii I ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ q I ~ I 1 ,~ I , 1 ~ ~ r I ,, I ~ I. - ~ i , I I i~ WM -- _ I - ~-- -- i -'~' , . ~ I'' I~ 1 , ~~ ! ~ I ~ ~ °N ~ I ~- L~ \.J I II'-6' z 20'.1" .731.1 9F I ~~ I ~~ 7 T~ ~ I i _L X119 ~5' n 8'•D' . 20515F/1; ~ 31'-1 z 47`•I° . &665 5F. ~ I I I~ ~i~l~ I - ~~ ~! ~~~ 71'-6 ~1~ ~518F ~ 1 L- °°~yy- ~!~_. ~- - - - _T 11 I I I \ 77'-6• x ~'-B" . 740ID fS. T~ ~ ~~ --- ~~ ....++ '~ -- i, ~ L` ~!,-~ ~_Ju 1 I 1 I I i t I i B 13'•1"x0'•9•.10.1 8F ~ h~ I II ~I 0 -~+---- +-,~ / 0 11 !8'-1° + e'-1"1 z J'•0" x n9. 3B7 8F. I~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ t r ..eiT--V:/. ~ ®I i REYIBION6 BY Qj 05.19.01 tt Qj 10-09-03 TL ! da ~ -~o ~ZV ~~ . ~~0 m'Q ~ c~c~~ L~~ w 3w~ ~~ U~ ~q~~U ~~yy u m mp Z >~~ ~~9g~~J~ ~~~~~~a~ d~~~a~~Q Ui UF3UW WpT~soz~~ Y ~ ~ W , ~~~ J W a~~ ~<~p4~~ ~N~°m~a~ ~LL~o~~~W m µµ Zyy xiuu U~pp`3'3Q wwd ~WU" ~wa~ ~r-~za~= V ti ~ A ~0 U c ~tia v ~~[~~ ~~yy ~~o~ FGQm°'3~ Q~1! s'a' P B 'G '~ y w~,~~° '. q..m[=r DATE. 08<F7l07 , GRNIN: tt JOB-ND.BARAWaA d~°J.~ 0= BIE:E15.-.. i 1y ~ a9>q; 47-1d 41~ ,; ~ ~ P,, IU~C°JT-_-~~$ 0 - _ ._ - ._ _ ~1 RJD. M7" IP. '~ I \ \ LOT 5 ~ ~~ ~! ,~,~' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~, ; : ~ I~ ~ ~ v 1 a_ti,3: ~ ~ 1 ~ P 4 - \ ~ a - ~ I-, ~~ .. ASIU~[ \\ . I A ~,, -~, ~r`L NY I~~~ A t o N r _ ~ ~ ~ I _ ~~,p r:. , A Aug ~ ~ 5 ~ > ~ ~ f .F -sse~ ~, ~ r ~ \ t~ ,uwa1 , ~ , ~ A ./ ~ :.~ 7 - .~-~ 42~'-- ~ Rk?AWNG W4L 2(S ~'. ,r r_ _ __ ~~ ~ ;a' WKONO. GUTTER c~ w t 1 era ~ ~ /~xz ~ ,~~~ ~a, v ~, c,,fa Ix~tr>c+r~~ ~ iwkt~% ~/ ~ ,~ v At I 1'•. ~INV A735~, { { /=i~ ~:~ F. ~ mm ~ ~ ~~ w \` m NN sT5 L e J s ~ ~ g t \ \` , g4 ~ ~~ ~ h arv ros ~ ti ~ 0 ~' ~ ~ < ` ~- I ~~c ~i ~ p0~~ ~~ n ~%~ ~~~' ~ -17 coNd` ~~ /~ ~ ~P \ ~ ~~%~re~ TER J~ ,,(.\ ~ \ 1v~' -AfP ~ rGE .r •15 'r~~'~~ ~ p~ i ~ 1 I I ~ V ~' ,cT ~ z , ~ ~ ~ ~~ g0 /~c e l _ I I I I v >r~ I .,o / s EL 400. W ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ .T `. ~ ~ G SC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ASSUMED BENCH MARK _ r ~ \ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ I I I I ~ ~~ ~4.. '~ ~ '~ ~T1tYVE FENCE 1 ': f ~ ~ t, ~ a 1 1 1 Y FND. 3/4' {.P. ~. ~ ~ ~T I I L I - I I ~ 1 ~ ~.'~~ I p. Iiq~~1J i ~ 1 , ~~ ~ ` ~G III Vii' Y ~ `, G ..~. J-~ ~~ y\ ~~ ~ 'q\t~ ~~I~ i I ~,,~-~t~ b ~,, '3F~ ~ } lw`^' \ r~ ~ 1 S E7<I I I I v ~ % I I V c In ~!, I ~ I I I k~~ I I I I ~ A -_ Rau y I I III 11 l 1 1 \ ~D78SIF ~~- A7 ~ I ~V~< .I 11 ~I ~~~ti ~'~- ~ I I ~P i. ~I ,III v - yy - ~ I (I I II f{1 ~I 111111 Ili \ I I ~ I ~ I :~i AI i _EGEND AND AB$REYIATI(NS TREE LEGEND - . - . - . _ PROPERf7 LME ~ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _._ _ °~E'fBACK LADE " I I ErhUng tree to Reenln • F4tND ~ PIPE AS ~01Ep __ _ .. _ S'i1gET GJlTERLME - E- rnERFEaD PaIERINE _ PP FOUER POLE ~ WM WATER METER ~ % ~~ Exl.tmg Trase lu ba Rawved P.U.E, wBLlcununesEA i TOW rop of WAU --- TO~ Top of FGram4TiON - G 417 Gfd7tLND f1EVATION /~ \ " FL FLOW LIi~ i ~ Wrge Srleen arose !NV rN~ERT ~ ~ FF FINISH FLCOR GS GARAGE SLAB Row PoGMr ca War , T-20 TREE' im FER ARBORist FffFOR( ~i°d1°11 ~°0fi Tr°0 LOT AREA = 41,51239 SQ. ~T 9 zll 4ceelt Trade ~_ ' I' i . ~y ~~ I~ I~ I ~,~+ q l I I:I I I t d FBI I I ~ I C I t= ', 1 y~ ~~~~,` ~NI ~ Q) ~ II,~.