Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2003 Planning Commission Packet1 - Y CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 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, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 16, 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 #02-192 (503-24-064) -LEE, 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners); - Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the street level and an addition of a 1,476 square foot apartment to the second floor level of an existing structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor. This project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission on 11/12/02. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (VASUDEVAN) 2.. APPLICATION #02.219 (503-29-127) -MOORS, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project also includes the construction of a pool house, basement, and three-car garage. Both the pool house and garage are attached to the main residence via a common roof. The total floor area on the site is 6,520. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 98,010 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM COlvIMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COI.VIMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on November 6, 2002, December 10, 2002, and December 26, 2002 AD~~OURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 12, 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 e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us C7 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 3:00 p.rn. 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 22, 2003 r, u ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #02-192 - LEE Item 1 14493 Big Basin Way 2. Application #02-219 - MOORS Item 2 20700 Saratoga Hills Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site 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. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 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, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission f rom discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 16, 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 #02-192 (503-24-064) -LEE, 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners); - Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the street level and an addition of a 1,476 square foot apartment to the second floor level of an existing structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor. This project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission on 11/12/02. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (VASUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #02-219 (503-29-127) -MOORS, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project also includes the construction of a pool house, basement, and three-car garage. Both the pool house and garage are attached to the main residence via a common roof. The total floor area on the site is 6,520. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 98,010 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. ~OOSTERHOUS) DIRECTORS ITEM COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on November 6, 2002, December 10, 2002, and December 26, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 12, 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 planning@sarato a.ca.us G -- ~~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 8, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John. Livingstone and Planner Christy Oosterhous - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 13, 2002. • Motion: U on motion of Commissioner Hunter seconded b Commissioner Garakani the P ~ Y regular Planning Commission minutes of November 13, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: Jackman and Kurasch APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 13, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of December 11, 2002, were approved as submitted with a one word correction on page 11. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: Zutshi ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 2, 2003 .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. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #02-249 (397-27-019) - FU, 14140 Victor Place: Request for Design Review approval to construct atwo-story residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one- story residence. 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) Planner Christy Oosterhous provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new single-family residence with a floor area ratio of less than 3,000 square feet and a maximum building height of 22 feet. • Described the neighborhood as having a majority of Craftsman-style homes, incorporating wood siding and with a mixture of single and two-story homes. • Said that this proposed home has incorporated many Craftsman features, including a low pitch gable roof, an entry porch, use of tapered square columns and bay windows. There will be some stucco in alight gray, wood siding and burgundy doors. • Recommended approval of this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for a square footage comparison between what is existing and proposed square footage as well as the neighborhood average. Asked what staff's intent is with the provision of a survey of single and two-story homes in the area. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this survey is simply a reference for the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked if most staff reports include the comparisons between existing and proposed square footage. Commissioner Kurasch said the reports often do include this information, which is very helpful. ' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Li-Sheng Fu, Project Architect: • Pointed out that this proposed two-story new single-family residence would fit mostly within the existing footprint and, in fact, a little less, although the total square footage will be greater due to the second story. • Pointed out that Plan Sheet A-1 provides the total square footage. • Said that trees will mostly obscure the second story. • Added that they do not propose to remove any trees. • Said that both the use wood siding, which has been incorporated,on the second story, and the use of a stone veneer wainscoting on the first floor will help make the building look smaller. • Made himself available for any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the results of neighborhood meetings and what was learned. Asked how the plans for this proposal were provided to the neighbors. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu said that they directly delivered a reduced set of plans with a cover letter that provided a contact phone number to most adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there were any calls. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu: • Replied that they had heard from the next door neighbor who has a new Craftsman-style home and had wanted to incorporate stucco on her home but had been required to change to wood siding at the direction of the Planning Commission. • Advised that they have also incorporated wood siding on this home to reflect the materials in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch said that she was concerned about having a second story on a corner lot that is almost as large as the first story and asked Mr. Li-Sheng Fu if they had considered this situation. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu said that it is unfortunate that there is not a model to demonstrate the design. Assured that there are setbacks on the second story from both the front and rear. There is also a large notch on one side to break up a long wall. Commissioner Hunter made the observation that the front door will be on Walnut rather than Victor with this new home. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu replied yes. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Mike An, 20451 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he resides across the street and has a few concerns and objections over the proposed 22-foot height, which he fears will block a part of his view of the mountains and change the feel of the neighborhood. • Stated that he likes the fact that this home is currently asingle-story. • Disagreed that trees will obscure the second story. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 4 • Pointed out that there have been two rather large homes constructed on Victor in 2000 but they were single-story with basements. • Expressed hope that the applicant would reconsider the two-story and perhaps incorporate a basement on a single-story house. • Stated that the top of the roofline appears very straight and box like, more like a tract home and not a true Craftsman. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. An if there is not another two-story home across the street. Mr. Frank An said that his home is to the left of a two-story home. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Mr. An signed the form acknowledging receipt of the letter and plans for this home. Mr. Mike An said that he did not sign the form but that his wife had. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. An why he did not pursue his concerns earlier in the process. Mr. Mike An replied that he was under the impression that this meeting was the forum for him to do so. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this form simply acknowledges receipt of the information. Mr. Mike An said that he was livid with his wife for signing something without reviewing it but that it had been delivered late when she and their baby were home alone and she was nervous to have a stranger at their door. Commissioner Garakani said that tonight is kind of late to raise issues when the applicant started this process eight months to one year ago. Mr. Mike An said that he is unaware of the process and pleads ignorance. Chair Jackman said that she agreed that the roof is long and straight from the side view. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Mr. An will face the front of this new home and not the side elevation. Mr. Mike An said that he is still impacted when driving home or walking with his family through the neighborhood. ' Director Tom Sullivan advised that this new home will have a 30 foot setback and that the proposed new home will be pushed into the property more than the existing home and therefore should block even less of the view of mountains from the An home that it currently does. Mr. Mike An said that a tree also obscures his view. Commissioner Hunter said that the tree in question is not in the best of health and that she would support its removal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes ~i January 8, 2003 Page 5 Chair Jackman agreed. Mr. Mike An said that he simply wanted to offer his input and will defer to the Planning Commission. Mr. Daniel Kaypaghian, 14200 Victor Place, Saratoga: • Asked for the setback from Victor. Director Tom Sullivan replied 30 feet. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu added that this is the same as is existing. Mr. Daniel Kaypaghian said that this is fine but that he shares the same concerns about the straight roof design. Added that he finds there are more single-story rather than two-story homes in this neighborhood. Chair Jackman said that it appears that not quite half are two story. Mr. Daniel Kaypaghian said that this home may be out of character. Commissioner Hunter reminded that Code allows a maximum 26 feet in height while this proposal is four feet less than that maximum. Mr. Daniel Kaypaghian said that perhaps a more articulated roof would help. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu clarified that the roof is actually L-shaped, although it looks close to rectangular on a drawing. Added that the living room side is a single story structure and the back is two-story. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Li-Sheng Fu to respond about the neighbor's concern over loss of view. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu said that on the Victor side, this home is mostly single-story and above the garage is just one gable. Said that he has tried to set back and make it not too high. Commissioner Kurasch said the difference between the one-story and gable element appears like a box shape. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu said that the two-story side is pushed away from the corner by 40 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked how far the first story is set back from the second story. Mr. Li-Sheng Fu replied 18 feet. Director Tom Sullivan added that per Plan Sheet A-4, there is a huge setback from the front before the gable feature. The Victor side has an incredible amount of movement on the roof. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Li-Sheng Fu if there is anything that can be do with the design to alleviate neighbor concerns. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes ci January 8, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Li-Sheng Fu reminded that the did not cut any trees and that these trees are all taller than the proposed 22 foot height of the new house; including one 40 foot tall pine tree. Said that most of the house will be blocked from view by trees. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:42 p.m. Chair Jackman: • Said that this project is quite good. • Said that the 22-foot proposed height is preferable to the allowable 26 feet. • Stated that this is a good plan for the neighborhood. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed with Chair Jackman. • Said that this is a good plan. • Added that the house will be surrounded by trees. • Suggested that the applicant work with the neighbor on the issue of the one corner tree. • Added that it appears the removal of that particular ailing tree could be supported. • Said that she did not believe this home would affect its neighbors as much as feared and that it has a nice design. Commissioner Zutshi said that she has no problems with the design. Added that while she has concerns over two-story homes, this one has sufficiently big setbacks to alleviate those concerns. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that this is a small and visible lot within an old and charming neighborhood. • Said that she is happy with the proposed architectural style but agrees with the speakers that it appears boxy with its large dominant element roof. • Said that she would like to see the second story reduced and recommended a redesign. • Pointed out that 33 of 49 homes are one story in this neighborhood per the survey provided. • Added that this proposed house is too large for this lot situated within a great little neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked if the pitch of the roof is the lowest possible. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the proposed 4 and 12 pitch is about as flat as one would want for concrete the and that he would not suggest flattening the roof at all. Commissioner Kurasch said that the pitch would be okay if the gables came up, which would represent only a small portion of additional height. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that it is easy to move up one or more of the gables. Commissioner Hunter disagreed that the gables needed to be made any bigger. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the second story is 500 square feet or 30 percent smaller that the first floor below. ,~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 7 ` Chair Jackman said that she is in favor of leaving the size alone. A 3,000 square foot house is not terribly large by today's standards. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of the existing single family residence and construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 14140 Victor Place, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-136 (397-18-036) - SARUP,14815 Barang_a 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) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking a Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing 2,300 square foot existing house and construction of a new 5,000 square foot house with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Described the net site as being 36,000 square feet within an R-1-40,000 Zoning District. • Advised that this proposal meets the five policies in the Design Guidelines. • Said that the applicant is using the slope to place the garage under the house to reduce bulk and the typical garage area. • Advised that the house is surrounded with trees and a landscape plan has been prepared. • Added that the roofline is varied and that the design protects the privacy of adjacent neighbors with minimal direct line of sight impacts. • Said that native evergreen trees will be incorporated to provide year-round screening. While five of 32 trees will be removed from the property, the applicant is exceeding the Arborist's recommendation to plant eight trees and proposes to plant 11. • Added that the Arborist's report gives recommendations for the maintenance of trees during construction and that the applicant is hoping to preserve two trees that the Arborist has recommended for removal. • Said that there will be three gas fireplaces and one wood fireplace. • Pointed out that the proposal is 700 square feet under the maximum allowable FAR and exceeds setbacks. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked for specifics on the number and heights of the retaining walls. Asked if the front turnaround is an architectural feature or a Fire Department requirement. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied architectural feature. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 8 Chair Jackman asked if this home is close enough to the street so as not to require a fire turnaround on site. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that a minimum 14-foot wide driveway is required and the proposal is for 15 foot. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the height of the front entry. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 12 feet from step to transom window. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. B. Sarup, Property Owner and Applicant: • Stated that he feels this design is both neighborhood and environment friendly and sits back further from the road than the existing home. • Said that they will plant more trees than required. • Pointed out that this home is asingle-story with a minimum impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked for details on the rock energy dissipater and if there are any concerns having one placed so near a light well. Mr. B. Sarup said that this helps keeps the storm water on-site and that the placement has been positioned by an engineer. Director Tom Sullivan explained to the Commission the concept of slope and percolation at Swale. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant had interacted with the neighbors regarding this proposal. Mr. B. Sarup said that of five neighbors, one had concerns about potential view impact and the others were extremely supportive. Chair Jackman observed that she could not see neighbors very visible from the site except above to the back. Commissioner Kurasch stated that although she finds an eclectic architectural mixture to be desirable, she did not think there is anything similar to this proposal in the area. Mr. B. Sarup said that there are other homes of similar style, one facing Fruitvale and another facing Three Oaks. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not in favor of grandiose entries and questioned how that is compatible. Mr. B. Sarup reminded that the house is set way back from the street and that with the way it is positioned, it will not be visible from the street. '~, Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 ~ Page 9 Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the very large driveway with turnaround around a fountain. Asked if all that paving were necessary when 14 feet is the minimum required for parking. Chair Jackman asked about the drive around the fountain. Mr. B. Sarup said that the drive around the fountain is 14 feet wide with only a small portion being 20 feet wide. Chair Jackman asked about a gate on page L-1. Commissioner Garakani pointed out to Chair Jackman where this gate was located. Chair Jackman said that this home blends into nature. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the willingness to retain one specific tree in questionable health. Mr. B. Sarup said that they believe they will be able to retain Tree #29 if allowed to do so. Commissioner Zutshi assured that she was certain the Arborist would have no problem with the idea of attempting to retain a tree. Chair Jackman asked about fencing around the pool. Mr. B. Sarup assured that pool fencing is a standard requirement prior to issuance of a final. Added that he wants to fence the entire property with asix-foot high fence. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are limitations on area that can be fenced. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this particular property is not within a Hillside Zoning District. Commissioner Zutshi sought additional information on the retaining walls from the architect. Mr. Bohlan Mazar said that the retaining walls are about two feet high. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that there is a lot of paving area but since the applicant is using pavers, this can be accepted. Said that there are a lot of houses in the area that are big and similar and she has no problem with this proposal. Chair Jackman said that she likes it especially since it incorporates a basement. Commissioner Hunter agreed that it is similar to existing homes in the area and is fine. Added that it is also situated at the end of a cul de sac on a large property. Chair Jackman said that this is not imposing since much of the structure is underground. r Saratoga Planning-Commission Minutes of January 8, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Garakani said that that the design is fine and is not an intrusion on the neighborhood. Said that he hopes the tree is preserved if possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 14850 Baranga Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that this represents his annual report on the General Plan. • Said that the City of Saratoga's General Plan has all mandatory elements as well as some optional elements. While the Scenic Highways and Seismic Elements used to be mandatory, they are now optional. • Said that Ann Welsh will concentrate part time for one year to working on updates including the Trails. • Advised that the Land Use, Noise and Safety Elements need updating. • Said that the Circulation Element is new and will not require updating for another five years. • Reminded that the Housing Element is new and will need to be re-adopted in June 2006 per State Law. • Informed that many previously approved General Plan Amendments were never directly incorporated into the General Plan so staff has located the applicable Resolutions and will add this information in. • Said as far as the Housing Element, the City is making adequate progress on all programs and he is not ashamed to send the required report into HCD. • Added that he will count existing secondary living units that are legalized as new units, if it can be proven that at the time of the last Census, these units were not being rented out. Therefore, if a property owner will sign an affidavit to that effect, any newly legalized unit can be counted as new housing units for the City. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Garakani proposed that some sort of guidelines be provided to applicants on how best to work with neighbors in presenting proposed plans. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that such guidelines can be included with the application form. Commissioner Kurasch announced that the Tree Ordinance is now before Council. -. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes o~ January 8, 2003 Page 11 e> COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 22, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • y~ ITEIV~ 1 ~~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-192;14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) Applicant/Owner: Mr. Gin Lee Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner ~~ Date: January 22, 2002 APN: 503-24-064 Department Head: • • 3° Y - wr r ~~~ ~< ,\ ~'~~,. \ ~. ~P .~~ ~ 5 i~/~\~\ \ < <" ~,\~ '~4 0 ~o ~zo wo zoo aoo^ /~ C~,~ .//. F!,( v,. '~ _i. _- ,~, ',M1. 1±_--`-' s~ fem. Y 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners) X00001 r"~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 09/05/02 Application complete: 1U22/02 Notice published: OU08/03 Mailing completed: 12/27/02 Posting completed: OU02/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,512 square foot apamnent at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. The proposed attached 3-car garage will eliminate 208 square feet of commercial floor space cf the existing Saratoga Cleaners. However, the applicant also proposes to add 52 square feet to the commercial floor space of the Cleaners by extending the rear laundry/utility area. The existing 3,380 square foot structure consists entirely of commercial space at the first floor, a carport, and two apartment units at the second floor. Since this structure is listed in the City's Heritage Resources Inventory, a review of this project was held by the Historic Preservation Commission on November 12, 2002. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution ~ Historical narrative of structure from Mr. Warren Heid, AIA 3. Plans, Exhibit A • ~OOt~O~Z -`g .`~ : Application No. 02-192; 14493BigBasln Way (Saratoga Cleaners) • ZONING: CH-1 STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR -Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 4,277 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: The site is flat. GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project, which proposes to construct an addition of new commercial and apartment spaces, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of multi- family dwellings not exceeding 4 dwelling units and commercial spaces not exceeding 10,000 square feet. Staff also reviewed this project in light of CEQA's requirements for alterations to a historically significant structure, listed in the City's Heritage Resources Inventory. Based on a historical review of the structure from Mr. Warren Heid, AIA, Staff determined that the proposed addition would have not have a negative impact on the historic significance since the structure, built in 1884, was already drastically modified in appearance in the 1950's. This structure was placed on the Heritage Resources Inventory by the Historic Preservation Commission not for its 50's style architecture, but because the original walls were constructed of limestone from a local quarry. A copy of Mr. Heid's report is attached. As indicated in attached Exhibit A, the applicant will remove the existing stucco and expose the original limestone along the west facade. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The addition will match the existing structure. The stucco will be beige in color, with black anodized aluminum windows and clay file scuppers. The applicant is also proposing a new dark beige canvas awning to replace the existing awning. A color board will be brought to the public hearing. • ~OOt103 Application No. 02-192; I4493BigBaslrt Way (Saratoga Cleaners) Existing Proposed Coverage by Structures: 58% 79.9 Floor Area: ls` Floor 2,080 sq. ft. 2,799 sq. ft. (Commercial) 2nd FlOOr 1,300 sq. ft. 2,812 sq. ft. (Apamnents) Garage (3 car) n/a 620 sq. ft. Setbacks: n/a Height: 21 ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 80% Maximum Allowable n/a Minimum Requirement None required in the CH-1 zoning district Maximum Allowable 35 ft. ~OOUO4 l~ - ~~ I •i • •i ~~ r l~ PROJECT DISCUSSION Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-46.040 specifies design criteria, which the Planning Commission shall use in reviewing design review applications in the commercial and multi- family zoning districts. The proposed addition to the Saratoga Cleaners building will, for the most part, mirror the appearance of the existing front facade. Staff finds that the project is consistent with the applicable Design Review findings indicated in Municipal Code Section 15-46.040 (d), (e) and (f). Subsections (d) and (e) require that wall and roof colors blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, and roofing be wood shingles or other material such as composition. The applicant has proposed earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the first floor level, with beige colored walls to match the existing structure. Subsection (f) requires that the proposed development be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed addition will not overshadow the buildings in the vicinity that are also primarily 2 story. Staff also feels that the addition will provide for better street continuity of storefronts, where currently there is a wide gap between the cleaners and the adjacent structure. The neighboring structure also has an apartment at the second floor level. Unlike design review findings required for the approval of projects in the single family residential zones, privacy is not specified as a design. criterion in MCS 15-46.040. Nevertheless, Staff explored the issue of privacy since the proposed apamnent unit would be at the same level as the neighboring unit. The applicant has indicated to Staff that the windows will be offset from the locations of the windows on the neighboring unit. The applicant has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain comments from the neighboring property owner regarding this issue. Historic Preservation Commission The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed project on November 12, 2002. The Commission recommended the following items: (1) that the existing stucco on the west facade be removed to expose the original limestone walls, (2) that the `s' brackets remain and be exposed, and (3) that a plaque be installed indicating the historic significance of the structure. The applicant will be required to present the location and content of the plaque at a future Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The aforesaid items have been added as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Trees The trees proposed for removal as a result of the proposed addition are not protected trees pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.050. Parking The project site is located in Parking District No. 3, which was established by the City in 1988. The City imposed an assessment on each property within this district based on the gross floor area of structures on the site at the time the assessment district was created. The assessment was calculated on a ratio of 1 space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area. ~OOUOS F~ Parking District No. 3 was constructed with 31.2 "extra" parking spaces, which were determined to be not necessary to satisfy the needs of existing development within the assessment district. Following the establishment of Parking District No. 3; the Ciry Council adopted Resolution No. 2473.15 on October 5,1988. The Resolution established the Ciry's policy with regard to the sale of development rights associated with these extra spaces to property owners within the district. Resolution No. 2473.15 also established that the Ciry remains free to change the policy concerning the sale of development rights at any time. No amendments to Resolution No. 2473.15 have been made and no property owner has ever purchased the extra spaces to date. Staff would like to add that the City Manager's office conducted a parking study in the downtown in September of 2002 and concluded that the parking districts were underutilized, corroborating the availability of 31.2 extra spaces, l5 years after the establishment of Parking District No. 3. Pursuant to MCS 15-35.035, Parking District No. 3 requires 1 space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area. As specified in MCS 15-35.035, for the purpose of determining the required number of parking spaces for a development in a parking district, the term "gross floor area" does not include enclosed or covered areas used for off-street parking. The methodology used in determining the additional required parking for this project is as follows: Applicant was assessed in 1988 for Parking District No. 3 based on a ratio of one space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area: Gross Floor Area of Existing Building: 3,380 square feet = 9.6 spaces The applicant also had 2 extra parking spaces on-site in a carport. Applicant proposes to make a building addition of 2,439 square feet (this figure includes the 52 square feet addition to the rear of the existing Cleaners, but does not include the 3-car garage). Applicant also proposes to Yemove' 208 square feet of gross floor area from the already assessed existing structure. Therefore: Gross Floor Area of Proposed Building Net Increase in Gross Floor Area: Additional Parking Required: 3,380 - 208 + 2,439 = 5,611 sq. ft. 5,611- 3,380 = 2,231 sq. ft. 2,231/350 = 6.37 or 6 spaces _ . The applicant proposes to demolish the carport with the 2 spaces and will provide 3 spaces within an attached garage. Therefore, the applicant will be required to purchase development rights equivalent to: 6 - 3 (on-site spaces = 3 spaces within Parking District No. 3 * Municipal Code Section 15-35.035(b) states, "If a fractional number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one-half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one- half " n. • • • ~~0~06 ~` 1: The City's Administrative Services (Finance) Department has determined the cost of development rights associated with each parking space pursuant to the method specified in Resolution No. 2473.15. The cost of the development rights are adjusted quarterly based upon the percentage of any increase in the CalTrans Highway Index. The index for the fourth quarter 2002 is not yet available. As of September 30, 2002, the cost of purchasing development rights associated with 1 parking space is $24,375. Staff would like the Planning Commission to take note that the applicant has shown on the attached Exhibit A Sheet A3, a proposed rearrangement of the parking spaces behind the structure. These parking spaces are in Parking District No. 3, owned by the City of Saratoga, and shall not be altered in any way. A condition of approval prohibiting this proposed rearrangement has been included in the attached Resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review application 02-192 by adopting the attached Resolution. • • ~OUlI~O'7 •a r • Attachment 1 'iiVOVQV w ~~ ^.' APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _ ING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA PLANN STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Gin Lee;14493/95 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review for the construction of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,512 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. The proposed attached 3- cargarage will eliminate 208 square feet of commercial floor space of the existing Saratoga Cleaners. However; the applicant also proposes to add 52 square feet to the commercial floor space of the Cleaners by extending the rear laundry/utility area; 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, which proposes to construct an addition of new commercial and apartment spaces, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of m~alti- family dwellings not exceeding 4 dwelling units and commercial spaces not exceeding 10,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-46.040 have been determined: - Municipal Code Section 15-46.040 (d), (e) and (f). Subsections (d) and (e) require that wall and roof colors blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, and roofing be wood shingles or other material such as composition. The applicant has proposed earth tone composition roofing for the roof overhang at the first floor level, with beige colored walls to match the existing structure. Subsection (f) requires that the proposed development be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed addition will not overshadow the buildings in the vicinity that are also primarily 2 story. The addition will pro~~ide for better street continuity of storefronts, where currently there is a wide gap between the cleaners and the adjacent structure. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • ~~~~~9 ., c. .. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application #02-192 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 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a 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 are per the approved plans " 5. The parking spaces behind the property, located in Parking District No. 3, shall not be rearranged or altered in any way. The site plan in the complete construction plans shall reflect this condition of approval. 6. Prior to issuance of City permits, the property owner shall, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 2473.15, submit to the City a I~TOtice of Intent to purchase development rights associated with 3 parking spaces, accompanied by a deposit of 5% of the total purchase price. The total purchase price shall be based on the latest quarterly Cal Trans Highway Index at the time the Notice is filed. Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 2473.15, this transaction shall be closed within 60 days after City's receipt of the Notice. 7. Prior to issuance of City permits, the Saratoga City Council shall approve an "Agreement For Sale of Village of Saratoga Parking Lot Development Rights in Parking District No. 3" with the property owner. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 8. Prior to final building inspection, the existing stucco on the west facade shall be removed to expose the original limestone walls. The `s' brackets shall remain and be exposed. 9. Prior to final building inspection, a plaque shall be installed indicating the historic significance of the structure. The design, location and written content of the plaque shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. • ~'~0~~0 ;.~ ' :~ - i FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. All comments stated in the `Planning Document Review Memo' dated September 16, 2001 from Fire Protection Consultants, Inc. (this company reviewed this project on behalf of the Saratoga Fire District), shall be followed. CITY ATTORNEY 11. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry of held to be liability of Ciry in connection with Ciry'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, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of s California, the 22nd day of January 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: r~ u Secretary, Planning Commission ~00~+11 r~ 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • ~OU~12 ~i h • Attachment 2 ~40~13 :~ WARREN B. HEID AIA &. ASSOCIATES A R C H I T E C T S P L A N N E R S 14630 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 408 867 9365 WARREN B. HEID AIA STEVEN M . BENZING AIA FAX 408 867 3750 October 24, 2002 Mr. Tom Sullivan- - Community Services Director City of Saratoga ~ ~ ~ l5 Q U- 12777 Fruitvale Avenue Sarataga. CA 95070 NOV p 6 2002 crrv of snwiTOCn Re: Addition to Commercial Building "`MMUNITYnFVF~n~ae~~ 14495 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA Design Review Application No. 02-192 Dear Mr. Sullivan, This letter is in response to your conversation with Mr. Gin Lee this week regarding the CEQA requirement for an historic architect to review of the subject building. Mr. Lee asked that I write to you since you agreed that my having served on the original Heritage Preservation Commission would qualify to meet this requirement requested in the letter from Lata Vasudevan dated September 23, 2002. In 1856 John C. Hutchinson purchased 160 acres of land about one (l) mile south of the Village. There was a limestone quarry on this land and lime was being produced from its lime kiln. After several years of operations, he sold his land in 1884 and moved to the Village where he started a mercantile business. Because of this business Mr. Hutchinson built a store building that year on his Village property. It was a two (2) story building with the first floor exterior walls of thick limestone and the second floor of wood frame construction. The front facade at the second floor had three (3) arched windows and a steep wood frame roof. Enclosed is a copy of a photo from the Saratoga Museum file of the original store building • t There were some modifications to this building through the years but a major remodeling occurred in the early 1950s. This remodeling was with the approval with the building department of Santa Clara County as the City of Saratoga was not incorporated until 1956. , ~00~~~ h~} ~ Mr. Tom Sullivan, City of Saratoga October 29, 2002 - Page 2. This remodeling consisted of a wood frame extension to the rear of the first and the second floors with commercial on the first floor and two (2) apartments at the second floor with stairs to them at the east side. Garages were added at the top of the Saratoga Creek bank. The building was modernized in appearance to have a flat roof with all exterior walls being a parapet in lieu of the sloping roof. The store front was changed to have modern store front windows with glazed the under them. The entire building, including the limestone walls, was covered with cement plaster stucco. Except for minor change including the carport, made mainly when Parking District No. 3 was created, the building remains the same as this early 1950's remodeling. This structure was included in the Saratoga Heritage Inventory, first published in 1993, only because the commission felt it should be included since the original part of the first floor was constructed of local limestone, but not because of the modern appearance. In conclusion, the historical quality of the building was so changed with the remodeling in the early 1950s, and with subsequent remodelings, that the addition will not change the historical significance. It is my opinion that the only elements pertaining to historical integrity are the original first floor limestone walls, which have been painted, plastered over, and covered with a previous addition to the rear. Ve y trul y rs, Warren B. Heid AIA-E WBH:hw Encl: cc: Mr. Gin Lee • ~,i+~0~15 d v ~3 T ~. ~.; r~ e=;. 3,': ~_`~ - :- ,~:. - _y j :'i~ M :i,*.I `i ~ t • ~,.. G~OOt~'1~;0 ~~ • 74 • ~OOt~1'7 a a ~ SPECIFICATIOt' PI~OPaS~D ADDI~I01~ s~b~W ~ar.a~ - G l h l I aw o e Flatwak .. - .Fir ba toundatian i FOR THE LEA FANII-LY FAAMIR6 L LUMAfR Anal nYle. ~ 0 beam S ~~ ~ ~-~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~5 'Flmrioim GAIn , ~ aitta Seal wiMOw~ Sealtlaua Cut & Irame window Cut b Irame door flmh Eeam - Dr beam -.ctRAMw nLf ~ ~ , MMi RLE <<~ i • • I I ' I PARKING DISTRICT N0. 3 I SCALE IN FFET I I 0 10 20 30 40 I 5O 1 25, i AC Pavement ( I it I I I ~ I i i I I ° / .jriG' I ~ i N 43' 37 " E 50.00' ~ .n rant / ~, ~~ ~. PB ~~~~ /, W I I Carport I ~ / Z I Im ___~ I U J U I / I II u Q ~ , L' -------- ~ I I I ~ ~ g r ~ b ~ I u I I a W o o ~ ~ ! I ~ 3 3 ~ ~ I€ I t o N W m N a O~ ~ & O ~ l Q_ ~ ~ ~ C I W ~ W~ O K i . i " w ~ a-L9- I w o ~ I v ~ N - ( Z z ~ I w) I ~ __-_ - Edge Pvmt~ 25' 25 L I Wood Fence X-X-X I ~J"s` ~ S~~G&E Easement ~f (N49fi-OR-2190) L4495__ ~ 1449.3 II 4 oB 4 WM u° ~ / ~_____J µ~ __~__~__ _____ ~___ PGkE PB Tel PB $ 4Y 59~ 10~~ W 50.4 ~ pGkE PB Tree VAA ~ Wdl Street light PB - m M BIG BASIN WAY 0 bs ~ II LEND ~m ~ ~ a ~ . _ _ _ - rROPERtt uNE --0--- MONUMENT 4 MONWENT LINE -c- GAS l1NE -w- WATFR LJNE -e- ELECTRICAL. -«'- ovErwEAn unlun -u-0-ss- SANITARY SEWER 8 11F1 a -m-¢m- STORM SEYER k MH Q ~ PULL BOX WPB 8 GUTTER DRIVEWAY O-~ ~ ELECTROUEfl ~'?,, \yo N r°, ~ W V -x-u-K~- FENCE :, ~ a ~N N ' ~ ~ ~ WATER METER vsd z ~ ° Q ) ~ ~ mn yM FlRE HYDRANT ~3jS7938M m ® WATER YALVE BOX m .°~ w FL FLOW UNE \~61NEE8 bi ,;Mt ~ 9 g ~ BW BAp( OF WALK i; ~ ~ o , ~~;." ~ I conc roP of caecRETE i~ ;> re ToP of aaie ~_~.;~~ TP TOP OF PAVEMENT ¢°S ?~. °$o F . of~ g €~~; 3 u ~ 2 W=.S 0=[ W° ' ua i '. _ ~._ ~~ "~~ g ~ `II I~ 6, ~ ~ '~61 I I ~ ~ 1 ~ \ / I 11i f US t ~ "' ~,~~<~ III i' - I, .. _ ', ~ 17 ~~~~~,. . ' ` ...1 ~ i ~I ~ ... (~ ..SITE ~ +. ~/" ~ ~ E - ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~! l _ ~;' /T ~ "~~~_~- 1 . F ,+ f e ~ ,_ ~---- ~. ;~ ~, ;1-' ~ r ~--~ t VICINITY MAP Z 3 Q aZo ~Qa ~0]U fA ~t~a wmo zNr Z~< W ~, - ~ D: \AE-JOB\01\23\SURYEY\OWG\T0123-Fl ~~" bAlllU+ of relw AI GINIB AI G1N11 AI GlxROaF u r•. • I pEVISIONS BY //~~TT~~MM22 gg~ pp ~~PI~ 5~ ~NOY'02~ 1~J L51IV I5~W6 WD a ~~ ° 11 WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DYGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL IAAW.,NT „ALN4, Ezlslw PARAPET uILL ~ NEW 'FLAT' ROOF AREA covER Itv ARTI EXISTING "FLAT' ROOF AREA !OVER APTS. BELOV] FAISTING PARAPET 41ll TRY PlAAR7 VALL G~~G~OD~dC~D Q00~ p~Q~ SCALE: 1' = 10' -0' ~s_ IEI UMSCAPE RANTER i PARKING DISTRICT #3 ~I I 1~ 50.00' I ~ ~ / ~ //i // EXISTING CARPORT I ~/ TO OE REMOVED , ~/ ~ ~ / ------r_--- / i e' olA. mAw,E tAe1 NOTE -ALL TREES SHOVIN ARE TO BE ~ REMOVED ~ ~ I % ~~~ ~ ~ s // INOIGT6 E%ISTIN6 / PRECAST STAIRS TO APTS. TO AEW1N I i EXISTING BLDG ~ I ,w ~~ ~ / ' ~ . I I l w e• ou. aXBLU I m ~I I ~~ I ( ~ ~ ' I ~_~~/ I i ' ~ // ~ a• GI/ LEMeN, 4 ~ II' / ,/~ , I ~_/' i ~ ~/ / ~ z• D ~ u4E ~ I I / THIS STAIRS t0 /~ BE ISNOVOED ~~ i`~ I I ~ ~ / ..~, .... y I B0. 0.0 ' . EXISTING SIDEWALK'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ g(~a~G~Q4~~ C~~{0~4U~1L~ dp~ID~(~Glp~ pdGl~l CONTACT PROJECT ARCHITECT OA ENGINEER TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR OR QUESTIONABLE DIMENSIONS. 21 CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW AND COMPLY MITH ALL CITY INITIATED "CONDITIONS" OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT. 3l SITE INFORMATION AND DATA - A. LOT. AREA = 4,277 50. FT. B. E%IETING BUILDING TO REMAIN PLUS ADDITION AT GRADE LEVEL 13.419 S0. F1.1 =COVERAGE = 79.9 2 C. PARKING SUMMARY: 11 E%ISTING 2 COVERED SPACES TO BE REPLACED N1TH ENCLOSED GARAGE -SEE PLAN 21 ADD t NEW GARAGE 19.5' x 20'1 31 TOTAL 3 -COVERED SPACES PARKING DISTRICT #3 41 UNCOVERED SPACES TO BE DETERMINED 8Y FORMAL FROM CITY ORDINANCE 41 CITY ZONING - YH-1' 51 SITE AREA = 4,277 50. FT. BLDG. COVERAGE = 79.9 i 7) E%ISTING COMMERICAL = P,OpO, S0. FT. BI E%ISTING APARTMENTS = 1,300 S0. FT. 9) NEVI RETAIL /COMMERCIAL = 927 50. 50. i 1J1 NEW GARAGES = t20 50, FT. I 711 NEW APARTMENT =~I,S12 50. FT. 1 s o. a o• I ____ . _ . _ _--__ I ~ I I ~/ /// / I - EXISr1eW FDLI Hi. CONC. 5 / // / / rv ~ BLO[N BUTLOINO VILL 3 -GARAGES I / / i / ' / / I _ / INDICATES PROPERTY LIIE ~ ' W A a, _A• flEFEfl i0 ENGtlFRA S SURVEY I / I ~ / Q J ' INO¢A>ES RGGF Tw of ~ ~ ~ /~ I COMMERCIAL BLDG. B0.0V ' ' / Y I IROOF i0P IS FUT 1 I % Q II I - I ~ ~ TT I _ _ __ LINti OF 11?d) FLA APi'S I mo DO ED IEAE INDICAi6 LIMIL OF 2ND FLOOR O,N, ~ ~ z - Ip 9'-4' I / ' W N ~~ °~^ ~~: I a INDICATES EMIBTING / a I I ~ i / I ~ // ) Y ~ 11 PRECAST STAIRS TO APTS. i0 REMAIN HATCNFD AREA IDICATES nDlroN To IXl ~ a G ~ I ~ A ~ s m aDG. F II , / ~ I ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ADJACENT II EXISTING I T, RETAIL BLDG. WITH ~ "' I / APARTMENTS ABOVE I CLEANERS ~ I m ' I (RETAIL AT 157 FLftI / i / I I ~/ I INOIarES a FT, vice ~ INDICATES ROOF i0P OF P.G. IJD E. EASEIENi I I - APANTNENTS AT 2ND FIR. I I / I IPOOF i0P IS 'PLAI'T 1Wt[ATES PROPERTY LINE I ~ I I I // , I IXISTING 12' XIGM CONCRETE / BLOCK PLANTER Ai SIOEYALX - ~ / , I ~~ _ BEIAENOVOED TO ~ I / I IEI~~CAPE _ I VALL ' - S D• U-0 AODIri ONE - .. v ENTNANCE ~ . ' ~. E%ISTING SIDENALH ~. - ~44~g ~44~~3 D0~ DQ~Da ~7 Q~1 pQOd~6p ~~4[~ pdQ~l SCALE: i' = 10' -0' D 10' 20' 30' 40' (--~ ~ T-~ _. APN p503-24-64 I. o U~ Ze. 'U Q8 .,= F 0~ V~ .iAl'a m$ ~~ ~> ~~g N Z ~ ~ jTi ~ ~ ti ~ I P .~i ~_ V N m ~ Q.C~.41 m Q ~'Q # C7 '~ 4 Z W, .. z ~ W'~ o J J; D ;d ~ m W, v _'~ o F.',~ o UI ~ a ~ QI~ a oo~~ ~~~ a ~ ~, Date Seale Drawn .roe sneer ~1-~ 01 ~4- GAeele .Y 1 3 INDICATES ROOF OVERHANG AELW oht5-190t ~~ carol of B:61N] AI • w ~ z o ~ ~ m ~, ~ d ~J n 1 5' Y J Q w 3 ~ W ~ () N ~ 0 CD ¢ z to ~ .. o X ~ W £ J UL51IV L5W WIS W~al5 Zl 11 IIR ITTEN DIl~NS]ONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: DO NDT SCALE DUGS. VITHOUT ASSUMING LIABILITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONIACI ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR DIMENSIONS. NOTE THAI ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN TO 'FACE DF STUD' IF.0.5.1 UNLESS SMOVN OR NOTED OTHERVISE. I INDICATES PROPERTY LINE I -~ I i [~~~~~~~(~ DdD~e (~~O~1~ID f~d00Q pdGla ~. ~ I - SCALE: 1 /4' ° 1~ -D .. i ,. e.~ ~. i L. I pEVI510N5 BY -~ r.„ U; WF F ~ _ ~ I Qg -Z p =x ~° ~ ~_ r:{~ ~ ~~ ;,a~ ,. ~9 .', / Q I~ ~ Z +~ uri ~ w it J S? ~ N rv~i m Q ~i~ ~ a~Q o 4 tisAO ~ ~ O J "A'n ~ ' I J m W ~ ~ ~, W ~.\ r oQ~'~a IL ip ~ W ~~ a ,~j Dale ~~ same Drwn Job Sheet ~1-~f a~ 9 ghe~, .o-ls-fuel '~ C:Al9Ut B: GINS AI • REVISIONS BY (~~~IC~G~Qd ~10~C~~ 11 WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DWGS. WITHOUT ASSUMING LIABILITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR DIMENSIONS. NOTE THAI AlL DIMENSIONS 0.AE TAKEN TO 'FACE OF STUD' IF. 0.5 J UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERWISE. eo~-o• a•-o• 50'-0' ~ 32'-0' ~, 25,-0' 25•_0• _-- ~ I _..._ __ __ ____ BEDROOM BEDROOM LIVING LIVING > ~w . ~ ~ _ p ~ ROOF TOP (FLAT) rc la ~_ ,d n F i ' CLOSET CLOSET ~ LL ,o Ho Um w ~ W d ~ .. F. O _ ~i KIT /EATING ~ KIT /EATING s S $ a O s (~ 0 C$ LL, O O X O I ZU. o f Q p O m O p ~ INDICATES IEl PARAPET WALL ~ ~ NW ~, i DN DN i I I ~ I I I I W ~u I I ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~$ I i I \ / I I m ~ EXISTING OPEN SPACE ~ ~ I m I ~ ~ ~, .~ I ~ ~I I ~ I / \ I I ~ i ~ (El FLAT ROOF ~ i I ~3 i ~ ~ /• 2 -CAR SPACE ~\ ~ I ~ n I I BELOW I z ~„ ' _ o , ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ----------------------- y- ~- ~-+ ~ o a~Q`o f Q IL i °~° °- ~ 10,_0:. Z ~'~,~ a 'I o W . p ~ -+,Cl m W''~ v SUp< I ~ F' : A' o ~ ~~ < da''~N a~~. Iay~ M? 0~M 2p n. a ~W~TU a ~IN IJ CS IN~ If IsQ~W I(~QIIV Dale 5 C A L E: 1 / 4' = 1' - 0' Scare ofAwa ~, ~ .,~ ~ r ._. ~ aoo i sneer l~~-J 01 q, SAeeb 5 &pggN h i :~~~ AI :sou AI I~ • 4' -0' I L 64'-0' IAPPRO%IMATELYI _. _.~_. 2p•-0° ',~ ~, Q ~~ Q °~]° M~ 4 °~ _ ~° ~~ ~ 18~ ~ zo~-o• ~!-~-' ~--UP I ~~ AREA 'A' ~ ~ I AREA '8' I~ I ' w•~• o I z o' - o' ~ SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM - - - - - - - - - - -- -~I j I ,A. ® IWIGIES GIS11ro.~A i0 rtMIIN i Q ~ IN PG2 = S0. R. F Z d IroIG1ES MdGSFD MIDI tiW o~l- iQ l N D I C A T E 5 P R O P E R T Y .L I N E ._._msm _._ J i COVERED WALKWAY f~~a~4 ~d00p pdGla II i i i i I -~- I p~Od~~4 C~QO~aD ~d©Oa Pdaa S CAL E: 1 / 4' = I 0' ~C~~i[~3Qd ~0~[~~ 11 WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DWGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PROJECT ARCHITECT DR ENGINEER TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR OR QUESTIONABLE DIMENSIONS. 21 CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW ,AND COMPLY WITH ALL CITY INITIATED 'CONDITIONS' OF APPROVAL FOR TH15 PROJECT. 31 SITE INFORMATION AND DATA - A, LOT AREA = 4.277 S0. FT. 8. EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PLUS ADDIi ION AT GRADE LEVEL (3.419 50, FT,1 =COVERAGE = 79.9 2 C, PARKING SUMMARY: II EXISTING 2 COVERED SPACES TD BE REPLACED WITH ENCLOSED GARAGE - SEE PLAN 21 ADD I NEW GARAGE (9. E' x 20'I 31 TOTAL 3 - COVERED SPACES 41 UNCOVERED SPACES TO BE DETERMINED BY FORMAL FROM CITY ORDINANCE 41 CITY ZONING - 'CH-1' 61 SITE AREA = 4.277 50, FT. BLDG. COVERAGE = 79.9 T 71 EXISTING COMMERICAL = 2.,480 50. FT. 81 E%ISTING APARTMENTS = 1.300 50. FT. 91 NEW RETAIL / COMMERCIAL = 4!7 50, SD. 101 NEW GARAGES = 620 50. FT. 111 NEW APARTMENT = 1.3]2 50. FT. 121 PLAN LEGEND AND DESIGNATIONS - ~ EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN IN PLACE ~_ _ _ _] EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED INDICATES 2 x 4 DF STUD FRAMING Al 16' O.C. WITH E/8' TYPE '%' GYPSUM WALLBDARD ON INTERIOR SIDE: TAPED. TOPPED, SANDED. TEXTURED AND PAINTED 2 COATS (PRIMER AND FINISHED COATI EXTERIOR SURFACE TO 7/0' THK. CEMENT PLASTER ISNCCGI - 1 HR. RATED ASSEMBLY gEVIS10N5 BY Q NOV'OV F o U, m W o H _~ U C °a Q a ¢' >Z u Z~, 'j F, ~U L ~~ dy t ~ y ~~/Ai <. W m Z ~.1 In p ro ~! N ti ~ P tlJ ~!(~ o a;~ d 1L:~ " ~ a ZW ~ W ~ o J J' a no _ J m W, v 'j ;tom W ~i°~ o Ul ~ ~ m!~9 N ~ ~'~~ a ~ Dale Style wawo roe sneer I-~-~' ~I 5AelIS D-pi.IMY u s:clelp of cIAItl1a AI :clxaro u SCH2 Al 1 ~ IMPORTANT NOTE - ALL FRAMING AT NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE ONE HOUR CONSTRUCTION. TYPICAL er-a• ~~~~aQd ~)04~~ U WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE OWGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PROJECT ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR OR QUESTIONABLE DIMENSIONS. 21 CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW AND COMPLY WITH AlL CITY INITIATED 'CONDITIONS' OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT. 31 SSTE INFORMATION AND DATA - A. LOT AREA = 4.277 S0. FT. D. E%I STING BUILDING TO REMAIN PLUS ADDITION A7 GRADE LEVEL f3, 419 S0. FT.) = COVERAGE = 79.9 7 C.I PARR [NG SUMMARY: it EXISTING 2 COVERED SPACES TO BE REPLACED WITH ENCLOSED GARAGE - SEE PLAN 21 ADD t NEW GARAGE 19.5' x 20'I 31 TOTAL 3 -COVERED SPACES ~ 41 UNCOVERED SPACES TO BE DETERMINED B7 FORMAL FROM CITY ORDINANCE 41 CITY ZONING - 'CH-1' 51 SITE AREA = 4,277 S0. Fi. BLDG. COVERAGE = 79.9 % 71 E%IST UJG COMMERICAL = 2,OH0 50. FT. 81 E%IST ING APARTMENITB = 1,300 50. FT. 91 NEW RETAIL / COMMERCIAL = 927 50. 50. IDI NEW GARAGES = d20 50. FT. 111 NEW APARTMENT = 1,512 50. F1. 121 PLAN LEGEND AND DESIGNATIONS - ~ EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN [N PLACE __ ] EXISTING WALLS 10 BE REMOVED INDICATES 2 x 4 DF STUD FRAMING AT I tb' O.C. WITH 5/S' TYPE "%' GYPSUM WALLBOARD ON INTERIOR SIDE: TAPED, TOPPED, SANDED. TEXTURED AND PAINTED I 2 COATS (PRIMER AND FINISHED COATI E%iERIOA SURFACE TO 7/S' TMK. CEMENT PLASTER fSTUCC01 - t HR. RATED ASSEMBLY I i SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM .A.® iWIGlE5 F1[1511W IffA IU151 e aoo so. n. Iwlans r~osm ~noma 'B' 1. S115a. rr. ~T I _~ pp~dC~6~ ~~D f~d00Q pdQ~l S'C ALE: 1 /4' = 1' -0' REYASIONS BY Q g0Y'02 h' a Um HM _~ °a U~ xq Q; Q zQ ~' m z ,. Sd ~IU ~~ yj a ~u ~a m ~ ~~ ; ,. ~~ ~ r p ~,~?~ m .-i ~IC~ N ~ CS P gnn m I:~X/ ~ ~ Q,~ o Q W a n.V ~ I a M W, ~ ~ d o , m W v r.'~ ~ FLQ ~ N ~ o d Q,~ N O ~'~ ~~'i~ ~ ~ ;Q Dale Snle o~aw~ snam ~~~ 41 SAeetf ~' z 50 0 ___-_-_. ..-_-___. 32 0'.._--__--__ 2. _- _.