~~~II~iI:~~I ~1II i~I-,9~~IIIII.~11 III III~p, ~ ~ 3 1 ~'~'ta E~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ NE dN ~1.~RY HOUSE. `~ ' ~ ~•~~~` ~ ~ I w~~~lt ~~ ~ ~ II ~~\ ~ EARTH~MULCH SCALE ' ~ ~ ~ I~Ij i~;. I I I~ ~ ®24 MIN. I ~ L ~ ~ ~ %~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; ~ I Ild~, I I,15~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ~~ ~,a vXa ia~ ~' v "k ~~ I ~f ~ I , a' V ~ ~ \ J ~~ REMOVE EK. BLDG. ~ x ~d b ~ I " '` - ~ o ,fi I i I I : ~; \ ~ ~ \ n _ r ~` ~ 5 I ~ /~4 V ~ I \ ' ~1 4 ~ 1 - I~~ - ~ r~9tr + ~ ~ J X06 ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~. A ~~~ ~( X ~ g titi -F~ aiL F: q ~ I ~ \ ~ ~ ~~ \ A ~ ~ ~~ V \ i~ l ~ ~~T fI 11 ~G~ ~,~ I 4°'QOr% a I t'f 1' 9~J- `s't"1i }+ ti `~ ` A1 1 X ~ ' ` \ { ~1. 11~ \ ~ ~ ' J \ ~ ~ ~- S ti ' %+/ji A ,at i~a c ' ~ z ~~ ~ i 1_ _ \R\h\~ '- f _ _ ~~ ~ ~ I ) __ ~~. -. ' '~ ~, 417 /6 A -'t- ~ /nl_~ \~ _ - r. ~ ~ i I ~l at4,o9 j _- ~ ~ N! GRAPHIC SCALE ~~ ~~ ~ S1gT3,~ ~ 71,1>a ~ • ~° ~~ ~ J ~~~ ~ <'~ ~~ d L~6n (mI'AT) , , i ~n v ie IT. _ ~ 51TE NOTES 1. iNFOR1ATIfX15M0UN ON eITE PLAN Is BASED ON NFOTdtAtlsi SIFPLffD BY OIVII. EF1'eRE:ER ), p~IaR TO CONSTR1C71LN, THE G9~RAL CONTRACTOR 9NALl ' rERE: ALL ITEME 9F(CWI AS ExlsTirKs ~ TF_..E° DRAWINiB ! . . NOTIFY 1NB CFFIGi OF AVY DISCFEPANGES. 3. CpITRACTOR MUST TAKE PRECpUTiONS 10 P~TECT OJlER'S PROPERTY ~ CAN811Z1CTILN OPER4iIC7JS. i{/E BOUJDARY -. a~ THE LONiRAOTOR'S LLORIC ~ StORAGE AFEAS WILL"BE DEFINED TO F11111A1 AGFEBTFNT Bl' COrFERENCE. 4. °~+NGILD FlEID CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM PLANE TO EXTENT l@~tfa4lZf GOS78 ARE R1G~D OR DELAYS ARE AN11G- PAYED, TV$ OW~R 1 ARCHITECT AMALL BE CONSULI7"D. AM ALTERLATIVE 6G#?tE, P PO76SIBLE WLL BE ESTABLISY~D TO Ai1EMPi 70 90LYE'TFE FR'RLEM DISCOY£FiED. S, GNL 1315REER SHALL COORgRWTE FINNuH BOOR ELEvAtION '. BIIILDNG WRN 1NE BTWCTI(QpL EN4R&ER:FRIQR 10 STRICTIGN e. 1O FN/DA1N1 P13FEGiKN BT TIE G'fT, ihE iSGISi~ CMd t?YdIE.r7t ORLKB•E LItL SIFVET' R ~ AiWJ. FR7vIDE A'WS1I@I CERTRCAiIfM M~4T ALL 8USD4G fIt1MCK8 Af8 NTVE APFfd~VED fiANS r FENCE R,O.~, i- ~ \ .\ T' 5' HIGH MAX. GALES pND F ~,N~ P~/ 7• ~~~~~ REY!SICNS Q Z ago ~XzU `r. ~I~O m~Q ~~~ ~~~ Q W" ~• ~'~Z~ I rc~u~t~mu m ~=LL>~~ 'u BW{)~ ~Q ~~=~~~~g ~~}~~F~~ ~rw~®aIa~LL~ ~FR~F3 UW E %LL uYwp~Z~ ~~~ w .p2 ~~~~~ ~~~gpQZ~ ~•~~mQ~~ mLL~~~~~D`1 ~. ge_ rc33$ ~d u ~F~a1dZW ,za~F F ~a~¢O~U~ U D .~.3 ~ U ~y Q oa Cry (yr _ V ~ W j W m~°~~ ~ MA ~~V G W ~~~~ ~~rnF~l DA1E~ mSRTA79 SCALE UW".I'•O" DRauN uuYi. JOB{~NO.BAR,NYaA " X11°d OF BIEEM _ ... _ . - FiEV1910N8 BY . Q08.79.03 YL _ ~ .. 710.09-07 YL _ i ____________ G _ , i8'-ii U2" 1 :'. fl r ____ ~ ~.____, i A-8 ~ ~ i ~~ i i 1 1 1 i ' ~ ~ - ~ ~, i i i ~ i i .____.) i I I I ~ 1 1 _ ~ ~_ 1 I i Z U. 1 i y O I p ~ . ~ Q -11L I I e-y 1 1 ~z~ . ~ ~1 ~ I I 1, ~ d ~~ 1 ,---~~ ~ ~ ~~0 --~~ ~~.