___. __1~~ I , i i 1 ~ ~ r---------->--~--i 0-x_1982 ~' C:SN3 DI ' • osBBaDE1 mNS AI CINE 41 • (~~G~I~~pQa ~04~~ II 4RITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED PRDPERrr uNE DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DWGS. WITHOUT ASSUMING PARAPET MALL xEl6nrs To AuvN LIABILITY. CONTRACTOR.~SHALL CONTACT ARCHITECT OR ~ENGINEEA TO VERIFY ALL UNCLEAR DIMENSIONS. NOTE THAT ALL 0[MENS10N5 ARE TAKEN TO 'FACE OF STUD' IF.O. S.1 UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERVISE. 5'-0' a IEI SLIDING ALLMINM 41WOV ¢GLOR oARx •AxomzeD auav ~ I ~~ ~ ~ 0 - INSTALL 'STUCCO' VALL PARAPET I NEV SLOG. VINDWS 'O I(GLDR i0 IU1CH IEI BUItDINC1 To narcn EX[snNV NEW STUCCO W A L L 2ND FLOOR Litre - ~- INSrALI 2d GA. G.I. WtrEA ttPICAL I Q Ai ALL EAVES ICOIOR 'GRiHTONE'I INSTALL COMPOSITION SHINGLE RWF KV 6RA(KET Ai MI5 VALL ICOLOR 'EAATNiOtff'1 I uGnr AS ,vP. PARKING LOT /DRIVEWAY 1MERE SHOYN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PAIL VENTS 1 O P E N INSTALL 'STUCCO' OVER NEY FRAMED r VALL fCCLOR TO MATCH E%ISTING BLOG.1 IXISITING FINIBNEO CNtADE LINE I ELEVATION TO REMAIN THE SANE 1 I PROPOSED ADDITION Q~a~ i~IOQ4a9 p~~a~a~ d04 ~d~V~Q4~0a I ~`- oao 00o I o00 000 i i I IISIALL 'nAY nLE• 19 SNPPEAS i0 MATCH [EI F) ~ ~ ~ YHERE SMOYN THIS ELEY, i F »~ ~- ALUNIMIN SIW. 4INOOY (COLOR TO NA1CH IEI - WI OBSCLIIE n. DAAN ANOD12E0 BIAIXI 3 I 1 I ~ NEV 'CUNAS INNING ~ TO REPLACE CY[SItNO I I 6 CONPOBIitON ROOFING fEARtHIONE COIORI SOFFIT AREA TYPICAL LL Q ~.I A' N ~ ~ NO110N DEi. TYPE o ~ STUCCO WALL ~ I !PAINT COLOR i0 NATCN EXISTING BLOG,1 BRACIO:1 LIGHT a i a SIDEWALK ~ ~D~ DRIVEWAY AREA m f- o I STAUCTLRAL - %/ 'VINO PALL' PALL VENTS Q "..1111!« Q S,C. DQ1R S.C. DDDX IEI PARAPET PALL - JIT~ A116N NEY YAII TYP. PROPERTY LINE --~ ~ Iffy 'CLAY TILE' SCUPPERS ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IEI 6LA55 BLOCK I. B G• IEI ALUM. SLIDING ~ i i YlruoY ICaoR DARK I~ 'ANODIZED' BLACKI ~ ~ i EKISr ING 'BNCCO VALL FINISH' I ICkAR - GRTHi9lff 'LICM'1 NE4 ALIf1. SLIDING i 4INDOY ICOION DARK 'ANODIZED' BLACKI IEI 3ID FLOOR LIIff y NEV 'GNVAS AYNiNG' i0 REPLACE IE) ~ I I PARKING LOT /DRIVEWAY I' DOTTED umluTES I I KING MALL' BEYgp / I 9 0' I I I AE4 ALIW. FIXED Gl. IEI ALI1N. FIXED GL. VINOOY !COLOR DARN YIWW I(OLOA DARK I 'AAgDIZED' BLAIXI 'ANWI2ED' BLAIXI I II I I I ERISTIN BUILDING ~ NEW ADDITION fEl BUILDING 0 G3~G~~D[~d~D [~dC~MQ4~©~I~ ~4~[~~~ I~O~~a) f,~~0~14 ' ~d~~ip4~~~ S ~ A L E: I ~ 4• = I• - G' I la.~-B,a 1~ GW1O1 B: CIN10 AI :GINS AI ,'~ i INSTALL 'CUY illE' SLIPPERS i0 MATCH IEI YNFAE SHOYN THIS ELEV. 000 INOtCATES FACE OF NEY APARTNENi BfYOM 0 0 0 NEW APT. VINDOY IN YALL BEYOND ~----~ r----~ r----~ I I I 1 I I L ~ I u __--- ~--- -- ........_. PALL' - FdFER i0 REAR ElE4Ai ION I - --- I CONPO5I TION AOOFtNG ~ NEY 'PARAPET HALL' i0 BE FLUSN YI TH IEI YALL I (EARMTONE COLOR) ~ I ------ DOTTED lNDIUifS UNIT DF IEI PARAPET YALL ~ - - J 0 0 ~ I RIVEWAY AREA II I ~ ~ ~~ 1 I ~ r___r ~ I 0 I I i D 0 I 1 I I 0~ ~ Q NEY S. C. DOOR !EI SLIDING DOORS (E)5pLlD CO(E DOOR (NOTE - PAINT COLOR EXCEPT AT LIMESTONE AREA51 TO MATCH EXIST WG BUILDING COLORS (El STUCCO WALL IREMOVE 'STUCCO' AND EMPOSE'NATUgALI LIMESTOFE AT FiRSi FLOOR AREAI C~ SLOB i0 DRAIN ~ (~ ~ ~ a Q p ~(~ D d D~R ~ ~ (~ 40 0 a - CAL E: 3 /8' = 1' -0' II 0 0 O ~~G~[~aQ~ a04C~~ 11 WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED D IMENEIONE: DO NOT SCALE DNGS. WITHOUT ASSUMING LIABILSTY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER TO `lERIFY ALL UNCLEAR DIMENSIONS. NOTE THAT ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN TO 'FACE OF "' fE-"v`r., OTED OTHERWISE. I F----~ I I NEV [ANVAB CANOPY i0 RERACE FETAL a I N I A '~I ~ iS IDEWALK J IEI ELEC. PNL I I - BUtli-1]P NINENAL (AP ROOFING DYER 1/2' ThN. Plrv00i SHEATHING TYP. 1 FRANED 'PARAPET MALL' i0 ALIGN IRI tE) BU1 LD[NG INSTALL 2 ~ 4 OF BTW AT 1d' 0.4. VITN 3/0' INIT. CDA RYVOOD IEIEARI Y/ 2 LAYERS OF GRADE 'D' BLDG. PAPER AND FINISH ~ l/B' DBt. 'BTIKCO' i0 ALIGN i NAi(N IEI 1 I I 1 I FINISHED GRADE i0 NAiCH (EI REVISIONS BY QI B0Y'02 Um W w r_.:. Z S Um O d"> ZO Ss U L Wa 7W7 ~< °m V`y; ;~~ ~7 N Z ~ In O ~ r J s~ N < H P Q~,i~m oQ~~ a ~y ~ _ cD x Z W " OW'~o ~ J'~n LL mW' ~ _ ~~ - W'F"'~ U ~ ~~ H () Qi :~ < O~ °~~ ~~~~ IC7 Dale Scale ~- Drawn AaH snrr``Nl J o', snoRts , `t ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-219; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road Applicant/Owner: Mr. ~ Mrs. Moore, Property Owners Staff Planner: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: January 22, 2003 APN: 503-29-127 Department Head~- ~~~~~, i I I ~% I ~~" ~ ~-vvocidwa~ec-~, ~~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~'; r--~~, ', ~~ ~ i .-fir- ~ ~ ~=`~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ice---~ \~~ '; ~~ ~ ~ ~"~; , ~```C I ~ ~ 7~\ ~ ~ '1 ;~ ~ I I \ GY:~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ H ~ ~i J FF~~ \ ~ '~~ r ,~ \ ~ i ' ~ o ~l o / i ~ooo I ~soo n o ~ i \ ,1~ , I ~ ~'~ ; , ~ / ~~ ~~ r r- v I ~ \ \ ( / ~ ~ ~~,- 20700 Saratoga Hills Road OOOU01 Application No. 02-219; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road Lot Coverage: Building Paving TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor (includes pool house and garage) Second Floor Basement Proposed Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 17 % 35% 4,389 sq. ft. 12,321 sq. ft. 16,710 sq. ft. 4,389 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 2,131 sq. ft. 1,043 sq. ft. TOTAL 6, 520 sq. ft. 6,520 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement *Front 35 ft. 30 ft. Rear First Floor 180+ ft. 50 ft. Second Floor 180+ ft. 60 ft. Side Left side 70+ ft. 20 ft. Right side 180+ ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. *Front setback was measured from the property line parallel to Saratoga Hil] Road. The pool house is the closest structure to the property line at 35 feet. ~~'+00~02 PROJECT DISCUSSION - The applicant requests design review approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project also includes the construction of a pool house, basement, and three-car garage. Both the pool house and garage are attached to the main residence via a common roof. The total floor area on the site is 6,520. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 98,010 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Development patterns in the area are difficult to discern because most residences are not visible from the street. The proposed residence reflects a French architectural style. Identifying features of the proposed residence include eaves flared upwards and a hipped roofline, with the ridge paralleling the front of the house. Multiple bay windows punctuate the front and rear elevations. Proposed materials include a beige stucco finish, copper accents, and a slate roof. Paving stones are proposed for the driveway. Copper Accents Copper accents are proposed for the gutters, downspouts, and roofing material of a bay window located on the front elevation. It has not been the planning comrriission's practice to approve copper accents due to the environmental impacts of this material. Consistent with that finding, staff recommends the applicant provide an alternative material. Fire laces P The proposed residence includes two gas burning fireplaces and one woodburning fireplace. An additional woodburning fireplace is located in an outdoor patio area. Consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance to limit the number of woodbuming fireplaces, staff recommends only one fireplace shall be permitted on-site. Trees The proposed project requires removal of one tree (#13) which is in conflict with the proposed building pad. The applicant requests removal of four additional diseased trees (#1- 4). The applicant also requests approval to transplant tree (#12). The city arborist report dated October 8, 2002 notes potential damage to trees #10-14, #16 and #21. The report suggests ways in which this damage maybe avoided. At staff's request, the applicant has agreed to mitigation measures prescribed by the arborist report to ensure ' preservation of trees #10=14, #16 and #21. These recommendations include revising the grading plan. Specifically, the grading and drainage plan must be revised so that grading would be limited to a maximum of 3 feet from the proposed new retaining wall. The grading and drainage plan shall also be redesigned such that the proposed drain across the root zones of these trees would be located a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of either tree. The retaining wall shall be modified to preserve trees #14 and #16. The juniper shrubs shall be removed by hand, cutting the stump at ground level and leaving the root systems in the ground. And the oleanders shall be removed by hand to save tree #21. ~00~+03 Staff recomme~ids approval of the following tree re~novals and transplants: • Tree #13 which is in conflict with the house footprint may-be removed. Two 24- inchedboxed native replacements shall be required. • Trees #1-4 which are not in conflict with the proposed project, but are diseased may be removed. One 24-inch boxed and six 36-inch boxed native replacements shall be required. • Tree #12 may be transplanted. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The vertical two-story building lines are punctuated with bay windows, balconies, roofline from the first story, and horizontal banding to reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment Natural materials and colors are proposed including a stucco finish and beige exterior. The proposed materials will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Extensive landscaping is proposed. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy Due to the extensive landscaping proposed and the letters of support submitted by surrounding property owners it can be concluded that the proposed residence will not infringe upon the privacy of existing surrounding residences. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views Views of the valley below are seen from the rear elevation of the residence. The front elevation faces a large hillside with dense mature vegetation. The hillside and vegetation preclude the proposed residence from interfering with the views of the valley as seen by surrounding residences. The height of the proposed residence which does not extend above the hillside or vegetation will not interrupt the views of any residences. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence has been oriented on the site so that the main living areas, all shaded by deep roof overhands and covered patio areas, are facing toward the southeast to optimize solar exposure. A pool cover designed to retain heat will be incorporated into the landscape design. All gas fired heating and cooling appliances, including forced air units, water heaters, and pool water heaters will be state-of-the-art high efficiency units which recycle exhaust. The insulation rating will be R-30 which exceeds state requirements. n u UOO~D04 Conclusion Staff recommends the planning commission place the following project specific conditions on the proposed project in addition to the standard conditions of approval: 1) An alternative shall be used for the proposed copper material due to the environmental impacts of this material; 2) The driveway material shall be paving stones due to the large amount of proposed paving coverage; 3) The second proposed wood burning fireplace located outside should be converted so that there is a total of only one wood burning fireplace on-site, due to the intent of the zoning ordinance to limit the number of wood burning fireplaces; 4) All landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection to minimize runoff and maximize privacy; 5) The removal of tree #13 shail be granted. Two 24-inched boxed native replacements shall be required; 6) The removal of diseased trees #1-4 shall be granted. One 24-inch boxed and six 36-inch boxed native replacements shall be required; 7) Tree #12 may be transplanted; and 8) A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the staff planner prior to building plan check submittal. The revised landscape plan shall indicate the size, species, and location of required replacement trees. The proposed residence, as conditioned above, 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 minimizes 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 reconunends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 02-219 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for application 02-219. 2. Fire Department comments, dated October 2, 2002. 3. Arborist Report by Barrie D. Coate and Associate, dated October 8, 2002. 4. Arborist report by S.P. McClenahan Co., Inc, dated August 4, 2002. 5. Correspondence received from the neighboring property owners (10) 6. Statement from the applicant on the proposed design, dated September 18, 2002. 7. Statement provided by the applicant on the effects of copper, dated November 14, 2002. 8. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". ~~0~05 Attachment 1 • ~OQ~Q~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. & Mrs. Moore; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review for the construction of a new 6,520 square foot residence including pool house and garage on a 98,010 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 required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk The vertical two-story building lines are punctuated with bay windows, balconies, roofline from the first story, and horizontal banding to reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment Natural materials and colors are proposed including a stucco finish and beige exterior. The proposed materials will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Extensive landscaping is proposed. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy Due to the extensive landscaping proposed and the letters of support submitted by surrounding property owners it can be concluded that the proposed residence will not infringe upon the privacy of existing surrounding residences. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views Views of the valley below are seen from the rear elevation of the residence. The front elevation faces a large hillside with dense mature vegetation. The hillside and vegetation preclude the proposed residence from interfering with the views of the valley as seen by surrounding residences. The height of the proposed residence which does not extend above the hillside or vegetation will not interrupt the views of any residences. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence has been oriented on the site so that the main living areas, all shaded by deep roof overhands and covered patio areas, are facing toward the southeast to optimize solar ~oooo~ Application No. 02-219; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road exposure. A pool cover designed to retain heat will be incorporated into the landscape design. All gas fired heating and cooling appliances, including forced air units, water heaters, and pool water heaters will be state-of--the-art high efficiency units which recycle exhaust. The insulation rating will be R-30 which exceeds state requirements. WHEREAS, the copper material and second woodburning fireplace are not consistent with the practices of the~planning commission nor the intent of the zoning ordinance. 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, application #02-219 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 are per the approved plans." 5. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 6. Storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. FIREPLACES: Only one wood-burning fireplace per site. 8. FENCES: shall be restricted in height, area of enclosure, materials, length, and separation pursuant to the zoning regulations. Any future fencing is subject to planning approval prior to construction. 9. An alternative shall be provided for the proposed copper material due to environmental impacts from this material. ~'00~~~ Application No. 02-219; 20700 Saratvga Hills Road 10. The driveway material shall be paving stones due to the large amount of proposed paving coverage. 11. The second proposed wood burning fireplace located outside shall be converted so that there is a total of only one wood burning fireplace on-site due to the intent of the zoning ordinance to limit the amount of wood burning fireplaces. 12. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection to minimize runoff and maximize privacy. 13. The removal of tree #13 shall be granted. Two 24-inched boxed native replacements shall be required. 14. The removal of diseased trees #1-4 shall be granted. One 24-inch boxed and six 36-inch boxed native replacements shall be required. 15. Tree #12 may be transplanted. 16. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the staff planner prior to building plan check submittal. The revised landscape plan shall indicate the size, species, and location of required replacement trees. CITY ARBORIST 17. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 18. All development review conditions-from the Saratoga Fire Department shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 19. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations (including the most recent recommendations regarding basement drainage and hydrostatic relief valve). The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 20. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface OOOt~09 Application No. 02-219; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, foundations construction, and the swimming pool prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 21. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. The as- built documents shall include a final engineering geologic cross section (at a scale of 1 inch = 40 feet) showing the house, excavations and new fill areas, swimming pool, and fill prism. 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 24. 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 22nd day of January 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~04~~~ Application No. 02-219; 20700 Saratoga Hills Road • 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 terns and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • X00011 r~ Attachment 2 ~ti00c~12 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT • A means NOT APPLICABLE #: 02-219 DATE: October 2, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE CANT: MOORE LOCATION: 20700 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. Note: water supply inadequate for fire flow needed. 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 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.) 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.) .7 ~,a 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 within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than ] 000 gallonsiminute 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 7,563 sq. ft. residential dwelling (includes pool house). A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system (no FDC) is required for all areas and buildings. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire distric for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. t moore•20700 Saratoga hills rd.wpd ~00~+13 age 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-219 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. 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. .,, B: Slopes from. 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. ,,, N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Detaila shall be shown on building plans. 12: Turn-grounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shovv~i on the building plans and approved by the fire district. ~.J 13: parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. OVED: • mooro-20700 sar<rtoga hills rd.twpd ~OO~i14 • Attachment 3 • _=_ BARRI E D. CO~E ~ _ _ ~- and ASSOCIATES '~ HorticuturalConsultants --• h,- 23535 Summit Road ``~,~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE.MOORE PROPERTY 20700 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench ' borist October 8, 2002 Job # 10-02-194 Plan Received: 9.30.02 Plan Due: 10.31.02 IU! ~~[~~~~ I(~I Ull Nou o s 2002 ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA • • w~:oooss TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC~NDATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTY, 20700 S~OGA HILLS ROAD 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 in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by The Bob Flury Design Group, Sheets 1-14, dated September 26, 2002, the Preliminary Landscape Plans prepared by Kikuchi and Associates, Half Moon Bay, Sheets L1, L2, dated September 26, 2002, and the Grading and Drainage Plans prepared by Westfall Engineers, Saratoga, Sheets C1, C2, dated September 26, 2002. Summary This proposal may expose 24 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #l3 is planned to be removed by implementation of this design. Trees #]0, l 1, 12, 14, 16, and 21 would be exposed to severe damage and would not be expected to survive unless mitigation procedures would be adopted to assure their survival. Some mitigation recommendations involve design modifications. I recommend that the owner be given the option of preserving or replacing any of these trees. However, preservation would require the adoption and diligent implementation of the recommended mitigation procedures described. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage to the trees that would be preserved. A bond equal to 30% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 24 trees on this site that are located either in the path of proposed construction or near proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number for identification in the field. There are additional trees on site, but they either do not meet the size requirement of the city ordinance or they are located well outside the proposed construction area. As one example, there are seven European olive trees (Olea europea) in the raised planter bed forming a row starting with Tree #l2, but Tree #12 is the only tree in this group that meets the trunk size requirement. In this case, Tree #12 is a multi-stem specimen. Because the city ordinance does not address multi-stem specimens, the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards regarding multi-stem trees is used to determine the total trunk diameter of this tree. The Trees #12, 17-21 are not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations are approximate. The trees are classified as follows: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8, 2002 X00017 TREF. SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC~NDATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTY, 20700 S~OGA HII,LS ROAD 2 Trees #1- 4, 15-20 - Monterey Pine (Pimss radiata) Trees #5-9 - Canary Island Pine (Pirrus canariensis) Trees #10, 11, 21 - Aleppo Pine (Pirrus halepensis) Trees #13 - Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grand~ora) Tree #14 - Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) 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 24 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens 12, 15, 16, 17, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 2 18, 21 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any that are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Tree #13 is in conflict with construction of the new residence. Tree #12 would be removed during grading and reconstruction of the entry retaining wall on the east side of the entry. Trees #14 and 16 would suffer severe root loss from grading and construction of the new retaining wall, which extends for the length of the west slope. It appears that the other trees in this cluster (Trees #15, 22, 23, and 24) would suffer moderate to minor root loss. ~~ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8, 2002 X00018 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC~DATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTI', 20700 S~OGA HILLS ROAD 3 Trees #10 and 11 would in all likelihood suffer severe root damage during the demolition and S reconstruction of the entry raised planter bed on the east side of the entry. Tree #10 may become unstable as a result of demolition of the existing garage, which is only a few feet from the trunk of this tree. The Grading and Drainage Plan shows that the reconstruction of the planter bed between the existing garage and the retaining wall would severely impact the root system of Tree #11. The Grading and Drainage Plan shows that reconstruction of the planter bed on the east side of the entry would go up to the trunk of Tree #21 and would adversely affect at least 50% of this tree's root system. There is a row of mature oleanders (Nerium oleander) on the east side of the entry between the existing rock retaining wall and Tree #21. The process of removing these shrubs, whose roots are likely intertwined with the roots of Tree #21, could result in severe root damage to Tree #21 alone, if the removals of these shrubs were done by a tractor. The procedures for removing these shrubs must only be addressed,, of course, if Tree #21 would be preserved, which would also require that the Grading Plan be revised. The existing stone retaining walls on each side of the driveway are planned to be removed and to be reconstructed. On the west side of the entry are mature horizontal juniper shrubs (Juniperiis chinensis) on the slope between the existing rock retaining wall and Trees #17-20. If these junipers were cut back by hand in order to construct the new retaining wall, it appears that this could be done without severe root losses to Trees #17-20. On the other hand, should these junipers be torn out by a tractor, it is highly likely that Trees #] 7-20 would suffer severe root damage, and these trees may not survive. There is an existing wooden retaining wall that is resting against the trunks of most of Trees #1-10. If any of these trees would be preserved, it would be essential to remove this wall by hand and to remove the soil around the root collars of these trees b~~ hand. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. A drain is proposed across the root systems of Trees #l0 and 11. If these two trees would be preserved, this drain must be redesigned. Most of the existing pine trees at this site are adapted to being irrigated by the irrigation of the adjacent planter beds. It is likely that most of the pine trees, particularly the Monterey pines (Pi~rus radiata), may decline severely, if these trees do not receive imgation during the period of construction. Landscape pathways or other hardscape that require excavation of only 4-6 inches sometimes result in severe root losses to established trees. Trenches for landscape irrigation often cause the most damage to existing trees. Recommendations 1. I recommend that Trees #10, 11, 12, 13, l4, 16, and 21 be replaced. However, if it is desirable to retain Trees #10, 11, or 21 the Grading and Drainage Plan must be revised so that grading would be limited to a maximum of 3 feet from the proposed new retaining wall. Also, it would be essential to • inspect the soil near the base of Tree #l 0 immediately following the demolition of the existing garage PREPARED BY: MICHA"r,L L BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8. 2002 X00019 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTY, 20700 S~TOGA HILLS ROAD 4 and prior to reconstructive grading in order to inspect the possible root damage to Tree #10. I believe the probable survival can only be judged at that time for this tree. This may also be a consideration for Tree #11, which is also relatively close to the existing garage. 