~ VTR ~ < <,_~„ '~~ ~ ---.. - --~ ~ ~1 ~ i ~`~~ _~_ ~ ~o~zLLs~~ r'7 i ~ 1~I~U(q~U Uw ~~ j - wQ i~~-'Rw '. ~ 6r QaF TOME THEATER f7~ 6EDROOM ub _ ~~~}~~~~ ~~~~~F ~w \ ZZU~ ZUZ 1 0 ~Z0Z W0.W~LLaU Uh V43llW ~- mF 'OZW ~~n~ar~C~ ¢~~~9 ~~ 'i - ~Wmym~~W BEDROOM'~5 ~'m~U$`~~ 0 1 ~~uzW~~r°,~ fw ( ~0Q ¢a~3LL - =UwdZ~ r ~ g a tt o ~~ ~ w _~ !q ~ k a - 'ii .7iayi; a ~. ,iii ~ ~ ~ ~ `? --- ----_~ ~ ~~Uq aa~_. a~.m^~ ~ ~ ~m,;wa s~~ i W~' _ -------~ r - -----~ ~" ~ a ~ ti w 1 ~ ~ i i i i ~ ~ I ~ ~ r ~_____.. OA1E= 0~1/0S D A-8 ~, ~,6~.r.a a+,mw u~m ' ,ae rm.eawrra ~o ~ oF~'^'3~rs fEV1810N8 SY I . Qj 018-09.01 tt 1 4'-0" 0Y-a 3R` QIO-09-01 YL . \ ~_~ Q -- ~ n ~ ~ ~\~~~~I~ LGl ~ A~ R-b Q I ~ ICS MASTER BATH ~__-~ 1 ~ :. 1 -- -- 1 ' ~ I~ F ~ % ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ -- I 'i I~ ,~ - _ ~ - -- --- _. __. I ~-{I, ~ IT*~NS orate i , ~ ~ ~ ~ z n i cau }--~.. ~ ~ ~ -, ~ r II li ,_--- Q ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i I~ i i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I I ~ra a it I I ~ PAMIL~Y~ROOM i ~~ ~ ~ ~ i j MASTER BEDROOM ii I ~ ~ ~J} IK '~ I ~ i~ ~ i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I { I q} ~ X i `_--------------' I I '. ~ ------ ~ --- - ---- -- ~ ~--------- ~ `aL .__ __ _. - -P- -..--- -~:~ ~~ ~ ccad,^ ~ 6 1~ 9 L VI __ I ~~"" ~_~. _..~- - -._..; ~ Ir-~~~ ~ -- - - ~ ~ ~~ BEDROOM t2 - - - ~ ~ m~~~~~ ~__ ~ ~`~ ~i -g° ~ ~ ~~o ~_.~ ~ ~, ~ I il~i ~ - - m"o~~~a~ i D tl - ~ II If f ~~J ~ FF: M9b _ 2 ~~ ~ _ _ ~~~r Q~~~ _ ~ ~ ~~ . ,. _ , _ ~ , ~ ~!u~5 z~~~ ~ i m ~ ~ ~ I LNIN6ROOM ~ ~ li ~ ~~j~ ~ ~~~ 8 ~ ~3~r~~~~'d I @A'H -~ ~,oa u KITCHEN ~ i .LC ~ ~ u ~ ~ A.~ ~~ d~'3u~ I F W I~ ~ w I ~ -°~- -- ~I ~ i v_ _ ~ J ~ II °~wu°~m~ ~~- ~ ~ _ I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~I I , IF, , ~ , I i Z ,• II} ~~~ F --~l" -- ' ~' ~~ ~;~ar'~ ~ ~ -- -- ~ I jl ~ ~ ~ ~~°~3 ,~ ,, .~ 3 ._~ ~ ~ d~~~m~~~ ~F ---- F ~'°F~W .. HALL ViAY ---- 1 9EDROOM ~3 I ~a~o~~'~w I I I I - , - i I I ) ~m~IC 334. ' ___ ~iuwai~a ~ E g ~~ ~ -- -- spy R 4..m. i AT "~_.- ~. ~ CRY DINI~ r-~ U ~ ~ i ~ I ~ ~ LIBRARY ~ Q ~ ~ ti ocQ $ ~; Ci 'r h I~ o~~ u ----~~~ o ~ 8~ I I ,~ - ~J '-Q t A `' ~ ~, w o A-7 @Bm ~ A-1 W •~~ ~ ~0~~"~ ~ I ~ ~ gaga W.I~.C ~ i GbVERED PORL1! ~ COVERED PORCM ~ :~ ~ ~~ I e~DROOt•a w ~ - ~ ,,, - i o ----- -_-- I ~- __ _ -- -~- -_ ~~mr:~ I I ~ i ~ ~. D4TE~ 08t7i/0: G A-o it-s ~~ ~ l-~ I`~iEN81Lti8 I \08.79.02 MA%~ HEI61++ =26 FtEi' '(n Ex IST:.MG GRPD ~'. I~t1.,11~,1.,ILu,J.~.~d I ~i-I~~~al 171k1i~:,~4:!' ~ubry I!lajl4{~;+'~Ih'h~~j7lf+.l-Lh,i~i Ill~~~~r{~l 7 41ri Ii1117~I}LII-~*~-I"'t+t rat { L + I t,''~-~'r IMF, i~*>.~ rNt +1 ~+w, 7 m+l 4 -7: ~ I h ~r h1 tF+i ~ ~ ~,,.L I -. I I+ _. 1 ~,I ~ a- ''~li# +I ... .I ,+ rr-n ~~~~-II itil i.i N~r~n`+~l- ;17 11 +. y "`~. _~ - ~ trlM la I~t114 ~~ lA~' !I-utC,~ F , ~ Irk ~ ' ~~ ~, + :~"'+Ftti ~i ~`S~. ~ '~~ ~+~ ~ ~ c ICI ! ;Q o i^ ~ ^ ~~} C ,; I- -I~~ I I I I i 1 _ 1---~ (- - --~~__ w ,, ~. ~ u 1 II IY II q I ~---711-"T-^-~- - i I II II II II II M III B r--*---~- -IH~-b--iFN - ~- *- ex+9nr~ GRADE I II III II II III II III I II 1 ~~ I II Ip IIA 14 pl q I II ql II II- 4n III I II i ~ ~ ®~®~ ~~- - ~ - - ~ ~ I I b Ii 11 IIq III q. I II YI II II ~J, if III ~ II I I I II Ip II II II N q II I II III II II 1 " II III I II 1 ``~~~ I I II Itl Il p q i tll II I II III I I •~...._ ' - I I II' IX IIq III @I q I 11 III II II II III II I :. ®~~® ~'. ] I II IA II q II q ql II I II III Jrll II II II tll I II 1 ~ - _ 1 I II LKd11111yELL II tl 11 q ql q 4_KJTI YELL ~ II II II II III I II I ~ l____J _____1..:~_-J.1-0.