2. If Trees #10 and 11 would be preserved, the Grading and Drainage Plan must be redesigned, such that the proposed drain across the root zones of these trees would be located a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of either tree. 3. In order to reduce the root losses to Trees #17-20, I recommend that the juniper shrubs be removed by hand, cutting the stumps at ground level and leaving the root systems in the ground. 4. If Tree #21 would be preserved, I recommend that the oleander shrubs be removed by hand, cutting the stumps at ground level and leaving the root systems in the ground. 5. 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 must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 6. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 7. I recommend that the existing wood retaining wall resting, against the trunks of most of Trees #1-10 must be removed by hand and that the soil within 5 feet of the trunks of these trees must be graded by hand. In order to prevent root injuries, no sharp tools (round point shovel, pick ax, etc.) may be used. 8. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees, unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 9. 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. 10. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 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 as reasonably feasible. 11. If the existing shrubs inside the dripline of existing trees are removed, the exposed soil following this removal must be covered by a full 4 inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire area where shrubs had previously existed. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8, 2002 OOO~20 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTI', 20700 S~TOGA HILLS RUA.D S Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 12. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. 13. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified azborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 14. Landscape pathways and other hazdscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. 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. 16. 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. 17. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 18. 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. 19. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 20. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortaz, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Trees #10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 21 are assessed as follows: Tree #10 - $ 732 Tree # 11 - $ 561 Tree #14 - $ 330 Tree # 16 - $ 561 Tree #21 - $5,092 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8, 2002 ~-OO~i21 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC~ENDATIONS AT THE MOORE PROPERTY, 20700 TOGA HILLS ROAD (~ I recommend that the owner be given the option of preserving these trees or of replacing them if they are removed or severely damaged. Thus, if mitigation procedures to preserve any individual tree were to be done poorly or inadequately, the tree may be replaced despite the decision to preserve it. The combined value of Trees #10, 11, 14, and 16 is equivalent to six 24 inch boxed native specimens. An alternative replacement value would be two 36 inch boxed native specimens. The value of Tree #21 is equivalent to four 36 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 are secured with a grower as early as possible, usually at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. The combined value of all of the other trees is $40,579. I suggest a bond equal to 30% ($12,173) of the total value of these trees to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - OuercYis lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aescuhis californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens • Respectfully submitted, ~~~o~-- ~rq,~. Michael L. Bench, Associate MLB/sl .. . Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 8, 2002 ~0~~~~ _ BARRIE D. CO/~ AND ASSOCIATES • ° , ~*~w~; _ Horticultural Consultants = r `~ '~ ~ (408) 353-1052 y :. c ' .:_ 'f.~` ~` =~ Fax (408) 353-1238 s ~ " 23535 Summit Rd. los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots. which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ~00~23 Job Title: Moore Job Address: 20700 Saratoga Hills Rd. Job #10-02-194 10.8.02 Measurements Condition Pruning/ Cablinn Nee da PeaUDlsease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D COATS i ~ i i i i i I i E 1 i a i I i ! ? l j j I i i j j i i i i i i i i~ j j i ~ ~~ j W~ ~ i i i I . and ASSOCIATES ~ Ea I d! 1 I ; ; I i .~".. , !~ z I o I j iF; i i i 1~1 ~ { ~ i y j i I W i~l j ~ W N N j j j ~I~ ~ "l (408) 3531054 ' I w I w j ~ i~ i o ~ Z j z j~ l p j~ i ~ w~ ~ o rn I p j~ l ~! U ~ ; ~ v j ~{~ i` $ `° ~ I t u_ ~ I ` vi jz ~ F zZoi i i ?id! " ~ ° w i I Iii}i~i +r ~. ~IJio k" q 8 Z353SSureilRoae ~ ~ j ~ 1 G,> ~ E l w l tr ~ z cn ~ - I z j g ? ~ I O i U l g J ip ~4 ~ g J i~ l z a. lo~Gala,G95030 ~ N I ia' 1 j v ~ io I ~ i ~ i~ i~ ~ iw z ; j o w iO p Q I O 3 sLL i~ J ~ ~ ~ i '=i iw F. o xl~ ~ i a o ~i ~ ~ ~ j ` ~ ~ ~ i ~oj ~ rn z ~jz $ Y I U ~ j v °lwjolzi~- U ~-' 1 i~ `c3ia o > x ~ T i x t~ ~ i { m a c9 I a w I ~ u~ z ~ i O o{ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ,~+ ~ w m ~ { ~ w w ~' `n { ~ j { S ~ O w t w Ke # Piant Name y ~ ~ I~ l o i o x l cn x y U i 3 U I U~ U ffi U l m c~ l o_ fY o~ fY m ? ~ z~ z ~ 1 Montere Pine 38.0 x i 109 817 j 56 j 60 50 2~ 2` 4 i i = ; i ~ j { Pinus radiate 1 i j j . in 1250 X 327/sq. in. = E 33,737 X sp. class 30% 510,121 X cond. 75% E 7,591 X loc. 60% S 4,554 Total Value 2 Moller Pine 17.0 ~ i i 21 ~ 25 35 2! 4 j 6 i i j ~ j i ~ ~ j i i t . in 227 X 3271sq. in. = 3 6,125 X sp. class 30% 31,838 X cond. 45% = 3 827 - X loc. 60% i 496 Total Value 3 Monter Pine 38.0 i 43 55 i 60 2 3 5 i ' ~ i i j j ' I I j ! i i i I . in 1134 X 527/sq. in. = E 30,606 X sp. class 30% = 39,182 X cond. 60% S 5,509 X loc. 60% 3 3305 Total Value 4 Montere Pine 32.0 j j 36 60 i fio 2 2( 4! I j ~ ' i j t i ~ I . in 804 X 3271sq. in. = 3 21,704 X Sp. class 30% = 56,511 X cond. 75% 3 4,883 X loc. 60% S 2,930 Total Value 5 Cana Island Pine 20.01 j i ~ 24 80 i so 2 j 2 j 4 i ; j j j j Pinus canarlensis ' i I : ' . In 314 X E271sq. in. = 3 8,478 X sp, class 90% 37,630 X cond. 75% S 5,723 X loc. 60% 3 3434 Total Value 6 Cana Island Pine 15 11 6o i 30 13.0 j i i 2 j 3 j 5 i j i i j i i i i I t I i i I I ~ ! i I j i i I . in 133 X 327lsq. in. = 3 3,582 X sp. class 90% 33,224 X cond. 60% 3 1,934 X loc. 60% = 3 1 161 Total Value REPLACEMENT' TREE V ALLIES N 5-gal = $36 15-gala $120 24"box = 20 36"box = $1,320 48"box 0 52"box m $7,000 72"box ,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 1 of 4 ,: • Job ~: Moore Job Address: 20~aratoga Hill$ Rd. Job #~2-194 10.8.02 Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needa PeaUDisease Problems Recommend . , I I I ! ~ i~ { , BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES i ~ v ~ ' i ~ ~ ~ j ; o ~ i ! ~~ ; i Z l F j ? i i I ~ ~ ~ ~ w l ,~ ~ ` v I o v w j~ ~ j ; ; ~ ' J I j o "1 $ 1 w ( i F j ~ z ~ z { ~ _ ~ i o { i ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ O I o ~ ~ ~ i ~ { ~ ~ 408 353.1052 I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p I 23S3S Suasil Road ~ i ~ j~ j ~ j w i j F ~ i z_ ; j~ d j w ! o! ~ ~ j Ll i U i g g ~ i~ i Z d Los Cabs, G 95030 i ~ }~ { i~ I = i ~ ~ I O ~ U{~ ~ ~~ I W Z W o_ p ~ w I J J j O{ O H O t~ ~ I 0 Q I W' W I LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ' W qp x, W ~ I p ~ j C ~ I ~~ i j ~j J I y I~ I p' i ~ Z V, W i ~ i Z' F- i~ i N ( ~ ~ i u' ~ i Q ~ i x m I i x i x p I m I m j~ Q c? i~ w a Q s 1i ! ~ pZ I o o~ ` o_ I C I o i o~~ l I o! ~ i w{ ~ m w w Z I ~ ~ i I i ~ ~ w w c~ I j W $ Key # Plant Name o I ~ o I D l o x l ~n x cn i U i Y U I U U I ~ ~ U~~ l a ~ I I ~ I z z a' ~ 7 Cana Island Pine 18.0 i i 19 i 6o j 30 2 ~ 2 i 4 1 i ~ j i i i j I i i I ; l i I { I i { i I I I I I 1 i I { I { { I . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp . class 90% _ $6,180 X cond. 75% $ 4,635 X loc. 60% _ $ 2,781 Total Value 8 Cana Island Pine 35.0 I i 37 80 50 3 I 3 6 ~ j i j ! i i l ~ , I j i I 1 { „ i i i i I I i . in 962 X 527/sq. in. _ $ 25,964 X sp. class 90% _ $23,367 X cond. 45% $ 10,515 X loc. 60% S 6,309 Total Value 9 Cana Island Pine 21.0 j i i 21 j 80 i 30 2 i 2 i 4 i i I ~ i I I ' I { I I i { I { { { I I j I I i t I . In 346 X $271sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp . class 90% _ $8,412 X cond. 75% _ $ 6,309 X loc. 60% _ $ 3 786 Total Value 10 Ale Pine 16.0 j j i 17 s5 j 20 ~ 2 j 2 j 4 j ~ I I j ~ I ~ I j Pinus hale nsis i I i { I I j I { { . in 201 X E27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 30% $1,628 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,221 X loc. 60% _ $ 732 Total Value 11 Ale Pine 14.0 i 1 15 i 55 25 2 i 2 ~ 4 i i , i i j i i j i i i i ; j l I~ ~ i l i . in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp . class 30% _ $1,246 X cond. 75% _ $ 935 X loc. 60% _ $ 561 Total Value 12 Euro n Olive 8.0 i ' x j 6.0 i 5.0 1 18161 20 1 25 i 1 i 1 j 2 j i i 1 i i ~ j j ~ ~ ~ Olea euro ea i ~ i I j' j ! i I ~ i j i I i ~ i , I . in 74 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 1,998 X sp . class 90% _ $1,798 X cond. 100% $ 1,798 X loc. 65% $ 1,169 Total Velue REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES N 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box s $5,000 52"box - $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Page 2 of 4 • • Job Title: Moore Job Address: 20700 Saratoga Hills Rd. Job #10-02-194 10.8.02 Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D COATS ` 1 i i ~ i = ; ~ Q ~ v . m ~ F 1 ' ~ ~ ~ > ~ o and ASSOCIATES m w ~ ~, { ~ ~ :, ~ ~ 1 {~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (408) 3531052 ~ ~~ 1~ c~{ I ~ Z ~ ~ F E Z O z Z ~ i z{ t o , U~~ i ~~ z_ d O 1 ~ ; y D i~~ 1 ~ p Y i~~~ w v N I~ ~ -' t o O 2353SSuwailRoad losGdo,,U 95030 ~ N ~ ~- 1 ~ ~ 1 0' ~ ~~~ i~ l ~ l w~ Z ~ a ~ ~ I ~ I D 1 O $8 I w l g l g a l w l w rc n `~ l e ~ ~ F i i~ I I w f- I D x l~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 F_ I j I D D ~ ~ I Z 1 Z I 1 Z~ j i y 1 3 1 0 1 I ~ Z_ z F I U U I J i w D I Y l O l O Z~ I~ (n I LL~~ D I~~ O > xl~ D {xlxi~ Q I c?i~ s ~ iz ~ O 1 olo oi ~ r { ~ ol~; ; w ~ ~ wE 'o w~l ~ ~ig g 1 wIw1U w ~ w ~ w $ w Key # Plant Name m m ~ m ~ D~ 1 O 1 D{ O w ~ a x 1 m x{ ~ cn { U i r ~ ~ U I U{ U{ U 1~ 1~~ a! a_ ~ ?{ ~ I D{~ i~ 1~ z{ z{ o! o: 13 Soutfiem Ma nolia 10.0 { x 1 5.0 { 4\2 1 12 1 25 1 35 2 1 1 { 3 1 ! 1 i 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 { 1 Ma nolia randiflora I I 1 ~ i 1 ~ ~ I { t 1 1 i i 1 ~ t ~ ~ 1 1 { 1 . in 97 X S27lsq. in. _ $ 2,619 X sp. class 70% _ $1,833 X cond. 90% $ 1,650 X loc. 60% = 5 990 Total Value 14 Blackwood Acacia 12.0' ` 13 140 20 1 1 2 3= 1 1 J i i k ~ ~ { 1 Acacia melano on ~ i I 1 i I i ! { 1 { 1 1 1 1 s . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 30% _ $916 X cond. 90% _ $ 824 X loc. 40% $ 330 Total Value 15 Montere Pine 14.01 1 { 15 1 30 ; 25 2 ! 1 3i 1 i 1 i( i i ~ ' _! 1 1 I I I 1 i : s l 1 I s . in 154 X 527/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 30% $1,246 X cond. 90% $ 1,122 X loc. 50% $ 561 Total Value 16 Montere Pine 14.01 ~ ~ ~ 16 ~ 40 Z 30 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 = E ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i E i l I I 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 1 . in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 30% _ $1,246 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,122 X loc. 50% _ $ 561 Total Value 17 Montere Pine 19.0 ; ` 20 1 20 40 1 { I 3 1 4 I I ! ~ 1 1 1 I i i 1 ~ ~ 1 1! 1 I I I l i l i i . in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. class 30% _ $2,295 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,722 X loc. 65% _ $ 1,119 18 Montere Pine 37.01 1 1 140 160 50 1~ 2 i 3 ~ ~ i I = _ ~ i 1 1 1 I 1 1 i ~ 1 { 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 I i in 1075 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 29,016 X sp. class 30% _ $8,705 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,834 X loc. 65% _ $ 5,092 Total Value 0 0 ~' REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES N 5-gai = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box m $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box~000 52"box - $7,000 72"box 5,000 1 =BEST, 5 m WORST ~3of4,,, • ob Ti~Moore J Job Address: 2070~atoga Hills Rd. Job #1~ 194 10.8.02 Measurem ents Condition Prunlnp/ Cablin g Needs Peat/Diaease Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (408) 3531052 23535 SuMeil Road LMGAIoS,G 95030 ey # Plant Name I ~ ; ` ~ rn ~ $ ! ~ i i I ~~ i ~ ~ j~ i ~ i F I ~ _ ~_= ~~ i~ i o - ~ ~ w a ~ I ~ i ~ i F= ! ~ = ~ ~ c7 z~ v~ i ~ ~ ~ u~ _ ; i 1 i s ; ~ ~? ~ F i Sz w~ qa 1 F ~~ F p ~ ~ i ~ z~ ~ p ~n i U i i i 1 ~ i Z ~ ~ F j ~ZI z I o i ~ I Z i y i U ~~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ o o 'tr m U U U~ I ~ z_ N ~ ~ ~ U I I i ~ i , ~ ~ i i ~_ C7 ~ w ~ O Z I w 1~ j i N ~ Z O 1 ~ i Z ~ i m 1 o w ~~ ~ l~ I a _ ~ U w ~ ~ l i I ~ i ; w ! W ~ v~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ r ~ i $~ i U I U !~ S j Y w I 0 I z w~ I~ I~~ it [] l~ ~ , ~ i o ' ~ ~ Ri o: ~ U F'- p B i ~ I ~ ~- ~ N o ~ g ~ F' p g ~ 1 i ; ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 i LL ~ ~ ~ w w w! w Z Z ~ a g ~ Z ~ o v ~ ~ o d > ! 19 Monter Pfne 20.0 i ~ ~ 1 22 ' 45 i 35 3 3 6 ~ ~ ~ 1 ! ~ _ i ' i i ~ i i i I ~' I e . in 314 X 327/sq. in. = E 8,478 X sp. class 30% = 32,543 X cond. 45% _ E 1,145 X loc. 65% = 3 744 Total Value 20 Mor>te Pine 24.0 i , 26 4 45 1 35 3 3 6 ~ ~ I = ! ~ I i i i ! I j i s ; i ! I ~ ~ . in 452 X 327/sq. in. = 3 12,208 X sp. class 30% 33,662 X cond. 45% = 3 1,648 X loc. 65% 3 1 071 21 Ale Pine 37.0 ~ 43 ! 60 50 1 2 i 3 ~ { = I ~ i ~ i ~ ~ . In 1075 X 327/sq. in. = 3 29,016 X sp, class 30% 38,705 X cond. 90% 3 7,834 X loc. 65% = 3 5092 Total Value 22 Monier Pine 15.01 ~ = 16 ~ 55 25 3 2 ; 5 ~ 1 ! l I l . In 177 X 327/sq. in. = 3 4,769 X sp. class 30% = 31,431 X cond. 60% = 3 858 X loc. 40% 3 343 Total Value 23 Monte Pfne 15.0 = 16 ~ 55 25 3 2 ` 5 ~ j I ; I I l i i I I . in 177 X 327/sq. in. = 3 4,769 X sp. class 30% = 31,431 X cond. 60% 3 858 X loc. 40% = 3 ~ 343 24 Montere Plne 16.01 i 17 155 25 i~ 3 2~ 5 i ~ i 4 i 1 i i i i I i i !! ~: ! . in 201 X 327/sq. in. = 3 5,426 X sp. class 30% 31,628 X wnd. 60% 3 977 X loc. 40% = 3 391 Total Value 0 REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ,~ 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box a $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box a $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 =WORST Page 4 of 4 BARRIE D. COAi"E 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, imgation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. ~OOC-28 31 r~ ft~11ZR11~ U- (~O;1'I~l'; !~' `~'' i`I r•_.~~I_~~f,i 1 r,Ii nN1) ASSOC~1~1•I~F,~ I'rot:ective Panting 23535 tillniniil IZrI I,os Gatos, Ca 95(13(1 - -- -------- - ---------- (40};)353-] OS2 Ilorticultulal Consulu+nts ~.OnsUIIIU(,' ArhonStS • • Cnn ;Iriu;luu~ (u~rir~Ia (ullir~Cii~~n tur IrCC : should fJe provided beloro ~r~rCluu) or other equipment is allowod on the property. 1 l ~ t ~--- \ /~~ ~ ____ -- ~ Too of fence hung with fluorescent fl-apgine tape every 10 feet. -" 6' chain ].ink or welded wire mesh B' fence Host of 2" diameter GI pine or T-ankle post " \ f 1 r~ench pia: r,d at drip line 1 -- f~~~ nr SG% ^re.~rer roan the tree canopy radius c.•!-ore possible ~ -_ ---- - - ------- ----- - ~: , ~ . ~, , ` t Wh I;or't;lrui;lipn is h~ I.Ihr~ I~I,ICt~ lxtnr,•,I(h .i lii• `;Iii~~(~y iuI i)nt~ `~1~11~, (lug Irtrrc:u ',hf~ulli I~I ~ :;il~r~:' ., it rl tir",•~vU1 I'i.Il ~ ~ ~••.Irir,.li~:i, ;.iC \__ C~ `\`.. ~~ If 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 • "lhrcc layers of wire and lath snow fen c.i.nr~ t cI Fi' above ground nn ~ i,, ~='.r t rr•rs where cnnstnrc~t i<,n r'' ~i~i QQ, x.•;11 tnl:c hl:~r~ hc`ncntl: r~,~= ~ U t I,~• c:Inr~py I n , '~ Barrie D. Coate Cr Associates (~t08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Radial T-renchin~ i-he Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Tre.~ching Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone 1'/z times the Dripline Diameter -- Md Jh~~h e ~8~~h ch es aPe P ~- - : L Dr~F~ Line \. .. J. -~~''~~`~±~ '~~~~ Shallow -_ --=.rte-=;:-~" trot -r~; absorbing :~, _ "=%~~~ - O -~ root ti s "~~,~~~,ij - _ 'day `~_.~, _ - __~~_ -- -_ ~a-r - - _ , . - ~' ~I ~~" ice,-..` _~ - _ _ __-•_ _ ~` _~ ~~' -{~% ~ _ - _ 5 times trunk diameter ~:> ~-' ~~ _- f ` - - __ -~--_._...--- //. Not ~ - - - '~~_ = ~. - ~-~ -i -- - ~~~`,, '- :;~ : Lateral line 12-inches dee~ ~,~ _ ,% ~ ~--Okay 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 Of the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. ~` O O ~~ O r~ • I~ i • • _ I ~s ' "_ ~ -- Tree Stuvey and Preservation Recommendations at the 6ARRIE D. COATE ~ and ASSOCIATES Moore Property, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road NOB13531(1554 nsrs sY..~ Rdd Prel~red for: is Las, U 95(00 City of Saratoga, Planning Departrnent HORTJCULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: October 8, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job H 10-02-194 ~ ~-, - ~_- e ~° , __. ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ N ~ I ~ / ' ~ a+a ~\~ ' I r Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. ~J ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ . :. ~~ / / - • ~ / . All dtmenstons and tree locations ~ / _ _ /_ a a ' ~ ~ ~ ~ = • ,/ / ~ ~ i ~ . ~`~ry\1 / A / / ~ \ \ ' P \ / / / \ are approximate. ~ ~ / , / <~ / c / i • ~~ / ~l/ ~. a i ~ ~ ~ ~ / r~ i/ P ~ ~ / _ -. ~- ~ vc~ w ~~ \ \-777\4J° vi ~/ I, I/' O Q+ / / / \ ~E _ III I r~ ~ \ ` ~ \ g v~ ~ I I I W ~ ~.. > _ ~ ~ J 0.1' ~." ~~o W W - o ~'" I I, I I ~ ~ ~~` ~° f ,~ ~~ ~~ ~ I I \ __ ~ ~ ~~ a~ i °~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ N ;, ~ Q321If1d~ ~NIJN~ d~J~.L02id o o ~ \ _~ ~. ~ N ~~ dQ// °"" .P~° 51~ cs ~ ~~ \~~ Ear ol__ °LZC,O ^`, d> .tip \ \\\p~ .° ~ ~= ~ -a -_~___. -__- I I b~ X12 ~~--- ~. abpa S~IIH b001b~{y~00~31 ~ t Attachment 4 ~OOt~32 ~~ JAMES M MCCLENAHAN DAVID F. MOORE JOHN H. MCCLENAHAN S.P. MCCLENAHAN CO., INC. ARBORICULTURISTS SINCE 1 9 1 1 CONTRACTORS LIG. x651 341 it 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028 TELEPHONE (650) 326-8781 FAX (650) 854- 1 267 Kikuchi & Associates Attention: Mr. Chris Kankel 730 Mill Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 RE: Moore Residence 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive Saratoga, California GARYF ARMSTRONG GENE K PEGLOW MIGUEL A BERUMEN August 4, 2002 Ivn~ I~(~[~~I~[~I uu ~<w i s 2002 J CITY OF SARATOGA ^~er~t IAIITV nr-1rF1 no•..-.. Dear Mr. Kankel: As requested, I performed a brief visual inspection of four Monterey pines to determine general condition. The four trees are located at the left front of the property. They are mature and rapidly approaching mortality. Red turpentine bark beetle is evident on the low trunk area. It is likely these trees will succumb to various bark beetle infestations, water and environmental stresses, and die within five years. I recommend removal and replacement with a more suitable species. A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for all remaining Pine trees on the property and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the period of May 1St through October 31St. Irrigation is to be applied at or about the `dripline' in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of water for each inch in trunk diameter. Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, 'soaker' or permeable hose. When using `soaker' or permeable hoses, water is to be run at low pressure, avoiding runoff/puddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soil to feeder_ root depths. • e~00~+33 Kikuchi & Associates Attention: Mr. Chris Kankel Page 2 August 4, 2002 We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concerns. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these concerns, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, S. P. McCLENAHAN CO. ZINC. l; B J hn H. McClenahan, Vice President Y Certified Arborist WC-ISA #1476 member, American Society of Consulting Arborists JHMc: pm • • • ~OOt~34 C7 Attachment 5 • ~oo~~s November 9, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Road Dear Planning Commission: ,~~ [~~~~I~~ If~l u~ Nov i s 2002 LJ CITY OF SARATOGA ^"~Mf IN(TV (1F1/FI nn~ r~ We have reviewed the Moore's house plans and in general, are very satisfied with the design and placement. We have several questions to ask the Commission to review, although the City staff may have already adequately reviewed them. First question is about the definition of "side yard" and "front yard" for this piece of property. We just want to maize sure that the buildings are tucked back far enough from the road. Second question is about the drainage system for this design. Since our hillsides get a great deal of rain water and the runoff can be tremendous, «~e just request that you help the Moores'design an adequate drainage system not totally based on running down the street. Street runoff already ends up as a gusher at the bottom of the hillside and is often flooding the neighbors at the confluence of the public and private part of Saratoga Hills Road. Third question focuses on the building process. Saratoga Hills Road is not as sturdy as some other roads on the flatlands in Saratoga, so we would like a discussion on a limit to the size or weight of the construction trucks using the road. Thank you. We look forward to our new neighbors completing their beautiful new home in a timely manner. Sincerely, Rick and Ann Waltonsmith 21060 Saratoga Hills Road • r~ • ~OOt~36 Page 1 of 2 • To: The Planning Commission Saratoga, CA 95070 From: Laurie Girand and Scott McGregor 21421 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 cc The Planning Department Saratoga, CA 95070 The Moore Family, 20700 Saratoga Hills Rd. The Waltonsmith Family, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd. The Sturm Harris Family, 21400 Saratoga Hills Rd. RE: Property of the Moore Family 20700 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Plannin Commission g , We are the downhill and nextdoor neighbors of the Moores who have submitted designs to the City for approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. We are writing in support of their application. The Moore's plans are tasteful, fit in well with the neighborhood and follow City guidelines for minimizing the impression of the overall shape of the house. We believe it has been placed in an appropriate location on the property. The outward facing side of the hill, where they do not plan more than pool construction, is uncompacted fill. We therefore appreciate the effort they have made to keep heavy machinery away from the edge of the hillside. We are also happy with the landscaping plans outlined to us by the Moores. We respectfully request that the City not require any additional "fast growing, screening" trees beyond those already planned by the Moores. The Saratoga Hills Rd. neighborhood has quite a rural feel to it, with its old, oak studded beauty, and we are not desirous of seeing gratuitous, fast growing "non neighborhood" planting for the sake of unnecessary screening. We believe that the Moores have worked hard to develop a drainage plan that works in both the neighbors' and their interests just as we did when our house was constructed ifrom 1993-1994. However, after our home was built, we encountered an unexpected issue. Though we ~~~~y3'7 11/12/2002 hdd very good civil engineering plans for drainage which included excess capacity, the subcontractor on the project did not examine the plans closely and put in less capacity than was designed. Neither the city nor we caught this discrepancy until long after the pipes were buried under hardscape. We ask only that the city ensure that the Moores receive any assistance they might need in ensuring the same does not happen to them unintentionally. We very much look forward to having them as neighbors. Sincerely, Laurie Girand and Scott McGregor Page 2 of 2 • • • o-00+~38 11/12/2002 • w. nonaw Heza 4aratno~ r ~ ncn-,., -o-. w~v Hnm~ fdr1R~ o~~ ~~... far !dl141 o.co n-f ~n ;a- t!: n _, ray[: /~O~'~ ~~d-C1.~S0 From: , „ ~%c:k,; i-i Re: ,~ ~ . v ~, .• C~y~rri .~('l rages: ,~% (including coves sheer) ~ „~.~~ Message; - o ~ _ . C~~O ~.> _ .v -- ~ ~,,,_.,._,... ,_,.n - ,~ e cG ~~~ ~~.~ ~- ~~ • 0;0039 Ld Wd9~:90 i'00z SZ 'AOGJ 05£0-898-80d-T 'af Xtld HJNHb Pl~lnQNti21~J Q"1~ W021d r -- ^OV ~~ 02 03:55p Pelio 6 Aseooiete~ Planning Caaaiissioa J3777 Fm:~rpt~. p,.r ..~,` Sszatoga, Cslifomia 9gmn Ke: ,~-pptipdon for D~a~ga Reviow tiir. anc Mrs. Rob Moore ~n~.,~ .. w •w J1,1"i1o~ MILS ~jVe Deer COn:1f111S10!!!tJ' ~ hsve rc~~'adthedrawjgts sssoartcd with the ehav..«C ..,..~ _~,:---'-- i•iury 1as¢igss (np~yD 7Dd dated ._ . _ ._._.r.._,,,..lyuwuauti yieparsC Oy 1de Bob _ September Z6, 20U2. As a heiehbrxjne.,.r.....~. ~YuuuUll_ ir• r~••j v.~...T•.iii~,}1131Z 1411! Smcercly, t w~~<11:~~; 11. Yamc: Don Hasd Drte: // `,2G ~OZ' pal ~ 303 Z9 126 408 872 95D5 P.2 • • zd Wd9~:96 Z0~ S2 '^~N 0S£0-898-80h-~ "ON Mid ~+00~40 H7HtR! 1731/1QhRi2lJ Q"10 4C72J.~ • Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed the drawings associated with the above referenced application, prepared by The Bob Flury Design Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a neighboring property owner I. support this application. Sincerely, ~/ • , Name: Bonnie B. Ruling Date: ~/ _- / 3_ D o2., Address: 21161 Michaels Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~00~~1 • Ytannin~ Commission ('1TY (1F 4ARAT(1C:A 1 i777 Frnitv~lP AVPn7rfP 4arat~na ('alifnrnia 4Sn7n ite: Auplication for DesiQ_n Review Mr and 1Virc. Rai, Mfl(1rP. ~(17n(} ~aratnna Hille ilrivP Uear Commissioners: i have reviewed the drawings associated with the above referenced application; nre0ared by The Bob Flurv Design CTrOIlD and dated Senternher ~F ~.nm Ac a nPiah hnrino n:nnPrhi lllirT PT' 1 .., „ , support this application. Sincerely, Name: Tom and Diane Howell 1 Date: i~/ 2sIU Address: 2I450 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 ~~0~4~ NOU 1 8 2002 CITY OF SARA TOGA ^.nATr11ITIITY nC~rF-~ nr~,_ Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 - Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive - Dear Commissioners: i have reviewed the drawings associated with tine above referenced application, prepared by The Bob Flury Design Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a neighboring property owner I support this application. Sincerely, ~? 1~ Name: 'Steve Harris and Marlena Sturm Date: Address: 21400 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~00~43 ~~~o~ ~ NOV 1 8 2002 Planning Commission CITY OF SAR.4TOG.4 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive llear Commissioners: CITY OF SAItATOGA ^sAMiIN1TY I1F~~F~ nn~r.-' T have reviewed the dra~~•ings associated with the above referenced application, prepared by The fiob i~ lury Design Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a neighboring properh~ o~~ ncr 1 support this application. SincerclY, •) 1 / Tame: 13arr~~ and Suc Chang ~`~'~'"7 ~ ~~_ ~~ ~~ Date: //-j1- -~ ~ / /~ :'lddress: P.O. Bo:c 25'3 / Cupertino, Cn 95015 ~/ -,: I i....~-'~ ~? i /~~~ ~7 `~'" ,107--~ %~ . . • - • • • j..rj~~~'~~ • Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA ] 3.777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive Dear Commissioners: I nave reviewed the drawings associated with the above referenced application, prepared by The Bob Flury Design Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a neighboring property owner I support this application. y Sincerely, ~~ i Name: Sang K. and Il S. /Lee Date: % f /(~ ~/ ~ ~ Address: 21 ] 93 Michaels Drive Saratoga, CA 9070 uu Noy ~ 8 zooz ~~i CITY OF SAItA•1'OGA r`~~MIINITY nF.VFf (1P~~r~ • Ili~~~~+.Jl`3J ~:~ ~ ~ ~. November I, 2002 Dear Susan and Rob, :Iud~ing from the plans you sent us, your new house will look terrific. While it is always sad to see even a little bit of "history" toi-~~ down (talk to our mutual neighbor, Don Head, to hear about some of the people who were entertained at the property in the Ritter days), the current stricture is more a penthouse than a family dwelling and its removal was inevitable. We're pleased with your decision to place the new building more or less on the old footprint and like the way it embraces the center of the property through the detached garage and pool house. Your house will make excellent use of a unique site and ~~~ill be a plus to the neighborhood. Carol and I wish you best of luck with the Planning Commission and with constillction. Sincerely, Tom Lustenader 21355 Saratoga Hills Road ,J~ [~6~~~~ ~fl~ IIU NOV 1 8 2002 U CITY OF SARATOGA *nrAiINITV ncvcl n • • ~.~oo~4s Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed the drawings associated with the above referenced application, prepared by The Bob Flur_v Design, Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a neighboring property owner l support ibis application. Sincerely, ~ . r sL; L"~~ ,.. _ , ~7 Name: Tom and Carol Lustenader Date: ~ ~ _- Address: 21355 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~-00~4'7 ,Jl ~~~~~'~ III; IIU NOV 1 8 2~~Z U CITY OF SARATOGA ~nn~411U1TY nF~ir-i ~n* „- Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13 777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Application for Design Review Mr. and Mrs. Rob Moore 20700 Saratoga Hills Drive Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed the drawings associated with the above referenced application, prepared by The Bob Flury Design Group and dated September 26, 2002. As a nei~l~boring property owner I support this application. y Sincerely, - ~~~ ~- > - .~% _ ~= ~ ~ ~~ ~.. / / ~' ~`~" _ Name: Michael and Kimberly Uhl Date: ~, ~% ~~~`~1 v~ Address: 20972 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 ~1 ~ ~~ ^ ; ,~ i ~' • • • k..,jO0i~~8 • Attachment 6 • ~~~00~49 c 1 _ _-~ ~_ _ ~_ o.r _3 G = _ ~~. - , 2r~ie Rod ,~lur~ ~esi~n Group September 18, 2002 Planning Commissioners City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: The Moore Residence 20700 Saratoga Hi1Ls Drive Deaz Planning Commissioners: The attached application and supporting documents illustrate our proposal to demolish an existing residence and detached garage at the above referenced property, replacing them with a new 5,210 square foot main residence with a partial second floor and partial basement, a 657 square foot pool house, and a 684 square foot garage. Over the course of the last several months, Mr. and Mrs. Moore have worked diligently with me, and other members of our design team, to create a project that we believe exemplifies harmony with the existing rural fabric of the City of Saratoga. Great care has been taken to not only comply with all aspects of the City's zoning regulations, but to utilize all of the various techniques published in the City's Residential Design Handbook to achieve the intent of the City's residential design policies. The following is a brief discussion regarding the methods successfully utilized to employ the specific design techniques listed in the City's Residential Design Handbook: Policy # 1: Minimize Perception of Bulk Technique # 1: Minimize changes to natural topography The decision to purchase this particulaz piece of property for development of their new home was based primarily on Mr. and Mrs. Moore's appreciation for the chazacter of the existing topography. Under their direction, we have designed the improvements to minimi~.e topographical impact. The new home has been located in the same location as the existing, utilizing the current flat building pad. Our landscape architect has designed the driveway access into the property to correspond with the existing access, requiring only a minimal amount of grading to improve emergency vehicle access. Our proposed landscape improvements have been carefully designed to eliminate the need for any substantial site grading, and to minimi~.e the use of retaining walls. Other than the RESIGNERS OF FII~TE HOMES ~0 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ AVEwUE SUITE 104 LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA 95030 (40S) 395.1519 FAX (408) 395-P~ ~i.ys© • • 2. excavation for the basement and swimming pool, the minor amount. of site grading proposed has been substantially balanced between cut and fill. The main residence has been designed with the second floor set back into the roof from the rear wall of the first floor in an attempt to merge the building into the topography of the existing hillside. Technique # 2: Follow hillside contours All of the proposed improvements have been designed to fit on the site parallel to the existing contours. The horizontal elements of the design, such as roof overhangs, short retaining walls, and landscape steps have been designed to follow the existing contours. By locating the buildings on the flat portion of the site, we have eliminated the need for downhill cantilevers, tall supporting columns, and deep crawl spaces, contributing to the perception of less bulk. The slope of the roof at the rear patio has been reduced to a more shallow pitch than the main body of the roof in an effort to follow the slope of the hillside with that of the roof. Technique # 3: Use materials and colors to reduce bulk • The exterior facade of the proposed buildings will utilize a stucco finish on the walls with an integral color in a low range of reflectivity. The stucco will be softened through the use of cast concrete detailing pigmented with an earthy limestone color, consisting of banding, intended to create horizontal proportions, and door and window surrounds. Large expanses of stucco wall surfaces have been eliminated through the strategic massing of the building facades, combined with the introduction of various architectural elements, such as roof overhangs, organized window placement, and detailed amenities, such as the carriage house doors planned for the garage. Technique # 4: Minimize building height While a portion of the proposed roof structure has been designed to reach the maximum height allowed by the City's regulations, this area represents only 7 % of the roofed area. Through the use of strategic massing, limiting the size of the second floor, minimizing attic spaces, and setting the highest portions of the roof back from the building facades, we have successfully mite :sated the impact of the proposed building height. Technique # 5: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood The architectural style of the existing neighborhood can only be characterized as diverse. Neighboring properties to the east and west both contain rather large two-story residences. The property to the west actually contains multiple two-story structures. A ~~0~51 • • 3. ' 1 serve of the nei hboring properties will conclusively demonstrate that the brief physics y g size, proportions, mass, and height of our proposed improvements are compatible with the neighborhood trend. The orientation of the buildings on the property has been carefully studied, and the final locations selected, with the specific goal of avoiding the attention of passers by. While we believe that the proposed improvements are compatible with others in the neighborhood, we have purposely oriented the buildings in such a way as to create the perception of understated development. Technique # 6: Use architectural features to break up massing Through the use of a variety of architectural forms, such as the Dining Room projection with a bay window, the projections of Bedroom # 2 and the Master Bath Suite at the second floor, we have successfully created a variety of rooflines and punctuated wall expanses to break up the masses. The combined use of vertical elements, such as the Entry-door assembly, the Dining Room bay window, and the vertical orientation of the window and French door muntin bars, with horizontal elements, such as the cast concrete banding and extensive roof overhangs (particularly on the rear elevation), have also contributed to reducing the perceived mass of the buildings. Policy # 2: Integrate Structures With Environment Technique # 1: Use natural materials and colors The material palate selected for the exterior of the buildings was chosen, primarily, to reduce the visual impact of the development. Natural stone slate for the roof, earth-toned, low reflectivity integral-colored stucco, and limestone pigmented cast concrete elements have been combined to visually blend the structures with the natural surroundings. Earth- toned plaster site walls, paving materials with natural colors and textures at the driveway areas, and liberal planting of trees and shrubs have all been incorporated into the landscape design in an effort to create a timeless setting, complimenting the natural topography of the vicinity. Technique # 2: Integrate with environmental texture and forms The use of harsh geometric forms has been avoided. Gently sloping natural roof lines, combined with a slight curve at the eaves lend an organic quality to the structural forms. The buildings have been located in approximately the same location as the exi~-ting development; with the specific intention to avoid interferences with ridgelines, and to fit in with the local hillside terrain. ~~~~is~ • ~ • ° Technique # 3: Use landscaping to blend structure with environment Preservation of the existing natural perimeter landscape has been a priority on this project from its inception. Our landscape design team has, through the use of native vegetation, and preservation of the natural character of the existing terrain, developed a landscape design that truly compliments the proposed structures, framing them in a timeless setting of natural flora, while providing perimeter screening that will render the proposed development virtually invisible from off site. Technique # 4: Integrate all structures on a single site All three structures on the site have been integrated under a single roof structure through the use of breezeways and covered patio areas to create a single form on the site and to preserve open space. Consistency has been maintained throughout all of the structures in the use of architectural detail elements, ~.olors, materials and roof slopes. Technique # 5: Blend roof and parking structures with environment As mentioned earlier, the criteria for exterior color and material selections has been harmony with the natural setting. Organic, non-reflective wall finishes, and a natural slate roof have been specified as a means to achieving this goal. Except for a small overflow parking area that will be screened from off site view, paved areas have been limited to modest patios and walkways adjacent to the buildings and-the pool, providing minimal outdoor entertainment areas and circulation patterns. The driveway area, designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, will be surfaced with pavers, providing natural colors and textures to de-emphasize the necessary expanse. Technique # 6: Integrate fences and walls with structures and setting Retaining walls have been utilized in our design only to the extent necessary to provide the required vehicular access to the site, and to provide a pedestrian transition area from the parking area to the buildings. Where used, these retaining walls have an average height of approximately 2', with a maximum height of 5' at selected short lengths. Where 5' tall walls are required, the downhill sides have been screened with vegetation. Further, these walls are proposed as replacement for existing deteriorating walls, in approximately the same locations, with very little new grading proposed. All new retaining walls will be faced with earth-toned plaster, designed to integrate with the natural surroundings. The use of solid sound walls, and other visual bamers has been avoided, relying instead on the liberal use of vegetation to address screening and on-site privacy issues. ~~00~53 r s • 5. Transparent perimeter fencing has been cazefully studied and designed to integrate with the topography of the site and minimise visual impact, while still providing adequate pool security. Policy # 3: Avoid Interference With Privacy Technique # 1: Control view adjacent to properties Having studied lines of sight from neighboring properties, we have found that there are no neighboring structures that will have a direct view of our proposed development. Views from the north and east will be entirely obscured by landscape screening (both existing and proposed). We have intentionally located the buildings some distance from the downhill eastern side of th~~ property, where the existing topography interrupts lines of sight to adjacent properties. The small azbor patio and adjacent vegetation at the southern end of the lazge lawn azea has been strategically designed and placed to screen views from properties to the south. • All second floor windows have been oriented towazd long-distance views, away from neighboring properties. Further, all buildings have been set back considerably further from property lines than the minimum distances prescribed by zoning regulations. Techni ue # 2: Locate buildin s to minimize rivacy im act 9 g P P As discussed above, all buildings have been located to eliminate visual impact to neighboring properties. All setbacks have been increased, and the second story has been situated so as to preserve the privacy of both the Moores and their neighbors. Technique # 3: Use landscaping to enhance privacy Existing perimeter evergreen trees and shrubs will be further augmented with additional evergreen trees and shrubs to insure complete privacy to both the occupants and their neighbors. Although the proposed buildings will be completely screened from off-site views, the proposed landscaping has been tastefully integrated with the buildings, through the use planting areas adjacent to exterior walls, to further soften the on-site visual impact. Aside from four existing Monterey Pine trees slated for removal at the northeastern corner of the property, no existing significant vegetation is to be removed. (The four trees mentioned aze being removed at the recommendation of our certified azborist. These trees are seriously diseased, and are not expected to survive.) • ~Q0~54 • • 6. • Techni ue # 4: Reduce noise im acts on ad'acent dwellin s 9 P l g Given the size of the subject parcel, the dense perimeter landscape screening, and the proximity of proposed development to property lines and neighboring development, no noise impact is anticipated. Technique # 5: Control exterior light sources Other than those required by the Uniform Building Code, the number of exterior light fixtures will be limited to those necessary to illuminate the pedestrian path from the parking area to the building entrances, to provide minimal illumination at the covered exterior entertainment areas, and to provide safe circulation at elevation transitions in the hardscape. The light fixtures selected will cast indirect light, and will comply with all city lighting ordinances. Policy # 4: Preserve Views And Access To Views Technique # 1: Locate structure to minimize view blockage As discussed earlier, the topography of the subject site and neighboring parcels is such that no negative view impacts are anticipated. Technique # 2: Maximize view but avoid conflict with privacy The proposed development leas been placed on the site such that the main living areas have been oriented toward the high-quality views, while maintaining the privacy of neighboring property owners and preserving their views. Technique # 3: Locate structure to reduce height impact By locating the structures in the central area of the existing flat portion of the parcel (in approximately the same location of the existing structures), we have found the optimum setting for reduced height impact. This location eliminates the need for tall under floor crawl spaces and large downhill facing facades that would otherwise be elements of the structural form, should a hillside building location have been selected. Line of sight studies have indicated that there will be no blockage of views currently enjoyed by neighboring homeowners. The existing hillside, at the uphill portion of the parcel, is approximately fifty feet higher than the highest portion of the proposed rooflines, creating a backdrop for the building as viewed from the downhill side. The proposed structures have been designed to visually preserve the natural ridge line of the existing hillside, with no interruption by man-made forms. ~~OO~SS • Policy # 5: Design For Energy Efficiency 7. Technique # 1: Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The proposed development has been oriented on the site so that the main living areas, all shaded by deep roof overhangs and covered patio areas, are facing toward the southeast to take advantage of the beautiful views, while optimizing passive solar exposure. The garage has been situated toward the north. A pool cover, designed to retain heat, will be incorporated into the landscape design as a passive solar heating feature. Technique # 2: Landscape to control exposure to sun and wind Since our site is bounded on three sides by matwe dense vegetation, the natwal setting will provide controlled exposwe to both sun and wind. Sun exposwe, particularly, will be limited by the uphill dense growth of native trees to the west of the proposed buildings. Technique # 3: Allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes • As discussed earlier, the proximity of ow proposed development to neighboring development is such that there will be no impact to light, air, or solar access to adjacent homes. Technique # 4: Incorporate energy-saving devices into the design As currently planned, all gas-fired heating and cooling appliances, including forced air units, water heaters, and pool water heaters will bespecified asstate-of-the-art high efficiency units which recycle their exhaust. Further, by utilizing 2x6 exterior wall framing, we have created thick exterior wall cavities. These cavities will be packed with R-30 insulation, where California State Energy Commission regulations require only R- 19. According to the preface contained in the City's Residential Design Handbook, the above policies and techniques embody the intent of the findings that must be made for design review applications, and serve as a basis for yow design-related decisions. As has been demonstrated above, and yow review of ow application documents will verify, careful consideration has been given to each of these policies and techniques. I trust that you will agree, and support ow project as submitted. Sincerely, ~~- Bob Flury r: ~u~Ot~56 • Attachment 7 • ~OOt~5~7 ~lrl Associates Environmental Consultants November 14, 2002 ~~~~~~ NOV 1 8 2002 Ms. Rob Moore CITY OF SARATOGA 14573 Big Basin Way ~*ennnN~Tv nF~~ci ~°"'- Saratoga; CA 95(_170 Reference: Proposed New Residence at 20700 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, Ca;ifornia Subject: Copper Release from Proposed Copper Gutters and Downspouts Dear Mr. Moore: You have requested that RM Associates (RMA} comment on the potential stormvvater pollution effects of copper released by the installation of copper gutters and downspouts at the referenced Proposed new residence. Apparently, the use of copper gutters and downspouts might be precluded if roof runoff from the buildings (through copper gutters a*:d do~arrspouts) poses a significant hazard to surface water or groundtivater resources. The assessment of copper release from the gutters and down spouts, presented herein, is based upon information provided by a study commissioned by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, reported as "Architectural uses of Copper, (An evaluation of stormwater pollution loads and best management practices). "1'he report was prepared by Tomas S. Barron, PE, dated November 2000, and revised (revision 2) March 2001. The assumed volume and disposition of roof runoff from the proposed structures at the referel~ced property is based upon building and landscape design data provided by your office and by available meteorological data for the vicinity of Saratoga. Based on a limited review of this information, RMA has estimated that an expected annual roof runoff ~ti~ill carry art estimated (approximate) 25.9 grams of copper from the proposed copper gutters and do«nspouts. Of this amount it is roughly estimated that an appro:~imately 8.3 grams of copper will leave the property as sheet Pow and terminate on paved surfaces, thus having the potential to reach San Francisco Bay. Most, of the remaining runoff water containing copper is expected to terminate in on-site and off-site landscape areas. The basis for the quantification cited above is presented in Attachment A.- Rationale for Assumptions and Quantification. • • To put the estimated potential of copper discharge (8.3 grams er ear to surface runoff in context, copper discharge allowed under specific site permits for wastewater discharges to the San Francisco Bay under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) varies in amounts from 3 to 10 grams ep r day depending upon the rate of «~ater discharge. O$ice: 209-295-6218 Fax:209-295-3974 16401 Meadow Vista Drive, Suite 102 -Pioneer CA 95666 E-Mail: RMichelson@volcano.net ~d~0~s8 The concentration of copper in the roof runoff water, resulting from copper gutters and downspouts is estimated to be approximately 0.095 milligrams per liter (mglL). This concentration is less than 10 percent of the either drinking water action level (1.3 mg/L.) or the secondary maximum contaminant level (MCT.) for copper in r1_rirlt~ng U~areT (l.n me/Ll. Based upon our limited assessment, it is RMA's opinion that the anticipated amount of copper release fIO,;. the jyr~yvsCd gutters aI'id dowTispvilts IiOSCS a iiegilgi'ole iid2ztru iu cth~r ~ ace water or groundwater resouri:es. Therefore, no compelling environmental uei;et viii be realized by precluding the installation of copper gutters or downspouts at the referenced proposed new residence. It is important, in this regard, to draw the distinction between the installation of copper gutters and downspouts and the installation of a complete copper roof; which would have had a far greater impact. We hope this information responds to your request. If you have any questions regarding the above, or regarding the attached supporting documentation, please do not hesitate to call. Cordially, RM ess~ei~tes Ronald i'v. iviicheison, i<G rrincipal Geologist • ~00~59 Attachment A. Rationale for Assumptions and Quantification Assumptions and quantification are based primarily on the following sources. 1) Building and landscape plans and informal information provided by The Bob Flury Design Group 2) "Architectural Uses of Copper", (An evaluation of stormwater pollution loads and best management practices), prcpazcd for tthe Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan by Tin-tas S. ;3arron, T, ^ _ ' ' P~ ncvtstoii 2 dateu ~vlarcn BOO i . Tlie total assumed roof runoff volume is based on estimated annual rainfall and a projection of the horizontal area of each building structure, (not roof area) plus 5 percent assumed for roof overhang. The estimated areas for the Main House, Garage, and Pool House aze as follows: House 3,225 square feet Garage 720 square feet Pool House 690 square feet Total 4,635 square feet An assumed annual rainfall of approximately 25 inches per year is based upon available nietcoruiogicai data for general vicinity of the City of Saratoga. Therefore the annual roof runoff for each structure is approximately 15.55 gaitons per square foot: House Garage Pool House Total 50,000 gallons 11,000 gallons 10,500 Gallons 71,500 gallons Please refer to March 2001 report cited above. Predicted Copper Release Exihibit 13. presents the predicted copper releases from new copper gutters and downspouts fora 2,00 square foot home. The total predicted annual amount of 14 grams was expanded for the referenced proposed Saratoga residence by 14 gms/year X 4,635 ft~=2,500 h'` = 25.98 gms/yr. The resultant quantity (gms/yr) is considered conservative. The relationship between length of gutters and surface azea is not necessarily linear, v~rith the likelihood being that the estimated copper release from gutters/downspouts is over estimated. • 3 • ~oooso I Iu v l G ~t_ uv . U l r 1- C 1 1 U O[ (icy,,, ~;.0 V C5 lUO O . .iJU.. ~- . • Copper Terminating on Paved Surface (Thus having potential for reaching S.F. Bay) The Bob Flury Design Group, after consultation with involved geotechnical and civil engineers, estimated that appmaimately 2S percent of the roof runoff from the main house will. make its way to the street. That at least 50 percent of the roof nlnoff (possibly more) from the garage, and approximately 20 percent of the runoff from the FOCI house wilt find its Way to Ctty' Streets. Based upon pIOVldcd Inl`vri]iaii0li 1Z~'~1,"-, lam; conservatively assumed that 25 percent of the roof runoff for the house, 75 percent of L'ne roof runofr'~ for the garage, and 20 percent of the roof runoff from the pool house will find the surface drainage system with potential to reach San Francisco Bay. The total anticipated runoff finding its way to the street is therefore: House 50,000 gallons X 0.25 = 12,500 Garage 11,000 gallons X 0.75 = 8;250 Fool House 10.500 Qallons X 0.20 = 2 100 Total 71,500 gallons 22.800 22,800 _ 71,500 = 0.319 0.319 X 25.98 gms.~year =8?8 grams/year =amount with potential to reach SF Bay. • Average Copper Concentration in Roof Runoff ~'Vater X,500 gallons = 270,628 liters 25.98 gms _ 270,628 liters = 0.095 milligrams per liter. (mg/L) 1\'ote: No differentiating physical factors, other than annual precipitation, between the vicinities of Pgl~. A ltd, anra C3r''..tQ^~3 `.Vere L^.C^.r^Or3t,°,d :r.20 tl;: d~r2~'3t;'Jr,S. ThCS.°. V:C:11LI 7r:C1L"~~°. Y u for examples, pH levels of the precipitation and coastal cffccis (salinity) etc. The amount of copper release from the gutters and downspouts was not adjusted for the higher amount of precipitation (Saratoga vs. Falo Aito.) The above cited March 2u01 report indicates that increased frequency of precipitation decreases the amount of copper corrosion (and release) from gutters by flushing away corrosive organic materials. Ignoring both these factors, while not having a major effect on the outcome, tend to make the analysis presented more conservative. • t~00t~61 Y • .7 I,: i' / I -. ~~' .. i f 1 y~ C 5 f q Os ANEW RESIDENCE; FOR: ~~~ `a k aR ' a ~ '~ o z n m ,o S`~ <a . v `kl .re ~ ~ ~~ ~5 - D o V a {~` VV N ~ p t v ~ . ' ry ~ "' N J 20700 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA „4_ u '_ :~' ' z General Notes Consultants Sheet Index W ~ K ~ said?? , ~ ~m l S Il'~_° I'~~`_If, ° . :. ?G 7S8reL No. ° Droxdng ShruNa DreWing ,. a ~, y T \ FI~lI ~~~I~: ~G '~./ - G~ENE_R_A_L_~N~1'E~S~:- LUMBER R~~F~fNFUx~ I_NC: ~T~Ef_L: , . T~;L <.y q 1y . „'. .h:Ui FTu ` NEftti^,~ 1M'f 1;-15i - . .. Tnee~4r f man - w,nr M ~ d.,r '"m wwh,be x~aN~~dlx,n. Ad.d~b>wrt~ay a,e Hla °~r'ti 7h:: ~ - _ . _ . . . , ~ - sballg;rveml ^f rtr Mdnrc hlbukl F h0. and rcWJ:n u4ull ~ ) oA57.Al. A6isMl rW d x 1 F-+ol ~ d w Mu rc64reard roe weWsrobe l~k' ,T:'~'W.