__x ____ __ ___ L__~I _____i___L ~L __!LI6__~Jl,__ J1L1/ ~=1_ } ~____~______________________________________~_______________G______~ ELE`JAT1d,N NOTES 1. 3 CAA(S T/B` 5111000 1. snlcco agedlI 3. APPROVED SPA,PoC 4f~£470R 4. G.1.5ADDLE ANC FLASHING 5. Gl. CHIMNEY GAP 6, G;. FLASHING ATIR~ TO WALL 7 CGNC 'a" nLE ~ B stucco sa~rr 9 4iTIC VENT R TO A171G YEN7 GALLS. 10. 4' X M" Fg1NDA(ION YENi Ii. RE/a 7z4 O/ 7ze A5Ci4 OR 84RCf BOAfm n, Ix ~ iwn u. Iz TRm w/ siuc oven 14. 4" IXi G.I. METAL GUTTER &, ! INE LF GEILq~K IB. LIFE OF bRFIT 11. LIIg GF SHELF i$. $?IGD~ KET F1 3B" HIGH 9 WALL 10. 36" HIGH W. I. R4 L 2L gKiOD WMDOL 17. LLHIIE GLTIG. -FA6 UJLIA'FI 73. FIa9hY ENTRY D : GIERRY WOOD FMISH 14. 5711000 OVER AM iRIM 7B. PLANTER eOX 16. WOOD OJlI. R 7T. IB" DIA. 71$il~ SKYLIGHT 18. 14' % 74" N~TI REFLECTED SKTLIGH7 29, CHIMNEr CAP 30. 74' % 48' NON EC7ED SKYLKsH i d z~ ~~o ~zv ~~~ ~~o wOd ~~•~•nn UI w ~W~ W4 ~~ ~$~~v mo7zLL>~~ JZm ~~~ a _~ u=~~o~~~ ~~~~; :~_ ~~~a~~ a0~ 6Qm$ m x~~qW~ am~S~mQ~lw 0 ~~~° ~~w i-IIUq~i~r~~ruW ~"~WI~33Q ~=u1Caz ~u °~~g~~~ ti C u a U ~v Q ~~ Y y+ '~ \ [' G LLG ~ ma ~~V~d W +3..: tea, ~ mH~F~' ~~~~ ~~~fi ~~ I °9C.ALE~3~'.1~' ,,~ I REVI610N8 BY~ MAx, wFiGNt =16~ ?O EnI$l';ti~ GRADE -~ ;-~ ® l II II ~I ;~ ~ - ,; ~ ~, ,( - - --=-~i EklStMG GRADE--~ I A III it I II III II I \J- V i tl III 6 ~ I I III - I I A Iii II I li III it I I M III 9 I II 01 71 I ' 1 1 III II I it III II I ' l __1__ ~.I I L_1 ~1__~J I ' i I I ( I I ~ LKdIT LLELL ~ LKFiT WELL ~ ~~fi ~~fi ~ mpx. N62Gwr = 26 ~ FA"ET ~- ?o cx ss rN ~ GRP ,,, ~ t - -__ T (\ ~~ ~ _ - - ~~/ I ~ i ~ ~~ I 11 ~. m ~a ~_____________ _______ ~ t?r'-rt fr rTr =Tl -~ I I -----r------rL .- EXUlTWG GRADE) _ I I I III I I II .III I I I T'---__ - I II IIf II II IIl II I I I Il III ~I II III I I I ' i II III Il li IIt II I I I III i ~ III I I I II lil II II III 11 I I ' I II III II II IIIL~.y}IAELL i I I L__J1L__JL__Jl _] C_____ I___ I II I I______J I ~ ~~~fi I i 'I ELEVATION NOTES I a co~TS va° 5ncco 2. STUCCO SGREED 3. APPROVED SPARE: ARRESTOR f, G.I. SADDLE 4ND R.ASHI~W„ B. G.I.-CHIMNE,7 CAP - 6: GI. PLASHING AT ROCF TO'WAl'.L 1. CCNO. "6° TILE RGgF 8. STUCGO 9G~Ii 9, ATTI~ VENT REFER i0 ATTI(. VENT CALLS. ' m, a^ x~w• wlwDAnoN vENr 1I RFJS 2x4 OI 2x8 FASCIA OR EQRGE BOAR? p. 2x ~5 TRiM LS, 2x iRA1 Wl STUCCO OVER 14 4 W G.I FAiTAL GUTTER Fx LINEIIC'f CEILING ~ _ - ]6, Lllgl 60ffiT n -LAgIC~ SHELF ' 18, 51UC~ KEY 19 36"HIGH STUCCO UWLL 2®. ne• ~IGH w: i, RAIL m. uroD wAmay 22. LLHIT'c COND. P~-FAB C04A111N 23. FRCfIT ENTRY DOOR CHERRY WOODFINISH 24 5711000 OVER PoAM 1Rn 18. PLANTER BOk 26. WxD WROOKER 21. W" DlA it1BI1LAR 8KYLIGHI 28~ 24' X 24" NON REFLECTED SKYLIGHt 29. CNIFNEY GAP 3®. 24" k 48' NON fEFLECTED SCYLIGI-R 1 1 wz d~ ~~0 ~z~ ~d~ ~~ao ~~od C~C~~,nn L~ V, W ~~ aa~ ~~~~rc mo~=~'~ ~~o ®aog~nd~ ~~~~~~~ _ '~~ $ ~~~"~~~~ „ma ~ {~y[~~'3u~ u=22~~QzZ~~ ~3~~W~Qr ~~~~~°~~ ~ ~~~~~°> w-~ w ~~ ~mF w ~~~~~~~~ ~=~~;azuLL ~~Z=yF aLa ~0~~~~Ua ~q.; z j' Q ~,5~ C v W w.~~s~~ ~~~~~ ~ood~~ kl ~ ~~ f X03 ~_~r;~ DATE eD&'fl/O3 DRNW: ALnL ~. JOB NO. BARANGA ~~°Q~ CP 9HEEt8 F9VIBKNB er ~ ®8-09-@1 7L I ~.' SECTION NQTES NotE: ~R r~ FRWiBYs PLANS soR Al L ME~BIIF9 NOT MDICATED t RGOF MATERIAL, REfcR TO RCOF RAN Z. AJGF-BLEATHMG ~ . 3. DEBYd&.D LLbOD TfdlSB F'ER MAWFACNR£R' d. 2x FOOF RAFtER9 ~ 5. CALPO~VIA FRAM@!G AT 7d" OL. - ' - 6. 9N000 O/WIRE LATH 012 LAYER4 OF GRADE b' BLTXi PAPER 7. STUCCO ~It . e. 2x CEILMG JOIST ~ - 9. ROCEN~LL FLA9HAdG I®. P4119H A DROP AM O. HEADER 13. 7:d. IN's N. DUNE 2x CONTINlU18 7pp PLATE 5. 7x 8 Ai 16. OL. IB. 7z BLPX Ai MID- lE:IGH'f f1. 7z E SND AT 16.O.C. IB. 3x p.7D .SILL RATE i9 CONCRETE BLA9, °.,~ 57R1CT4RAL ORAWMGS 20. Ift" GYPEA~M 004RD ' 7C I LAYER~B/9 ° TTPE ° X "GTP BOARp 17. SHELF 2B. 9GFFIT y - td. 2x BO:E . FtiATE I 75. 2x FLOOR JOIST/ TRJ98 JOIST 70 FLOOR9hEA7HRY - GRADE ~R~ . 17. f1.NDR~30.Rd3 PkE DE7AIL ' ?B. CdL{RD iL SEE DETAIL ' R f9/7x17 STRIIYsERS AT STAIRS 90. I V8 ° M IM. PLYryepp TREAD AND 5/B° RISERS 51. BJ9lILAi1CN~ SEE 7RLE 74 CALC'S. 32 PAINTEDIhETAL Cd1TTER 33. ObTA.~I9TONE/ BRICK 9d. S11J000 FOAM TR'M 3B. E3ABE BARD FER OVER CHOICE 3c. cR<rw HOLDING Fite arNER CHOICE 1 7 ~~ I z~ Q~U- ~z~ Yc- .L. ~ Q w ~O Q ~~~},^~,^ V V/ o wm~ w~ J 3~~~u~~~ mo~zLL>s~ ou.~ ~~ ~~~~~ mao~ -~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~wQ~a ~~~~~~~= `r ~~'mgmgaZ -~~ ~`-'w ~~4'> ' / ~m_1y~33LL ~~ _ W QRRQmG I ~ j~~lti ZQ b Q I a ;- - i ! ti ~° '° I ~ I U ~' o c" Y ~ i ~ ~~ ~ E ~ ws 415 i, '~' ~ :. ~ [~' q ~ o g ---' - ' ~- 'r~4J, e ~ °'~ I~ ~s ~°~ a ~, w ~a c bA~E,_ ~w~~l;$ •,.;J ~, EXI571tG GRADE DATE: ~12T/02 ~ DRWIN~ UL/11. ~~fi i ~~ ~~fi i ~~ ~NDBA, l~~d LF SHEETS ~ __ . ~~fi ~ ~_~ ~~fi ~ ~=~ Ps. amg i .. ~ ~~~ ~g. ~~o~~~ ~ ~ ~ SEC TION NOTES ~~~~~ ~$ NOTE: REP: R IO P.RM11tY.x FLANS rOR ALL }~~~~w hE~ R811E8 NOT RIDICATED XX~ t ~ 9a~Uz I. ROO F hWiERIAI, REiER TO ROOF PLAN qq WWWZ 0~3 U~ lSW 1. ImC 3 DEB F8HE4TNIN'a inED WOOD TR158 PER MANFAC711RER ~ u? ~W U W U ~ , ~ z ~II ~ D a - WW 4. 1x +R Oif RAFTERS 3 I~I •ppW N~F~YI W 5, CAL PORilARZ4MINGAT74"OL. 3 ad~~a~ tl 6. 97W GRA G0 O/ WIRE LATH O/ 1 LAYERS OF DED"BICG PA°ER ~ qq a~ ~S~OwQ ~. Q 'a ~md~ e. zx /~ EIL~~olsr . ~ ~m~--a, 9. ROC I FNN+LL FLASHItiS ~ ~ U~~~ tl. w~~ ^~~w . 10. FLUS +BEMI - W ~ II. DR~ BEA'1 ~~IW F y @. VEA U. Ind R DER 1AMi`Ki ~y_m~~3~ ~F~w¢Ai 4u ' ~? Q ~ [ k. DOl B. 1x S ~LE 2x COMTINlICLLB TOP PLATE TW9 AT ~"OL -I q Z _p Z ~O~I~O~Ua 16. '1x _ OfJC 4T MID- FIEKdIT h. 7x FPLE 6111D Ai 18" OL. B 3x IPI IB r ON IDF. 81LL PLATE RETE BLAB BEE BTRIICIUWY AW v ~ , . 10, IR" L C . DR INGS YPBIAa BOAk'D W fi ° '7 '' ' ll. ILA' ~ ~ER S/8 ': i7PE°X"6YP BOAS _ ~ m ~.~ ,~ 11. 6VEli F ~ Q . 13. i ~ ~~ ~ ~14 1x ~ E PLATE + ~ c 18. 7x 00R JOt81/ TR198 JOIST l ~ E ~, 1&. R SHEATHING - W S ~ , E y °~ ~ ~ ~ 11. HM& 1& Cal F RAILPG 8EE DETAIL tD RAIL SEE DETAIL ~ . QoQ~~j ! II _ ~'~ 13 (313 Ntl 9TRMGEi'9 AT eTAIRB ~ y 30. I V0 MIN PLY9W10D TTxE4p ANO 518" RISBRB w ^~ 0 8 ~ .. 31. iICN• SEE 1171E 14 CAI.C'8. ~ '~ n ~" 0.1 Fi 31. PA D FETAL GU17ER . ^ n 33. ClL STONE/ BRICK. - - 34. OFOAM iRIH C 35. ~ BOARD PER O1NER CNDIGE %, hOLDM6 PER OWNER C1K)ICE DAZE: ®B!1'f/0] SCALE: S/Y "-"I'-2W DRAWL WLJTL J~~:BA 1-~~~D.. B '.. RTOF 51.OPE5 : 51 U iTYPJ UDN 7. ROLF MAtEWAL : OOIK,'B" TILE Rxf 3LOh"ED : GONG "9" tILE RWF a-AT9. N.A. 3. ALL EAYEB AND Rl4~6 9NALL Itl` ON. (WWI 4. P13~VIDE Y6 CA G.I. vALIE• 1 At ALL 1~'~ VOLLEYS. 5. PR~vIDE SADDLE AND 0.A5HING T ONABE, TYPIOAL b. APPROVED SPAkC AiWE9Tg2 1. LInE: Cf ROOF OVERNANC 8. LINE OF 57glOTU~ 9 G.I CUTTER (~NSlpdb B7 10. DOIW °SR^.UT9 II. W° DMA tUBULAR °KTLKMt ' " ° D. 24 x 74 NON REREOtED .Ki1. B. 24" x 4B° NON p.EFLEGiED SKYLI ~ _ ~ Z a-~IL 4zV ~ ~~ ln V v m ilJ O ~ N ~~~ ~~~ ~ '° w~ a~3~g~s ~~~~LLs~~ ° ~ Q OO~~; Q, ~ 12~F~~~~ L} I„~~ H o ~ ~ m a0. ~~~ ' ~ Z q J Z y U~~U ~3 1 1 1I~ 99 yy~ ~IW~~~b U_ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ago~m~ m&~ ~W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~~ - ~ m, - ~ w-~ w ~~~33Q V" ~ zQZQZ Ltttt J ti .'~ ^ _ ~ a V ? s 'z ~, c ~1 ~ tl~ C_ ~E ~~ w ~ ° w ~ N~~~ o w s~~ ~ roNm° a~, ~ ~'~~~~ p~~~~ DATE: 0&'7T107 9OALE: 3116".I'-0° DRALLN: WJTL - ®~ ~ ~ ~~ll JOB NO.BARANCaA '... . ~~o~~ ' OP drEETB ~08-]9.07 CL I -.,} DIRECTOR'S ITEM City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Dir or DATE: January 8, 2003 RE: ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERAL PLAN Cities and Counties are encouraged to conduct and annual review of their General Plans. The Housing Element's annual report is mandated. The City of Saratoga has adopted all seven the Mandatory Elements of the General Plan and has adopted three Optional Elements: MANDATORY ELEMENTS Date of Ado tion OPTIONAL ELEMENTS Date of Ado tion Land Use Element 1983 Scenic Highways Element 1999 Circulation Element 1999 Seismic Safet EIE:ment 1987 Housing Element 2002 Parks and Trails Master Plan 1991 Conservation Element 1988 O en S ace Element 1993 _ Safet Element 1987 Noise Element 1988 The Scenic Highways and Seismic Safety Elements were once were mandatory elements, but are no longer. Scenic routes issues are addressed as a component of the Circulation Element and seismic issues are addressed ire the Safety Element. The Parks and Trails Master Plan fulfills the requirement of having a Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan in order to assess and collect Parks-In-Lieu fees from new subdivisions. The Parks and Trails Master Plan and the Parks and Recreation Element are really one and the same document. . Ann Welsh, AICP of the Planning Department Staff, has been assigned the task of updating the Conservation, Open Space Elements and the Parks and Trails Master Plan. I have attached the Work Program for this effort. The Parks and Recreation Commission have had a Trails Subcommittee working on the Trails portion for the past year or so. Ann will coordinate her efforts with the Subcommittee, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. The Land Use, Safety and Noise Elements all need to be updated. It is planned that the Zoning Code issues be taken care of this fiscal year and that in the following year that ~i00u01 the Land Use Element will be updated in-house. The voters approved measure "G" long after the Land Use Element was adopted. This is a major discrepancy that needs to be corrected. The Land Use Element should devote a major section to Measure G as it affects over 90% of the City. Both the Safety and Noise Elements are very technical and the City will need to contract with a consultant for those updates. The Circulation Elements is relatively new and will not need updating for about five years. The State of California will be mandating that the Housing Element be revised and readopted by June 30, 2006. I have actually started working with the staff of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to identify realistic growth potentials for the next 20-years. Recently, it was discovered that a General Plan Land Use E=lement text amendment was adopted by the City Council but never inserted into the text of the document. The City Clerk has completed a comprehensive search of all City Council Resolutions so that each amendment to the various parts of the General Plan can be reviewed to make certain that the Council's actions were carried through. HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM IMPLENTATION Program 1.1: Zoning Code Changes for Second Units. The Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, which implement both the City's Housing Element and the provisions of AB-1866. The Council's hearing date is February 5, 2003. Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone. This ordinance has been drafted. The Planning Commission has requested that the Mixed- Use Ordinance be held in abeyance until the Gateway Design Guidelines are completed, as there Es a 20 to 30% overlap between the two programs. Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will conduct hearing on the IVlixed-Use Ordinance in February or March of 2003. In the interim, we are using the provisions of the Housing element to guide development review. There is one pending application for an apartment over new commercial square footage on Big Basin V11ay. Program 2.1: Density Bonuses and Affordable Requirements for Very Low- and Low Income Housing. The ordinance will be processed at the same time the Mixed- Use ordinance goes before the Planning Commission and City Council. Program 2.2: Saratoga Retirement Community. Phase I of this project have been completed and is currently occupied. This was the phase that included 49-Units for very low-income households. The City Council conducted a TE=FRA Hearing and has adopted a Resolution supporting and approving the issuance of $82,000,000 Tax Exempt Bonds via the ABAG Finance Authority for the construction of Phase II, which consist of 47-unit for moderate-income Households and 97-units of above moderate- income households. The building permits for all 110-units are scheduled to be issued in January 2003. ~00~102 Program 2.3: Assist in Obtaining Subsidies for Affordable Housing Development. . The City continues to make available its allocation of CDBG funds to subsidize housing cost. Project Match is receives a subsidy from the City's CDBG allocation. This helps provide senior housing. The City actively advertises the CDBG program to increase the number of units of senior housing. Program 2.4: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance. The City has invited both public and/or non-profit organizations to propose eligible projects for the City's allocation of CDBG funds. Program 3.1: Saratoga Housing Rehabilitation and Assistance Program (SHARP). The City continues to fund SHARP. The principal beneficiaries of the program are seniors. Program 4.1: Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Housing. The City has continued to monitor the 177 existing affordable rental units that are found in three existing projects. The Department also has indicated to various potential applicants interested in demolishing an existing apartment complex that unless 25% of the new units were deed restricted for below market rate rental, the Staff would not support the proposed project. Program 4.2: Amnesty Program for Existing Second Units. While the City cannot "count" these units towards the mandated 539-units the program has been left in the • Housing Element as it is important to ensure that all dwellings meet minimum "fire, life, safety" requirements of the Uniform Housing Code. Streamlined regulations for this program are found in the Second Dwelling Units ordinance recently approved by the Planning Commission. Program 5.1: Fair Housing Program. The City disseminates information packets about Fair Housing Regulations, and refers discrimination complaints to the Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or to the County of Santa Clara Office of Consumer Affairs. This is an on-going program. Program 5.2: Sites for Emergency and Transitional Housing Facilities and Services. Included in the draft Mixed-Use Zoning ordinance amendments is a provision that indicates that anywhere Mixed-Use housing is allowed so will emergency and transitional housing. Additionally, the City of Saratoga supports and has issued a Use Permit to the Saratoga Ministerial Association for a rotating emergency shelter program to be housed at various local Churches. Program 5.3: Evaluation of Accommodation of Persons with Disabilities. This was an issue that was addressed by the State Legislature and became law about the same time the City was gaining approval of its Housing Element. The Community Development Department has reviewed its ordinances and policies to ensure that the City does not in any fashion condone discrimination against persons with disabilities due to any zoning code or building code or practice. By December 31, 2003 we will i develop an ordinance prohibiting such actions. 0)00003