%\ ,IS..°,'^Ai0 - ~ - - - - na.e~rr. M Mrdorom.w :na hnWwr~,nmaaM~wrrdwrn~ wvr m4~ rrtg , m a we e Www6rAtrwvp+rr6an/anle n~va,p~A.rA1, ar ~advra~meW .r~u B ro : (46a`,ebi o:ra - :I1E-°Cn~, ti_ANnLY315 vKINItY, MAP _. rc rcm /kv Jr s rnJmv s. Mrdro pn; p+redbX u.e,[~snworo ~~I. UnlesrrwkA whernnemrplans all IZm Na4aWsmldW.shallkafprude e5mrcwW W4 ng Calr Ol; l,l-W OJBrrdmerinn Web3ng ~ ~H~.n ,hNG'1-v?'~. ~ F/~C ~~ iU ~+/1vy - a n ~~f -~ V ^ ~i~v ss - , driiRr!m adrq!(4rvh hrmf iGnR hWl hr per U9 L. roMe 73 I0. JU mvl Far NOS urullmpmrlmilko/ ,burry. Rimboindd/6r EA70~XY _ ' y. v ~ , i I v. r rbrl >r~ d nWl t S h l ~ waa r I G G \I~I~NI ~'~'^~lA 1 li I l / l1 I ~ '.lh¢Glve IGM eyrnMlj ~ ur nwcs re PrM a a m C M W/R ed yuW of aW lm All try/ yhvsshaflMr4lLirJurEe 9~kdrmr ihdl been occardmae ie ^s~d ~ . TSOM%; TC T 4 Ja IS ,~~VIeV p~fZ P~'_n:~ n~Abo, p dlw~, ~ R P~ U -n ~ roa rmnm ,wuk nwm.f an. M /P7 W rem¢m Ir+ M wlc M~r,ornmwr. ' v ~ ~~ti~m. PraMxra^ ,~ _,. ~ . ,.. t1,'AtG}l 1Y, Lr 940.°~- - F _ o!./'rN F~,1 f~ ~~ " - - .. - am Y All RPI'n JW1MIapPrdn ~ A M l h G d' ?0 f mmf1 prr 7991 D8.C,rG-' 0f `A)6- r0~ .. . ' ry: m/p anuern n rrn rssr an Prcm 4. I ae~ of 'n y w i i ' ' brcgxRe4 Ar6W1brormmove .. .. - _ _ _ r T iwfdrr G h h r dmWb rv.vernm ~pmikd ryxrd xJuvrrcwromrrur p . rm u rtA 4 ' eaeTf dejdlw.dg: uNm naaddkrwW oflQBO w Idr JFmm , - - _.. 1G p~JFL:.Of. ~.,Ay ~~ 1 -. .. . - -rurr dcwmrcva~mr Mremere: (iWJarmwrdEmmshdlkrla COrumrrm'rrrrR[Mre m~nno, ~.m:dmxrtmn~wn + .t«..p.nmegmtir rmh ' e rorkdru~~9r~r~p&r _ - 7 :aJ~L I`b115y ~~CO Q ?L'?R~d _ ,uknmmarran mua/rm vnJr ubring : - :'nMepvard a,¢Wmrf s '24F:.'/9 an yw.'ndrua. - ' wslm xdewdrofrn AmrlOx of _ ~ , _ «.~rimv rvWdimmuionrpwnrfir ' (r Jdztis ryaeJ aRmssr(mr^s I Wbxablr4vxR and mXykin~ecNd .. .. ' - whmirral OfAa prt Pads unirsmrmrrxirr.. Millh - dl w>n. '.. .: - ~ fir.` ~nl{ M dJ - &w Raek bev Rwr a mr S Gku 1 rMmuns .u..e aWlamion nr dl I d i d ~ ' - ~ ~ ~~~ .. ~i. , wr mkp<edercr mrr xsrkd d' A di pm:rsAall gryx m lx eMW me rms un M1rn Ml. Lowe Mlrs wird n 1:'frnrr Pduervri Ilk ~~ggRRrird4J ~ :rmrnavlau hors. - 9 m M l ~ er/~ -n ~ ~ k irw,phr ra the dnyvnaabuirm lprldd r1h ld)14d3, mrnuryrm. ~ k .. y y 1 , :I ~i rm~A WWIS ~,~dh,fi r.r~,r ,rJ ~ ~ nnrda m Wa'. aW ,;mr, z.J,rrra ~ w mw 'a t'r^ w. I,,N ~:n~ ex'_~lo~, _~.~' ~ . anw~ .nm.~ ,~*~r%anms m;.n~m. rhWl makr M1e I ~ 1- 'hail of _ . mfare nJem+ne udcumWwAerwru~. Nl ward kmm rhe. !s Rairm npm mrynemens Armwmere nmasrvm~ aW mnxMamn aMwkeWid~r ~ ~t _ ¢ '!° I F T ~'~. ~1 ~N~ ~ 5/ fv R~]H i _ . All wxku wkdnne'nwrmdmre wirh ' slWl hepesmrerconef lFwRlw Fir mnavarr.+urorsjceammauw .. .. - ... :~ _._ , ~ _ , :_ the run sues rjrk UBC'. IIMC. NEC'..ardLFC,adWleavemime mm,Mn<ImPlemeruairmnJ uvh - "NOlufn Mhsshatl br braed wbhaW'r mpirrmmr mrhe flrW' . ..,. ..: _`..~:.. .. ... : n 5j~'i f1' - - ~ V ~~Na S: - . ~ Irxd crdrr mvlmtiomvu:.AllrMar Illfi'ImRm rM rhr rarurrd6didwmrrn. - - ' N h J .. .- ._ .. r.1 ~ ~. 1 .. .. - - wrmLhX h. pm/ramrnr parr ldr rrgirrdlittnv arvltperiene.eµrvl pwr rO ,yA~N~ : Mbh .dm(I ra p rem apPliwr'on o/Mxsr+J Nvp Dwud. erc. A~~nrnk shall he rrinhrrrel __. - .. r .. 611!~ING G11J^L . - ~k aWron R /!'^n a 1994 < s . *~ I ';m~~w ~~ °w ~ ~ ~ rm+rommrmm~,MnrcXl>P .rwr ufc rn.4akru..-.and.dWlnr Pig. ~,~ a hmn~ea Rr&te7RlwnRmwn Wr~.E~a _ ~ 14 ~;' DING F GTiON ~ ~nmr wr~x paJrttPiml er4mxara s dtwiledhv P .shr Nag of lQSrm, Per AS,T N, _ ~ ~ _ ~- . _ _ U ) P rxr xAL .E (C 901 1 pmt A AD u. P vdr L.rW'dd i'n3menM afaf( a~,a,a.~r ~8,rdha~m r Y`° ~~ _ ' - _ - _ - ;G~ ~ ~FF~LIMIM[lY .?~D5~S11o earl - _ -. .. - . _..~ - ... - .• . SYwm WII Jormr AS~TM YM11ryr h iurdwrMAlSC. lA FA"a Jwdljaisn LiOmgemm brmar rtnll Eeempavedofmrryn tan duce ns mrmr ~ ~ E ~FI Y • {K G .. - R - ... .. ~ (] - ~ h~ ~.~ ~mmrum l -S l k d r ry ArthoWArm~SrmwrdrMllbwe ~ 6tarm6ilWlhr ,arc - t~_ ~,u~xnP_ .. nt~,- e_ i~i~ra ~ - - ~ - ~ ~~ o '~ Al .srrel M lhrunfiru da Prerwed NNrmfm8, 5er uwivdwr wnAmurderhra)andnu'. pmlwbMremrvr ra ror mnrlfmrrbee ryvrr uuJ mdraxlessdwr rnnpvn Pra - I G- - .~c ^:AIV ~RA~II~AX~ C - - .. ~, ~ ~`P~ fiammQ fn A.9LM~A6W (y' Nrolleb ry.. C CREfFu: gra~N . .. , .- - .- - ~ ~r ~ f All GJ MII" ASTM IA- Cuxrme Or¢4ds r4i hwm / pr*b ~ and bll krwamm ~ Wdl k r .._ . -.. DiNT E ~g!vAaE ;1'E ° G?0~{ G(~P ~ . ~. L y 301uo. fw v r n ~ ,h~~,h , .. , . . . .. . _ _ - ~ (~,~ ~ ~ All yo4s hMesmueelmendm+hN1M .r^^ nBn tn ~ ws ~` e l ~ ~ ~ .. ". .. .. - ... .. ~OG; ~,rmnm,.Xaro, rnw~. BarWn M1O@s I! - k u S d d uv rm,+a All r :,mf i a Rpetlarsi:r,~Mll hr3/4" myr JI AIWr. 4 " - ... .. .... p ~+! .! rvr pmn rced er rra ,Bv mnn. mdrr®um:Wry sklfM4ll' - A- ll h d W 4 d ~ ._...: _.. .. yrl ,W.~'l~t,.. uemr r m pprrm <p rr Arch ML MWd nAWrr, tlmaalt muvmn wdl Nr. N: f 1! wrd n. - - ... - - S / ~ Rrrvidefdlhmrr,5arruuMaWedpnum - mW dhr rn lrtT :rM1u11M derarMl IJ,ar`, l - ~ - ,i ~ O „ JMIr.sMrdJrv WlxNelwnnerrr pvhimevlrMfi h rAinp an befirr punt uflr tirWl , N ~ " _ .. ~ .~ ~ Ui .. Nm~idr lrwl'ne mnJr^alf bommEcoa Ts J irdr k M1 wN rk 7hrGmrrWC atlwfl wledIIdr ' - - . _ 1 -F P 24," r~ ~ uws mai,rohmw kxp'aa wrrvarv wnroPrmr&oprrlvr All ybl irafG ddik prnudM h m _. . ~ , . - ai~wrFnrmrwrai,rrarm~rro,. vxwy xrmn nJr rrwvrne wirhmrap rvedmni rureb erun the s - d wr.se<d<ras.. >i~ w~Lw rWlf 'RrshWl ~. _. - ~ ~. '__. ~_ .. ~ - - __-' , . .. - , hrWN~"1e",I:~': YrWk MmmMvµvvwlrwu.. ~ riuM k aM:m thederuih humor rlnllhe ro D ~ ~. - '- ann '('i vbil4km wdmred rhr N1 w 41m ' wvrbel 8s rlnliMPMed nnea oral r ruut' aM anduireJ rv . x gwlifitdnwwur defnih and R/rv^INpn rlmn ettmmkns fhrurt nde Wrrnsm- 97D#;el R,5~o2.4 Nrv 9/pp.1. ~ ~ . .. . tl0 ui . nrsSrll pme tm. wvLr rota i' 1° - . '.l~trlanPm U9!"k^-`FU~W xrLf re ~ olkrrMn r kw'e4dng .. .. _ _ ti i prrro red vu;u .dahrrvu ~ - _ _ .. - ... . ' : ~ - ondl weltlrryn~,mtl Rlc' -.addii ~ - ... Stier W IE W'E'.- . :. ~. ~',i B ~a0~~ EXPORT 'j 400 C.Y. 3I0 C Y. 270 C.Y. 495 C.Y. 87C.Y. 758 C.Y ., ~~\CY \\i 16.60 ,~ //,- / N o+• // ~ / ~/ h/ 5 96 QO i .e~ i~Q~ ~ ;~iili~ <,„F ~ //% 46'06.. a ._ 5D~r,'.., ~ / i .~ 16 e 1 IQ ~. ~fiF '~ ~~, ~ \ ~ ~ R 1 «fi 9 E ~` ,3Q ~ / / ` ,\ S ,«.~ \\ ,, ,116.5] .. ~~~, 9 L~~ ~ -~ __ .Ise )o M ~~` ~~ ,~~) a. t@ , ~~, / / ~ ~~~ ~@ ~~~~ 1.1~ ~ ~ @~ « O ,,• ,. ,: rp, . 1p ~ / , ~, ~, ~ ~ ! i 1 9 ~ ~a + >,P rs h@ ~ ~~ ~ 1 T ~ 1 'ra w ~fi ~ ~ ~ ~~/ ^_ ~ \1\~ I1 ~~. ~19.~6/Qj.i ~ 6fi ~ ~Se9, 22; ~~~~~1;m ., ~ ~ y ,.>6 a~a., ss I ; o ~ , rr is - '- G103AO p~h ,V-•~ i ~T '~.ISa.ea'.~ ~ ~l1 /1 u / '4P ~ o ~ ~ ~ l 1 q~ i ~ «1~ N 02' 7' 23" E 91.22' \II ~~ ^ {' 9.61 V L ~ ~ 1 / ,r ~ \ ~,b 66.2 ~ ~ 1 t Sp ~ ] 952 '. l V9 6 1 ~~ ~ 6~. «9.16 FFE% ~. ~. \ , J 1 ~, 1 \ -r9 ~' ~~° ~ .a e.use ~!~~ I ~` 1•e1~~~ r'~ ~ v1 I {~ /: \ `try a9. e1 ~~ I ~j ~ 1 g I 1 ~ 1' L P' 0 9 /I19.~ IB.21 T. a?A6 qfi,~. 4A Ps N s~ I' _ ~ S6 b 5 ~ Z~ ~ ~ / .118_b'J I2 Y ~-~~.. 9 E7 e _ 5 r 1.9 ~J~~'~ ~ .>56.6 \8 @~M9 19.29 .){I.JJ~ ' ~ J b 1. 1 9 1 ~ m `. G . 66 ~ , ~ v T fit 9 a ~m I y~ z~ I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,e ~ - I ~ _ ~. ,. - j ~~ ~ ~ ~~A I2 ~ o ~ ~ .a ~ X ~ ~ ,~ - -----_ Z ~~ I / ~ 1 "8C EAS[RE'J' ~~----~~~--~~~\\ 39I DF DEEGS 455 \ /~/// ~ / r i i / ,. _(~ - / \d4 ~ ~ ~~,; , i'~~ yon- ,~~~~ ~~ ~.,; , 1 NO'11',V 87.32' _ /CgSE pft' _~ / /i~`~ \~~\/ ~~~ 4 33 s9 /,. - / ~ `t'^'~a---+- ~` .?~/ N O'4y;'L 270.97.. N O'02 J6J / / ~ / ~ \ j }N6RE35. E6RE~ ANO GAS P.I PELI W= EA9EfiENf ~ ~_ / ' /. 9990 0. R.537 ~---~-~~, 6'2fi O.R.203 \ ~ 1Letaafomo@'6dieebttged toed the splmh blorJu 4ad'dtaud, Wbe~e tv>fBtMe, mtk /! -.-.~'.--- -- ---~--~------~- \ Ieo~ape6eav.Doemgeoro~cel mocamatl coo~umedroovffucm4tiypitbt6e - ISI DN BY OhTE DATF: SEPr 2620@2 SCALE: "0R '~.2°' ~~ WESTFALL ENG LNEERS; I NC.~ VERT. DESIGNED: HB BY:KAWEL CTtlBAL. RCE 3453 CRECHE kC DAffe ir6&3 BIG BASIN 'iAY. SARAT06A, CA 950?0 (4087 A67 OZ94 PRCJ:fNCR: JC VICINITY MAP SG-ALE 1 "=20' GRADWG AND DRAINAGE PLAN LANDS OF f100RE ,. JOA N0. \/ ~~ zooz-DZe C j - .S~CT \/ u / i r t .. i i t~ i is r t i j i - i is . , i i i I' ~, i _ LEGEND .. ~ - ~~ '~~ - 'EXlSTINB"~ ~PROPDSEO BOUNDARY ~ - -"'-- _760 .. -- i - - -CUR9 AND"GU77FR " -- _ _ i _ ~ I F. F.75 .50 , ~ ~ CURB ----- - - - ~ ---- _ - I ~ I I EDGE OF PAVEMENT _ ~ 40 ~_I I i ~__ ~_ I ! _- ~ RfTAr.NrroG unu -i-- _ ~ ~~ ~ ' I I ~ i I I i i ~ o70RM DRAfN lNLfr '~ ~ - ECTION ~ - B I ~ I ~ i i I srareM DRAW ------=- --- "~ ~ - ' GARAGE ~N _1 ~ TDP OF CURB ELEV9710N ~ EX. 7. C. T.F i I i ~ I i I i ~ ~~ - TOP OF PAVE%ENT fX, T, P, T.P, i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 7DR OF RftAININC o'AiL FX. i. V. T.U. ~ ~ i ~ -~~~ I ... .. . ,... - ... ` ' _ - I ; GROUND ELEVATION .....,. ... C, ... T.5.749 5 _ __ ____ __ _____ ____ ____ '_ F.P ~ ~ ___._ ~ I_____ .. =-i - ' I ~ ~ I j I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ L ' CTION - A ~ -1.__ __i-_-. [] • C: ~'.. E vl5in InNE ': . f I i 1 d u ~PME wnwmg i ~ ~ ~`; ~. ~ ~ ~o_ ~ nvE. A !UP ~ ~ 6'.',-, F1N,.. , r ~ ~~~je ' . ~ . _ ~^~K ~ ~' ~ ~~ rym ~ y y~. ~,.`:,,_ t "~ ~ ~ ~' X VIGINiT?' ~9'AP r =,~ ~~ ~ = N~q:. tliOm~Y ~ ±' / r' ~~ @ ~ i ~ (V13F1 ~'e.. \ l'36~PINE ~~ ~ ~, r i _ _ i //~''/~~ o~ \\ L-- - _., -c-- "~ l` 3 ' I l ./ ~ .~ \ \ / N G0 41.23 R1N m uvy ev ui -~~ 1Q' w~rx _ ~ I' ~- ~- - r ~ \ ~` ! `- s ~^MEn'- , J~ . I~~ , ,~~ ' ~ ~r~ ~ ~ - mN.• , aM 5 ~ ~ NClee ~ .l+liDedanc [x~' ~ l; ~~ i ~ ( - ' _ t8 21+b8. oa 2~ ~F'PiFg~ ~~ ~~ ~ I _ _ . p~ ~~ J09fiPINE{/.. ~ /I/ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ .,.~ ~ '~".: ! m~ ~~ 8~ ~W' Nd~93~6~ ~. , , 1 //~ ~ ~ 1 ~: a ~5 ~ i ~~~~ ~sg x~,; j a°~E een~M _ / / / ~ // i -/ BR q q, h ~~~ r ~l ~ ~ ~.` °e °o m.~ 8_R A "`\ .~ S ^'HO m v ~ 3a °b C Q ° U tl ~ y{ -n O~ d o n .~ ~j ~Q~ ;~L ~v~" ~! - r+d.,., a S? .~, f ..: ;~ 8 ~~ 3 ~0~~ ~~g~ ~:~~~ ~~$ 4~~_. l i ' t t - ~ ._ ., SH~YN161YHd7. ,Y! - iafi0 - ~ EE,,gqggrr145 N~O~E ~~~ l - - %' ~ ~ yrh% gdoNN-ww,nQS. ~i ~ ~ i r Y - a 1 i ,_ ~ ~ ~ 9 .E ~ ~ - I ~ ur,A StONS_~ - '~ _ sur~us.~Y I~ I ~~~ o~ ~ ~ '~>G ~~~ "~ ~ ~~~ 8 ~ ~~ PfJ'i~~ > ~ ~ ~~~ _ ~ E _ ~ . ii. ;. ~~ ~L~- r. • ~v ~ , ~ f ~~ '~ 1 i II ~ .' I ~ ~ . _ , ~ {~ ~'. -~ Bit `. `TILL ~l , ~ ~~ 1 r ' } f ~ANCfl 5f• Ee~_-- ~~~~ 1 r 4 ~ . - ~~ : - 1 '1~N'IF.~tiA~' ~ - --`- =~~IdN75c~P60A45. 1 ~ :MINE. .yj PWE a,P~a _. 603.`z~~~.1 ZO7Ji11 ~. DIN!?icT .:.. _. : ~'i',O;70D. ~1 PPEI ; ._ .... .r- ~e;Dia ; 2;25x0 Tier:- GO( AF4P.: : "2:254Gpx5 '9a,01D. 9•P• -_ -5iie SvOpE MUUy(MENj :. ~i6 DfO,.,y;P x 33Yp, -. 3~3'~t$ b.~: '. '::. HUll~f(BD (:Ef.Ulf Afe~ :' t~y'iDG1 9.f,_:, _ : .IMXiMJM PJ~P R~.s~ 6000..7 ((ea Gk da,g~m)'1p : (x 520 y~. ___ ...I aoo.. - IM-P,RV~aJ~ 6Nl~FdGe GS6cJJpliarl; =, a ai?ePfG~ 98~biD h. F. ~. i, vEW ~OJ5 SJPf°~o uR~.D ' Fg OiO":y.f x 3r'/a~,: s,4, Ykt, 5. ~;. hvapE CA~cu ~AtiDN6 5 0022q E6Y 81011 ~ 20 ~" 2 i> 2 25 e :"yi.q'EA7 9uiWD1NNi bli& ~ LESh NhN ~'~ rXlyllhlq PL04P~AafA .~wNh ~~ z 1a~ ~ P.__ GPpAWE/611i'fif MU & _ 2lN 9 ~_ _ ._.,,,OrAL~D~DEp10o-15F~0) 52~ 5F, 7?DpoyEO?~aF Ap{'A ~:. 1MEt/1::(~{IdcLU~ev IN Mrn) (1 D=3 5P.) YIPvf wuro~ ~ 049 y P hECOi~D ~v00]?- _ D J 3I 9 x _', OjA MAIN f~7L5E v I i.: 5" JyE ~- D~ O X N i Go y p y pq q j0'(PI. PPDP056D F~DO~ApFAs G,62D Nf•: ._~Op05ED IMPB~VI0U5~~1;I''A~G t1DlJhe - ~ x,048 h F' pDOv ND15E -_. 651 4F, bPP/~e 689 SSE, `~1~ ~;PPVIIJEj x,006 5 f DWV6WAT PPAPWr«i' 1,380 5~. OiA~ PPDPDS~D IMPaP~"dus APES" 1lo,B~ sf. V ~ { ,, ~ 1 ~ ~ __ t __ I I N.°31NE ~ ~ i ,I 1 Y 1 %'-c'3. _ ~ _ SfL ~ k-.a. ~ ` _ iG'.J i ._. L ,9nAE. ~ K nuE_ I 1 `~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ; , ; .-b-o'uutN 11~'SfPFeN1= /: ~ " rF,cJPITY FENLE; tIG ~ / / q~ ~/ ~~ y~ l ~ ~ ~ k ~ p-' i ~ ' ~ j - ~ ~~ % i 1 ,~~. ` ~3 ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1a ~! ~ %cx~ ~~ ~ a ~, 1 . ~ .~'~~ ' /' ~/ ~ ~ ~ a ~~~ p^I~, x~__ W. ~: -~ 3 8~ ~~ ~1` z t • • i r t I ~~,p~.~ it __ __ ~~ __._ -T ~ ~~ ___ ~ U9 ~ -k--- 1 ° -----}-- --- ~ I 1~ i ~ 5 i i by I~"; .y,. 1 I ~ Mq~ ,. C7, o„ i _ ~ „~ ,, _ i ; , i ~~= i ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ _ lALJNNS CttG1- _. _ __ ~ :. v I C a; ~ 1 ___ ___ __ ______ ~_ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - i~ Cfll~RB>"PAYT3 , ~ , ~ _lir- i o ~ ar~T-w. ~~~~ i~ ~ ~ ~ P~~ 71 ~-MGULR'R. _ 0 ... ~- 1 i ' ~-.. -MCA i~ ~ I ' i a~cH cm~s y-~-~ au ~ ~~ ~l ~oit~ ~`~~tA ~ .~ _ --- __ _ ~ 7~ t' ~~ i t;eL - ~ ~I ~ -- ~ ~ 1 u Ir ~ r _ LL ~~~~d~- i ~~~~ ~ e~~ was ~ ._ -~_~;~ - - ~ i~ ~ 1~`U ~ % ' - ~ i # ~,y~-: ~~ 7 w Kie6 - BRPAitFIS_ f;' ~ ~i ~ - I _ ~~,~ . ~ ~ ~Wl' r ---~ ~ ~ +~raPt.~G'c ~ ~ I t-~--9~ . -.. ~_ ~ I --- ?:Jf a~ QNM ~ ~.~. ~ a~ ~'.. . ~. RI _~'~ ~~bl ~_ 7a?2` __ 19-0"__ _ _ __ -4 6_~ 8 0 "._k k.6~ __ 'LO 4 _-_ I I I ~ I 1 N v? ~ i ~ ~ 6 I I ~~_ ~ ~ I ~ I REVISIONS BV F • ~ ~ ~ - • ------'t~---- - -~ --- ~` A q. _ ~ ~ _ ~ .. _ ~~~ ?t ._ ~ -~- ., ___ QQ- ~.o ~~ ~~~. ~~ add ~~ a~ ~~ b ~ Y p ~a ~~ Q ~ U e ~~ ~~ ~~ m Q ~ h J (Z S p~ ,\3 "c O Z c~ G~ ~~~~ ,~°~~ ~~ ~ 4 # ~ ~ i ~~ V F- ~~ ~~ c. REVISIONS i BY rv - \! ur" i - ~ ~ REVISIONS '' 8Y • • F i i ;, i ~-=: i~~ E _a90D P>YJPgE .1a'ApP~c D00~ FN~N-bFAviE LINE. k r ~~ i ~ ,!~~ biJ a~ N Q ~. _ -_ ~ x --- If ~r ~i ~~ ~i ~ ~~r~.ri j r I_ ~'•-- i', -~~ ~~ ~,/q~N=1V13t~; S -~ ~ h_il l I ' i+ ~~_~ E _ T m ; q - ~ .r ~, ~ 1. a "f ' -v -. P"L= `~ - ~ ~,\ r`s; it _ _sr~, p~,~cR :~ '9i u _ ~- -~ - _ ' h ~ +°~ ~~~~•~ ~ -- _ ... ~F' r~~ 3~~~ iF_r.{d i _:~~S nN~inv'SE+"M yC 0'" ~~ _.:a-' G. ~'~_ _- ~.4;~ '- LL ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~'~Ij IL 1 l' 1 1~L~ /.07i£F ~~~'M v~ h ' ---~~1, r _- »r ~ I {I +~ ~ ~_ ~~,I~! ~ ,'r~ _. rii i { i PraAr.~iuovu i r Re ,gypp I, I ~~19 V i~ 1 ~l~I~ I, y 14 ] I . eD .~• "`a r }° n ~ i ~ .L.~ + JJi ~~' -.. ~ i. a , + { ~ f I ,_ ~ ~`, I~~ ~ z ~~' ~i ,i ! +II g: i ~ ....... I Q~ i ~' IN~I i~ 6 i _ ~ _ta~ ~ ~ ~_ i,i~ i h ~ ~_, ~ I I+ r it i ~" I- ~ ~ ~ _ ]~ _ _ 11~ ~y~ + _ `-~~ i '11 I ~ I ~ ~ (T ~ I ~-, E I _ _ ~` _ "~ ~I ~'~-- ,- ~ r~ aresr Frooa ~~iNe ->~ I I ~ ~ t.. _~ ~.rvr~ ~.~..~~-L = ~ „>- - .. - - - ~~ ~_ ~_~ ~ r. _ -- : 4FEN aREEZEY~ ~ ~ - ~ =CXlSTI~`4rt rmMDE pwt _ ro I~nR f . .. - ~ rIA[l - ', ~. i' __-..- ~-- ~ ~ I _ ____ _ 9?S~"~ETT. F10cA LNE-.~-__- ~ ~ -._ . H- _--_.. _-_ ..-_-__ _ ' _ LI. ~ _ 0 ~, -- ~ _ ~' :: ~~N~ :-"aM~'.ad ~;~:~PAN1 ~~ h"~+Nap~rodSE ~ti6N7) S -- ~ ~ ~ ~wre~s~czw~~wHaa>,ry~NA~•p~uNo~,ar~n Wi1N.~ - ~ , f _ l • ~ / ~ _ ..__ __.- /13 T1K G~.M ENi PV~StER ,_. " _. _ . .~.~•,. - ~ , ~'"`"`i.. r w Pni i FiNISH FICEPI.~GE.4U -h1Pua1u1E5:,.:/kMEN.~ P~5?~~' HPTYrI 1~q,N hdN•vDWPPDS°. r ~ ~ ~ _.. ~. fC&~-AWROJED..figRK tiW?ESr,EK. . AD06& 57 k. _ _ -. - - --a ~ ~' - ~~ - - ~Y+ WS 1lQD {~A}1B Nlirl ~1 /aiZ204D.Z1Nli.~IhIISN . . '. __.&1D6E UNE ._ ~ ~ - 1~ --,GIM 510N~ M~LDIN~ 5y .. D011fti5 F1 ._ Y .. I. - . -- ~ ` r ,~ -.._~..__ ~ -''~" ~~~"~" ~" 'NVCS (kF 29W~~) ~-. LOLNMN6~ LDtN(~5 _ GA51 yi'ONE II^pn U~LLEY r^5'SiditE + Il~;rL~I ": S` ~7:~.+-- 7 _ ~r- ~_ I _tdvt5) ~I~ar/..~IES,?etiornaru~~_GiM~C~aJ~ ' ,- - 7 7 ~ - ~ - ,t ~ ~ -S'cX~11P.+', M~DNri ~i~J{. PI~1h'E{i 15 W - . ~N ~ ~'I ~~ i ~ _ .T~ ,,, -_ -_, _ -_/.OPF_R bU(ICn S'Cale1'M~T "Cf.Cf RATES ~ -: ~* _ __ _ __ __ / _~/ 1YPIrhC - .. 't-- ~ q 1 ~ rl ~ -- ~ x _ ~' ~~. ~ I , ~ . i . ~ ~~ °r-- ~ ~ _ - ~! I ~ ~,. P~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ i; ~ ~~~ II I t f ~ ~ i ., ~ ~-_--_ ,I~a,5n5« Nipo?w N...: i ~ ~f - ~ ~, i ~~. ~1 i ~•. f I ~,~ ~~% GJV23 N/u5T 51ot+8. -1- _ i I ~.. _ I ~ _ - ' ~,, ~ I ~ ;I ' Iii c _ -------- - --r I~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. IF ,, ~~fc'~-_ ~_ ~_f ~,~t.f=~t~~ ~~I ~ 1 ilk ,,1~ ~ - ~` ~ ~ ~ ' _ II ~ -J~s . , I~ ~! yak S J ~ ~ }~ . - ~ ~. _ .. ~ ~ T ~ S.ION6 tiC4Z ~I~E - ~i _~ :. ~~~I 1 ""JE I~ __ ,, _ ~_ ~~ r_- _ _ ~T a 1 -•~ ~ + ..•~ I~"' i 1 '~'"':R II III ' i l _...i .- ~ ' ~ - ~ I ~ ~,i ,r i -,!~- i ^~~ ' ~~h1~i 'f i~I i1 ~ i !~ f '.{ I + ~ ik,l I v' ' ~ "-'' NDE ! NE GOAD: ' _- ~ __.. - P~RbHRFLNPJd- :AWMlI$ ... . ~ _. - -~ _.- _r. . -- " - \ ... d + -•, ~ A II i If; I,r ~ ~ III' ~ r+ ~~"li ~ ~~ 1. _.~ ~~, , ~ I ~ I -,~~~ 'li ~ ~ ~ , ~J~ ~iil ~ t ~I' i I ~ +ii '• I `[~ ~~ II~- I ~'~~ ~ ° ~'~~~ [ f~ ~-?~I I ~ n Ila. ~~. I ~,a ~I. r~,l, )il~ Iif"`~!,~ ~9~._..._ u.;~, ~~ ~fl+~gg f~~ II i,l+ +~ ., 1 '~f~ I~;-~ +~.~~I ~ i ~ _ ^r~~l if~-.~ It. I i ~; t t _ ~~ n ~~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~_~~ _, _ --_ = -~ , F + - - - ~. ~_ _,. ~ w -._ .-_._ _, _ _ . _ _ ~ t - ~ ~~- ~36' H~ h RGIRIT IBgV _. __ ~ -. __ ., . ._ ..._. _ ~ . ' 6UAPJ7WA1 PP }li FINISH -. .. - .WITH SEMI' 6UJS5 FAME,., i PNNi- ,°ICA_ ~ I ~~ ~Q "ft~.tir~ ~~~ _...._ ~~dg; . ~~~ +~ ~ . -. ~~~~ Q~~~ wNw~~_..:. :' "'~.-ns~ncc µm. U ~~ ov 1D N~ ' x¢nsioxs I e. • e CFMENf RASER HNSH kHU1NbY BEIOND, __ NITH" SPAWC pFW~Fr~ _. . _ '6'PI4~~1YF)GPGA'64N9. ' ~. __.._.'y IILT.IIP'fd'~;FiFK'_. .... .. ~, .- ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ _ ~ 1,7T~IRVT? i I'~ 5 0 ~Gr i i ~ a~. ` __ ~ ~~ II ' I ,_ ~ I ~I i ~r ~ -- ~ i ,~ ~ ~ (1 9 i. r' f;. s I r ~, w+, ~ `a~us,dk eiaw r~R NOTES ~r~~k ~~ IS~uchi fr ~U'A~ToP cF G~'I',IYJh ARb SEE EnEFlAk ENE-i`. FOR M1PcRUi0U55U0.FPLE fAI.QriAMINS ~+r ASS0CIat25 ' ~ ' ~ sEE GRm14G.aw ozaHaGa ww, sir a. r:oR ~rwolr~.wo '- ~ En¢trI MOVEMM'~VAMII~ES I, ~" i~! ~ f ~~ ,NJ,y,OTc R~VJTWEUPSI.OPE 0F?DJAOEM RPCAE0.TEE EM?ll.9E I.ODdSCOPe At[M1IIeCfUre . I°I ~ ~ ! r Gt?Nf~~ WTR SOd SrABNr7NG R.A*JT MAIERY N.0 E/v'll BE Are Piwning /- .v iwuaarao unn~r.GwF~oei owRlawC non . - \~OS~ tic ~ ~ ~/ ' \ r ,~Ex~nNS roEFS ro REYWl swv.ua=_~o'EC'Ec ouranG 7C0 Mill Sneer \ ~ ! ccw5mxncn' n5 aECa+.nENOac u~ -dE TREE aE<nRT ~ Half Moon Ooy. CA 9b019 Sv ~ r ~~ \~ -" '_ ~_ r , ~ ! ~ 4~" -~ .~` + ..'1. s - -' ~ F x(ASS0~726m7617 - \ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „~ ~ / ~'' i .,~ ~ I a? ~Kn~u na~~Y nx mES ~ i'~`` ~ J ram -a, ~`~ ! -~ ~n'rf Y Tp~i 17R ---__-_- r, 4 y ,~ ~ w - I I ~ \ - ~ % ~ ~' ~ .. JY% ~--'-lra.' ft4Mr n'+1.Wvs~• IVa. I~N7 /Yn1Ml' fio)•~ l urr,~ ~ 'k9~- Y ~ - ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ -.. ~- ~ ~ ~ 'i - ~ `t I~ ` ~ ~ ~ v DESIGN REVIEW , ~ /. k ~ h ~ \~ ' I . Rnrq { toy-" vk~ro Ni \ '~ nrw NsJRFaLWuv .,.d ~ .__ filwwrw ~ ~~ ~ . y w+ rW~nra~e wvseN f f ! A ~" ~ °'"~-,K, ~ -~ ~ I 6 ~ ~ ;~.. _, ;' ® ~~. ~ ~ ~ r '- ;~EmTUnis "' ~ < upa r~ ~ ~, ~ {~ rL~wtrrxr~w+kd~. . ~~ '~ . ' ,~ / ~ ~~, ~' ~` .~ I, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _- - ~~ ''' ~ ~~ RESIDENCE r(y n ~'~NR~ ~ -_ ~.INI`• ~;'.° q.IGLkhI ~tWIN- E: w` ! ' ~ (r-t~J~,D.~ Wa- u~r~ ,~ -u!e~1r~Ka~+Pwl~ a~T~~_._-_ -' ~J~ , ~~r\,~ ~~}-~) ,,,yt. ~ snMl -r~. Y -: Ep.,~p~ {„ ~;4,., - J+' .. . - y ~I `,/ ~ ~4' 1~` ~`, ~ I 1 - _.I_ _~ ~ ~Ij^ ~! ~~ 20700 SAPATOOA WLLS OPoYE i , ~ ~ \i }t • • .~• SANATOGA CA - X' +'~ ~ ' i • ~~ ~ _ - !Cae~urK2inrlE fF.YrrJc. 7(P - ~ '~'~\~ ~~'1~ - ~ S ~i ~J ~ • ~ ~ ~ - - kk^F`^~ - ~ ! -- ~'~ra+ ~q+r+Wh!WU `j;-. ~ ~r--- - - ~ -_ :~rili r~f"~'. ~~ ~~€~ y Fi- G f `7 r ~ ~7 4 ~1 ~ s RrIIbY Wrrrrc~t uwrw '-V FV1'eF'f~S__.__-_/ ~: ~.,- -S~ ~fa F - ~~ i ~-v"` _.~t}` 'I _ cH ~r w+t w - f^ ~ - V ~ 1 ~~ ~, u~ ~1LfiWi nEftw~ - zdw ru< ~=tter!~ ~ A ~~ ~ I ~ Rfl'IJ'r :v 6NCd ~e~YNne~ ~r c y~tFr~ptt~ffl' ~~ ~ ~ ~- I \ ' 1 ~(( II ~pav POh~-1 ~ -~llQlri EqG 'fh ,IMP'-,y. s. F9.fi..r': ~ - /` i _ ~ - ~} . ~, ~ ~+ w~ Ira `~ ~~tF'~(1~ ~rVre - - - _ ~ -- 4 .- T'-f < ~ i w ~.. i y~~ ~ c ~ ` (.' v v ~~ ~tF(~ - - h Uu~li A= ~~ C, ~ ~~ ' r !~ - r, ucu.PNF~ F~ ~ i~ v ~ ~+'` - C' ~ , ~ -sa~lrfiE cxe } t 3 ~~ ~ ~ 1~ y~~'(\ T ,.ri -1 ! ~. .-, .A /'~.. - FRUFe t2tH RUR~uF~d- ~+~--~~ . ~ ~ J, ~,~ r= ~r wnt Yh4di -_ ~ ~u+~°'na ~ 9~ , ' , I , _ e.~:. .+ .,:'~ wYaN7w cf~'-4e a~ r LZ kF eLLVp(kN 7 e e r ~ `:. ~ \ \ *' -- ~ t f 3 2 a i T ~~'~. \ ~CGC ~MYiY..4141G ig'µ'g1 tY;`-: Y d~T, ' Tr ~ ~c 1 .. i o ~ ~~ ~ ars u ~ ~ ~ ~~` ~~~ ' ~ ~ -, :~ w :.. e y-- .~ ~ ~ "'~-~ ~ r4~~-~ ~ . ~ i~ ... w w ~ ~~ n w ~. vw~ ,~ ~ ' ~~ ae~is~ons p ~ ~ y ///__~~,JJJ ~~ - ~ ~. - _ .. .. ~' 1`.;, l ~ ~ r I M'/ ~~ ~0te:-tiE~, Zi•7A0_L~-: Q ~~ ~ ~~! - ..1 ~ ~ Irr. ~` " ~~ i ''w,~ _ ,~ ~ \~ ~ ~n~ .~ , ~ ~.., ~ I fi ~ _ __ !~ ~ ~-+t; H.re ~~~ ~ ,. orGwn ov: Gam-; r' _ ~ A r-~ ! ~~ ~ ti ~,- ~ e ~~~ ~ ~ i :- i - !!! i ~ ~ ~ _ w ~ =+ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ,! ~~ ~~r. t -M-` ; ~ ~ /~~ ~ , i T v ~ ~ ~ ® + rwa «~n,>k wuF.~ stole. i•. ia~ r ~~ ,~ ~- , ~--~'y r~wlu~erim~ ~ 1 ~"" `-f . PRELIMINARY • ~, <`~ ~~ ,~~ t ~ ~~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~_ i ~ ,..., _~. \~ ~~ LANDSCAPE PLAN {, ~ ~~ - "~,,, ® K d b ~ 4€ ® ® rl'~' ed-~zuFn(!~TZ~e ~% ~'`jI y .~~..~ ~ /. ~ .~ ~.~'iM1C. ~]j., ~.~ I r ^~ _~ U 5. '9- ~ ;d ..' ~D- $hEPt NO. • p ~: ,' ._ of .~..,~.1--~~ . rr~ r I;, - I ~, I i ", 3 3 -- I, ~. 0 o g5 .4 1 ~'~ n ~~ --, f a ra ~^~~Fn p'yT ,r- -- per. ; ~ c' u,a,; < ~ :~< w/vrr ~~rc r <;3 1. , ~~~ _ 1- • [] i~ I e t ~ o I „~~ ~;~ :~~ /'~ > r >~ o ~jy~ ~a ~~ r r` ~... ~ 6 ~ ~ t { ~ V ~ ~ -~ "~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ S l } f ` r Kikuchi ~ ASSOCI7t¢S tondscape Archirecrure Sire Planning 750 MIII Srreel Half Mnon boy, CA 9d0",9 (650) 7264100 fox(650)726"7677 ~~~ - , r ~ ~~ ~ ~_ { i~ 1 ~h~ ~ ~ Ti' Cti_ ~~u"-~ ~i-~1(iT P=hi / ... ~/ ~ r _~ ~ ~ x..- . , .. ~~ ,n r . - i6'HIaJ `~ 'iN% I'mo' 1'r.J~ ~A Utz , t_-._ __.___.---_-_-_" _____~"_-_. -_.._" _~. ---- - .~~f'j-T/;L ~s BF.:+J v~ tNl'-~kiik r'i.^fD~. DESIGN REVIEW MOOR~E ~ ~~ RESIDENCE 207005AMTOGA HILLS ORNE - SARATOGA,CA ' : " Drown Oy: ~-~G -, ~ p) ~-~~~j 7r .L.'~ki I ~ Y`~YvY~'! i~l" kale. AS n'OtEO - `J ~~ g~'`P` PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE DESIGN DETAILS ~~ Sheer No. , . L2' of _..~.. MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMER 6, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 4:30 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel -Threatened litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (5 cases) (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: McQueen v. City of Saratoga (WCAB No. SJO 222529) Name of case: Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-811864) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 u.m. Mayor Streit reported that the City Council. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 6, •- 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of November 6, 2002 was properly posted on October 29, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, stated that he recently received a letter from the Chancellor of West Valley College explaining that he received a letter from West Valley Sanitation District that indicated that the soil tested was negative for ecoli. Mr. Martel stated that the District only tested the "drilling mud" even though he requested that all of the substance be tested around the site. Mr. Martel stated that he feels that the District is trying to fool everyone to think that the soil is harmless. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that he was present tonight on behalf of Don Whetstone. MR. Monia stated that Mr. Whetstone was unable to attend tonight's meeting and asked him to read a letter he prepared to the Council. The following is a summary of the letter Mr. Monia read to the Council. Mr. Whetstone pointed out that last year the City Council negotiated a Boundary Drop Agreement with Santa Clara County Fire and Saratoga Fire District. Although some of the services improved there are still many deficiencies. Mr. Whetstone suggested that the City consider petitioning LAFCO and hold a referendum on this issue. Mr. Whetstone pointed out that the SCC Fire has built three new fire stations using money out of their general fund. Saratoga Fire District is not prepared to handle major emergencies. Mr. Whetstone pointed out that Saratoga Fire District could not function without the help from SCC Fire. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, thanked Vice Mayor Baker and Councilmember Mehaffey for their service on the City Council the past four years. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the City evaluate the Saratoga Fire District's public safety ability and fire protection ability. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the Council should ask LAFCO to evaluate the District. • 2 Councilmember Bogosian noted that he could support Councilmember Waltonsmith's request and added that he would like staff to supply the Council options and processes involved in the LAFCO process. In regards to Mr. Martell's comments, Vice Mayor Baker stated that at the next West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting he would request that staff do adequate testing on the soil. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 17-23, 2002 AS "NATIONAL HOMELESSNESS AND HUNGER AWARENESS WEEK" STAFF RECEMMDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and directed the City Clerk to mail it to the appropriate person. 1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 24-30, 2002 AS "NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK" • STAFF REOMMENDATION: Present proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to Bishop Bret England of the Mormon Church of Saratoga. Bishop England thanked the City Council for declaring the week of November 24- 30, 2002 "National Family Week". Bishop England introduced members of his church who were present this evening to help him accept the proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO APPROVE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMER 24, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. BUDGET MONITORING FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO ACCEPT BUDGET REPROT FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES - OCOTBER 23, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 23, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDIANCE: 213 ORDIANCE DESIGNATING AUSTIN WAY AS A HERITAGE LANE AND MAKING CERTAIN CONFORMING AMENDMENTS BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT ORDIANCE DESIGNATING AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE. Motion passed 5-0. 2F AMENDMENT TO CITY OF SARATOGA MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 214 • 4 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9-15-030 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC CODE REGARDING STOPPING, STANDING AND PARHING BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT ORDIANCE AMENDIGN THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC CODE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G FELLOWSHIP HALL RE-ROOF PROJECT -AWARD OF BID STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to award bid to lowest bidder; award construction contract; authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-086 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $34,731 FOR FELLOWSHIP HALL RE-ROOF PROJECT BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD SOUTHWEST _C_NS_TRUCION & PROPETY MAMANGEMENT THE LOWEST BIDDER AWARD CONNTRUCITON CONTRACT, AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO $4,000, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H CIVIC THEATER RE-ROOF PROJECT -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMNEDATION: Move to award bid to lowest bidder; award construction contract; authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 2H be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the original bid was a lot higher then what was being requested this evening. By narrowing the scope of work, which reduced the price, Councilmember Bogosian asked what was negotiated away. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, responded that only the upper roof would be replaced and explained that the lower portion of the roof was not crucial to replace right a way. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD WESTERN ROOFING SERVICE THE LOWEST BIDDER, AWARD CONSTUCTION CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO $6,625. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • 2I AMENDMENT TO 5400 SYSTEM UPGRADE PURCHASE COST STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase. TITLE OF RESOTLUION: 02-085 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIOATION OF $5,802 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN UPGRADE FOR THE CITY'S EXISTING AS400 COMPUTER SYSTEM BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE PURCAHSE AND ADOPT RESOLTUION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2J AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to execute amended agreement. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY MANAGER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2K. RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution to authorize City Manager to execute funding agreements. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-081 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DELEGATING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAION BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLTUION AUTHORING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE FUNDING AGREEMETNS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF APPLICATION #02-176, (RECONSIDERATION OF DR-O1-006, TUP-Ol-003, AND UP- 01-002 AND RELATED APPLICATIONS) (APN'S 397-22-017, 397-22- 019, 397-22-015, 397-22-012, & 397-22-042) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE & 20473 SARATOGA-LOS GATOSROAD 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLTTION: 02-091 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNIL OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL AND APPROVING APPLICATION #02-176 FOR A NEW AND TEMPORARY FIRE STATION Richard Taylor, City Attorney, noted that the Council would discuss Items 3, 4 and 6 at one time. John Livingstone, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and a Lot Line Adjustment. The Conditional Use Permit is for a new and temporary Fire Station with variations to setback, lot coverage and landscape standards. The existing Fire Station building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue is proposed to be demolished and a temporary facility is proposed at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos, the existing Contempo Building Site, during construction of the new Fire Station proposed at the same location as the existing facility at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. Planner Livingstone noted that on July 17, 2002 the City Council made a motion to place Resolution 01-061 on the next agenda for reconsideration before the City Council pursuant to Section 2-10.011 of the City Code that allows Council to reconsider any action at any time. At the August 7, 2002 meeting the Council reconsidered that matter and directed the applicant to submit revised plans to the Planning Commission. At the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Roupe made a motion to approve the project with five additional conditions of approval. The motion was then seconded and a vote taken. The vote was split 3-3, thus denying the project. Planner Livingstone explained that staff feels that the proposed project meets the design criteria stated in Section 15-46.060 based on the following: The project is in character with the neighborhood in that the design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julian Morgan. The design has been pulled back significantly from the existing location on the corner Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to reduce bulk and improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The design also includes a plaza area that will add a pedestrian element to the corner. The Applicant is proposing a hand troweled finish to the exterior of the building. The quality of the exterior finish with the Mission the roof will make the building blend in with the older buildings nearby. The proposed landscape plan and plaza area will also soften the elevation on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and act to enhance the entrance to the downtown village area. U 7 Planner Livingstone noted that the previous proposed Fire Station plan from 2001 had a maximum height at the tower element of 34"-6" and 33"-11" for the area closest to the Post Office. The existing plan has a maximum height of 29"- 2 at the corner then tapers down as the structure us built into the slope. The building closest to the Post Office site will have a height of 26"-4". In regards to the Conditional Use Permit, Planner Livingstone explained that the applicant is requesting this permit as required in the PA zone for the types of structures proposed and to allow the new and temporary Fire Station structures to be within the required setbacks of the zone district, a variation to the lot coverage and reduce landscaping in the front yard area. Planner Livingstone stated that staff feels that the necessary findings could be made to support the Use Permit as follows: • That the proposed temporary and permanent Fire Station with code variations are in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which they are located in hat they are conditionally permitted uses that will be replacing the existing Fire Station and will have no significant traffic impacts. The proposed setbacks and landscaping variations will allow the permanent Fire Station to have a 59-foot apron that will avoid safety problems for circulation improvements at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Lot coverage variation is necessary to allow several nonconforming lots to be used for one project. • That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which they will be operated will not be detrimental to he public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is continuation of the existing use. The proposed Fire Station would provide adequate parking for the 24 employees that will use this facility. • That the Fire Stations comply with each of the applicable provisions of -the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, coverage, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per section 15-55.030 and 15-18.030 of the zoning regulations. In regards to the Lot Line Adjustment, Planner Livingstone stated that the applicant is proposing several lot line adjustments to both the Contempo site and the Fire Station properties. The existing Fire Station property will be merged with the City property and the lot line separating the two Contempo lots will be removed to enlarge the parcel that will become parking for the church. Planner Livingstone stated that staff recommends he following findings be made in accordance with the zoning regulations to approve the requested lot adjustments: • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan in that the lot line adjustment will allow for a larger lot area for the new Fire Station and improve the current parking situation of the involved parties. • The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations _ contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter in the lot line adjustment is specifically approved by the advisory agency through the granting of a Conditional Use Permit under Chapter 15 of the City Code. • The proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties in that the new circulation pattern will provide adequate public access to the site. In regards to site coverage, Planner Livingstone noted hat the proposed project is consistent with the site coverage as required in he Settlement Agreement which allows a total of 30% site coverage for the total gross site which includes the portion of the right-of--way and the existing Contempo site that will be retained by the Fire District. The Settlement Agreement also provides for a variation in site coverage to use multiple lots. Planner Livingstone provided information on parking stating that the Municipal Code requires that the Fire Station have one space for each employee, for a total of 24 spaces. The Fire Station will have 18 parking spaces on site, and will satisfy an additional 6 spaces located off site. In addition to the 18 Fire Station spaces located on the Fire District property, 10 spaces are proposed to be provided for public parking controlled by the City pursuant to an easement or permanent agreement with the District as part of the land transfer with the City. Planner Livingstone explained that during construction of the permanent Fire Station the District will provide 18 spaces on site and will satisfy the remainder of its obligations through an agreement with the Church for the use of six spaces in the Church parking lot. In regards to trees, the City Arborist report dated March 15, 2001 contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are eight Olive trees on the existing Fire Station property potentially at risk of damage by construction. Only two of the trees are ordinance protected. The applicant proposes to transplant the trees that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the proposed resolution. During the Planning Commission's meeting, Planner Livingstone stated a number of issues were raised concerning the construction process. In response to these issues and feedback from the neighborhood that applicant has included two additional plan sheets, which outline the construction staging, task sequence, haul routes, plans for demolition, excavation and construction of the proposed project. Planner Livingstone noted that the proposed Fire Station, vacation of George Whalen Way, transfer of the Heritage Plaza property to the Fire District, acceptance of the ten public parking spaces and the bicycle and pedestrian easements are consistent with the General Plan Goals and Objectives. 9 Planner Livingstone noted that the Public Safety Commission reviewed the project at their September 16, 2002 meeting and supported the project design and asked that a condition be added that requires the applicant to provide a newsletter to the neighborhood regularly updating them on construction time frames and construction activities that would impact the intersection at Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The Heritage Preservation Commission also supported the project design and site plan. Ernest Kraule, Fire Chief/SFPD, stated that the Saratoga Fire Protection District was before the City Council to appeal the Planning Commission October 9, 2002 decision. Tonight RPM Design Group will present the revised plans to the Council, which address concerns voiced by the Planning Commission and the public. Chief Kraule noted that the District's prime objective has been to replace a very old building with a modern seismically safe building. Chief Kraule noted that the District has meet the concerns addressed by the adjacent neighborhood regarding cut through traffic and impact of the construction phase. Chief Kraule noted that the Fire District has gone to great lengths to cooperate with the City staff, the US Postal Office and the Federated Church. Mary McGrath, Architect/RPM Design Group, stated that the project has three stages: • Phase I =Demolition of the Contempo Building, install temporary station • Phase II -Demolition of the existing Fire Station, reconstruction of replacement facility, upgrade site areas around Post Office • Phase III -removal of temporary station, complete site improvements Ms. McGrath explained the current site configuration and explained each phase of the project. Ms. McGrath explained Phase I: • Relocate monument to previous location at Blaney Plaza • Demolition of existing Contempo Building • Site Improvements o Install temporary modular building o Apparatus parking with temporary cover o Reconfigure curb ramp at alley exit to Saratoga Avenue for greater public safety • Reconfigure Contempo property parking (proving 18 on site spaces) • Acquire 6 off-site parking spaces on Federated Church property • Total of 24 temporary parking spaces • Front setback variation for placement of temporary modular on Contempo property • Rear setback variation for placement of temporary tent apparatus cover on Contempo property • 10 Ms. McGrath explained Phase II: • Temporary relocate Post Office drop box • Close alley behind Fire Station • 5 Post Office parking spaces at alley will be reconfigured to be accessible from Post Office site • Post Office circulation will be improves • Demolition of existing Fire Station Ms. McGrath explained all of the proposed easements and site improvements that follow Phase II of the project. Ms. McGrath stated that several modifications to the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9 would be made including the reconfiguration of traffic and new apron area. In regards to Phase II, Ms. McGrath explained that the maximum lot coverage is 30%; the District is requesting that they be allowed to have maximum site coverage of 32.1 %. Referring to Phase III of the project Ms. McGrath explained the two proposed parking plans. The first proposal would include the Districts required 24 on- site parking spaces. Ms. McGrath stated that this plan includes the sale of a portion of the Contempo property to the Federated Church, allowing them to acquire an additional 16 spaces, the District 18, 10 to the City and an additional 6 to be shared between the District and the Church. The second parking proposal, Ms. McGrath explained does not include the sale to the Church. The District would still have the 24 required on-site spaces an . additiona132 dedicated spaces for fire station use. Ms. McGrath stated that the City would still have 10 dedicated spaces. Phase III, Ms. McGrath explained consists of many site improvements such as landscaping and improved circulation around the site. Ms. McGrath stated that the summary of building area of the proposed Fire Station as follows: • Basement - 2,777 square feet • Main Floor - 8,987 square feet • Upper Floor - 4,171 square feet • Total - 15,435 square feet Ms. McGrath stated that the architectural style was been. inspired by Julia Morgan vernacular to compliment the Federated Church. The maximum height on the west elevation is 30 ft. and the maximum height on the southern elevation is 22 ft. Ms. McGrath stated that the total project duration would be approximately 16- 18months. Ms. McGrath briefly explained the haul routes, parking locations, and shuttle routes. Steve Campbell, 14482 Oak Place, noted that he is a lifelong resident of the City, a neighbor of the Fire District and a member of the Federated Church. Mr. Campbell noted that he supports the project. 11 Hollie Davies, 14478 Oak Place, urged the City Council to approve the project stating that the new Fire Station would make a beautiful entrance to the Village. Aaron Katz, Po Box 116, stated that he was against the proposed project. Ben Dubin, 16689 Bohlman Road,: stated that he voted for the bond two years ago. Mr. Dubin stated that the design has improved from what the public saw in the beginning. Mr. Dubin urged the City Council to approve the project. Susan Perry, 14340 Saratoga Avenue, commented that the City Council should open their eyes and ears to self interest groups. Ms. Perry stated that many changes have been made to the project. Ms. Perry stated that the voters approved the bond measure and urged the Council to approve the project is 16- 18months. Robert Egen, SFPD Commissioner, 14890 Montalvo Road, thanked City staff, the Council, and the community for working with them to build a fire station. Mr. Egen stated that they have tired to meet everyone's needs. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the Fire District has given no assurance that the parking will be built. The City should impose a method or condition to guarantee that the parking spaces will be built. Jerry Bruce, Federated Church, stated that the new design has better parking and a better circulation plan. Mr. Bruce stated he supports the current design. Mr. Bruce stated that Plan A increases the Church's parking and provides an additional egress. James Kardach, 20221 La Paloma Avenue, stated that he is a member of the Village Green Neighborhood Association. Mr. Kardach noted that he supported that bond and is disappointed that it has not been built. Mr. Kardach noted that he enjoys having the Fire Station in his neighborhood. Denise Michel, 20375 Park Place, Co-President/ Village Green Neighborhood Association. Ms. Michel stated that the Village Green Neighborhood Association has been working with the City, the District and the Church to address cut through traffic, parking issues and other concerns of the neighbors. Ms. Michel stated that the Associatior_ hopes to continue working with everyone in the future. Bill Giannini, 21670 Palomino Way, stated that he is a 4`h generation resident of the City of Saratoga and a business owner. Mr. Giannini stated that the SFPD has always served them well. Mr. Giannini stated that the District does need a modern facility. Mr. Giannini stated that he thinks the architectural style in the proposed design fits well into the neighborhood. Bob Shepard, 20491 Forrest Hills, urged the City Council to move forward with the Fire District project. Mr. Shepard stated he fully supports the project. 12 Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, referring to the comments made earlier this evening his special interest are the fireman that live in the fire house which is unsafe. Mr. Farrell agreed that the District needs a new station but does not agree to the increase in square footage from the original 7,000 square feet to over 17,000 square feet with 32% land coverage. Reese Williams, 20119 Knollwood Drive, stated that he feels the pal has been well thought out. Mr. Williams stated that he thinks the aesthetics are first rate. Mr. Williams thanked the Council, the Federated Church, SFPD and City staff. Joe Long, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, SFPD Commissioner, stated that although he is still new on the job he understand that sometimes elected official need to make tuff decisions. Arvin Engelson, Pastor/Saratoga Federated Church, 20381 Sea Gull Way, applauded the efforts of. all parties that participated in the past discussions in regard to the SFPD project. Jay Geddes, 13917 Lynde Avenue, SFPD Commissioner, stated that what was before the Council this evening was the design of the future. Mr. Geddes stated that he feels they have met the needs of the neighborhoods and the community. Mr. Geddes stated that Mr. Whetstone's letter was part of continued harassment to delay the construction of the new station. Frank Lemmon, 20655 Woodward Court, stated that he is the Chair of the Citizen Oversight Commission in charge of monitoring the project. On October 29, 2002 the Committee reviewed the cost estimates of the project. Mr. Lemmon stated that the estimated cost plus a 10% contingency has a potential overrun of approximately $650,000. The sale of the Contempo property should cover the overrun. Mr. Lemmon stated that the Fire Commission is sure they can finish the project without another bond. Richard Crouch, 15668 Bohlman Road, stated that he supported the proposed project. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, stated that there is a consensus that the SFPD needs a new station. Mr. Phipps stated that he thinks the proposed deign looks like a Mediterranean house. Mr. Phipps stated that he is concerned about the costs. Ms. McGrath noted that there was an error in her report; any reference that says shared parking with the Federated Church should say dedicated parking for Saratoga Fire District. Hal Toppel, Attorney/SFPD, noted that the District will have agreements between the City of Saratoga and the District that will permanently commit the parking areas on the land the District owns to remain parking. However the property that is sold to the Church, today they say it will remain parking, but the future of that land is not the District responsibility. Mr. Toppel stated that the District has completely met the City's parking requirements. 13 If the Church wants to use the parcel for other uses than parking they would have to come to the City. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the District received a letter from the United States Postal Office supporting the project. Mr. Toppel responded that a letter from the Post Office was submitted to the City. Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief/SFPD, addressed comments regarding the size of the proposed station. Assistant Fire Chief Duncan sited examples throughout the area in regards to sizes of new stations and what extra space was used for. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Streit asked about additional safety efforts at the intersection on Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9. Mayor Streit asked if Caltrans would allow us to remove the "no turn on red restriction". John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, responded yes. Mayor Streit asked if this could be added to condition #40. Mayor Streit asked if the gate located in between the properties could be automatic. City Attorney Taylor stated that Council is directing the Public Safety Commission to look at the design of right turn lane improvements from northbound Highway 9 to eastbound Saratoga Avenue and that he would that this request to the resolution. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that most of her concerns have been addressed, but would like to discuss parking with the Federated Church at a later date. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the size of the proposed station is still a concern of hers. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that this has been a very intense public process over the last year. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City got a very good design, much better than the original plan the District provided. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the letter from the Post Office is not from the people in the Post Office that can make important decisions regarding property. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the appropriate party should be contacted at the Post Office. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that the District keep the neighborhood abreast of all activity regarding the construction process. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he had some concerns with Condition #40. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the Public Safety Commission should be "requested" not "directed" to come up with a plan to detour traffic from the Village Green Neighborhood. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he supports the project 14 Councilmember Bogosian stated that this process has been a v:,ry public process and as a result the District has submitted a great proposal. Councilmember Bogosian noted that with this proposal the intersection would be improved. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the new design blends into the neighborhood well. Councilmember Bogosian stated he supports this project. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he thinks that Condition #40 should remain as is. Vice Mayor Baker stated that this Council's priority has been to protect the quality and character of the neighborhoods. Other than that, Vice Mayor Baker noted that he supports the project. Councilmember Waltonsmith supported Vice Mayor Baker's request to leave Condition #40 as is. Mayor Streit noted that many people have worked on this project to make this Fire Station the best possible. Mayor Streit noted that he supports the proposed project. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL AND APPROVING APPLICATION #02-176 FOR A NEW AND TEMPORARY FIRE STATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. PROPOSED VACATION OF GEORGE WHALEN WAY BETWEEN SARATOGA AVENUE AND SARATOGA LOS-GATOS ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Re-open public hearing continued from October 16, 2002; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-080 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNIL GRANTING THE VACATION OF GEORGE WHALEN WAY BETWEEN SARATOGA AVENUE AND SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD BAKER/BOGOSINA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION VACATING GEORGE WHALEN WAY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE 2001 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL CODES AND RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE NEED TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL SEISMIC BRACING REQUIREMENTS 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; place item on next agenda for adoption. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor noted that on October 16, 2002 the City's Building Official has reviewed the 2001 California Building Standards Code and recommends that the City adopt the 2001 California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical codes by reference. The Building Official also recommends that the City adopt certain appendices to the Code. In addition, City Attorney Taylor noted that the Building Official recommends that the City amend the 2001 California Buildings Standards Code to impose additional seismic bracing requirements that are reasonably necessary because of local geological conditions. City Attorney Taylor noted that the proposed ordinance amends the Building Regulations chapter of the Saratoga City Code. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING; ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUILDING, PLUMBING. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL REGULATIONS CODE; PLACE ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • OLD BUSINESS 6. LAND EXCHANGE WITH SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-079 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL- APPROVING THE LAND EXCHANGE WITH SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOTLUION APPROVING THE LAND EXCHANGE WITH THE SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit declared aten-minute break at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 7. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. 16 'Assistant City Manger Tinfow explained that the Library JPA voted to pay for moving costs. That action would free up an additional $137,000 for construction expenses. Assistant City Manger Tinfow stated that there have been no new chap e orders g since her last report and the construction completion date continues to be February 28, 2003, and the new library would be open to the public in Spring 2003. In regards to the Gen-Con Inc. bankruptcy, Assistant City Manger Tinfow stated that no new information has been received. In regards to the benches, Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that she has reviewed additional information on the structural integrity and installation of the alternative benches and would wait until January to bring forward an opportunity for further Council discussion. In regards to the parking lot modifications, Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that pricing is still being developed for both the internal parking lot curbing and the perimeter erosion control. Once complete, the option would be brought to Council. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for her report. • NEW BUSINESS 2002-2003 CONTRACT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - AWARD OF CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to award bid to lowest bidder; award construction contract; approve additional work to contract; authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract. Morgan Kessler, Civil Engineer, presented staff report. Mr. Kessler explained that sealed bids for the 2002 Pavement Management Program were opened on October 31, 2002. A total of eight contractors submitted Bids. Bortolotto & Co. of San Carlos submitted the lowest bid of $619,962.49, which is 32% below the Engineer's Estimate of $815,469.95. Bid amounts came in unexpectedly low, which can be attributed to current material prices. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated October 4, 2002. Mr. Kessler stated that staff recommended that Bortolotto & Co. be declared the lowest responsible bidder and authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $90,000 to cover any unforeseen circumstances and address additional work, which may arise during the course of the project. Mayor Streit asked if Bortolotto & Co. has ever done work for the City. 17 ~. John Cherbone, Public Works Director responded that Bortolotto & Co. has done good work for the City in the past. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO DECLARE BORTOLOTTO & CO. THE LOWEST BIDDER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONSTUCTION CONTRACT TO BORTOLOTTO. MOITON PASSES 5-0. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE ADDITONAL WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMTIH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO $90,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. AUTHORIZE SUPPORT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEFS IN SAN JOSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. CITY OF MORGAN HILL; BARDEN V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO STAFF RECOMMENATION: Authorize amicus participation. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that the courts authorize amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in cases where the amici have an interest in the case and would provide an additional perspective to that being provided by the parties to the case. The City's support is currently being sought in the following cases, which are of possible concern to the City. (1) San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill City Attorney Taylor explained that this case involves the interpretation and application of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000 cc et seq. City Attorney Taylor explained that a health care facility closed the only hospital in the City of Morgan Hill and sold the property to a Christian college. The college filed an application to change the zoning designation for the site from medical use to educational use. The city denied the application, explaining that the site was the only property in the city zoned for hospital use. The college then filed suit against the city under RLUIPA. City Attorney Taylor explained that under RLUIPA, "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person, assembly, or institution, unless the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental purpose. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000cc(a)(1). At trial, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the city, finding that the college had failed to demonstrate 18 that the denial of its application placed a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. The court concluded that RLUIPA "does not provide religious institutions with immunity from land use regulation." The college has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The amicus brief will emphasize that RLUIPA is intended to prevent discrimination against religious expression and institutions, not to exempt religious institutions from neutral land use regulations or environmental regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, and that interpreting RLUIPA to forbid any zoning or land use restrictions on religious institutions would strip local governments and planning commissions throughout the State of California of their historic power to reasonably regulate land use for the public welfare, thereby making federal courts, in essence, "super zoning bodies." The League of Cities Legal Advocacy Committee has recommended that cities join the amicus brief, which is being prepared without charge to participating cities. The deadline to join the brief is November 7, 2002. (2) Barden v. City of Sacramento City Attorney Taylor explained that this case involves the application of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, to the maintenance of public sidewalks. City Attorney Taylor explained that various individuals with mobility and/or vision disabilities brought a class action against the City of Sacramento, alleging that the city violated the ADA by failing to maintain existing sidewalks so as to ensure that the sidewalks are accessible to persons with disabilities. The individuals with disabilities argued that the city is obliged to remove barriers to sidewalk accessibility, such as benches, sign posts, wires, and utility poles. City Attorney Taylor explained that at trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the city, holding that.the public sidewalks in Sacramento are not a service, program, or activity of the city and, accordingly, are not subject to the program access requirements of the ADA. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that maintaining public sidewalks is a normal function of a city and, therefore, that public sidewalks are subject to the accessibility requirements of the ADA. The Court of Appeals noted that the ADA regulations require curb ramps to be installed in all pedestrian walkways and found that this requirement "reveals a general concern for the accessibility of public sidewalks ...and would be meaningless if the sidewalks between the curb ramps were inaccessible." The Court of Appeals refused to consider arguments concerning any "undue financial and administrative burdens," stating that the city would have an opportunity to present evidence on that issue at trial. • 19 The City of Sacramento intends to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and has asked the City to join an amicus brief in support of the petition. In addition, the City of Sacramento has asked the City to join an amicus brief on the merits if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The City of Sacramento anticipates that the amicus brief will explain the intent of the ADA and discuss the serious financial burden that the Court of Appeal's ruling would place on cities and other local agencies if allowed to stand. City Attorney Taylor explained that the League of Cities Legal Advocacy Committee has recommended that cities join the amicus brief in support of the petition, which is being prepared without charge to participating cities. The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the California Association of Counties, the National Association of Counties, the City of New York, and numerous other cities have also joined or recommended joining amicus briefs in support of the petition. The deadline to join the brief is November 15, 2002. MEHAFFEYBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN AMICUS BRIEF IN SAN JOSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. CITY OF MORGAN HILL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WALTONSMITHBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN AMICUS BRIEF IN BARDEN V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BAKER OPPOSING. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor Baker stated that he would follow up on Mr. Martell's concerns at the next West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority authorize the General Manager to look for additional property to purchase for the shelter. Councilmember Waltonsmith and Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. Mayor Streit stated that an original Tea Room was recently donated to Hakone Gardens and is being shipped from Japan. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Baker stated that at the last Parks and Recreation Commission meeting approximately 25 neighbors of the Wildcat Creek Trail came before the Commission protesting to the gates that the SCC Water District installed blocking the trail off completely. Vice Mayor Baker requested that this item be brought back as an agenda item at the next City Council meeting. Consensus of the City Council to place this item on the November 20, 2002 City Council agenda. 20 In regards to the BMX course at Garner Park, Vice Mayor Baker suggested that the City either remove it or rebuild it. - In regards to the Library's grand opening celebration, Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that an adhoc committee be formed to help plan the celebration Councilmember Waltonsmith volunteered to be one of the adhoc members. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would volunteer, but if either one of the new Councilmembers would like to take his place he would not hesitate to let them. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk C~' 21 7' MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 10, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 7:00 y.m. ADJOURNED TO THEATER LOBBY FOR RECEPTION- 6:30 p.m. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Adjohxned City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Councilmember Mehaffey to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Joan Pisani, Recreation Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 10, 2002. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of December 10, 2002 was properly posted on December 6, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR -~ 1. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION GRATING THE APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION DR-O1-044 TO CONSTRUCT FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 18360 PURDUE DRIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: OZ-096 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION DR-O1-044 BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION 2. REMARKS FROM OUTGOING MAYOR -NICK STREIT Mayor Streit reflected on his term as Mayor of the City of Saratoga noting his accomplishments. 3. REMARKS FROM VICE MAYOR EVAN BAKER AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHN MEHAFFEY Vice Mayor Baker reflected on the past four years he served as a 2 Councilmember for the City of Saratoga. ~. ,. Vice Mayor Baker thanked the City Council and City Staff. Councilmember Mehaffey reflected on the past four years he served as a Councilmember for the City of Saratoga. 4. PRESENTATIONS TO VICE MAYOR BAKER AND COUNCILMEMBER MEHAFFEY Mayor Streit, Councilmember Waltonsmith and Councilmember Bogosian presented Evan Baker and John Mehaffey a few gifts from the City. 5. CERTIFICATION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND CANVAS OF RETURNS FROM THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR COUNCIL CANDIDATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and direct City Clerk to Administer Oath of Office to new Councilmembers. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-095 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002 BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 5.2002 ELECTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Kathleen King, Norman Kline and Nick Streit. 6. REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Manager declares the office of the Mayor vacant and asks for nominations; when all nominations have been received, a vote is called; 2. Mayor declares the office of Vice Mayor vacant and asks for nominations; when all nominations have been received, a vote is called. Dave Anderson, City Manager, declared the office of Mayor vacant and asked for nominations. Councilmember Waltonsmith moved to nominate Nick Streit as Mayor. • WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPOINT NICK STREIT AS MAYOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit declared the office of Vice Mayor vacant and asked for 3 nominations. Councilmember Kline moved to nominate Ann Waltonsmith as Vice Mayor. .y a KLINE/KING MOVED TO APPOINT ANN'WALTONSMITH AS VICE , MAYOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. REMARKS FROM NEW MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS The Mayor and City Councilmembers each provided brief remarks. NEW BUSINESS 8. COUNCIL AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS, COMMISSION LIAISONS AND ADHOC COMMITTEES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that it was the appropriate time of year to present to the City Council a list of all the outside agencies, commission, committees and adhoc committees City Councilmembers are assigned to each year. City Clerk Boyer noted that Staff was requesting that the Council review the S information provided in their packet and submit their preferences to tree Mayor by December 12, 2002 so it maybe approved on the December 18, 2002 agenda. 9. PROPOSED 2003 COUNCIL CALENDAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer noted that there was one minor correction; the Council retreat was now scheduled for February 1, 2003. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None OTHER None • 4 ~q, ' •~ i CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nick Streit adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and invited everyone to the lobby for the reception. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 26, 2002 The Mayor of the City of Saratoga called a Special Meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on December 26, 2002 at 5:15 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California. Mayor Streit called the Special Meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Kathleen King ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Lori Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Dustin Notarianni , Gilbane/Project Manager REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 26, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of December 26, 2002 was properly posted on December 20, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None r~ NEW BUSINESS lA. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE PAVING OF PROSPECT ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve agreement. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CUOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR PAVING OF PROSPECT ROAD. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH KING ABSENT. 1B. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT -AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TELEPHONE & DATA WORK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to award a contract to the lowest qualified bidder as recommended by Gilbane and City Staff. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AWARD COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATION SERVICES (CIS) AS LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER FOR THE SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT TELEPHONE & DATA WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,926 AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO 10% OF THE TOTAL AWARD. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH KING ABSENT. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 20, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Application #02-197 -Amending Side Yard Setback Requirements RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct the advertised Public Hearing, waive the first reading and direct Staff to place the proposed Ordinance Amendment on the Consent Calendar on the City Council's December 4, 2002 meeting agenda for second reading and adoption. CEQA: As the proposed amendment is a minor alteration in land use limitations the amendment qualifies for a Class 5 Categorically Exemption pursuant to Section 15305 CEQA Guidelines. REPORT SUMMARY: City Staff has received complaints regarding the interpretation of the side yard setback requirements for structures over 18-feet in height as it relates to existing structures and regarding on lots with substandard width. This appears to be another example of the "language of the ordinance vs. previous practice" syndrome. The imposition of the ordinance required side yard setbacks on lots with substandard widths create difficult designs. For example, a lot with a width of 50-feet would have a minimum side yard set back of 6-feet pursuant to section 15-65.160, which states, "Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall be not less than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater." However, section 15-45.040 requires that for structures over 18-feet in height that the set backs be increased on a one for one ratio. If a design proposal for a house that is two story at 24-feet in height, the setbacks increase to 12-feet on both sides. The resulting structure could only be 26- feet wide. Apparently, the previous practice was to have the increased setback on the second floor only. Section 15-45.040 simply does not support that interpretation. 15-45.040 Setbacks. Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R-1- 10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000 or R-1-20,000 district will exceed eighteen feet in height, the required setbach from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each one foot of height in excess of eighteen feet. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 4 26,1991; Ord. 71-178 4 2,1998) The purpose of the increased setback is the avoidance of bulk and mass at the minimum setback. For two-story dwellings the previous practice seems to meet this goal. However, this practice does not address single story dwellings that are over 18-feet in height. In the recent past, the Planning Commission has reviewed several single story dwellings that approach 26-feet in height. For single story structures in excess of 18-feet Planning Commission will have to use the Design Review process and required findings to avoid mass and bulk issues. Again, the complaints that Staff has received fall into two categories; first, nonconforming lots and second, second story additions wherein the first floor was built at the minimum setback. For the both of these cases Staff would suggest that the ordinance be amended to require that the second story be setback be the minimum plus an additional five feet. With this amendment, Staff would further suggest that section 15-45.040 be deleted in its entirety. Staff has used the typical ~~--'_~c*l,rc„o and bold italics to show sections to bed or added. Amend Section 15-45.040 by deletion.' ~ ^c.nnn co~t~,,,.i,., n - 1 ~ ~ ~ p S~~ ~ ~-~-~ a i r ° ° i~l h h+ ~ a ,-rte ~ ~ i. v tli ~ ~ ii~- r. k FC~L -crg ~t,.,ll l.o ~+- i1} ~~ t -- ~ ° ' c c cz a r -l~- 2~g ~ f ~ f 1' ttil' r ~ cquirc f i r S ~22'~ ~ . E 6 ~E9~ ~-H~$~~ C-~~A~2`~ ~~ 2 ~6 2 ~ cuz ~ ~ 7 ~ P~f@2~kf~ - ~~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 9 6O 03=2itc~ r ~i '71 1'14 ~. ~i ~ vrxc '~ 1 - vv v g r g Ctt 1~ . , ~ ~ i ~ Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (2) to read: (a) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard: First Floor Second Floor Individual Individual District Side Yards Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 2of5 Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (a) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indica ted in the fo llowing table: First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Interior Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Yard Side Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 2Sft. 25 ft. 30ft. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (b) (2) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: First Floor Second Floor Individual Individual District Side Yards Slde Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 3 of 5 Amend Section 15-12.090 (b) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table: First Floor Second First Second Interior Floor Floor Floor Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Side Yard Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. ISft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. ISft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Amend Sections 15-65.160 (a) to read: (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards forfirstfloorsshall be not less than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard for first floors of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater. The second floor setbacks for interior and exteriorlots shall be increased an additional flue (S) feet. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: There would be an increased number of variances processed for substandard lots and for lots where existing dwellings exist, for which the owners desire to construct additions or new dwellings with only the minimum setback. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Leave the ordinance sections as they currently exist. 2. Only amend the ordinance that address lots with substandard lot widths. 4of5 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Place the proposed zoning amendment on the City Council's Consent Calendar for the December 4, 2002 meeting for second reading and adoption. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Public Hearing for this agenda item was posted and published in the San Jose Mercury News on November 10, 2002. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Correspondence from Susan and Ross Hannibal 5 of 5 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 15-50 TO PROVIDE AN APPROVED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT UPON REQUEST OF A CITY OFFICIAL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as following: A. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning code with respect to side yard setbacks for the R-1- 10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000, R-1-20,000 and R-1=40,000 zoned districts B. The adoption of an ordinance is consistent with the provisions of 15-45.080 Design Review findings in that the amendment will help minimize the perception excessive bulk and mass. Section 2. Adoption. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (2) to read: (a) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard: District First Floor Individual Side Yards Second Floor Individual Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (a) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table: First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Interior Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Yard Side Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (b) (2) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: District First Floor Individual Side Yards Second Floor Individual Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. Amend Section 15-12.090 (b) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table: First Floor Second First Second Interior Floor Floor Floor Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Side Yard Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Amend Sections 15-65.160 (a) to read: (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards for first floors shall be not less than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard for first floors of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater. The second floor setbacks for interior and exterior lots shall be increased an additional five (5) feet. Section 3. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub- paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase are held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. R The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the Ciry of Saratoga held on the day of , 2002, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the day of , 2002: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NICK STREIT, MAYOR ATTEST: CATHLEEN BOYER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE 216 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 15 TO PROVIDE AN STAGERED SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1-10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,00, R-1-20,000 ANND R-1-40,000 ZONED DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as following: A. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning code with respect to side yard setbacks for the R-1- 10,000, R-1-12,500, R-1-15,000, R-1-20,000 and R-1-40,000 zoned districts B. The adoption of an ordinance is consistent with the provisions of 15-45.080 Design Review findings in that the amendment will help minimize the perception excessive bulk and mass. Section 2. Adoption. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (2) to read: (a) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard: District First Floor Individual Side Yards Second Floor Individual Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (a) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (a) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated. in the following table: First Second First Second Floor Floor Floor Floor Interior Interior Exterior Exterior District Side Yard Side Side Side Yard Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-15,00() 12 ft. 17 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 2S ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Amend Sections 15-12.090 (b) (2) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the follo~~ing table for each side yard, whichever is greater: First Floor Second Floor Individual Individual District Side Yards Side Yards R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. r~-1-lz,soo l0 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. ~ 17 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. N! % - t ~ . ~ r •' Amend Section 15-12.090 (b) (3) to read: 15-12.090 (b) (3) Side yards of corner lots. The nununum side yard of any corner lot in each R-1 district shall be ten percent of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table: First Floor Second First Interior Floor Floor Interior Exterior District Side Side Yard Side Yarn Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. 15 ft. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. ~~ ~ 20 ft. R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. ~ 25 ft. Amend Sections 15-65.160 (a) to read: Second Floor Exterior Side Yard 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards for first floors shall be not lest; than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard for first floors of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater. The second floor setbacks for interior and exterior lots shall be increased an additional five (5) feet. Section 3. Severance Clause. The Ciry Council declares ghat each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub- paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase are held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining pro~~isions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. %, This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ~' ~ y •.. r i The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 20TH day of November, 2002, and vas adopted by the follov~~ing vote following a second reading on the 4th dap of December, 2002: AYES: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, _ Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None N~ STREIT, MAYOR CLERK A]?PROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY