Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-2003 Planning Commission Packeta CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROIL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: None Staff: Planners Livingstone ~ Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk-Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 12, 2003. (Approved 5-0-2, Kursach and Hunter Abstain) 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 staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 20, 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. APPLICATION #02-039, SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appeal of An Administrative Decision; The Saratoga Homeowners Association has filed an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.120, Tree Regulations, Violations Penalties. The administrative decision requires $35,439.00 in cash and $17,719.50 in native replacement trees for removing a total of 12 trees without a city issued tree removal permit. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED) (APPROVED 7-0 TO CONTINUE TO MEETING ON ARPIL 23, 2003) v 2. APPLICATION #02-280 (397-17-012) - KALKLJNTE; 14625 Fruitvale. Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,815 square foot home. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The pre-existing structure on this 42,011 (net) square foot site was demolished in conjunction with a Design Review approval granted for a new two- . story home on December 12, 2001. The current Design Review application #02-280 was filed because the applicant no longer wishes to construct the Home as previously designed and approved by the Planning Commission. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) APPLICATION #02-215 (517-22-003) - BORELLI, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two-story home with a 1,780 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on February 5, 2003, February 11, 2003, and March 5, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Saturday March 29, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannin saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION -, LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 25,2003 - 3:00 P.Ill. 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, MARCH 26, 2003 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-280 - KALKUNTE Item 2 14625 Fruitvale Avenue 2. Application #02-215 - BORELLI Item 3 20200 Hill Avenue 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. C CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Tl'PE: 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 March 12, 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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf j`. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 20, 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. APPLICATION #02-039, SARATOGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appeal of An Administrative Decision; The Saratoga Homeowners Association has filed an appeal of an administrative decision made pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-50.120, Tree Regulations, Violations Penalties. The administrative decision requires $35,439.00 in cash and $17,719.50 in native replacement trees for removing a total of 12 trees without a city issued tree removal permit. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED) • 2. APPLICATION #02-280 (397-17-012) - KALKUNTE; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,815 square foot home. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The pre-existing structure on this 42,011 (net) square foot site was demolished in conjunction with a Design Review approval granted for a new two- story home on December 12, 2001. The current Design Review application #02-280 was filed because the applicant no longer wishes to construct the home as previously designed and approved by the Planning Commission. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATH VASUDEVAN) 3. APPLICATION #02-215 (517-22-003) - BORELLI, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two-story home with a 1,780 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on February 5, 2003, February 11, 2003, and March 5, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA IE you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us o~q MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting G~ Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christine Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 26, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the regular Planning Commission. minutes of February 26, 2003, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 13. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 6, 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #02-272 (APN 397-23-007) - BIERACH, 20355 Orchard Rd: Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,283 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 feet, 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 7,300 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10, 000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS). Planner Christine Oosterhous provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant has submitted changes to the architectural elevations. • Said that with that she had no further information to present tonight. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Kirk Bierach, Owner/Applicant, 20355 Orchard Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its honest feedback on his design. • Stated that he is happy with the changes made. Mr. Jim Sorden, 14091 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has resided in Saratoga for 30 years. • Declared that the Commission should approve this project as modified, as it will represent an extraordinary addition to the neighborhood. • Described several conditions in the immediate area, included a lighted billboard and several multi- storied buildings, and questioned why these were ever permitted to be constructed. • Said that this is a lovely- house and that the plans have been improved with the Planning Commission's input. • Encouraged approval. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:10 p.m. • • Commissioner Garakani: • Advised that he visited the site yesterday. • Said that this has been a sensitive application that warranted more time. • Stated that he was glad the applicant worked with staff to fix the issues raised. • Said that now everyone is happy with the proposal and that this is now a good project that he can support. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she had thought this project looked fine when considered two weeks ago. Said that it now looks even better with the added shutters and said she has no problem with the project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Kurasch said that she had had concerns regarding the rear and side profiles and now finds the project more attractive. Chair Jackman said that she is fine with the project and finds it to be much better. Commissioner Hunter said that she had had concerns about impacts on a Heritage, Lane. Thanked the applicant for his efforts. Stated that she spoke with the Heritage Preservation Commission and they are fine with this project. Expressed her support. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #02-272) to allow the construction of first and second story additions to an existing residence on property located at 20355 Orchard Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST. ANDREWS PARISH AND SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct new facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts/Gymnasium, Sunday School Rooms, Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center and a Bell Tower. The project also includes: a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re-grading and reconfiguring the parking lot and eliminating off-site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christine Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that St. Andrews Parish and School seeks Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow the demolition of all existing structures, except for the Sanctuary, and- the construction of six new buildings. • Advised that there have been many meetings and hearings and she would therefore keep her comments this evening brief. • Said that upon review, staff has determined that an Amendment to the General Plan was passed in 1985 that permits three-story structures on Quasi-Public Facilities zoning districts. Therefore, three-story buildings are permissible at this site. • Advised that minor revisions have been made to the project, including the four-foot reduction in height of one building to 20 feet. • Said that last Friday an on-site meeting was held to discuss issues including landscaping and fencing. • Added that there are still some unresolved issues with some of the neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 4 • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the impact of this project on the Heritage Lane and unanimously voted to support this project. • Advised that,-with the exception of the Bell Tower, staff is supportive of this proposal with conditions. • Recommended approval of the environmental documents, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. • Said she would be available for questions. Commissioner Kurasch asked if per Resolution 2285, which amended the text to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the provision of three-story heights must be permitted. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied no, just that a three story height was not prohibited outright. Commissioner Kurasch asked what conditions would lead to permitting or not permitting three-story heights. Director Tom Sullivan replied the same design criteria considered for any building, including bulk, mass and articulation. Commissioner Kurasch asked what other exceptions are required for this proposal, other than the request for three stories. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied site coverage, floor area, height limits and setbacks. acks. Commissioner Kurasch asked what specific setb Planner Christine Oosterhous replied the requirement for one foot for each foot over 18 feet in height. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the mitigation required for the north classroom building as it impacts the privacy of the adjacent residential property owner and pointed out that a solution might be to reduce the ceiling height in order to also reduce the overall building height. Planner Christine Oosterhous said that the north classroom building is mostly 30 feet from the property line, 28 feet at the closest points to the property line. Commissioner Hunter asked if the lowering the classroom building to 30 feet also lowered the ceiling heights to 8 feet. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that the 30 foot high, two-story classroom building still includes 9-foot ceiling heights. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the height of the combination Administration/Classroom building. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied 44 to 45 feet. As viewed from Saratoga Avenue, it is 32.5 feet. high but from the rear of the property, it is 45 feet high. Commissioner Garakani ointed out that when this ro'ect was before the Commission some time ago p P J the Planning Commission requested several things and give direction. Asked if a summary exists of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 5 those requests and whether they were incorporated. Gave the example of having requested projections regarding visual impacts from neighboring properties. Planner Christine Oosterhous pointed out that the North Classroom building and Parish Center views are provided on Sheet A.3.5. Commissioner Garakani again asked if a summary of what had been requested is available. Commissioner Hunter reminded that no specific motion was made just a variety of comments. Commissioner Kurasch said that she made a list at the time that included four major areas of concerns: the intensity of the project and the desire to see it fit better onto the site; the lowering of building heights; the reduction of bulk; more consideration of neighbors' visual impacts and a simulation of the bell tower. Commissioner Zutshi asked if story poles were requested. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that staff did request story poles. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the amendment that permitted three-story structures required that they be compatible with existing structures. Asked staff if this application is considered to be compatible. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that this determination is part of the decision making being done by the Commission tonight. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this amendment to allow three-story heights has been applied to any other property. Director Tom Sullivan replied the Oddfellows project in 1995. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff what they are recommending regarding the Bell Tower. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that staff is recommending the reduction in height and frequency of proposed bell ringing. Suggested that that particular issue might be best brought back for further consideration. Commissioner Kurasch asked how the progression of staff recommendations has occurred between October and today. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that in October, staff had still thought that three-story building elements were prohibited but has since learned that through the General Plan amendment this assumption is not correct. Added that they had taken a more conservative approach. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Scott Sheldon, Project Representative, Premier Commercial: • Gave a rundown on the various members of the project team present this evening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 6 • Stated that Planner Christine Oosterhous has already given a good summary of the project. • Stated that they have been working with staff on design changes as well as having worked with neighbors. • Advised that they are sensitive to their neighbors and the community, having held a series of workshops to discuss their project and having an open door policy for input. • Declared that what they have before the Commission represents the best project they can possibly make. • Said that they have some differences with staff recommendations. • Stressed the importance of having 9-foot ceiling heights. • Stated that they went to the manufacturer of the Bell Tower and have learned that what they are proposing is the minimum height and size necessary to accommodate the bells. • Added that they moved the Bell Tower closer to the church and further away from Saratoga Avenue. • Acknowledged the requirement for no building being over 30 feet in height as visible from Saratoga Avenue. • Reminded that there are 7 to 8-foot grade changes along Saratoga Avenue. • Said that they feel that 200-foot setbacks and additional landscaping can screen most buildings and/or provide a very filtered view from Saratoga Avenue. • Added that lowering the height any further would cause problems with the pitching of the roofs. Instead of a pitched roof, buildings would end up with a parapet that is more of a commercial look than they want to achieve. • Expressed concern about the proposed cap on student enrollment at 439 students plus aone-percent differential. . • Stated a preference for a total enrollment cap at 450 with the one-percent differential. This would keep the enrollment under historical enrollment. • Said that they have no problems staying within Noise Standards in regards to amplified sound and offered to construct an eight-foot acoustical fence adjacent to residences to mitigate any amplified sound impacts. • Assured that they would comply with Noise Ordinance standards. • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Garakani said that despite the work with neighbors, the Commission has before it a petition signed by 19 neighbors objecting to this project for various reasons. Asked when is the last time the project applicants discussed their plans with the surrounding neighbors.. . Mr. Scott Sheldon replied that they met with neighbors many times over the last two years but that many meetings were poorly attended. Added that they cannot make the neighbors attend these meetings and that these letters of opposition are very recent and that when he discusses interaction with neighbors, he is mostly speaking of the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if it is normal not to share correspondence received about a project with the applicant until the public hearing.. Director Tom Sullivan advised that any additional items received since the distribution of the packet were distributed this evening. The applicant gets what the Commissioners get. Mr. Scott Sheldon advised that he received the staff report on Saturday. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch: • Inquired about the intent of the one-percent variance in allowed enrollment numbers. • Added that per one letter, this is of particular concern due to concerns about the intensification of the use of this site including increase in capacity, noise and traffic. • Asked about what aspect of enrollment numbers would result in a further review by the Commission. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied that he would suggest a simplification to cap the enrollment outright at 455. Any enrollment above that figure would require Planning Commission review and approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Sheldon if he is willing to accept a Condition of Approval limiting maximum enrollment to 455 students. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied that they would agree to such a Condition of Approval. Planner Christine Oosterhous stated that staff's recommendation is an enrollment cap of 439 with the one-percent differential requiring additional Planning Commission review. Mr. Scott Sheldon stressed his recommendation to simply set an enrollment cap without a variance percentage. Added that the upgrade to the school is not intended to be growth inducing but rather to offer better quarters for the existing students. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Commission has to go by .the Negative Declaration recommendations and reminded that 15 families have cited this potential growth as a concern. Mr. Scott Sheldon said he has no problem with that and agreed that this cap may help alleviate concerns. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a reduction in the massing for the Performing Arts building and the possible elimination of the Bell Tower. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Replied that the Bell Tower is felt to be a real asset to the City of Saratoga and would be very unique. • Stated that they have been sensitive to the neighborhood. Some like it while some do not. However, they will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance standards and that a schedule has been prepared for the use of the Bell Tower. • Said that three story structures are part of the zoning allowances, especially on a property with a slope of about 10 percent that allows the use of three-stories in an efficient way. • Added that what is on the .site now is not significantly different from what they are proposing. However, they have internalized the corridors for security purposes while right now most of the corridors are on the exterior of the classroom buildings. Having interior corridors will make the school more secure as well as be more aesthetically pleasing. • Reminded that from Saratoga Avenue, what will be visible appears to be a two-story structure that . is well buffered. Commissioner Garakani asked for details on the plans for bell ringing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Scott. Sheldon said certain special events such as wedding, funerals, holidays and significant events.. Commissioner Garakani questioned if bells are not planned to be rung for each Sunday. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied twice on Sunday. Chair Jackman pointed out the schedule that states bells ringing ten times at 9:55 a.m. and one time at 11:15 a.m. and 5 p:m., approximately 20 weddings per year and holidays such as Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Bell Tower has been scaled back from what was seen before. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied no. However, they have moved the Bell Tower further back on the site. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the square footage of the Bell Tower. Mr. Scott Sheldon reminded that it is the minimum size possible to accommodate the bells per the manufacturer, at 16 feet by 16 feet. Ms. Mary Ann Escobar, 12684 Indio Court, Saratoga: • Identified herself as the President of the St. Andrew's Parents Association Board and a lifelong resident of Saratoga. • Asked supporters of the project present in the audience to raise hands to identify themselves to the Commission. • Said that St. Andrews is 40 years old and is a facility in need of remodeling and updating. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many families represented live in Saratoga. Ms. Mary Ann Escobar said more than half. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many present this evening actually live within the perimeter of the school. Commissioner Garakani narrowed the question by asking how many live within a block or two of the school. . Approximately two members of the audience raised their hands. Mr. Tim Sparks, 19562 Via Monte Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided here for about 14 years and has three children at the school. • Stated that he considers himself to be a neighbor of the school and also serves as President of the Board of Trustees. • Declared that he has been heavily involved in this project and has been active in both the church and school since 1995. • Added that he is pleased with the quality of education his children are receiving at the school. • Said that the facility is now outdated and that the classrooms are too small and the library too limited. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 9 • Informed that the first Strategic Plan was prepared about five years ago and that they have an obligation to the children and a commitment to the school. • Said that in 1999 a thoughtful plan to update the facilities was developed through thousands of hours of work on the part of many people: • Said that they believe that the proposed upgrade addresses all concerns. fairly and urged Commission support of the project. Mr. Hugh Wright, 12243 Golcta Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed that he has been a member of -the church since 1984 and is Senior Warden on the governing board,. which provides financial leadership. • Stressed that St. Andrews is a part of the Saratoga Community and provides a home for 64 organizations within the church as well as 25 different community groups that include the Boy Scouts, the Saratoga Symphony, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. • Added that the parking lot is used for overflow parking for community events such as parades. • Said that his children attended the school. • Reminded that this is now a 40 year old school and church and that they need adequate facilities to serve their school and church. • Stated that St. Andrew's has been a good member of the Saratoga community over the years. Ms. Janet Morrison, 14660 Fieldstone Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a member of the Saratoga Symphony, a 45-member community orchestra that uses St. Andrew's school to practice. • Stated that they have been using the gym at St. Andrews since the fall of 1997 and that they perform in the sanctuary. • Described their eight-month concert season as including four concerts with weekly rehearsals. • Added that sometimes space and scheduling conflicts cause them to be relocated on site, including to a classroom. • Declared that the Symphony loves the support and space offered at St. Andrews and would like to have a more stabile rehearsal space available at St. Andrews in the future following the completion of the remodel. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Morrison for her comments, on the physical proposal for the site. Asked if she has seen the actual plans. Ms. Janet Morrison replied that she has not seen the specific plans but rather is here to comment in a general way on her support for the project. Chair Jackman pointed out that the Performing Arts Center will also function as the school's gym. Mr. Jim Hughes, 19431 Melinda Circle, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the Clerk of Vestry for St. Andrews and the Chair of the Finance Committee for Saratoga. • Urged support. David and Denise Moyles, 20201 Hill Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that they are products of Saratoga schools and over the years have been neighbors of several public schools as well as having their commute impacted by two or three schools. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 10 • Said that it is important to take a broad view and not just live in isolation. • Questioned any more important function than to encourage a facility that serves the public. • Stated that this school needs to be brought into this century. • Offered a historical perspective on bell tower. • Reminded that one used to hear bells from the Catholic Church and Federated Church and that the ringing of bells is something wonderful of which to be aware as bells reflect the very life of a community. • Stated that bells should flourish. • Urged the Commission to listen to the sound of history of a community and make the right choice. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Commission must also reflect the concerns of others in the community that have expressed concerns over the prospect of a Bell Tower. The idea of bells is not as positive to their experience and living environment. David and Denise Moyles: • Stated that some also object to a steeple and/or cross. • Added that it is not possible to reconcile all desires but that balance and consensus must be achieved when possible. • Stated that bells resonate in the tradition of a community and should be encouraged. Commissioner Garakani reminded that there are three to four churches along Saratoga Avenue. Questioned the impact, if all have bell towers and ring their bells at the same time. David and Denise Moyles said that they could imagine this happening. Reminded that St. Lucy's and Federated Churches already have bells. Commissioner Garakani asked if they are used often. Chair Jackman replied to her knowledge they are only occasionally used for weddings. Mr. Albert Evans, 19644 Needham Lane, Saratoga: • Urged strongly that the Commission support St. Andrew's proposal. • Said that he lives right next to the freeway and that bells would be a welcome addition. • Added that he does not care how often or how long the bells are rung. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that he is not that close to St. Andrews. Mr. Albert Evans said he is close to Highway 85. Ms. Annette Peterson, 13533 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is adjacent to St. Andrews church, on the north side of the street. • Stated that she submitted a letter to Council.. . • Said she has no problem with St. Andrews as they have been neighbors since 1965, which is before Highway 85, before the Library and before West Valley College. • Agreed that the amount of traffic in the area has increased overwhelmingly and that an increase in enrollment is a cause for concern over potential impacts on property values. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 11 • Said that 10-feet from her property was diverted for installation of a sidewalk. Later a stoplight was installed right at their driveway. Since that time, they can no longer make a right turn from their property and often have difficulties leaving their driveway at all. • Expressed concern over the proposed cemetery, saying that although there is an existing memorial garden, another is proposed for placement at the. front of the property. • Declared that she does not want to live right next door to a cemetery and, even though she was told it would only contain cremated remains, she is not comfortable with the idea. • Added that she does not support the proposed Bell Tower and the potential for frequent bell ringing at times when she is trying to sleep. • Stated she does not relish being awakened by bells. • Said that she is a member at St. Lucy's Church, which also'has bells, but that they do not ring the bells often. • Advised that at one time she had asked the City for permission to erect a sound wall to deflect traffic sounds heard from her home. Upon learning the tremendous cost, she asked the City to grandfather the fees but was turned down. Ms. Elizabeth Shoemaker, 18797 Westview Drive, Saratoga: • Identified her family as being St. Andrews parishioners since 1996 with two children who attend the school. • Expressed her support for the project. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Shoemaker if she has reviewed the plans. Ms. Elizabeth Shoemaker replied yes. Mr. Donald Curr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Said that he resides very close to St. Andrews, has reviewed the plans and is in favor of the proposal. Mr. Mark Rizzo, 18565 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a Saratoga resident whose daughter attends St. Andrews School. • Stated that he has seen the plans and supports the project. Ms. Stephanie Palmer, 18806 Harleigh Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has reviewed the plans and is very much in favor of the project. . Mr. Ty Curry, 19186 Gunther Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has two children, has reviewed the plans and is in support. Commissioner Kurasch asked for Mr. Curry's perspective on what he is supporting and how it impacts his life. Mr. Ty Curry: • Said that the impacts are on his children. • Stated .that he agrees with previous comments on the inadequacies of the current classroom buildings. • Added that he grew up in Saratoga himself. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 12 Ms. Patricia Acarney, 20010 Heritage Oak, Saratoga: • Said that she has been a member for seven years and understands the limitations of the present facilities. • Assured that she has reviewed the plans and encourages their approval. Ms. Pat Bennett, 21131 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she joined St. Andrews even before the current buildings were built. • Stated that she looks forward to hearing the bells, which shows an alive and health community. • Expressed support for the proposal. Mr. Laurence Hernandez, 11930 Walbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said he has belonged to St. Andrews for four years, has seen the plans and supports those plans. • Stated that it is critical that the facilities be as good as they can be. Ms. Frances Mellen-Banakas, 14669 Fieldstone Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she just moved here in 1987 as her Southern accent can attest. • Said that she is aware of the plans and supports the project. Mr. Antony Fan, 12698 McCartysville Place: • Said his son attends St. Andrews as a first grader. • Expressed his full support of this project. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Fan if he lives close to St. Andrews. Mr. Fan replied that he lives near DeAnza. Mr. Robb Kundtz, 21790 Leber Way, Saratoga: • Said he is an 18 year resident and parishioner with one son who has graduated from St. Andrews and a second son in attendance currently. • Stated that he has served on a number of boards and committees. • Urged approval. Ms. Beverly J. Bennett, 12457 Lolly Court, Saratoga: • Stated that she is a 43 year resident of Saratoga and member of St. Andrews Church. • Informed that she has seen the plans and supports them. • Heartily urged approval for this project. Ms. Nancy Durham, 19561 Scotland Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she lives close to the church and that she and her husband look forward to hearing bells ring. • Urged support. Mr. Gervais Fong, 12580 Radoyka Drive, Saratoga: • Said he is a proud resident of Saratoga for the last 10 years and has two daughters at St. Andrews, one in kindergarten and the other in fourth grade. • Said he is pleased with the school and heartily supports the plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Penny Curr, 19803 Merribrook Court, Saratoga: • Said that her daughter attended St. Andrews from kindergarten through eighth grade.' • Declared that the time has come to get this project rolling. Ms. Leslie Wyman, 19096 Harleigh Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in Saratoga for 16 years, has served on the Board of Trustees for the school as well as on the Vestry for the Church. • Stated that she has three children, a son who graduated from St. Andrews last June and first and third graders currently attending St. Andrews. • Agreed that the current classrooms are substandard and that they have a duty to upgrade the facilities. • Pointed out that the community has see upgrades at public Saratoga schools over recent years. • Urged support. Mr. Glenn Bennett, 12457 Lolly Court, Saratoga: • Stated that he is a 40-year Saratoga resident and St. Andrews parishioner. • Said that the place needs changes. • Expressed his support for these changes and asked the Commission to approve the project, which would be great for the community. Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga: • .Said that he is a 20-year resident who serves as a representative on the Saratoga Clergy Association. • Said that there is an essential imbedded component that churches. offer a community, wherein thousands of members from different congregations offer human care infrastructure, whether or not the same faiths are shared. • Said that investments are made in the County beyond church membership to address human need. • Encouraged the Commission to hold in mind the need to balance community needs and mutual human respect as well as compassionate values. • Declared St. Andrews to be an embracing and hospitable congregation to the community. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that per the bible, Jesus is asking us to be good to our neighbor. Mr. Arvin Engelson said that conscious neglect is to be avoided. However, issues such as traffic require careful evaluation so that only St. Andrew's traffic is evaluated for their project. These concerns need to be addressed carefully. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that cumulative effects still exist. Chair Jackman agreed that review is not limited to just one use. Mr. Arvin Engleson said that Federated Church has had its bell tower for 25 years without complaint from its neighbors. Chair Jackman asked when and how often the bells are rung. Mr. Arvin Engleson replied on special occasions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Garakani asked why the bells are not rung each Sunday. Mr. Arvin Engleson replied that some have a zeal for it while some do not. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Federated has some sort of bell tower. Mr. Arvin Engleson replied no. Their bell is on the original chapel and is audible only in the immediate neighborhood and is mechanically operated. Mr. Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Said that his property shares a common fence with the church. • Agrees that this is a good school and church. • Said he can support some of the proposal. • Agreed that the school itself should be updated but has several concerns. The two three-story buildings are too massive. There should not be a building more than two-stories high. • Said that the proposed Activity Center would be located right next to his fence, 15 feet away. Hundreds of people will use this building and the noise impacts will be unbearable. • Stated that one can have a good church without having a Bell Tower. • Pointed out that his own church has a policy to split into smaller groups when it gets too big. -What was once one congregation is now four. • Expressed concern that a noise study has not been included regarding the Bell Tower. Planner Christine Oosterhous clarified that a Noise Study was done but states that further study is required on the issue of the Bell Tower. Mr. Harry Luoh: • Expressed concern about the proposed cemetery near his home. • Added that while athree-story building may be permissible by Code, that does not make it good for the environmental or surrounding residences. • .Urged the Commission to reject the plan as currently proposed. . Commissioner Garakani stated that it is easier to complain that it is to offer constructive suggestions. Asked Mr. Luoh what types of design changes he would recommend. Mr. Harry Luoh: • Pointed out that the Activity Center is currently located at the center of the campus. One suggestion he would have would be to amend the proposed location of the Activity Center away from his property.. At least if it is simply classroom buildings near his home rather than the heavily used Activity Center, evenings and weekends would be quiet from his home. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Luoh how he feels about the proposed eight-foot high acoustical . fence. Mr. Harry Luoh said that this project is creating a problem and that problem is simply being covered up with fencing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 15 Commissioner Hunter questioned the possibility of moving the Activity Center. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Luoh if he has been able to work with the a licant to develo a lan PP P P to address his concerns. Mr. Harry Luoh said that he was invited to two meetings at which time the plans were presented. Commissioner Garakani asked when the first opportunity occurred. Mr. Harry Luoh replied approximately one year ago. Ms. Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga: • Stated that they moved next to St. Andrews about three years ago. • Said that a big classroom was positioned next to their fence. At that time, she invited the school's principal to visit her home to see the impacts. • Implored the Commission not to allow the placement of the Activity Center next to her fence. • Expressed concern over the three-story buildings and the Bell Tower. • Pointed out that she does not see many changes from the original proposal that was reviewed in October and said that massing is the problem. • Suggested that functions be combined such as sharing classroom space with Sunday school uses. • Expressed frustration. • Agreed that St. Andrews is a good school and neighbor. • • Stated that she wants to see action. • Declared that she is against the placement of an acoustical fence, which is not residential in flavor but rather more commercial in appearance and would therefore look very bad from their home. • Agreed that the improvement of classrooms is important but questioned why such a big expansion is required on the site. • Added that if they need so much space than maybe there are too many students, • Expressed support for education. • Reminded that the good things that St. Andrews has done in the past does not have anything to do with this specific expansion application. • Pointed out that no study has been done on noise impacts. • Reminded that the neighbors do not want a Bell Tower with its associated noise and suggested that the proposed Bell Tower be totally eliminated. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Luoh if her question is whether the need for space is a function of the number of students enrolled. Ms. Rosemary Tisch, 15040 Encina Court, Saratoga: • Said that she is a 30 year resident of Saratoga. • Urged support of the project. • Stated that Saratoga is a community. • Said that she lives within one block of another school and that that is simply a part of their life. • Stated that St. Andrews is here and is part of the community that needs to upgrade their facilities. Ms. Linda Sherburne, 12443 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga: • Said she is a 22 year resident of Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 16 • Said she has been involved with St. Andrews School with two graduates and one current sixth grader.. • Stated that the school needs to upgrade. • Expressed hope that the Commission will support the proposal. Ms. J.P. Puette, 12342 Crayside Lane, Saratoga:' • Said she has resided in Saratoga since 1998 and is a volunteer risk manager. • Said that safety issues for children such as crowding and loading are evident. • Stated that indoor corridors will reduce noise issues for neighbors and that the current stairs are awful. • Said that she is looking forward to the bells and requested support of the proposal. Ms. Heidi Trah, 13782 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided in Saratoga since she was two years old. • Urged support of this project. • Stated that the school needs to upgrade. • Advised that she has two children at the school and that it is their privilege to be there. • Said that she is a local small business owner and that all businesses need to make improvements to stay current. Mr. David Baum, 19105 Dagmar Drive, Saratoga: • Said he is a member of the Board of Trustees and has three children, including an eighth grader who has attended the school for 10 years. • Said that St. Andrews is a wonderful asset for the community and urged the Commission's support. Ms. Sofia Poullada, 19866 Buckhaven Lane, Saratoga: • Said she has resided in Saratoga for 17 years and lives six blocks from the school. • Added that while she is not Christian herself she still looks forward to hearing the sound of bells. Mr. Philip Wu, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said he is concerned that this plan is too big. • Said that the church should communicate with its neighbors and that so far poor communication has occurred. • Said he attended two meetings but that no quality comments were made. ~ Stated that this plan will cause tremendous problems in the neighborhood including noise and traffic impacts. • Said he has no problem with school expansion but does with church expansion. If the church is too big, it impacts the neighborhood. • Added that if a church gets too big, it should cut off into a new church. • Said that packaging the church and school additions together creates a tremendous amount of additional square footage. • Suggested permission for the school renovation but to reject the church changes. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that staff has recommended mitigation including reducing height limits to 30 feet. Asked if this mitigation make a difference. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Philip Wu said that they may make a difference but the project is still too large and that there is too large a concentration of churches in a small area. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wu for specific suggestions. Mr. Philip Wu said that his suggestion has been that one cannot keep a church growing but St. Andrews didn't want to spin off into a second church. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wu how far his home is from the St. Andrews campus. Mr. Philip Wu said within 500 feet. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Wu if he attends church. Mr. Philip Wu replied that he is Christian but attends a different church. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in Saratoga since 1976. • Pointed out that the residents of Saratoga have supported its schools by taxing itself because they understood the benefits of a good education. • Said that Saratoga is awell-educated affluent community. • Stated that it is time and encouraged the Commission to work with St. Andrews to improve their school. • Said that the impact of Saratoga schools is the biggest single factor in the value of property in Saratoga. • Stated that he realizes that there are some impacts both during construction and after that efforts will be made to mitigate. • Said he lives near Saratoga High School himself. • Encouraged support. Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Said that lots of different people have spoken tonight, with different points of view. • Said that it appears the Bell Tower is the focus of much of the concern. • Suggested that the impacts of the bells would be less intrusive than is Highway 85's traffic noise and that the Bell Tower could be a benefit and asset to the community of Saratoga. • Said that work with the neighbors began in August 2001 with three public neighborhood meetings. extended out to the best of their ability. • Stated that they have addressed many of the Luoh's concerns by lowering buildings and offering an eight-foot acoustical fence. • Assured that the Activity Center is better screened and buffered and activities that will occur there are already occurring there right now. • Declared that this project stands on its own merits and will satisfy the requirements of kids and the parish. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked what is the increase in square footage for'the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 18 Mr. Scott Sheldon: • Said the site consists of a 46,798 square foot footprint right now and the new proposal includes 50,531 square feet, which is approximately 3,400 square feet difference in footprint. • Added that the total square footage is now 64,000 and would become 84,150 square feet resulting in an additiona120,000 square feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked how the school will generate the necessary revenue to accommodate the expense of this extra space. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied through tuition and donations. He reminded that enrollment is basically the same. However, utility costs will be lowered as the buildings would be more efficient including the implementation of passive solar, etc. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there would be any extra income generating activities. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied not to his knowledge. He said that the Parents' Association raises funds. Commissioner Garakani mentioned the suggestions made by. Mr. Luoh including shared function of facilities and moving the Activity Center away from adjacent residences. Mr. Scott Shelton said that in answer to Mr. Luoh's concerns, they have lowered buildings, added clearstory windows so that there is no view onto their property and offered screening fencing and landscaping: Reminded that the proposed functions are there already with no plans to increase the uses. . efforts have been made to miti ate their concerns. Commissioner Garakam asked if good g Mr. Scott Sheldon pointed out that the outdoor lunch area currently located near the Luoh property is being moved to another area on the site. Reverend Ernest Cockerall, Rector of St. Andrews Church: • Said that the large Parish Ha1UGym/Performing Arts Center does not get used much on Sunday. • Added that they will now have restrooms in the Parish Hall. • Said that while they have had steady growth in membership, they are not trying to be amega-church but simply welcoming and inclusive to anyone interested in joining their church. • Said that there is no truth that they are trying to grow the church but rather to serve those that are already members. Commissioner Kurasch asked how much of the new square footage is classroom space. Mr. Scott Sheldon-said that there are currently 17 classrooms and there will be 18. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the need for space is a function of the number of students. Mr. Scott Sheldon replied that it is the number of students and the programs offered, a combination of both. Commissioner Hunter said that the St. Andrews classrooms are small and tight. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 19 Commissioner Kurasch said that there is still the concern over the physical reality of what the site presents and a conflict over the impact of the size of buildings and intensity of use. Chair Jackman pointed out that she was not consulted when the nearby Oak Street School was expanded near her home. Commissioner Hunter said that she too lives near Oak Street School and was not consulted. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they are not asking for an increase in the population of the school. In fact,, they now have fewer students than in previous years and they have agreed to a cap on their enrollment. Commissioner Kurasch said that there may already be a conflict with the physical area available with their current enrollment. Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they are surrounded by residential uses and that they feel their plan will be a good addition, including alleviating issues in the busy Saratoga Avenue corridor. Reminded that they have been a good neighbor to everyone. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:35 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated her 100 percent support of this project. • Said that the citizens of Saratoga have supported schools with tax increases as well as bonds for the new fire station and library expansion. • Agreed that St. Andrews has been a good neighbor. • Said that her children attended public school but also participated in many activities at St. Andrews. • Said she did not want to see eight-foot ceiling heights or high clearstory windows since children need light and airy classrooms for an effective learning environment. • Expressed support for having interior corridors. • Agreed with the comments made by the Moyles regarding the sound of bells reflecting the life of a community. • Stated that St. Andrews is one of the last schools to come through to update their facilities and that they need the best possible learning environment. • Said that she would not support the imposition of all of the proposed Conditions of Approval. Chair Jackman: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Hunter. • Said that St. Andrews has a good reputation and must be supported. They have gone to a lot of work to make their project hospitable to the neighborhood. • Stated that children are the future. • Said that she will vote to support every school bond issue that comes along. Commissioner Kurasch: • Cautioned that perhaps she will express the less popular view. • Said that she has a different way to analyze the data in front of her. • Said it is important to be fair to all residents of Saratoga by evaluating the worthiness of each project before the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 20 • Said that it is important to consider the physical results and impacts of a project and not the. worthiness of the applicant. In fact, it is unfair to judge simply on the basis of the worthiness of an applicant. What if the next applicant is not worthy. • Said that relevant facts must be evaluated in order for the Commission to do a worthy job. • Said that some exceptions are acceptable and that she supports most of the mitigation proposed. • Pointed out that this is substantially the same project reviewed in October with limited changes. • Said it does not appear that any response has been made to neighbor concerns.. • Said that while her viewpoint may be unpopular, she feels it is important to take everyone into consideration. • Said that this is a private school that is not open to the entire community and not a public school. • Stated that the Commission has to look physically at what a project's impacts-would be. • Suggested a need to reduce mass and bulk and the outright elimination of the proposed Bell Tower. • Stated that no one can impose one view on faith onto others. • Said that the many letters against the Bell Tower have a real weight. • Supported a permanent cap on enrollment. • Pointed out that this site is a finite resource and will not grow any more. • Said it is important to see what can be done with this site while being responsive to its neighbors. . • Suggested a reduction on some of the buildings. • Stated she is not yet sure if she can support athree-story building. • Reminded that it is the purview of the Commission to analyze physical project and apply zoning laws equally and fairly and that she will have to weigh exceptions fairly too. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that she is all for improvements to schools. • Reminded that this site is on Saratoga Avenue and will be massive. • Said that she can support the project with staff recommendations. • Said that the Bell Tower appears massive but she does not mind the sound of bells. • Supported the 33-foot maximum height. Commissioner Garakani: • Declared that every house should be the house of God. • Said it is good to get together and pray and that more prayer is needed to get closer to God. • Said it is important to make sure to be good to ones neighbors. • Said that the Planning Commission is here to look at compliance with Codes and to make sure that neighbors are also heard. • Said that education is a public service. • Pointed out that whatever is considered a necessity should be talked about and granted. However, the proposed Bell Tower is not a necessity but rather something they would like to have. • Said that imposing an eight-foot sound wall is like a jail and may not be a worthy mitigation. • Said that some neighbors are uncomfortable with the idea of a memorial park with burial of ashes near their homes. • Questioned the necessity of having the memorial garden since there is already one there. • Said that the only way he could support the Bell Tower is after story poles are placed and a simulation of the sound effects is demonstrated. Commissioner Hunter: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 21 • Reminded that the common good is more important than individual neighbors living next door and reminded that the school and church pre-existed many of these homes. • Said that this project enriches the whole community. Commissioner Garakani asked the Commissioners to consider whether they would be prepared to allow Bell Towers for several other churches. Commissioner Hunter replied that each one would have to be considered individually. Added that she is very much in support of this application and pointed out that many against the Bell Tower don't even live close by. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed with that assessment. Commissioner Hunter reiterated that this is a community benefit. Commissioner Garakani joked that those people living close by who object to this project should trade houses with those that live further but support the project. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that many have spoken this evening in support. Chair Jackman: • Said that this is an existing school that was built 40 years ago. • Added that St. Andrews now wants to upgrade their school to current standards with a minimal increase in study body enrollment. • Said that this project will bring a private high-class and expensive school to 2003 standards from what is currently an inferior building much as has been done to the recently updated public school buildings. Commissioner Hunter said that this project consists of a handsome design and numerous trees. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports staff recommendations and pointed out that classroom space represents only about one third of the project. Reiterated that the Commission cannot ignore the physical impacts of this project. Commissioner Hunter said that only two people spoke against the project tonight while more than 50 are in support. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission consider the mitigation proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration one by one. Commissioner Kurasch suggested breaking out the Bell Tower from the rest of the project thus enabling the Commission. to give the applicant most of what they want while protecting the interests of the neighbors. Expressed concern that decisions made after discussion on the mitigation are done might impact support or denial of those mitigation measures. Planner Christine Oosterhous said that the Mitigated Negative Declaration could be modified .per whatever final action is taken by the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 22 Director Tom Sullivan asked the Commissioners for a straw poll on each proposed mitigation and said that action must be taken on this environmental document before taking any action unless quick denial of the project is anticipated. Planner Christine Oosterhous said that the areas of special sensitivity appears to be ceiling heights, clearstory windows, building heights and limitations of student enrollment. Director Sullivan took stave polls on each of the proposed mitigation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration as follows: Mitigation #1 -Restricting the classroom buildings height to 32.5 feet and clergy building height to 30 feet as visible from Saratoga Avenue. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman NOES: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #2 -Revised cross section submitted to show classroom heights no greater than 9 feet for classrooms and 8 feet for all other uses. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN• None Mitigation #3 lowerin of the Bell Tower hei ht. - Requmng the g g AYES: None NOES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT:. Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #4 -Use of screening landscaping or the use of clearstory windows along shared property line. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None ' Mitigation #5 -Lights. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #6 -Outdoor tables and chairs relocated. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 23 Mitigation #7 - 8-foot acoustical sound wall. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #8 -Landscape screening per Conditions of Approval. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #9 -Enrollment figures reported to Planning Department each Fall. AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #10 -.Existing HVAC unit further insulated. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #11 -Public right-of-way improvements per Conditions of Approval. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #12 -Proof of permits from SCVWD. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: .None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #13 -Cap on student enrollment at 450 students AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #14 - Arborist report as part of the Conditions of Approval. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 24 Mitigation #15 -Control measures for construction emissions. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ' ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #16 -Archaeological measures. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #17 -Grading and Draining. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #18 -Storm Water Plan. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #19 -Mitigation of Noise Study. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Mitigation #20 -Mitigation Monitoring Program. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry -and Roupe ABSTAIN: None • • Director Tom Sullivan said it appears that there is consensus for the Commission to make a motion to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative. Declaration for the St. Andrews project, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 25 Commissioner Hunter said she will vote for the project although she hates to lose the Bell Tower. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is ossible to ca the venue uses of the site. P P Director Tom Sullivan said that .staff could monitor, complaints that arise as a result of venue use of the facilities. Chair Jackman proposed an added Condition to require review of the site use six months following completion of construction with a report back to the Planning Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Use Permit Approvals (DR-Ol- 035/LJP-O1-013) for St. Andrews Parish and School with the Conditions of Approval as modified by the mitigation measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Jackman called for a break at 10:55 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 11:02 p.m. prior to the return of Commissioner Garakani. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #02-259 (397-27-010) -SHIN, 14165 Victor Place: Request for Design Review Approval to construct first and second story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and attached garage is 3,023 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,197 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTINE OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christine Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a first and second story addition to an existing single-story residence for a total of approximately 3,000 square feet. • Stated that the maximum height would be 24 feet and that the 10,000 square foot lot is zoned R-1- 10,000. • Said that the proposed architecture is aCraftsman-style. • Informed that one letter in opposition was received from the adjacent rear neighbor. • Recommended approval with the removal of the rear balcony. Commissioner Hunter asked how an obscured bedroom window could be imposed. Said that one does not usually see that except for bathrooms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 26 Note: Commissioner Garakani returned to the dais at 11:07 p.m. Commissioner Hunter asked for the height of the entry. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied 14 feet, 6 inches, which is similar to the garage. Commissioner Hunter asked for the height of the house. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied 24 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked for the entry height. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied 14 feet, 6 inches and- added that the style is not authentic Craftsman. Commissioner Kurasch asked about a landscape ,plan. Planner Christine Oosterhous replied that there is none as the applicant proposes to maintain the existing front lawn. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 11:10 p.m. Mr. Lee, Project Architect: • Stated that with the elimination of the rear balcony, they would lose the balance in the design and that he may have to redesign the roof again. Commissioner Garakani asked whether the balcony was for design or for function. Mr. Lee: . • Said that he knows the rear neighbor objects. • Said that they had contacted the neighbor before and no objection was raised. • Said that the footprint of the house does not change. • Added that they want to preserve a huge tree at the front of the house. Chair Jackman asked if this is the big Cypress. Mr. Lee said that there will be no adverse impacts on trees, they will be protected. Commissioner Hunter said that there is no good screening at the back of the property. Mr. Lee said that they could provide landscaping trees. Commissioner Zutshi asked if Mr. Lee spoke with the neighbors. Mr. Lee replied that they showed them the plans. Commissioner Zutshi asked if they left plans with the neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 27 Mr. Lee said no but if they had asked for a set he would have provided one. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Lee if he gave the neighbors sufficient time to review these plans. Mr. Lee said that they made contact with the neighbors before the final plans were even completed. Chair Jackman asked for the distance between the upstairs space to the property line. Mr. Lee replied 25 feet from the property line to the bedroom windows and 40 feet to the bathroom window. Mr. Rajiv Mathur, 14185 Victor Place, Saratoga: • Said his home is right behind this property. • Said he submitted a letter and a petition from neighbors. • Said that he learned about plans for an addition when the applicant came to make them aware of their plans to remodel without their having actual plans to review. • Said he signed a receipt acknowledging his understanding that an addition was proposed. • Said that his bedroom and backyard would be severely impacted by a second story addition.. • Said that currently a very low fence separates the properties. • Said that there used to be landscaping in place but it was removed by the current owners. Bushes and fruit trees had served as a visual barrier at approximately six to eight feet in height. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Mathur if he has thought of planting trees. Mr. Rajiv Mathur replied that he has planted bushes that should grow to about six feet but that he does not want to obscure all sunlight from his property. He recommended a redesign of the remodel to a single-story home. Ms. Lois Shin, Property Owner/Applicant, 14165 Victor Place, Saratoga: • Advised that she had asked her rear neighbor if he wanted to install a fence but he declined. • Said that lots of houses in the area have been approved for second story additions. • Said .she went around the neighborhood to discuss her plans and assured that the value of the property and the neighborhood would be improved with her home remodel. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Shin about the requirement for obscured windows. Ms. Lois Shin replied whatever is necessary to get this project approved. Commissioner Hunter asked about the suggestion to eliminate the balcony. Ms. Lois Shin said that she would like to keep this balcony. Commissioner Garakani said that perhaps it does not have to be removed but simply to have no access to it: Ms. Lois Shm said that it would look much nicer with the balcony. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 28 Chair Jackman asked about putting trees in along the back fence. Ms. Lois Shin said that she had originally planted about $600 in trees but her renters did not take care of them and they died. Chair Jackman asked Ms. Shin when she purchased this house. Ms. Lois Shin replied February 2002 but that she rented it out for about 9 months so that it would not be empty. Chair Jackman asked Ms. Shin if she would plant more landscaping. Ms. Lois Shin replied of course that she certainly has to do so. Commissioner Kurasch said that although the house was already redesigned at the request of staff it still does not fit into the neighborhood. Asked Ms. Shin if she would be willing to lower the entry. Ms. Lois Shin said fine. Commissioner Kurasch said she wants to support staff's recommendation to remove the balcony. r~ Ms. Lois Shin said that instead of a flat wall, the balcony would look much nicer. sked staff wh it is recommendin removal of the balcony. Commissioner Kurasch a y g Planner Christine Oosterhous replied to deal with privacy impacts. Commissioner Garakani suggested a dummy balcony with no access as a means to provide architectural articulation while preserving privacy. Ms. Lois Shin supported the suggestion of a stationary window instead of a door to the balcony. Mr. Lee said that the roof design would not work with a dummy balcony. Commissioner Hunter suggested a compromise on the glazing for the bedroom windows. Chair Jackman agreed that the neighbor could also plant screening trees to provide privacy. Mr. Lee said that his client can provide a fence and landscaping. Chair Jackman said that the neighbor next door can also install some landscaping. Ms. Lois Shin offered to pay the cost of installing the fence. Chair Jackman suggested the fence as well as some trees. Ms. Lois Shin reminded that she had offered to put a fence in before but the neighbor said no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 29 Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at ,11:35 p.m. Commissioner Hunter stated that Ms. Shin is being nice and that the neighbor also has atwo-story home that has looked down upon this house for a number of years. Suggested keeping the balcony. Chair Jackman agreed. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a reduction in the entry height since the applicant is willing to do so. Said that she does not like the balcony but can support it with obscured windows. Chair Jackman asked Commissioner Kurasch how much of a reduction she suggests for the entry. Commissioner Kurasch replied to eliminate the transom window and bring it down a couple of feet. Commissioner Garakani said that neighbors have to work with each other and compromise to a point.. Said that the balcony is small and cannot even accommodate a chair so it serves no function although the neighbor is sensitive to the potential for privacy impacts. Said he likes to see the balcony for articulation and has no objection. Commissioner Zutshi agreed with Commissioner Kurasch about lowering the front entry and use of obscure glass in the upper windows. Could support the balcony as something to offer architectural interest and that will likely seldom be used. Commissioner Garakani said that obscuring the bedroom windows does not make any sense. Commissioner Kurasch said it still allows light in. Commissioner Hunter said she would not require obscure windows. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that these obscured bedroom windows could still be opened. Chair Jackman stated that both households could use appropriate window coverings to assure their privacy. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the privacy impacts between these two properties has been the reverse to this point with the other home being a two story looking over this currently one-story structure. Chair Jackman encouraged the planting of screening trees. Commissioner Kurasch reminded that the Code does not encourage landscaping for screening purposes. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 11:45 p.m. Mr. Rajiv Mathur advised that the windows on his home are located high. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 11:46 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2003 Page 30 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-259) to allow the construction of first and second story additions to an existing one-story single-family residence on property located at 14165 Victor Place, including the retention of the proposed balcony and requiring either obscured or clearstory windows on the second story overlooking the rear neighboring property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter and Jackman NOES: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Library Tour Commissioner Zutshi advised that any interested Commissioners could schedule a special Library Tour. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD TOi1RNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March 26, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • ITEM 1 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Christine Oosterhous, AICP DATE: March 26, 2003 RE: Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association The Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association would like to continue their project to another meeting. At this time they are not sure which future date will work for them. Please see the attached request from Bill Hubbard. X44441 Mar 14 03 02:53p CMS-5 408-395-5907 p.2 •I March 14, 2UU3 TJtsar Ptaa,ing Conurissioncr9: On behalf of the Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, I respectfu!!y request a continuance from the Zviareh 26, 2003 Plannin; Commission Nleettng to a future meeting date. Thank you for your consideration. Re ds, Bill i,bbard • • ®~Q©ili A ITEM 2 • i• i~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: #02-280/14625 Fruitvale Avenue Venkat Kalkunte Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner March 26, 2003 397-17-012 Department ~®00®1. 14625 Nruitvale Avenue Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12/23/02 OU3U03 03/12/03 03/06/03 03/06/03 The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,815 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. The pre-existing structure on this 42,011 (net) square foot site was demolished in conjunction with a Design Review approval granted for a new two-story home on December 12, 2001. The current design review application, with a new house design, was filed because the applicant no longer wishes to construct the home as previously designed and approved by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City Arborist Report, dated May 14, 2001 3. Letter from applicant. 4. Letters from neighbors 5. Public Notice Mailing List and Affidavit of mailing 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit A • • ~~0~~2 Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 42,011 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 330 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: Conservation Element Polic 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the center of a large lot surrounded by landscaping, including a very prominent heritage oak tree. The Zoning Code requires ample setbacks for the structure that will maintain the low-density character of the street and reduce the visual impact of the structure. The design of the structure will be consistent .with the residential low-density feel of the neighborhood and compatible with the adjacent surroundings. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTIONS: The site is currently vacant. The main structure, as well as all accessory structures, .was demolished last year. The following is a background leading to the subsequent demolition of this pre-existing home, which was listed in the Saratoga Historic Resources Inventory. C~~O~Q3 Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue On October 9, 2001, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the removal of the pre-existing house on the site from the City of Saratoga's Historic Resource Inventory. In order to remove the house from the Historic Resource Inventory, staff had a licensed Historic Architect prepare an extensive report reviewing the historic significance of the property. The conclusion of the report was that the existing structure was not of historical significance and would not qualify for the National Register of Historic Places or be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. On December 12, 2001, the Planning Commission approved the demolition of this structure and approved the design of a two- story home. During the initial meetings with the HPC, concerns were raised about the loss of the herb garden. In response to these comments, the applicant hired a Horticulturist to preserve the herb garden. The applicant has relocated the herb garden to the south east corner of the property and is currently beautifully maintained. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light green-grey color stucco,. with stone accents at the columns and lower portions of the facade. The trim will be painted an olive color and the slate roof will be grey in color. The roof over the front facade bay window will be painted sheet metal. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing. ~J 0~®004 Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 20% 35% Building Footprint 3,860 sq. ft. Driveway/Parking Patios, Pool and Walkways, Gazebo 4,508 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 8,368 sq. ft. 14,704 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 3,294 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,735 sq. ft. Garage 786 sq. ft. (Basement) N/A • TOTAL 5,815 sq. ft. 6,060 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front (Farwell Ave.) 92 ft. 30 ft. Rear ls` Floor 54 ft. 20 ft. 2nd Floor 54 ft. 20 ft. Left Side (Fruitvale Ave.) ls` Floor 68 ft. 25 ft. 2nd F100I 82 ft. 30 ft. Right Side (Interior) ls` Floor 20 ft. 20 ft. 2"d Floor 74 ft. 25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft• i, V~®©o~ Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION: Neighborhood Not cation In addition to the standard noticing conducted by the City, the applicant has contacted each of the surrounding neighbors (see attached letters). Staff has received positive correspondence from neighbors as of the writing of this staff report. Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new, two-story residence with an attached garage. The total square footage of the home will be 5,815 square feet with a maximum building height of 26 feet. The site is 42,011 square feet (net) and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural. styles. Directly across the street from the project on Fruitvale Avenue are two-story Mediterranean style homes. The first two homes on Farwell across from the site are single story ranch and the third home is a more traditional French design two-story house with a stucco exterior. The proposed design of the home is consistent with other new homes being built throughout the community with the slate roof, stucco exterior siding and stone accents. . The proposed home is well-proportioned, with significant setbacks for the second floor _ areas. The site has a prominent Oak tree near the center of the property. The homeowner has worked with the Ciry Arborist to preserve this tree, leaving the tree as the center of attention. The applicant has indicated on the conceptual landscape plan in Exhibit A that all of the mature existing landscaping, including the herbs and fruit trees will remain.. The conceptual plan also shows new trees to be planted along the rear of the property for neighbor privacy. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a final landscape and irrigation plan be submitted for approval prior to issuance of any City permits. Staff is also requiring as a condition of approval that the height of the proposed gazebo be lowered to 12 feet maximum height, pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-12.100(b). The proposed project implements the: following policies of the Residential Design Guidelines: Policy 1, "Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed home will have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building, with natural color materials for the lower portions of the house. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with the landscaping and the large existing Oak tree that is being maintained at the front of the property. The proposed home will also be compatible in bulk with the surrounding properties. ~~®O©~ Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue • Policy' 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen an earth tone color palette which will help the proposed structure blend in with the hillside and proposed trees around the site. The applicant proposes to maintain most of the existing landscaping. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privaty" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by minimising the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The conceptual landscape plan shows trees along the rear property line for added privacy. The applicant has shown the plans to all adjacent neighbors who have not voiced any concerns regarding privacy. Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping. • Polity 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The applicant proposes to use energy-efficient appliances and solar panels. The color of the proposed solar panels will blend with the roof material. Trees ! The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees from the site. The house has been designed around a very large oak tree in the front yard of the proposed home. The applicant has worked closely with the City Arborist during the design process under the previous Design Review application to ensure that the large oak tree and all of the other trees survive during construction. The applicant has already implemented some of the City Arborist recommendations for tree care. In order for the trees to survive, the Arborist has made specific recommendations including a tree bond for replacement of any trees that are damaged. The Arborist Report prepared in conjunction with the previous design review application (dated May 14, 2001), is attached. Staff did not require a new Arborist Report because the proposed home is in the same vicinity as the previously approved home. The proposed home will have fewer impacts on the large oak tree because the house will be set back an additional 12 feet away from the tree than the previous design. Also, unlike the previous design, the garage is now attached to the home enabling the driveway to be positioned away from the dripline of the oak tree. The Arborist's recommendations have been included as conditions of project approval. Perimeter WalUFencing Sheet 9 of Exhibit A shows the proposed wall for the perimeter of the property. Pursuant to MCS 15-29.010(b), the maximum height of the perimeter wall along Fruitvale Avenue and Farwell Avenue cannot exceed 3 feet in. height, with pilasters allowed to be a maximum • height of 5 feet. The proposed fencing shown on Sheet 9 does not meet the requirements of MCS 15-29.010(b). Also, portions of the existing fencing on the property are not in ~~®~®7 Application #02-280; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue compliance with the Municipal Code. A condition of ,approval has been added that all existing fencing that does not meet the Municipal Code requirements shall be removed;- and that all new fencing shall comply with the requirements of MCS 15-29. ConclUSion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further.satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • ~~®()4~8 Attachment 1 • ~~~©~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. and Mrs. Venkat Kalkunte; 14625 Fruitvale Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new two-story 5,815 square foot home with a maximum height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single family home, 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 construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; 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 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: • Policy 1, Minimize Perception of Bulh The project meets this policy in that the proposed home will have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building, with natural color materials for the lower portions of the house. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with the landscaping and the large existing Oak tree that is being maintained at the front of the property. The proposed home will also be compatible in bulk with the surrounding properties. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen an earth tone color palette which will help the proposed structure blend in with the hillside and proposed trees around the site. The applicant proposes to maintain most of the existing landscaping. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by minimising the direct line-of-site to the nearest neighbor. The conceptual landscape plan shows trees along the rear property line for added privacy. The applicant has shown the plans to all adjacent neighbors who have not voiced any concerns regarding privacy. Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping. ti~'~~~® ~ Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The applicant proposes to use energy-efficient appliances and solar panels. The color of the proposed solar panels will blend with the roof material. 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 #02-280 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The developmerit shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, with the exception that: a) The maximum height of the gazebo shall be 12 feet. b) FENCING REGULATIONS -All proposed fencing shall comply with the regulations contained in Municipal Code Section 15-29. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to final building inspection. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated May 14,2001 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." S. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed 26 feet, as measured from the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by fill. 6. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 7. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. ~~~~~l. 8. A final landscape, irrigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of City Permits. 9. .All proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to final building inspection. CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated May 14, 2001 shall be . followed: 11. Tree protective fencing as shown on the Arborist Report dated May 14, 2001, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City. Permits. 12. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site (if the applicant has not already done so). 13. Prior to Final Building Inspection,-the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. . 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed attached garage (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 the appropriate 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]) 17: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required, no FDC. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 18. Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14 feet nunimum width, plus 1 foot shoulders. ~Q®~~2 19. Driveway curves shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 20. The security gate width shall not be less than 14 feet. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State 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 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 26th day of March 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: C Secretary, Planning Commission ~i~~~~~ This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • ~~~~~~ Attachment 2 • ~V'®~~J - ~; 1 BARRIE D. ~LOATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 . Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 REVISTONS TO OUR. TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TT3E KALKUNTE PROPERTY 14625 FRUTTVALE AVE. SARATOGA . Prepared at the Request of. Phil Block Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • • Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May l4, 2001 Job # 12-00-307-01 • • %~ ~_~ MAY 2 2 2001 ~~~ CITY OFSnK"'I'~-i~:. ~d®~~.6 ~~ REVISIONS TU OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA770N RECOMiv1E1dDAT10NS Ai 1 THE KALI:UNTE PROPERTY, 1465 FRLnTVA1.E AVE._ SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Phil Block, Planning Department; City of Saratoga this report reviews. the proposal to demolish an existing home with several out buildings, and to construct a new home with a detached garage, a pool house, a gazebo, and a swimming pool in~the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the.health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. • Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented-on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes l6 trees to some risk by construction. No trees are planned to be removed by implementation of this design, but several trees would be severely damaged by proposed features of this plan. Design modifications are suggested. Replacements which equal the values of removed trees, if any, are suggested • Procedwes are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected, but additional procedures may be required pending design revisions. A bond equal to 40% the value of tree # l 1 is suggested combined with a bond of 20% the total value of all the other retained trees in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are l2 trees located on this site, 3 trees located on the adjacent property toward the west, and ]tree located in the public right of way on Fruitvale Avenue that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The 16 trees are classified as follows: Trees #l, 2 Blue atlas cedar (Cedrus a~lunlicu'Glauca') Tree #3 Weeping willow (Salix bobylonica) Tree #4 Silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyurl~hemvs) Tree #5 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #6 Persimmon (Dio~pryos virginiana) Tree #7 Black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees #8, ]4 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Trees #9, 11 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # l0 European olive (Oleo europeu) Tree # l 2 Avocado (Persea americans) •i •i ~~ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTII'IID CONSULTING ARBURIS'r Ma~• 14, 2001 ~~~~~ !, i • • REV1slUNS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO1vIt~ffJdDATION$ A'1 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUTTVALE AVE.. SARATOGA Tree # 13 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # 1 S Weeping Deodar cedar. (Cedrus deodara Pendula') Tree #l6 Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis'Kaizuka~ The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of l to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition, to aid with planning. . Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S ecimens S imens S imens S imens ], 2, 8, 9, l 1, 3, 6,14,15, l6 S, 7, ]0 __ 4, 12 0 l3 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here 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. Mitigation is recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties which would be af~'ected by this activity must be treated as exceptional regardless of condition. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) tree #1 l is by far the largest specimen on site. Tree # 1 l has a trunk diameter of 50.5-inches DBH (diameter at 4 '/s feet above grade). lts height is about 50 feet and its spread is 100 feet. The canopy is dense for a tree this mature. Tree # l 1 has no major branch failures, but has a low branching canopy. Some of the lower branches are near horizontal, and for some branches their vertical clearance from the ground is only a few feet. For instance, the vertical clearance of a large branch on the west side at 44 feet from the trunk is only about 7 feet above ground. Tree # l l has at least fifteen cables throughout the canopy to support the horizontally inclined branches. It appears that many of these cables have been installed as a precaution, because as stated earlier, no major branch failures have occurred. Large wounds would have left large scars. No large scars are observed. The fact that the tree has rather extensive cabling does not necessarily mean that the tree has an inherently weak structure or that multiple weaknesses exist. In my opinion, it appears that at least some of the cables may have been installed simply to ease the mind of the previous owner(s). PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST • C~ May 14.2001 ~~~~YC7 1- 6 REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND pJZESERVAT]ON RECONI<vvtENDATIONS A, 3 THE KALKLINTE PROPERTY. ]4625 FRUTIVALE AVE.. SARATOGA f tree # This in' is A large bark injury is seen on the east side of the trunk o l 1. fury 23-inches wide and 4 feet above grade. The bark in-this area has been recently removed in this area and has been cleaned This wound has been left open to dry, which is the best course of action. No other symptoms that would indicate the cause of this wound are apparent. Because of this and because of the trees fine health, this wound does not significantly compromise the health or structure at this time. Tree #1 l has had a large area under its canopy leveled and covered by granite chips. The' area surrounds the trunk and extends from the center of the trunk for approximately 25 feet toward the south, for about 30 feet toward the west and the east, and for about 20 feet toward the north. This area has been used by pedestrians extensively apparently for several years. Because of this, the soil in this area is compacted, and as a result absorbing roots in these areas will not be as active or vigorous as normal. In all likelihood the most significant quantities of absorbing roots that are vital to this tree's survival are located between the granite chips and the existing house on the north side, between the granite. chips and the Farwell Avenue on the south side, between the granite chips and the existing tool shed on the west side, and between the granite chips and the dripline of the canopy of tree # 13 on the east side. I have marked this area on the map. However, this is an estimate based on experience. A more accurate method would be to perform a series of test holes starting at about l 0 feet from the trunk of tree # 1 l in search of absorbing roots from this tree. This procedure would be more difficult than most sites because of the quantities of competing plants that exist at this site. Please note that this indicates that a ~. significant portion of the root system of tree # 11, as well as the -other mature trees on this site, extends well outside the dripline of the canopy. The roofline of the existing house is located 34 feet from the trunk of tree # l 1. The tree has been pruned in past years to prevent branches from striking the roof of the existing house, which extends over the roof line for about 43 feet from the trunk. Impact of Construction No trees are directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, many of the construction features would jeopardize the health and safety of several of the trees on this site and some of the trees on the adjacent property. In preparation for a meeting with Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Architect, Mr. and Mrs. Kalkunte, owners and Mr. Phil Block, Planner, the footprint of the proposed residence had been staked. Having observed this, it does not appear that the footprint of the proposed new residence is in conflict with any of the branches of tree #1 1, although some branches would be very close to the proposed roofline. . The area between the existing house and the gravel area beneath the canopy of tree # l l is in all likelihood a very sensitive area containing significant quantities of the absorbing • roots. It will be essential to provide a platform buffer for protection of the absorbing roots in this area during construction, which would be the south side of the proposed new • residence. This area is sloped and for this reason, it will be difficult to keep a platform buffer in place during construction. Sections of the platform buf~'er will have to be tied • • • PREPARED BY: M]CHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBOR]ST May 14, 2W1 ~~~~J~i.~ ~ a r REVis1ONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONAZENDA77ONS A7 4 THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUrrVAI.E AVE. SARATOGA .-- a of the latform buffer. It will not be • together and spiked to the soil to prevent sllppag p feasible to grade this area to prevent the platform buffer from being on a slope. In this same area, there exist many plants, which will be removed It will be essential to remove these plants without significantly disturbing this soil containing the absorbing , roots of tree # 11. This can be achieved. by cutting off. the stems of the plants at grade and leaving the roots intact. ~ . . At 44 feet west of the trunk of tree #l 1, the vertical clearance of branches is only about 7 feet, which would not provide sufficient clearance for the proposed driveway. To achieve adequate clearance at this location, at least one l2-inch diameter limb would have to be removed. The loss of a branch this size would cause a wound which would result in a cavity which would typically weaken the parent branch. Because large wounds on mature trees such as tree # I 1 are not covered with new tissue quickly (thus, to prevent infection) a cavity is usually the result, which would weaken the remaining branch that later may break and result in further infection. It may be possible to use a cable to raise this limb. There must not be a grading cut in the area proposed for a driveway under the canopy of ' tree # l 1. Should a grading cut occur, the absorbing root loss would no doubt be severe. To prevent this occurrence, the driveway surface and all of the materials used as a base must be constructed completely on grade. If this requires that the elevation of the proposed new garage must be raised, then this modification in the design must be done. The proposed pathway to the new entry of the residence must be consb ucted on top of the existing grade to prevent significantroot loss to tree #l 1. The proposed grading to provide drainage around the backside of the garage would result in significant but not severe root loss to neighboring trees #7, 8, and 9. No grading, excavation, trenching, or surface scraping closer-than l5 feet from the trunks of these three trees should be allowed if they are expected to survive in good condition for the long-term. The proposed grading for drainage adjacent to trees #S, 15 and l6 would severely damage the root systems of these'three trees. The root damage to tree #4 would be fairly minor. Trees #15 and l6 would require a minimum clearance of l2 feet and tree #5 would require a minimum clearance of 15 feet as described in the previous paragraph. All of the trees on site are at risk of significant root damage, broken branches, and bark . injuries by equipment used during demolition of the existing structures and by removal of the existing driveway. Trees #1 and #2 are particularly at risk of severe root loss by removal of the existing driveway. The soil directly beneath the existing driveway no doubt has significant roots from both of these trees that must be preserved. ~~ PREPARED BY: I.9CHAEL L. BENCI~ CERTIFIE~'D CONSULTING ARBORIST Mey 14, 2001 ~ ~~ V `~® • ~ • REV]S10NS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONAZENDATIONS A9 5 THF. KALKlJN7E PROPERTY, 14625 FRUITVALE AVE., SARATOGA The water meter is located on the east side of tree #2. If a new water main line or if any other underground utilities must be constructed the existing trees may be exposed to significant root loss. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: • l . The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot trai~-IC across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. S. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape imgation. 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too • close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. ~No grading cuts~must be made to.construct the proposed driveway. Fill materials may be used but no grading cuts may be made. 1 suggest that the driveway surface be constructed of pervious materials and that this construction meet the following requirements: -materials must be applied on the existing grade; -if fill is used, fill soil must contain less than l0% clay; -base materials must contain no granite fines; -compaction must not exceed 80%; -edging must be on-grade by pier and beam method. All of these conditions must be met completely if the affected trees are expected to survive. This implies that the elevation of the footings, the garage floor, and the building structures may require elevation redesign to achieve these objectives. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BIIdCH, CERTff1ED CONSULTING ARBORIST Me.• 14.2 W I ~~®~2~, .:~ ~~ r REVISIQNS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMtvIDdDATIONS A 1 (~ THE KA1-KUNTE PROPERTY. 1462 FRUrrVALE AVE.. SARA7'OGA 2. Tree # 1 l must not be pruned to accommodate the proposed driveway or the proposed residence. if supports must be used to elevate the low branching on the west side of the canopy to achieve the required clearances between the driveway surface and the branches, the steel post supports must be permanent and they must be constructed ~. with as little disturbance to the existing soil as possible. 3. Plants that exist between the existing house and the existing gravel patio under the canopy of tree # 11 must be removed by hand by cutting the stems that ground level and leaving the root systems in the ground. 4. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the foundation of the proposed house and the protective fence for root protection of tree # 11. A platform buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by l inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carved tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. . • 5. The proposed pathway to the entry of the new house must be constructed completely on the existing grade, with the exception of steps, which will require some excavation in order to create treads. 6. The drain lines for discharge of down spouts must be trenched within l foot of the proposed footing of the new house. 7. There must be no grading within 15 feet of the trunks of trees #5, 7, 8, 9 l 5, or 16. 8. This site will require that protective fence be provided in at least two phases. a. demolition phase . b. construction phase . 9. 1 recommend that a plan showing existing structures and features be provided in order to indicate the locations in which protective fencing would be required during the demolition phase. 10. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the attached %~ map.. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of S feet, mounted on steel posts driven l 8-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached - map. ~~®~~~ PREPARED BY: A9CHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBOR]ST Mey 14.200) • ~_ ~~ ~ . REVISIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMt~~1.IDATIONS AT 7'HE KALKUNTE PROPERTY. 14625 FRUITVALE AVE.. SARATOGA 7 • 11.1 recommend that the existing driveway, the existing planter box structures, and any other features within 20-foot of the trunks of trees # 1 and 2 must be removed by hand. - l 2.1 further recommend that this 20-foot section (from the trunks of trees # l and 2) of the existing driveway be demolished last. This would be after the existing house, the existing green houses and sheds, and after the remainder of the existing driveway has been removed. This would preserve the root systems located under the existing driveway of trees #l and #2 during demolition. 13. Existing underground pipes that exist within the d-riplines of the existing trees must not be pulled or torn out of the ground. Where these pipes are found as described they must be cut and left in the ground 14. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted • l5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 16. Immediately following the removal of the existing driveway within a 20-foot radius of trees # 1 and 2, the.exposed soil must be covered with 3 inches of wood chips in order to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. The wood chips must be spread immediately following demolition (i.e., within 1-2 hours) the spreading must be by hand and the area must be thoroughly wet down. 17. I recommend that the removal of the existing sheds under the canopies of trees #7, 8 and 9 be done by hand Further, the existing meditation pavilion under the canopy of tree # 1 l must also be removed by hand. No vehicles must travel beneath the drip lines of these trees during or after demolition. l 8. Following the removal of the existing sheds, especially those sheds under the driplines of trees #7, 8 and 9 and of the meditation pavilion (under the dripline of tree # 11), the exposed soil must be immediately covered with a full 3-inch layer of coarse of wood chips, which must be spread over the entire area that is disturbed. Any areas where the existing shrubs and perennials are removed within the driplines of trees must also be completely covered with a fu113-inch layer of coarse wood chips. Spreading of the wood chips at all locations must be done by hand Also, removal of shrubs and perennials must be done by hand. No vehicles must travel under the canopies of any tree. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIST ,' r.~y 14, tool ~~®t~23 ..~ . REV1sIONS TO OUR TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONA'IENDATIONS AT ' THE KALKUNTE PROPERTY, 14625 FRUITVALE AVE., SARATOOA under the cano ies of l9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) p trees. 20. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 2l .Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of. trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 22. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to atrunk-than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than l 0 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 23. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Orly drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 24. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. not be used beneath the cano ies of 25. Bender board ar similar edging material must p existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 26. if landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 27. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the dripline~s of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. 28.1 suggest that herbicides must not be sprayed to kill understory plants if 20% or more of the tree's total root zone would be affected. As an alternative, l suggest that undesired plants be mowed or cut to the ground, and the cut surfaces of the stems of larger plants may be painted with herbicide. Trees can absorb herbicides after being sprayed via the soil, but trees are not known to absorb herbicides from plants of different species. • • 29. Inspections of the installed fences, activity areas beneath the canopy of tree # l 1 with platform buffers and trenching for services should be scheduled. ~~~~~g PREPARED BY: MICI-IAEL L. BENCH, CER'I~IED CONSUL'r1NG ARBOR]ST May 14, 2001 . ~ ~- ~~ REVISIONS TO OUR 7REE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMt~~t~ATIONS AT 9 .THE KALKUN7E PROPERTY. 14621 FRUITVALE AVE., SARATOGA • Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Tree # 11 has a value of $38,919. I suggest a bond equal to 40% (515,568) of the value of tree # 1 l combined -with a bond of 20% ($11,500) of the total value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure their protection. . Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifo!-ia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Ater macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully subm' d, Michael L. Bench, Associa~te~ Bame D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Root Renovation ~i •i PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CERTIFIED CONSULTING ARBORIS'r Inlay 14, 2001 't.. K~unte Job Tt ob Addresa:146~. : r~ifvale Ave. 1 job # 12-. ,!~ 01 0/0l Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru nin IC ablin Nee ds P estlD lseas e Prob lems R e om msnd : N ~ ~ RABBIS D. COATS ~ ~ u, v ~ w ~ • ~ w , V and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ Z ~, ~ ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ (/08)353.1fB1 , y LL '~' ~ cc~~77 ~ - z Z o Z 3 w ~ ° N .r ~. o: e: 1363Sfs+stSeed ~ cc~~ tiJ ~ ~ ~ ~ x u ~ ~ u~ ~ 7 p ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 99 O . laGelr,u !l000 ~ ,~ -°- p o i i ~ z z y ~ v ~ ~ cg ~ 3 LL i ~ z o ~ > ~ 9 > ~ ~ ,~ ~ J ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ v a "tL ~ Q ~ g $ _ ,~,y a Plant Name ° c 1 Blue Atlee Cedar 23.0 24 3b 40 1 1 2 Csdua aHanflca'Olauce' . In 116 X i27/aq. In. ^ ; 11,212 X sp. Gase 9091 ^ 310,091 X cond. 100% ^ i 10,091 X loc. 86% ^ 3 8 677 Total Valw 2 Blue Atlee Cedar 22.0 23 30 46 1 1 2 . In 380 X S27leq. In. = S 10,258 X ep. claee 00% = 59,233 X cond. 100% ^ i 9,233 X loa 86°~ ^ S 7848 Total value 3 Wee In Willow 18.0 x 13.0 22 26 40 1 2 3 Selhc beb Ionics a . In 288 X S27leq. In, ^ i 7,238 X bp. class 30°b 52,171 X cond. 90% 5 1,964 X IOC. 00% S 1 172 Total Value a Silver Dollar f3um 17.0 18 26 20 1 4 b ' Eucal fua 1 enfhemoa e . In 227 X S27leq. In. a S 8,125 X ep. dasa 70°,6 = 54,288 X cond. 809'° ^ i 2,673 X loc. 60°k ^ i 1 288 Total Value 6 Coeet Redwood 24.0 26 BO 30 2 ~ 3 5 uoie asm rvirena s . In 462 X i27/sq. In. = S 12,208 X aP. Claee 90°.6 310,987 X cond. 8096 ^ i 8,692 X loe. 7056 ^ 4 816 ' Total Valus e Psnlmmon 7.0 x 6.0 412 81B 20 20 1 3 4 Oloa vl niana 4 • . In 58 X S27leq. in. ^ S 1,612 X ep. Gaea 7096 ^ 51,058 X cond. 769x° = S 794 X loc. 7096 = S 668 - Total Value 7 Black Osk 13.0 12 26 2b 2 3 S Ouerwa ksl s . In. 133 X S27/aq. in. ^ S 3,582 X ep. Gaaa 100% - 53,582 X cond. 80°h S 2,140 X loC. 75°~G a S 1 812 Total Velus ~.:~ ~`, REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES s-gal ' S3t5 ls-gal ~ SiZO ~24'box. ~ ~ 51,320 ~8•twx• s~,ooo - s~,ooo ~"~. ti~ nn • 1~BEST,S~WO Pane ] i i r • Job Tit ~nte Job Address: 146: ~~r~ale Ave. ~ .job # 12-. 01/10/0 Mss turom ente Con dltlon Pru nln I Cablln Nee ds PesUD lteat e Prob lems R ecom mend . RABBIS D COATS ~ ~ o ~ v~ `" ~ ~ ' ° and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ s ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ N~1353105I ~ _ ~ Z ~ ~ t7 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 o Z 3 d w ~ ~ $ ~as~s c..i a..d ~ ~ ~ w -- ~ ~ v~q ~ ~ a ~ 3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iC UtG/r,G!l930 ~ Q a i i ~ _ y in a ~ o ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Key >r Ptent Neme ~ ~ ~ ~ _ m = ~ri U ~ U U U ~ _ F- -- ~ z 2 8 II 18.0 17 35 45 1 1 2 Queraua lobate e . In 201 X S27Itq. In. ^ S 5,428 X ep. cleae 100% ^ 15,428 X cond. 100% ^ S 5,428 X loc. 80% ^ S 4341 Total Value 9 Coetl Live Otk 22.0 23 26 40 1 1 2 Quercua rifolla e . In 380 X S27leq. In. _ ; 10,258 X tD. claw 100% = 510,258 X cond. 100% ^ ; 10,268 X loc. 80% ^ S 8 207 Total Value 10 Euro en Olive -11.0 x 11.0 8V 2011 20 15 1 3 4 Olss su e e . In 187 X;271tq. In. ^ i 6,049 X tp. Gaet 90% ^ ;4,644 X cond. 76% _ ; 3,408 X loe. 80% ^ 2 728 Total Value 11 Catl Uve Oak 60.8 b2 60 100 1 2 3 . in 2002 X 127/tq. In. _ ;54,053 X tD. Glate 100°A = ;64.053 X cond. 90°b ^ ; 48.847 X IOC. 80% ^ ; 38,619 Total Value 12 Avocado 0.0 x 6.0 b.0 mulll 26 26 1 4 5 Aaraes smsduns • . In 84 X 127/tq. In. = S 2,268 X sp. class 30% 5880 X cond. 80% i 408 ~ X loa 85% ^ Z 286 Total Value 13 Deoder Ceder 25.0 28 145 50 1 1 2 Csdru9 deodera e . in 491 X E271aq. In. = S 13,247 X sp. class 70% = 59,273 X cond. 100% _ ; 9,273 X toc. 86°h = S 7 882 Total Value 14 Valle Oak 20.0 I 21 25 40 1 4 5 t I t . in 3.14 X ;27/eq. In. = S 8,478 X aD. claw 100% = 18,478 X cond. 80°h = i 5,087 X loc. 85°/. = S 4 324 Total Vdue ~:~ EPLACEMEIYI TREE VALUES a1 ~ 536 15-ga1 ~ 5120 T =box ~ 5420 'box • 51,320 ~ 1 ~ BEST, S ~ WO "box ~ SS, bans' 57,000 "box • ~~i Page Z • . {. ob Tit. .~unte 1 ob Address: 146. itvale Ave. Job # 1~ ~ - _o~io/oi ~ ~ ~ BARRIE D. COATS ~ N o ~ N ~ ~ ;~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (408) 3531051 W "~ u ~ Z F Z Z - ~, ? p z o ~ ~ o ~ v ~ ~ y ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ . qa F ~ Z Z w N ~ w p ~ Z o ~ ~ ~ G = ~ 73f)f fiwit Ae~d ® rrj w ~ ~ a ~ w u I laGi~,U lS030 of o: . - ~ p U ~ o: ~ Z t7 N nC p O ~ ~ y ~ i ~~ o ~ ~ ~ V a¢p~ K U a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i z K•y N PI•nt N•rr» . o ~ o o ~ 2 uai if r U U U V ? t6 18.0 17 10 20 1 3 4 Gsdrua dodna 'Pendula' . in 201 X i27 /"a. in. ^ S 5.426 X ip. cleu 70% ^ ;3.798 X cond. 75% ^ ; 2,849 X loc. 7596 ; 2.138 . ToMI Vdw t 8 Hd Jun 10.0 x 10.0 7.0 1111 10 20 1 1 2 JUnI Ni f~d/1Mlb'l(eliUlte' 6 . In 138 X;Z7/eq, In. ^ S 3.728_ X ip. cleu 70% ^ ;2,608 X oond. 100% ; 2.808 X loc. 75% ; 1,956 • ToM Velw ~~ r • ~d C7 ~' ~J REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES 5-gel • $3f, 15-gal ~ 5120 ~ • 24"box . $420"box ~ 51,320 - 48"box ~ 55, "box ~ 57,000 "11N6w„ ~ !1 C AM • 1 = BEST, S ~ W T • ` .. .. . ~ ~ 1 ••' t I~ 3 ... _..` ......... t~s ' - ~ •''~''~~':•~ ~e_R Protective Fencing • ~`°9 a'f «e. =-y ..-..--.- - -1-._ ~ .............. ,I ,..... p~~9~ om»o1eR • 14. • M W. \ 1 ''Protective Fencing ~ 1 During Construction` / } ;..... ~ _~ Phase .,a,l ~ j L.c w1.I. {nJ 1+nn.,~ ~ AI•.mx.ewlx. _ s,..,I n. coat ~.- ...-- - -~ 1~ L b>autf> • - M ITI Aa14nrc R.f{~I=. IJe: ` I Illx.air {•. , ({OII) l53~IOS: 13535 Summll RoW M~>xd Mx lm Getc>, U 950!! .--- -.. --__.. . '' '~ •: MORT1NlTURAI CONSUITAM Mlr unuan~ ll~. _'A~; _ AM f:: 1\r N`' !!~~ ~~ {a' '.` •` CONSIIIT)Ni, AR BORLR raL •mar• .eJu.eJ ma!^' .•ql. ~ ...... .,..... . afro lla as •'•~nN :.~•.~':::: `..~~.~:: ••'.` •..:.:.:::::: ~..•• ~'~ Tree nlltlll+ers wrlespld 10 e1n11A•Ilem elan) - •• ~ e' •' ~C, All dimemiola erd Irte k+calrm> ~ . -i: ' ~:.~~.•. :';M •A•~co orztier,.~':; ':.:•r.•.':•• e ` } (p~ ~ I -ARaIlr.uAn ANn Alvx~lAn, s.~._ ..~y~y:_.1•. •;~~ ~S •:4 2 ._.L.. V_/2~~~\ ,~.n..at,x...xll.xn~ ,. •~'.Jt .•.......... ~ :. ~ ;1~' bl a. IMNl1{I ISif .J; ~r . [;• v1: .;•::::::.;. .'.~. .•:.~. •\~ ' ` I ~~II~~- :1!!!>...www14 \m wlm.lA.lMrl. i .~ {~ ... .. ' `` (~ w:J• AAp I.IOf OrIIfY (.RMllll 7P.-~ .Y I 0 Y{ (1 A '.1 ............. Pro Il •.•. • . ..• • • ~ • IK 1 Y ~fK ••~• •ry~ i .I .. r., rM+ • • • • fie ~ ,~~~ ~. ~ ~ •<• ~~ ~) ~ •.el,! ; ~ I " ~~ ~ ~Tr ~ 11 r ., ~ ~ I ~ / ,,,, ~ / t ~~ Estimated - 1 ~' 1 Root Zone / ~ • j "~ i l ~ :~ Of ~ '~ ~ ~ Tree z11 •• ••.• ~ ~ Protective fencing 1 •~ / If Retained ~ Protective Fencing'• . ~ ~~P,•,•~ ~~ • ~~ ~ • : x • :~ I ~~ During Demolition •~ / d° , °'°~ ~- ~~ ~• m"} • &ConstructionPhase y,' ••a• ~r ~ ~ •.. I •h• ~ ~ +~ ••• .... I ~., • ~ .. _, _ _ ' ~ ~~/ ~~i mac`°/T- ~'Z1 ~ ~~ • r~ ~`iP ~h I ~'~'-~ • . N .......................... ~ .. ~ ~~ aAwmnAraa / \ ....................... .~,r, .~`J .. .... ......... .~.....~..... ~~ / "'~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ L ~ iL ~ ~ ~ Protective Fencing ~ - ~~ ~ ~ l1~~~C --~~~ •~• During Demolition Phase _ ••...~ • Opening Between Trees t11 & 2 ° . t~ Closed by Protective Fencing During - - _ •~ • - • Construction Phase ~,;It~~t~29 ~ • ~~--- Olive • M I 1 1 ~ r/ :rv.+ene.u ;, _..'1_ ' Ir ' II 1 1 1 ~r 1 a r. ~w _ • - ~ `~ ~ ~ `; I-PROTECTIVE FENCING Soy Y'vc -ago. 1 r r e.~ k~~~ t~ J -{-La6 r.nC.~ . Y.1~ Jw•~a a a~-,,ti ,nnu.d a c,op; e.s {o ~ ,~ -sdt ey ~~~ Trer lvvef Md Rasarn~m Remmmadaoaas~ 6a•+ia D. CwEe b A+sociatas i M TAr I:ilkunre Rq~ery. Ia625 Fruwvsk AR (~Oa)353.1052 ' 23533 Summit Rosd ~ - RR'r°d ~~ lds Gatos, CA 9503! - Cm of Ssnloga. PlannmR Dep• Tree ramlxera correspond to evaluation chsrts. All dimrnsions and tree bcatiom » approximate. Iw) niw tES~DEM~E ' , _ ~ i j 5A70 ~~ft '1~ ~ 6tRLL I ' - REOK _ • I i. ~ ~~ . 1 ~ .--- r.w,f.E;.E*~••~..~ ~, i Cedar ~' L If Retained i ~ _r~ _:, ! ~ / _ I I~ Remove This paving Last- ~~-- .~ ! / ` By Hand and j - ~ ~ ~ Immediately Cover with 3-inches of Wood Chips . t I - _ ~ ~ Then Immediately Close Fence '' - I ` On West & East Sides--- r_ - ' ,. •~ i ~ I ~' I 1 j ;--e.+ E •Protective Fencing .. _. / .: -' ~''"' ~ . -~I~ ~ ~ ~ -. / Dwing Demolition / _' ~ _. 1 ~ Deodar Cedar i ~ Phase ~~: '-_ ~ .~ 1 .~~ es.» ~ .~ .~~ - ` _ t ~ •__ -._.-.,,r • ~' ' • Atlas Cedat _ REM0.41E1 •I~MRRS `I • `I ....... '... ! ~ .. Atlas Cedar I~ ~~.,. T ................... t~ ........... Ll~ _ _ ~ _ _,~ _ _ ~ _ _ ~~ _ _ .~___ ~. i_ ~~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~~i ~ _ _ ~ ~ _~wAP C7 E 701673 T ~ ~-- ~ -~ _ _ ~ _ _ = ~ _ ~~ r.~ ~r• .. ~~ rr~ ~- NU ~..~ ~~ ter. ~r_ ~~ ~~ /~ • •'~ • • • • E ~~ 1 ll~~JY' ~r•~ FRUITVnIE c E~ a"~ ~ ~ - • Attachment 3 • ~~~t~31 a A~~~ ~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission Subject: Proposed new construction at 14625 Fruitvale Ave The proposed design is influenced by our desire to save several mature trees on the lot. A lot of care has been taken to preserve the mature landscape and careful consideration given towards protecting the 300-year-old Coast live oak, roughly situated in the middle of the lot. The house starts beyond the drip line of the oak tree. The front entryway, garage access have been designed such that there is no loss of tree limb to the oak trees. We would like to highlight a few key design principles that would be apparent in the enclosed drawings. These principles guided us during the design phase: • The elevations of the structure are softened by use of different material. Judicious use of lime stone columns, slate, wood and light colored stone bring out the softness, and light green wood trimmings blends the structure with the garden. • We have minimized.the areas of maximum height, and varied the elevations in such a manner that existing views that neighbours enjoy are not altered significantly. This also has an induect affect of reducing the perception of bulk in the structure. • We have surveyed many fine homes along Fruitvale and Farwell avenues, and have ensured architectural compatibility. • We have used native vegetation to preserve privacy and mitigate mass. Accompanying photographs taken along Fruitvale and Farwell avenues indicate that the new structure remains hidden for most part behind the thick foliage. We have also used diverse techniques on the sides of the building to mitigate mass, and taken care to avoid neighbour interference. • The garage is integrated with the main house. This is different from an earlier design. The new design proposed here would eliminate any concerns there might have been as far as root protection for the oaks intersected by the driveway.. • We meet energy guidelines by using different appliances, and we propose to use solar energy where applicable. Modern innovations in solar panel technology allow us to blend the color of solar panels with the roofing. material. • The garage and driveway are situated to mitigate noise impact on adjacent properties. The traffic interference is also mitigated by our proposal to move the driveway to a less busy street Farwell Avenue. • Exterior light source interference to neighbouring properties is softened by existing mature foliage. • We propose to locate a hybrid stone and wrought iron compound wall along Fruitvale and Farwell avenues to coincide with the property boundary as shown in the drawings. Special care will be taken to preserve the fruit trees along the compound wall. We propose to erect a 6' metal fence on the two sides that are adjacent to neighbours. • Maximum height of the structure will be less than 26' previously approved for the older design. . DEC232002 • • ~~ CITY OF S '-•nn111~IITV R. Jr. n~• • • • S • We do not propose to perform grading cuts to accommodate the driveway. Fill materials will be used to protect the roots of the cost live oak, and valley oak as prescribed by the Arborist. .History: We had obtained an approval for our previous design, but due to significant cost overruns we have had to scale back our new design. We have since demolished an old structure and sheds. Herbs and trees affected by the demolition were relocated to other parts of the property. We aze pleased to record that we have not lost any major tree or rare herbs that became the hallmark of Saso Herb Gazdens. We look forward to the opportunity to present our new design. Sincerely, Venkat & Anjana Kalkunte Glenn Cahoon (Architect) ~~~~~3 • Attachment 4 • ~'~®~a~~ Residential Address 5~~ ~ a5~ o ~uru~¢,l~ `ISSo t~fiP~~G~C-- ~~1/tJ/r ~~ 5 S 1 ~ r ,~;-e. 11 Comments -iti ~eQ.p~`~ wc~fi -tf..~ ~ -t-~ ~~ Lvo ks exc~ 1 le N~ • ~!e ~~ k~~ ti-~. s u~~~ ~« ~~ a c ~: 9e n}-~y -{-o ~ c.o vu ncta.'~'G c~11 .~eed buck. C~Uease (ef ~-n'-~• 5{cc d• ~~/~~ TO Try ~7~si,P~-S ~f T~ ~~ '~re ~~ ~,w ~ ~~ -~r~,w ~.e~ w I N o ; ss ~ . 12~. v; ~ ~~ r`.e ~~ 1 Uv, ~ '~ Q l~ +~ rte-. '~ 1~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ - ~~ ~I ~~Oi~3S ,' FROM LOUIE,°~VIRGI f s Ff1X X10. 4088670307 Scp. _ ~0 X001 05: 31PM P1 Louis and'4lrginia Caen 4U5 k~smeralda llrive Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060 ' September 19, ZOOI. To the Members of the Planning Commission; ~ ~. The decision to sell the Suso Hcrb Cnrdct~s property and mo.•c away was a vetw . difficult one for us. VVe had hoped to spend tltu ~'esl of our 1xy~ taking exre of the g~trdenR. Tlnfnrtnnately that wsc not to he. T.nnle'c rnnr hpAlth .no.Ade it impossible for us to maintain the property. R'e feel fortunate to have sold our gardenu to Veakat and Agjana iCalkunte. From the heglnning, they underct.nnrl nnr great :~ffer.tion for the herb gs-rden9 and all of the beautiful fruit and ornamental trees ~'oa•ing on the sere. They worked diligently to playa their new construction sn as to minimize the need for moving many of the trees. VYe suggested that they consult an arborist about the care of the great oak tree, which they did. They asked our advice on different aspects o~ flae property-and hired ~iur snn, Tnm 4acn, whn ix A landcca~P g:~rdener in the C9rs~tngsl a.rr.~; to prune the trees. YYe helped plant many of the trees and he is an expert ins pruaning. Nancy Ft•izzel will Ue working with the K~ilkumle,t to muve and replant malty Olthe hrrhs AnA other plants surrounding the pt•esent house. She had been un npprcntiec in the herb garden four five years and, is very kltowledgeble on herbs atad other plants: Their architect. Weu~lcli Ruscue, hay spent marry hours on the propektp planning the cnrrect placc.meatof their new home. ~Vc think the ntvr owners dre gennine in their . interestrn preserving thebarrlQ.n. We urge lh~e planning commision to apprnvc their p~•oposexl pLin. 4iucerely, e ~w~ r1'C+f-~Z~O •' s~~~ • ~~~~c~6 01/09/2001 17:24 4087410522 ROTHCHILD NEL50N PAGE 01 c~ Date: March 5, 200 To: Saratoga Heritage Preservation Corrunission Saratoga Planning Coztunission From: Eileen Rothschild Nelson 1967 2 Farwell Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-0522 Subject: Proposed Plans for ] 4625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga I am really delighted with the plans Vezilcat and Anjana IC.alkunte developed for the. property recently purchased from Louie and~a ~>~ a ~~ ew homcg ll be a wonderful residents on Farwell Avenue, my husband addition and an asset to our street and neighborhood. It is a beautifiil design that will enhance the site. We are fortunate Out z~ew neighbors aze so diligent about making their plans with extra care and sensitivity. ,.•~~- ~~~ C~/~~~C~ C~y ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~Q , i • ~a~~~~ • Attachment 5 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~~~ U~2s ~~(? ~~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says:: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga //'' ~ Planning Commission on the V day of C~IiV 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~~t~~9 SAEED & SORAYA JAVADI or Current Owner 6740 ALEXANDER BELL 100 COLUMBIA, MD 21046 VENKAT & ANJANA KALKUNTE or Current Owner PO BOX 3114 SARATOGA, CA 95070 JAMES A & SYLVIA KATZMAN or Current Owner 19607 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 ALLEN G & GLADYS FONG or Current Owner 19609 VERSAII.LES WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 LINDORES or Current Owner 14545 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 HENRY R & ET DRINKER or Current Owner 14711 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 NORVAL J & EII.EEN NELSON or Current Owner 19612 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 RALPH B & LYNDA GODFREY or Current Owner 19450 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 RONALD S & REBECCA CORN or Current Owner 19475 RIESLING CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 JOSEPH & CELIA MAGLIONE or Current Owner 19459 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 SAEED & SORAYA JAVADI or Current Owner 14581 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 JOHNS & ELIZABETH ROLLINS or Current Owner 19551 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 M R & MAGGIE LEACH or Current Owner 14608 EL PUENTE WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 HENRY R & RANDIE NOTHHAFT or Current Owner 14563 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 LOUIS M & SANDRA THORPE or Current Owner 19550 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 HENRY W & SONDRA MII.LER or Current Owner 14765 FRUITVALE AVE_ SARATOGA, CA 95070 . STEVE C & LYNN BERARDO or Current Owner 19600 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 WANDA I & ROBERT POLLACK or Current Owner 14500 BIG BASIN WAY C SARATOGA, CA 95070 MORRIS E & TERI JONES or Current Owner 19472 RIESLING CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 SEONG H & INHWA KANG or Current Owner 19471 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 ROBERT T & ROSA WAN or Current Owner 14601 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 GIBBON J & ET ANDERSON or Current Owner 19571 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 • JOHN P & CHERYL COLMAN or Current Owner 800 POLLARD RD 1 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 DENNIS S & YI CHEN or Current Owner 14551 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 GARY E & STEIN MARCOS or Current Owner 19520 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 ROBERT P & PATRICIA MOO or Current Owner 19608 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 MING-YU & YANG LIANG or Current Owner 19468 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA . 95070 KWANG W & DUK KIM or Current Owner 19461 RIESLING CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 DENNIS R & KATHLEEN THOMAS or Current Owner 19450 RIESLING CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 STEPHEN C & ELIZABETH D~ or Current Owner 19493 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070. ~~®1~~0 CHING A & YUH WU ', or Current Owner 19468 BURGUNDY WAY ', TOGA, CA 95070 TSAI or Current Owner 19498 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner ~ ~urrent Owner KEN & FLING WENG PAUL C & CHING-LI CHANG or Current Owner or Current Owner 19466 BURGUNDY WAY 19486 BURGUNDY WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 or Current Owrier or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner ~~Ot~41 IV- N ° C _. L ~ f ,, jj;,~ ;1~iL)h.4 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~ Via{ [Iii I:N 611111 } ~ ~ i ~ I\p1.1, YRnJ):r 'I 11:11.1, }.. ff t ~ Atl(twliVAlaP - ! ~ ~-,.- ,j. 41lI mcllnraryl rl1v I ~ 111\1 I I'I r.IIAUI\1, Iv -1\ ~-- ~~ i ~ .1L11\ I.I i 1 1. PLU1114 I'I 11 , 1~_- , ~ 1 '', 1 I'I'LIt I.L1 LI. fLnull 14 n\ d ' ~ ' ~. ,~ .~ I IU 11 lh 1'1..1\ '~ '~ ", 9 I'ItU411,4.AII IIUAv n ~1 ~ ~~~ i `.rl rl '{ 1 I';AIF.ItIUItF,I.P C,-tllUAv " ~ `r ~-~ ai F:XI~Vatll)It V:IJCI,lllns'y A x~~ U ~ , :~ :; ..~ GI ., '' ,I i.. ~~ r. 1- t~ '•1 is -° i, ~; t: „i .i, .1~ ~~ _i PROJECT DATA ___ AS$BS$ORS PARCEL NUMBER: Pn-I'-nl t PROJECT ADDRESS: I X425 Frain ulr krnur OWNERS NAME: ~'enkal&Anjanu 6;tl.Fl\fl( EXISTING USE: Single family NreiJrnrr Illrradrrd) ZONING DISTRICT: It-I~dl~ nno LOT SIZE (GROSS) 41r,11Sh,11 sq.fl. I Lpt acrd (.NET): J2,IIILe nq.ft. 1!165 arrr) STRUCTURE SIZEPROPOS4:U: `~N15„I,fi MamLevelLiviogarea ~,U1du1.0. Garogt area 1N6 ,q,ll. Upper LevelLivingarea 1,7d5rq,p, Stair volume L'ury.0. FLOOR AREARAT[OPROPOSEII: ti.7"i~ ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREARA'fln la,r;, ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: o,omr ~q.li. • ,,5 i „q,h, IMPERVIOUS SITECOVENAGE; a,u,r~l~l• Driveway & Motor Courl :;167 ,q.h. Walkways, Porehes & slonp~ N lv „I:n Pool area I gnu I .. .q. I. ResidenceFootprinl !.a,,u„i ll ~ .": , 'ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS ('11vF:R,u,li: Js ~ . PROPOSEDIMPERVIOrSCFMV'r;u;v;r:: :u°i, /, ~, -.. a1 AVERAGE S1TE 51,01'E: ~ i~;, SLOPE AT BUILDINf 5I'I'E ~ `~ ~ , : r,, 1 u7 I ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ro r is ~ : --.. .~ -- ~ I 1, ..:G , ,bw,... i. ~ ~¢p~¢p ~ ( ~ -~ ~ ~_......., , s lj •~~ ~~tl h,r:NfC C' • I a 1.4_:_._.. ,~~ e.~. • • 3'-0" Y.IGN SiCNE FENCE ttP. SiCNE FlILtR;t'lY1PCUGHI IRON 6AtC REMCyE (E) ?v"onR ALL EXISTINf Sl lU'I n ul;> Ib11 l u1.r AENIOVED 11'1 I II I'I':N>II I, (E(fENCE ® - ~ 50d 072d'W 20L6r1 - ~, .__ . -_ . TODCP iI', ~. ' I ...~.- ~ ~ (E)GREENHDU5E TO BE REMOVED q I. I - (E1r, 911;, ~~} ~`' 70550 Ff ~V7 / I. I.- ~ ... 10tl. n.. 1~~ Jh , ~ , -r- ' . / t 1 I1 I ~, 1 I u ~Q 1: ~~ ~ ~,: :5lEPPlN6f i i .57cAVe6.,.: t I i~ - i=. i i e i y~ r~ i~ ~ ',t2'0°FRafr • YY'18'TREES ~- r ~~ / i~ ~~~ 1 28` PIN / , 1'1 I / '`n ~ / 7¢ I I ..... ........ ...... ....-... 'f\~'y=---- ~' ~/ ~' ~~ I ;; ~, . ~~, . . /~' ' '. i~ \ 1~ ~ ~ ';''11~~ ~i // I ' I I - r.; ~~i ~ / ~.._.. - - - ~ -~:, .~ ~ _ ~ 1 6 ,:~ ~+flt~7r ^u"F 1Dtb3' i. T TRRnrr` _. _ 2 _ « , . r..... ' FY.UI"I VlII x`1'1°."'31,'!_ ,,-` ~`~~~ - -~ '~ ~,. a8"OAK / // ...... t ......... _.-• - `~ I I 1 / + ( I 1 t / ~ t F ' 1 ~~~ t~ ~ - ~~' GAZEPO : ~ ,~ (~ , ~~ ,;~ ~I l~ll l ~ L , t i 1,11- ~~tl. IIN 4i 1 I • ~~ t5~JUrnrEE ~ / " . + ~ (.~ ~ ~, / J ro p '~ 9 ~~~ ~ ~ / ~ (3x 40"JUNRER ~~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ / eE J: I ~ ~ Il'l ° f I ~! / i eu rnio ~ I ~ . ~ RELOO11'P:II IIV II ~ UrruN{~an N I,WUTA pdnnp. ,,my Yl / { 8 t I fY / ~ ~I ~ y 1 ~ ~ / ~ \ J ~ },1 I / ~ ' I t ~ ~ / 1 t / -~ 1 1~ ~~ / i I; ~,~ / / ~ 14 t'0 1IF; P, 26"FIR .~ '(S 1 y _ ,~~ ~ ~ REMOVE IE)PLANif 1"-~ / ( , i ' k '?F5 1 ~ ~~' ~ +~ I t 1r`~' ' i I 1 en" t~ I I _..,..~' ./... ~~ ~ 1 ' ~ f n srl„ A ~ w; A,V`.I NUllt tool I I V 11X1 N. 1u5 it PII .. _ -_~ , ~'.-.. 1.1111,111 11111X11 tt~ u!t1 "l,.k{~r«rr I/\{11111\,{111. \,n1. .{ y.lrrr All Ai hil 1 \I II\I.I'4.: 1inL4' I.m-11 Ilr.lh«,. I11.1r-A1dl 111 / NI,':I; 11111 NN I' N I {n uM - "°~ Illl t17J.l1: Nl lhtil 1+. 's. 11.1 11`n, ~+. NI~.I 1~ A7 111•wl 11 llr~r„rl r ~I HI;1'11:N1', Ai/L 1'X111'1 NI N. t,A 15laJl 11rla lrl.l l.lrinp rl.x I,U',1Mh 1..~- I;olnl,{ 'N, y N ~.~ '~ JI I'piKl I. I I 'I ` 1 ..I. ny n O _i i \I i' 11nr rl a{.II Z t~l I'I,ININ nH{:n N\IIII PIIIIPI nIII, Illk ~ n 1. n111111'AIII1111 HIN{NI{NnINI rl`a {~ AIA 1111'.11111 I'I ININ INI'.{ I~,III~NrI l t h1'q I1 ~ L - In11FH1'llllhtlll'lll\IN{I.I A, IpA yfy ! _j Il +yrn {111 1 I !i\'+nl (1' s \\'nl4n I I S 1^•N, 11a y N ~+y ~ -" un,lo- r q ~ I,Aao„n b/ +<_ nil 1111 {1111 I1111'.N1'll ll 111\111 \l.l. 115y I'NIII'1141.111111111 \'lIN t11111'N 11.1 7~+ ~ {1'1:1111.1 hlll IIIII ~ ~\ ~} Ixn 1 tiI III'I :1111111111\1. VIII: °rp' a/ ~~ °"~"~ 4 !.J ~ ~ ~~ ~, ,1 ~y ''' ~ 1 C~ ~ ~ ~i ,,, ra J. ~ (JI ti ~ ~~ ._ ~F, W ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~' Q ~/I i. „' ~1 ' ~ A. . ,y ~3 ~ 4. ~ G ~« ~ I L ' ~ +,i +r ' ( r [Y a . ~ I "° r ._~ I tC. }. ~ { r: «+a ~3 C _~.« I :.s IA F.ilh'lY ,. I - ~.. ti ..,' x~ i w„~„ 1..~„ _.,~,.._ . ~. ,.. • 1 . D'{r xx3N STC3tE PENCE, M. STCNE PH,LtR7ry1,ro(,UC•NT;RON GA c P+R0.7GHi IP6t1 GAfE IN) 5TCME tAI~EDWACRWAY;TYP 5i~a•nnw,crr..wr. - ~..~ (E)IFItCE }---- ~ 5Cd'02 ~.W 2pl.f>D' ' _'^"-~ ~ 1 ' --_~_ . _~.,.. ~_.. ~ - . , ICJ Tt,.....e.,.NCF ....__. _._ ~ ......._. ~ .,...,e. _' .^. ~ ... .. ... ~. t~O~EIV}71UEE _ i ~ j .. ~,,, _ ,,._ o r BE REMGYFP""•°-.:•~~~'Lr,ui' 1' r'n~ •~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ s ., ..~ ~.......' t00C aeu4ve.~ .- , ~~\ _ -I l I ~ ~ ~ ', - ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~. ,- I ~ ~ I i i `. ~ ITU Bt -,C I q''{{ rnartsctnAt~ ...., ., ~ i ~~•... - ~.',,~ ~ ~ ;i A 4 W°?:17. G N I SS (~, • r~ i { ~ y: 'I __,.. ~ ~ ~ {N) SURF 6LlAC pR$(Ep'AY ~': ~ .. ~ I ~ ~ ~ .~ PEAR s a~ . ~ I •~..~: y ,. ~;] -- _,.. .~~~ I ( fU ~ . V f ~ ~ . ` ~-+"~- ~;~ tel. F y, i ~ Ir ~' ~ ~~ UrJ 1 85.3 ,. ;I . ter:}•t:: :xf,:'~ •ti.{;{?t ...~;..,4 ~ I ' I ~.rt, y !, 4` 'mow A { f REFApg (E~RETAINI?J6 WAlE ~ t~ Y ~ ~ ~,~N K+'Y8"7PtEF5 ~ '+ I ~ i ;/ ~ l ~"r"~''. r a, if ~ ~ - l~ ,~~~ zzr~ECY.,;/~ 1 1" ~ / I J~ ~ { ~ ., m m ~- ~@" ~.I11ut~Ee ~~ ~~ !, ~1~ ~~ ,, J / ~ `~ i ~ ~~ 1 ~ /~ ~ `a f / ~~ 1 r~ f ~ ~ 8° PCM ~~ .. ~ ~ ~/ ~1 l ~ :~ ~ ~ tttAr°,~~ j 6'~' ~ r~ v ~ ~ ~ rr'" l.e` i ~ ~ ~ t~kl4'~ I ~~~ it f 2i'r' PBd ~ 6° OAnM? j ~ ~ .,~ d°' / "l ~ ~ ~ 1 RR,~IE (ES P{ANTEN} ~ fr PFC ~ 3 / / 7 f'/ .. .. ....- ~ '~ i ~'^~`.~ =- ~,`i ...., ` ~''" CAE "" ~p "~ r 1R~4' 0, ^t7' E 2DtE3" ~ ,-- uxvir,` - 4 .~ ~a ... .. ~.J ~"~° ~,, 'j4, ,~ ^• r -' 0 A~ I ~/ ~ TYR R6 / ~: ~ 1l "'~ ~ ! &~'.3~ \ f / ; G/1. i31. ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~~, I, ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~B ii ~ j ~. /1j ~ ~4 F~UItY~,f.E AYENtJE ~• ~~1-~- BFYIBi0N8 BY - PROJECT DA'D'A. 397-17-012 CEL RI MBER ; , ASYF4S01~PAR nR011 ~~T ADDNPSS: 74623 Frnity4kAvwuc %UNTE ~011\FR.SRAPfE: Ymkat~Anjan9~ 1 Y A1ST'ING t71,F; Siagk Fatuity Rasidenrx(Detached) !0'r ING U157]21C,T: A•1.40,OW LOT SIZE (GROSSi 46 Oeq,A. (3.0.4 aerc) ' ~ 1.6 eq.A (.9G3 acre) . 421 (NETr ~ 7~J8aot4 ..:FTRUCTURESIZEPIt~OPOSED: / ~ ~ ...... 2,997 aq.R '~ Main Level L' rea ft / ~ 796 eq G ~J 00 p~ : . . arase orca Upper t.evel Lmn~ 1,735 egSL St 220 a l // i F-i ~ ~ ~ ® L1 C'i g r vo ume y Sm 7% 13 ER C ~ . : FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOS c ~ ~ ~ ALLOWABI.E.FLQAry~^AEA BATIQ t4AK ., ~n ~ ~ AiSAWAALE PLO~t AREA: ~(ASO vgJV3,738 eqR (1197 eaR rCOVERAGE EAVIOUS SIT F1~ 0 C ode( ~ : t 7MP Drivexay~MOtor Conrt 2,464 aq,fL ,. ~ '~ u , Welhwa~y Parehea & amopa ffi9 aq.R A 1500 f U eq• Pool a n J (} Lt ~ v 4 Roat~mceFeotpzint .983 ng ., ~ ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 35°k ° ~ k . PROPf15ED IMPEAVIOUT COVERAGE: 8 SITE ELOPE s F GF v 'y ~ : AI AA , ATRUILDING SSEE: s 3. TAPF W ~} 0 f . • r~i 4) O `~ ~ ~ N , ' ~ ~ 0 QrQ N .c C ~ V ~ C^ r i ~~II N nG W ~ ~~~ raw GRADING QUANTITIES CUT 330 CUBIC YARDS FILL 250CUBICYARDS EXPORT SOCUtlICYARDS w ,~ ~H a~ -- - N ~ . _ `~ v o Otero z m ~ W F v'' SQL ~ G~~ 11.1 ~ ~ WNW Z LL ? y 0~ a+ e FwN lU ~ z ~.; N y ~ m ~, ~ ~ ~ W z U ~ a h~ ~ n nau,.l~..~27Z.... ~ J ~ o ss~ ,~tFr, w aca. Yvi+KI/Nfi : 0 nn.e~ 2 m QA~HR CN ~ nvv~ I ~ ;_ 1_ ._ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ~ r - -= __ ~ 4 ~~~~ ~ 1 f ~ i ~ ~ ,., ~ "' ~ FAMILY ROOM - ~~ , K HEN T ~ '~ i i ~ . ~ T ~ ~~ _ = ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 } ~ 0~ _ ~ _., ___ _ .__. .. _ ____ _, _, ....,_.. L u~lT{,ERS -~~ rtRY P ~ OWDER. I I ~ I I I I ~ coars~ % ~ RlA ~ ~ I II ~ ~ I ------ ~ ~ ---- n ---J L__ ~~ _~ t--J. . ~, --rt ;--- -+~----~ a~~.---art ~~ ii~ ~ j ~ ~ i ii i '' _ ~ ~~ , ~ ..LI RARY•0 FILE ~ '~, ~ i i ~ ---~ L-- - ---~ ' I ~ d !~ ~--r -r--- -; t-- -7 . ~ ~ l i i ~ I ~ I ~;a' q'~,i 0 i ~, i ~ ! I I i ~' I ~ ~--.1L-- --~~---~ ING ROOM ~ ~ ~~ EQYER ~ ~+INQ ROOM ~ ' ~ ~ I ~ I _ , . ~ 0 I_~I~ ,.... .8 ~ .~w~- -~-m _ _--- ! ~ ~ 1 ~. ~ ~. ~ 6 ~ i I i I 1 t~~~ ~ i ~_,tit)R;PLAN I 0! h o '' ~~ , REVISIONS BY x.~ a:c. M N 0 ~ ~~ ~ x~~ ~I w `V ,~ rr ~~ U K v aw '~ ~ '~w O O N a y '~ m ~~ L~ M o F ~ U N ~^ G. BOA ~ K '~ ~.~ .C ~ aaW F~ ro -~~. ~ U h~ rm 0 Q ~ °`~ w ~w ~ c~v a °~" o oau. LLC, 2002. .7 solieN~IE'O. W a D~awnfjc z, 70o Y.dLKIlNTE ' .a. ~..~3 0' tlna.u • • l~ u ~. ~ A I ~,~~ ~ J~, ~ w.i.w.z ~. ' '~I ~ ~ wa.w a ~Oh :, ~~i 9 ~ ~ ~j RIiUUM 3 ~,~ z oN. ~~ ~ DRESS~G. ,;% ,~~ ~ -;/ { ~ A_w i,w. i _. _.. D~-~ ~ M.BATH i DPEN TO BELOW SXOWER ~ wmRLP00L ..... .~~ J J r-1 O ~i~ i/I K r 0 c ~~ x ~~ ~; -J- u .. ~_ ~~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~~, i -. ~'~I , _ - ~ _ --~---,~.-~-a~,.~,- aenaro~e er s<< . ~~r;e f'I;AN ` ....+f ROOF PLAN NOTES __.. _ I 'FIItEFREE' SLATE STYLE ROOFINGAPPLDiD AS PER MANUFACTURES SPECS. OVER 8:12 PITCHED FRAME. DARK GREEN TYPICAL 2. BUH.T UP TORCH-DOWN ROOFING OVER 1!4"; 1Z MIN. SLOPE J. 5" .PAINTED GALV FASCIA GIiTTER OVER 2x8 PRE-PRIMED SPRUCE FASCIA BOARD wl 2x3 DOWNSPOUTS 4. SKYLIGHTS DRISTOLIGHT OR EQ. SIZE NOTED ON PLAN 6. WROUGHT H10N GUARDRAIL AT TH.E FRYISHED DECK- BALCONN 7. PAINTED SHROUDS OVER SPARK ARRESTER CHIMNEY ~.~_. m N O ~ O ,~ r i0 ~M FF}}~~II ~ Mrl w o ~~ U aw 0 v ~w ~ U ~ p y ~ ~A` E'" 00 ~~/ l~ C O ~~ro ~E:+ O C ,C v ~ O~ ~ .~ 0 aaw __...~~ ~ ~. ~" a~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~yy a~ `~TJ ;: ~, ~~ w. ~, ur ~;G5; ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q~^. oaie..AEG.2O?2 z ori, }TOTED':-:.. ,dj 0. ion KN.KIINTE.: C 5he.,5 g~ s~..,e ,~ ,.. g ~- p, r ~ ~ • • ~~ ~`` ~---~_~ ~ ~ II -< i ` Mdl~l. G F"AfS'n! ~~ . ~ ~ ~ .. - "'}L a ~' _.._._ 0~° ~'~m M i~ w W ~o ~~~ U V aw 0 ~' ~ w" 0 ^'~ ~ U rl.~ U v D ~ ~ ~ro\ ~~V'. r c N 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ •ro. x ~. aww. I w l~ o~~~ ~ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ~; } ~ I t HIGH 111 )A IlUtih 1t)~ FS I Flk!?I AFh 11 AiI451}11, Nljbl`INfi AYI'LII!D AS I'I;It AtAN11pA4°'I fJttlhl ~INiG'S, t?1'lill F:12 w~r~7u:~rltntru;, t)AHl;GItINiN'rvrlCnl. i. s~ I,v~ull~rlni,v.' rncclnr;l rrr;NUVr:H~ 2~R I'NF; I'NhtI1:N!il`IiUt'1; V~)Slah II(IANU 3. ti'I'IICCI)I'ftil~phbSjI1,H1'I'III'1\ISII 4. S'I'DA'h1'Cr~I:1;W~1'AN`lilklTA S. CL,~IU14'1)IJU I'N,Ai111:61t'I,AU1111'$ 6. t1'NDIiC11'I`IHiJ;~'CIJAItUHAII. T. I'A I,K'1'V;11 $II N(111I1$1)1'I;B 11'AHK A11Hh,ti'1'IfN 1.111~1iS 1:Y W .~ ~ o z ~ U a ~. o `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q '~ ~.+ wcd ~ w ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . q .. W .] Deie~_.~:.:'Cp~C~ W Scp14f~7~-0..": . a: 0. .. o~.wo 6G_._.... W F ]oE.. .KALKl1~. ~ W $heci of ....,Si4ei>`... _.. r •~ , ?. • REVISIONS er __._.___ z MN coo ~~ O ~ M L` x~o U ~w 0 w ~ U u F~~ a n g. '~ N .c ~_ U ti ~ ~. 4) ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ Q ltl aaW' w " REAR ELEVATION ~~-i=o~ ~_ E ~ ~ U a °u J o . ^~~yj '~ v Q '~ wow ~ __ m ~ ~; z o A~~. 'our pFC:2CU2. W W Siw JvbJF'p 0 DrnmEfi .__ . 47 f` bs . xACxuvre en.x m en.m h,:~ ': 6* . • • j T ' ~ ~ ~(1UAR1?FOOTAGE ~'~~.CIILATIONS ~ Zo. 17 - ~ ii !'•J7'a'. 1.960.0 sq.fl, - IA'0'r J3'0' = 661.0 - Id'p". 1!'U" 4 710.0 - Ifni 6'°' - 60.4 • .'li'r I:'B" 153 r6 ,GAZEBO ROOF PLAN '`"~''"~ 1B'6 t'0'r 2'9" 16.0 `"' .i. 3 .r - . n IA .-._.._7.074.3 W.B. fi'!' • 77'0' 761.6 - i ' ' n', i.n¢IiN dNFd 38601 W.d. °7'1'~ !0 • 90.6 8. ~ /,~ ~ rF' C. I u o r 7 0- Ito '- Ini i~~NPIN iRt6 195.16 W.d. f _- V _ .~ _f. ,_i . ~ ~ 1 -ie 41\IY71ft2A 173/.6 W.A. ... - 1~ UPPER FLOOR .. STALE-~g~~-l'o" .GAZEBO FLOOR KLAN LOWER FLOOR _GAZEBO ELEVATION TYP. ~~ ~g"_ ~,a" .- I .~ ~~-aar.:_ _ ~; i - ~` i;-: ~. ~i~ ~~I ~; ~ ,, ~ r I ~ _ ~. ~ ,: H ~. z ~~ ~U o. ~'. ~ ~' ~ yi ~. ~? ~ w ~~ ~ ~. Q~~ ~ I _ ~ 1 - Dole JAN. Zcd3 . I'- ~ J ,: d ~ ~ _ ~~ _ °~~ ~ - ; _ , _ I ' .~(i t - ~ ~ ~- ~ --~ . scale NOTED . ---- _ Y . _ __._ 3 ,.. .._ ~ i ~ 0~o."6C 2 ENTRY GATE W/ LOW WALL W.L FENGE 3 TALL WhI A rayGt; O.__., _; ~ "b ~~ sneel ;Sr9Ge_;U_4~ /JON...:.::. .:...... ..... ~,:.I_r „ - .. ~ - - - ~; of snene u. e«.o. mx«n.,.u.~~ - _ .rte-... -. ,P.Ye: l,.I 9 •p HIGH STONE FENCE, ttP. STCNE PIIIAR,',7~7!¢OUGHf IRON GAtE 7A' DnK i ~_ (EJ FENLE ® ~ 500'072aW 201,69' _. t- .__.-_.~_.._ , iO BC RYA,A n:' Y ~ -.. .~~~~ ~~ 1NICk g/IR'~ CHdPs 186 ^Ort ' // ~ ~ M . ,.-. ...... !I lE1GREENH0U5E~....T~1CL'• B,~tK ~ [(,~ f, -_ I ~ ........ (1 TO BE REMOVED CNI rs 1 ~{.~,J~ .~~ ~ - 7085 Ff ~. ,~,Ny* ri ..~ I .[ II . __ . __ . __ . ~_ t:: _ l I ~ VnV , ~ ~ ^.,.~ a ' D I1 ~ ~n ....+. _I ........_ ,,, ~,Q 8"9ALl.CN ~ ..I. ~. I ;Z _ I ' ~ . .. II i 1 ,, ;~ ~ FRON1:9E-(DAL ... ', ~ ~ ~>^'•:'•. (100EEREMOiE ~t I1 . ~ I Y, ~.,.~. AP'5O P7 ~ ~ ~ 1 -:~ }~~ . /, I ~ _(N)TURF BLOCK DRWEW - ~ ^ I ;v , PAVER 5Y5TEM,JI_ .-__ ^. _,.,... (~ __ _ I I i 1 ~ EC STONE - - ~. ;', ~~ v ~I ~I~ ,~ , ~ ?Dx90; ~~ ' PoROUGHT IRON GATE ~ 1 .t~. ,I,, ( ~ ~{ ' :.:,:: , ~, ~ r~'~ ~ ? ; I I_ .. ~ , ~' :::.: ::':: (NJ STCYE PAYEDWALKWAY,tYP ~ ~ ~ ~ •'~•' l J 510N0 BCUGUET CANYCN 1 ~ _ [n. oe'~;.cr.r ,, ! ,:. I ` V . ~ _ ~ a .~ r c ,~ y II t REMWE(E)FENCE t ~ ~ ', I 1~'LE, L11f ..___ ~~ i 4 . ~ .t / 48"OAK 1 ~ :'~• _ ` ~ / REMCVE (E) RETNNING WALL ~ i ~ •''I ~ I ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 'n bl \ •~t ~ x~ '. ~I,t I ' ~{~ 6°n,eE '18" EES ~ E~Ej ~ ', © ~~ -l- r ; i ~ ~ {1 ~ f 2B`d,EOND l ~/ ~ ~ / / q ~ I rte; ~ i ~ ~ . (p ) ~ ~ i n (• .. /` / _~ i ~15~;JUNI R tt 1 II / t ~~ ~ I ) I 3 ( j/ m ~~ ~ ~t f ~ ~ ,% ~~ ~ . ~ ~ }~' ~(tlDitrreroDE ~ / al .~ ' _ { REMDYED I j ~ ~ 1 I 1 ~ 1 _ , - ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ! % ' -'-"r ~ I ~ ~ / ~ I . l((~( / ~ /~\\ ~ J ~ ~ 28"PIN / ~~ 6'ORANG ~! 1 BI ~ ~~y/l r ® ~ l~ . _~~/ ...~~ . ~~ . ~ . ~_ lfS~/</~~ ~__ 83.86 ; [ , ~:~ ~ eQ '. / ~ ('`J~rv + 2O"FIR ~ ~ ~ 26" F II i ~~• / _~-( ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ' J REMOVE (E) TER ~ P~E ..., ~ ~yyy ~ ~,ulyl ' ................ .-.......... .-. ...... .. /.....a..-....... H ~ r ~ ~ it ~ ' .~.... i ... --... .. .~.. ,.,...., 24"~LOVJ p / -~~~ .. i ~ ~ 20 OAK I~GU 0720'E 201.63' / aL~R V]~r,` ~ . • ~'. / y / ~~ff FIZUITYALE AVENUE , _,,,.,,., pEVIS10NS SY PROJECT DATA ASS6SSONS PARCEL NUMBER: 391-17-012 PROJF,CI' ADDRESS: 11625 Froitrak Aveaoe~ KALKUNTE ' NERS NAME: Yeelut & Aajaea OR . EXISTAiG USE: Siagk Family Reddeace (DMthed). 00 7ANING UISTAICT: R-]d0,0 LOT SIZE (GROSS) 46,056.0 rq.h (LOS acre) (NET): 42,011.6 ag3L (.96i acre) . STRUCTURE SIZE PROPOSED: 5,7J8 ml,h 8faia Letd Liviag ern '. 2,997 aq.ft _.~_~.__... Garage am ~ 706 eq-h. Zj iM y Upper lard liviogern 1,775 eq.ft 0 ~ ~ Snirarolome 220aq.ft, 7Y 13 i C . FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSED: ~ !. O I 74.4% ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREARATIO C h ALLOWABLE FLOOR ARP.A: QOBO rp.R> 5,738 rq.h p G . IMPERVIOUS STfECOVERAGE: 98.21w.fL. ~ ~'„ ~ Oriveway6 Motor Coart 2,469 eg3L '~ v ~ Walkways, POrcEn&rtoopr 039 agJt' V Pool am 1,200 aq.ft L RaidnceFootpnot - 3,783egJL " L ~ 35R ; ALLOWABLE LMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: ~e i PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 20Y • ~4 ~ /,. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: >10 ' "i u" f BUA,DR4G SfTE: >5~ SLOPE A O Q~ ~ ~ V ~' ~ ,~~.1l V ^ ^ ~ q M ~ 7 O •,± ~ U n • ~..~ 'y O ~. - ~~~1 ~ I C!` u ~. ~ 1R-fFS Fels AI~1snBo~ °i ~ :: v7 C '~ L~NTE, C?n BE ~'~ ~ p rRib14C4 a 0.w; • LfGEN w^^r' ~-~ ~%151 IN G '~• W R~ ~ 31 u~1~E, uir~ F1rvE Rr9w~cap M~~ct+ -~' ~TaIN kr.L Tµr` MATv~F ExfS?1u6~ ppLANDSCRPf~ ItiCLbD^^IUG, I~St l~t£Pj5 PLN I/ FRS Ii TREES ""~ C§REE N i Lt ~ f- r ~~ d~ ~ ~. ~~ ro ~. ~ ' ~~ ~, ~. w ~ W G .~~5i Vl ~ ~ Q ~ ~~-+ D 1d. _ ~2R72. $C le.,/1~~. jJ~ D wn 6G _...... v L KfIC,KlIN7E.* aawt 1 .~ 01. SAeetr • • • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 02-215/ 20200 Hill Avenue Applicant/Owner: Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects/Vincent Borelli . Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner~~ Date: March 26; 2003 APN: 517-22-003 Department Heady (~ 000001 20200 Hill Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 09/19/02 OU23/03 03/12/03 03/05/03 03/06/03 The applicant is requesting a Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two=story home with a 1,780 square foot basement on a vacant lot. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Reports (2) 3. Noticing Labels, Noticing Affidavit, and Notice 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit °A° • • (~(~®002 File No. 02-215; 20200Hz11Avenve STAFF ANALYSIS i ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 80,586 sq. ft. gross, 77,003 sq. ft. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant will be required to obtain a grading .permit. The applicant is proposing 160 cubic yards of fill and 730 cubic yards of cut. The basement is not included in this calculation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality ,Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements • • Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Building Footprint Driveway, Patios, Pond and Walkways Maximum Allowable 20.37% 35% 5,422 sq. ft. TOTAL First Floor Second Floor (Basement) not counted TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garages C:VvlyDocuments~Hill Ave 20200 Staff Repo.doc 10,472 sq. ft. 15,894 sq. ft. 26,951 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 5,422 sq. ft. 1,308 sq. ft. (1,780 sq. ft.) 6,730 sq. ft. 6,740 sq. ft. Min. Requirement 70 ft. 65 ft. 130 ft. 81 ft. 37 ft. 25 ft. 80 ft. 25 ft. Maximum Allowable 26ft. 26 ft. Existing N/A 12 ft. ~~®t3®3 File No. 02-215,• 20200 H111 A ven Ue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,730 square foot residence with a 1,780 square foot basement. • The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural styles. The. proposed home will complement the architectural style of the home on the left side of the project with a similar country style and horizontal wood siding. Due to the size of the lot and setbacks the proposed project will be in harmony with the new two-story Mediterranean style house on the right side of the lot and the newly remodeled home across the street. The proposed house will be set back further from the street than the existing house on the left side of the property and have approximately the same setback as the new two-story Mediterranean on the right. The proposed exterior finish will be a combination of horizontal wood siding and a stone veneer. The windows will have a dark green trim with mullions. The roof will be a slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Poli 1 "Minimize Perce Lion o Bulh" The ro"ect meets this policy in that the proposed ry, p f P J house will use horizontal wood siding to visually reduce the height and bulk of the structure. The inset dormers and windows will provide additional articulation and breakup the facade creating interest and reducing mass. Tlie applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will breakup the elevations of the building. Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone to accent the front facade with a dark gray slate roof to blend in with the existing tree canopy. The applicant is also maintaining the numerous Oak trees throughout the site in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan around the property. Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties. by maintaining the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to the providing an extensive landscape plan. The proposed project also provides substantial setbacks from the adjacent neighbors to the side and rear of the property. • ~~O~Q4 C:\MyDocumentsU-Till A~~e 20200 Staff Repo.doc File No. 02-215,• 20200 Hi11 Avenue • Policy .4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping and an existing Oak forest in the rear of the property. Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The existing mature trees will provide shade and wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The design also contains sofitted eves that create additional shade and stone siding that provides thermal mass. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing atwo-car garage with ample unenclosed parking provided in the circular driveway. Trees There are approximately 100 trees on the site of which 68 are considered protected. The applicant is proposing to remove 14 trees on the property. The City Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The applicant is proposing 17-replacement trees of which 12 are 36" box, one 24" box and four 15-gallon trees. The applicant is also proposing 85 Herteromeles Arbutifolia (California Toyon) which can be a considered a tree or shrub. The Arborist report only recommends six replacement trees. The City Arborist reports dated December 23, 2002 and October 10, 2002 (attached) contain recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for tree protection. Fireplaces The applicant plans to have one wood-burning fireplace in the living room. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. ~~~~~5 C:\MyDocuments\I-Till Ave 20200 Staff Repo.doc File No. 02-215,• 20200 Hill Avenue Land Use Element Policy S.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the center of a large lot with over 100 existing trees on the site and the applicant will provide approximately 100 additional trees to the site. The Zoning Code requires ample setbacks for the structure that will maintain the rural character of the street and reduce the visual impact of the structure. The design of the structure will be consistent with the rural feel of the neighborhood and compatible with the adjacent surroundings with its horizontal wood siding, French style windows and doors, slate roof and stone siding. Conclusion The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. -The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the- Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~i'~®~Q6-'. C:\MyDocumen[s\Hill Ave 20200 Staff Repo.doc • Attachment 1 • ~~'~~®~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.03- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Borelli; 20200 Hill Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,730 square foot residence on a net 77,003 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, .the proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, .the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will use horizontal wood siding to visually reduce the height and bulk of the structure. The inset dormers and v~indows will provide additional articulation and break up the facade creating interest and reducing mass. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will breakup the elevations of the building.. • Polity 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone to accent the front facade with a dark gray slate roof to blend in with the existing tree canopy. The applicant is also maintaining the numerous Oak trees throughout the site in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan around the property. • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to the providing an extensive landscape plan. The proposed project also provides substantial setbacks from the adjacent neighbors to the side and rear of the property. • • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping and an existing Oak forest in the rear of the property. Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The existing mature trees will provide shade and wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. .The design also contains sofitted eves that create additional shade and stone siding that provides thermal mass. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Lase Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the center of a large lot with over 100 existing trees on the site and the applicant will provide approximately 100 additional trees to the site. The Zoning Code requires ample setbacks for the structure that will maintain the rural character of the street and reduce the visual impact of the structure. The design of the structure will be consistent with the rural feel of the rieighborhood and compatible with the. adjacent surroundings with its horizontal wood siding, French style windows and doors, slate roof and stone siding. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter; the application of Vincent Borelli 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" date stamped February 27, 2003, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. ~(~®t~~9 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. Landscape plan -shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscaped area. 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. ~~~~~~ 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide- use, shall be the resporisibility of the property owner. 13. The height of 'the structure shall not exceed 26-feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. PUBLIC WORKS 14. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit. 15. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve a letter prepared by JF Consulting, Inc., dated December 30, 2002, with subject Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations, as well as all Geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundatioris) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically evaluate the sump and pump system for basement drainage. The results of the Geotechnical 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. 16. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 17. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 18. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 19. 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. 20. The property owner shall be responsible for drainage improvements and or damage to the existing drainage swale in the public right-of-way as determined by the Public Works Director. L(~®~~.1 CITY ARBORIST 21. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated December 23, and October 10, 2002 and October 11, 2002 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports. shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading.plans: b. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the-site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. C 22. Prior to issuance of a Building, Grading or Demolition Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. S 23. Prior to Final Building approval, the City Arborist or Staff shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 24. The applicant. shall submit one complete set of plans with the Building Permit submittal to be routed to the City Arborist for review of the final landscape; irrigation and grading plan and any special provisions need for the maintenance of tree #73. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 25. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City Code 16-20:210). 26. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. A licensed contractor shall install the sprinkler. ~~~f~Z 27. All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus 1-foot shoulders. 28. Slopes form 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" .aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. 29. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 30. Provide parking for two emergency vehicles at he proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire District. 31. The width of the security gate shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 32. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought iri any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. s Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~~~6~~3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of March 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This ermit is hereb acce ted u on the ex ress terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no P Y P P P force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~3~®c~~4 • • Attachment 2 BARRIE D. CO~E John Livingstone Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 end ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 December 23, 2002 Subject: Borelli Pro~eriy, 20200 Hill Ave., Job #]0-02-190 A • Comments: This is to document a meeting on site with Mr. John McClure, the contractor of the project, on December 2, 2002. The propose of this meeting was to review the tree preservation procedures recommended in my report dated October 10, 2002. The story poles were still in place during this site visit. I emphasized that the proposed plan will be highly risky for some of the trees at this site, especially the coast live oak Tree #73. The proposed new building is so close to the trunk of this tree that it is conceivable that this tree would not survive. However, I believe Tree #73 can survive in reasonably good condition depending on how well the recommended mitigation procedures are enacted at this site. For this tree, there will be no room for error. Mr. McClure and I reviewed the risks to Trees #4 and 82. It does not appear that Tree #4 will survive the stabilization of the roadbed for the driveway and it is highly questionable whether or not Tree #82 would survive this procedure. In the event of significant damage to these trees, replacements are recommended. The risks to the neighboring Trees #3 and 9 by the grading of the Swale for drainage was discussed: As I stated in my report 10-10-02, an alternative to this drainage swale must be used. No additional recommendations are required at this time as a result of this meeting and of the story pole observation. MLB/sl.. Respectfully submi, is ael L. Bench,`?~ssoc~ate ~, Ba 'e D. Coate, Principal ~~Oti.$s BARRI E D. CO TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road • Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE 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 Consulting Arborist October 10, 2002 Job # 10-02-190 Plan Received: 9.25.02 Plan Due: 10.27.02 r~ u iD} [~ (~ [~ 0 ~ [~ I~~ ill Nov o s zoo2 CITY OF SARATOGA ,IMMUNITY DEVF,I Dpi^Q~" ~~®~~~. • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMTvIENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence on a vacant lot iri 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 Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, San Francisco, Sheets AO.1-A3.04, dated, 9-19-02; the Landscape Plans prepared by Laderbaugh Associates, Sunnyvale, Sheets L1, L2, dated 7-25-02; and the Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by Kier and Wright, Civil Engineers, Santa Clara, Sheet C2, dated 9-12-02. Summary This proposal may expose up to 86 trees to some level of risk by construction. Seven trees would be removed by implementation of this design. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Seventeen trees would be severely damaged, but procedures are recommended to mitigate the damages to acceptable levels. Fourteen additional trees would be at least moderately damaged by proposed landscaping hardscape. Mitigation procedures are recommended to reduce the damage to acceptable levels. A combination bond is recommended to assure the protection of the existing trees that would be retained. Observations There are approximately 100 trees on this site, but only 68 trees meet the size requirement to be protected by the Saratoga tree ordinance. In addition, there are 18 trees located on neighboring properties adjacent to the property boundaries that may be at risk of some level of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these 86 total 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. The trees are classified as follows: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii) English Walnut (Juglans regia) Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) Tan Bark Oak (Lithocarpus densiflora) Silver Wattle (Atxrcia dealbata) Chestnut species (Castanea species) Monterey Pine (Pirrus radiata) Italian Stone Pine (Pi~ras pinea) • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, COIv'SULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~~®~~p • s TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 Hni~ AVENUE SARATOGA 2 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 86 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine ~ S ecimens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 9, 22, 60, 73 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 11, 23, 25, 29, 21, 28, 53, 77 24, 30, 36, 41, 13, 14, 15, 16, 31, 47, 49, 52, 42, 43, 48, 50, 18, 19, 20, 26, 55, 59, 71, 72, 54, 56, 57, 58, 27, 32, 33, 34, 81 61, 62, 63, 64, 35, 37, 38, 39, 65, 67, 68, 69, 40, 44, 45, 46, 70, 76, 80, 82, 51, 66, 74, 75, 83, 85, 86 78, 79, 84 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 which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #3, 9, 16, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 61, 63, 64, 66, 76, 78, 79, and # 80 are located on the adjacent properties adjacent to the property boundaries. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. This is because of the fact that the importance or significance of a tree to a neighboring property owner, in my experience, cannot be presumed. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Seven trees (#5, 50, 51, 55, 71, 72, and 81) are in conflict with proposed construction. These trees would be removed should this plan be constructed as proposed. At .least thirty-two trees would likely suffer moderate to severe damage, mostly root loss, by proposed construction. These trees are listed as follows with a notation of the damaging feature or procedure.. In addition, these are listed in order of severity from the highest risk to the lowest risk of health and survival. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~~~V~~,9 • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 3 Trees #4 and 82, coast live oaks in Fair and Fine condition- respectively, would be damaged by grading and construction of the proposed driveway. These trees would lose an estimated 50% of their root system and would not be expected to survive. Tree #4 is a multi-stem tree with. trunk diameters of 12, 10, 10-inches at 2 feet. Tree #82 has a trunk diameter of 24-inches at 2 feet. Mitigation does not appear feasible for Tree #4 given this design, but does appear feasible for Tree #82. Tree #70, a coast live oak in Fine condition, would be damaged by trenching for the footing of the residence grading to assure surface drainage away from the residence, and soil compaction from construction activity in the root zone. The estimated root loss would be 35-45% -too severe to expect survival. Tree #70 has a trunk diameter of 10-inches at 2 feet. Because of its small size -and because of its location in competition with Tree #69, a fine 16-inch diameter coast live oak, I recommend that Tree #70 be replaced. Otherwise, in all likelihood, this tree will grow toward the residence, require severe pruning with the passage of time, and will decline significantly as a result. Tree #73, a large (27-inch trunk diameter at 2 feet) coast live oak in Exceptional condition, would be damaged, by trenching for the footing on 2 sides of the root zone, grading to assure drainage away from the new residence, grading to create a Swale on the east side of the root zone, canopy. loss resulting in reduced food production from reduced photosynthesis, pruning wound damage from canopy loss, which would result in an energy shift from growth to damage control, a complicated process of protection. The wounding damage alone may be severe depending on the volume of canopy loss. Soil compaction as a result of construction activity in a major portion of the root zone may also be a major risk factor. The damage from all contributing elements would be severe. Tree #73 would not be expected to survive the long-term. Mitigation may be feasible, assuming the canopy loss would not be too severe, but each and ,every recommended mitigating procedure would have to be done diligently and carefully. However, it is not possible to~ accwately access the potential canopy loss to Tree.#73 without the use of story poles. If large limbs must be removed or if 1/3 of the canopy or more must be removed, Tree #73 would likely decline, particularly given the fact that some root loss is inevitable. Both root loss and canopy loss cannot be considered separate unrelated events. Both forms of loss aze considered as a whole. Because of the size and the complexity of this proposed project and because of the number of people that would likely be involved (contractors, subcontractors, and workers); the risk to this tree would be very. high even if mitigation procedures to preserve this tree are feasible. Trees #2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10, all coast live oaks, would all be exposed to root loss, likely severe, by the proposed grading to construct the drainage Swale on the East side of the proposed residence and driveway. Many people assume that oak trees have deep roots and that surface grading does not harm them.. At most locations the soil being the distinguishing factor), the opposite is true for both assumptions. Any or all of these trees may decline severely, but I do not expect that any would die. Considering the fact that these six trees provide valuable screening between this property and the adjoining properly, I believe an alternative to this swale must be planned. . Tree #49, a California black walnut in Marginal condition, would suffer major root loss as a result of trenching for a drain across the root zone. This tree would not be expected to survive, but, in my opinion, would not be a significant loss. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 1Q 2002 ~~®~~® V AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 4 TREESUR EY Tree #11, a multi-stem English walnut, is in an extremely vulnerable location considering the scope of work -that would be done and the equipment likely to be used. This species typically responds poorly to damage, especially at developed locations. This tree's value is low, and the cost to preserve it would likely exceed its value by a large margin. I recommend that this tree be replaced. Tree #12, a coast live oak in only Fair condition, would suffer severe root loss from trenching for a drain, and grading over much of its root zone. The proposed pathway, which typically involves a trench (4-6 inches in depth and approximately 4 feet wide) across its root zone would also contribute to the root loss. This tree may survive if given exceptional care. Grading is proposed across the root zones, or a portion of the root zones of Trees #48, 49, 52, 83, and 84. The root loss depends on the extent of grading and the equipment used. For example, the contour 568 is shown to alter the grade inside the driplines of Trees #82, 83, and 84. This contour is not fully shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. Thus, I am uncertain about the extent of the work that would be done and the equipment that would be required to achieve this work. However, any grading that would change the grade of more than 3-inches may be severe. The proposed backyard pathway is proposed to cross the root zones of Trees #12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 54, 57, 60 67, 68, 69 and 75. The construction of a pathway typically involves a trench (4-6 inches in depth and approximately 4 feet wide). This would likely result in minor root loss to many of these trees, but may be a fairly severe root loss to Trees #35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 69. If the soil excavated from the basement were spread inside the driplines of trees, this would have the effect of reducing soil gas exchange, especially oxygen, and reduce moisture penetration. Typically trees decline and sometimes die as a result. Thus, soil must not be piled under the canopies of trees or used for landscape contours inside the driplines. In order to install any underground utilities across the root zones of trees, 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. Trenching for landscape irrigation is often highly damaging to established trees, but few landscape contractors are aware of this risk to established trees, in my experience. Because there are so many trees on this site, it will be a formidable challenge to design the landscape irrigation without significant damage to the existing trees. Recommendations 1. If either or both of Trees #4 and 82 would be preserved, the proposed driveway must constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade within 12 feet of Tree #4 and within 18 feet of Tree #82. No soil cuts must be made in these areas. Also, the Grading and Drainage Plan would have to be revised so that no soil cuts would be done inside the driplines. Fill soil may be used inside the dripline, but the soil must be thoroughly porous, such as cleaned gravel or sand. No base rock containing granite fines or similar material may be used, because this material is not sufficiently pervious once compacted. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~~®~21 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLl PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE S ARATOGA 2. I recommend that story poles be erected on the west side of the proposed residence in order for the City Arborist to access the potential canopy loss to Tree #73. It appears that construction as proposed is feasible if the following mitigating factors are feasible for Tree #73: a. The total canopy loss must be limited to a maximum of 15%-20%. If this is feasible following assessment, I recommend that this pruning be supervised by the City Arborist. b. No large limbs (12 inches in diameter or larger) may be removed. The .removal of large limbs usually cannot heal in time to prevent cavities. A cavity typically results in a structural weakness; which over a period of many years often results in a total failure. Thus, in my opinion, the removal of a large limb on an Exceptional specimen must not be permitted. c. The footing and the foundation of the proposed residence within 25 feet of the trunk must be constructed by an engineered pier and beam design plan. d. There must be no grading within 25 feet of the trunk. Thus, the Grading and Drainage Plan must be revised so that an alternative to the proposed drainage swale on the east side of the trunk is done. e. The root zone must be protected by a root buiFer'during the entire construction period. f. The tree must be adequately irrigated and thoroughly mulched during the entire construction period. 3. I recommend that an alternative to the proposed drainage Swale located across the root zones of Trees #2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 be redesigned in order to prevent decline to these trees that provide valuable screening. If tunneling is feasible in this area, this method is recommended provided the drain could be tunneled so that the top of the tunnel would be at a minimum depth of 4 feet. It would also be feasible from a tree protection standpoint to install a drain by an open trench method under the proposed driveway, but in this event, Tree #4 would be lost by this trenching unless the trench were 12 feet from the trunk. 4. I recommend that Trees #11, 49, and 70, which have relatively low values, be replaced in lieu of costly protections that would not likely be effective for practical reasons. 5. I recommend that the Grading and Drainage Plan be revised so that there would be no grading inside the driplines of Trees #48, 83 and 84 by more than 15% on one side of the canopy. The percentage can be calculated by using the driplines as presented on the attached map. 6. In order to protect Trees #12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 54, 57, 60 67, 68, 69 and 75 from potential decline, I recommend that the proposed backyard. pathway and any other hardscape inside the driplines of trees be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade. Fill soil may be added to the edges of the proposed pathway to "blend" the elevation of the pathway with the existing grade. In this event, the fill soil must not extend more than 2 feet from the edge of the pathway. 7. 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 root buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~l~C ~ ~ 4.9 ~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 202001~AVENUE SARATOGA 6 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. 8. I recommend that a root buffer be required between the trunk of Tree #73 and the residence as shown on the attached map. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which .must immediately. be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. I recommend that the buffer be 8 foot wide (the length of plywood sheets) adjacent to the foundation. This allows for an 8 foot work space on top of the root buffer. Protective fencing must be in contact with the root buffer on the side opposite the foundation. This buffer is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This buffer must be installed in conjunction with the protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. At the time of the construction of the drain adjacent to the foundation, two feet of the root buffer nearest the foundation may be removed, but the remainder of the buffer must remain until given final approval. 9. I recommend that the backyard pathway and hardscape be constructed after-.the construction of the residence is completely finished. This would allow for the removal of the protective fencing to construct the pathway and hardscape. However, in this event, any concrete would have to be pumped from the street, and no vehicles (including cars, pick-up trucks, tractors, skid steer tractors), may be driven across the landscape unless protective fencing were to be re-installed at the direction of the City Arborist. 10. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed), unless specifically indicated on plans reviewed by the City Arborist. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 11. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 12. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to Trees #4 (if retained), 1-10, 12, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 2-I0, 12, 48 and 69 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 13. A full 4-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire root zones of Trees #4 (if retained), 73 (that portion unprotected by the root buffer), 1-10, 12, 82, 83, 84, 85, 2-10, 12, 48 and 69. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 14. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 15. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~~~t~`~3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA '] 16. 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 S 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. 1.7. 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. 18. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 20. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 21. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 22. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #5, 50, 51, 55, 71, 72, and 81 would be removed by the implementation of this plan. These trees have a value of $2,695, which is equivalent to 2-36 inch boxed native specimens. If Trees ##4, 49, 52, and 70 were to be removed, they have a combined value of $2,943, which is equivalent to 2-36 inch boxed and 1-24 inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. 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 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 maybe scheduled after construction is completed. I suggest a combination bond equal to 100% of the value of Tree #73 ($10,746), equal to 25% of the value of Trees #1-10, 12, 48, 69, 82, 83, and 84 ($64,971= bond of $12,994), and equal to 15% of the total value ($193,701= bond of $29,055) of all of the other the trees to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, COA'SULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~`~~V~~ • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HII.L AVENUE SARATOGA g Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye- Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitted, ^~"' ~~-- 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 Platform Buffer Map • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~~®EJ~S BARRIE D. CO~ AND ASSOCIATES • .. ~ Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 ,. Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward. from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark- Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting . out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept 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. ~~O~~s Job T'~Borelli Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue job # ~-190 10/10/02 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru nlna/ Cablln o Nee ds PesUDlseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATS BARRIE D ~ 0 v v J . d ASSOCIATES d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an ~ ~ ~, ~ Q o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~ p0813531052 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 73s?SSuna~Bmd ~ ~ ~ g . ~ t~catm,u ~SWO ~ } ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ $ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o a 2 2 U U U U it U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ z z Key # Plant Name 0 m rn O = 1 Deodar Cedar 14.0 x 13.0 15\1 45 30 1 2 3 CedNS deodara in 221 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,967 X sp. class 70% _ $4,177 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,759 - X loc. 60% _ $ 2 256 Total Value 2 Coast LNe Oak 19.0 20 35 35 2 2 4 Quercus a rifolia . in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. class 100% _ $7,651 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,739 X loc. 65% _ $ 3 730 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 28.0 30 40 60 1 2 3 . in 615 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 16,617 X sp. class 100% _ $16,617 X cond. 90% _ $ 14,955 X loc. 70% _ $ 10469 Total Value 4 Coast live Oak 11.0 x 9.0 716 12 30 30 2 2 4 10\10 . in '160 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,320 X sp. class 100% _ $4,320 X ~. - 75% _ $ 3,240 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 106 Total Value 5 Coast LMe Oak 8.0 x 7.0 918 20 20 1 3 •4 . in 70 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1.890 X sp. lass 100% _ $1,890 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,418 X bc. 50% _ $ 709 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 13.0 14 35 25 1 2 3 . in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X oond. 90% _ $ 3,224 X bc. 60% _ $ 1 934 Total Value 7 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 30 15 1 2 3 . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp: class 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 385 Total Value b-,/. - ~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~~ 5-gal a $36 15-gal = $120 24"box s $420 36"box a $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box a $15,000 1 e BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 1 of 13 L J Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Mea surem enffi Con dklon Pru ningl Cablin q Nee ds Pestl Diseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (408)3531052 ?:i535funniRmd laGrias,G 95x10 Key # Plant Name d ~ ~ m ~ S~ O w ~ J ~ 2 O 2 ~ i ~ F ~ O ~ = Q ~ tax 2 ~ = J ~ ? W ~ ~ ~ = ~ o F- ~ ~ Z 8 2 a ~ ~ 2 ` Z ~ ~ U ~ Z ~ 444000 ° ~ (p 0: ~ U ~ K ~ U _ ~ S W ; ~ ~ w w W ~ O] U ~ ~ ~ Z 7 a ? -- ~ ~ ? ~ '~ ~ p ~ U W ~ _ '? ~ Q O U ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ cg ~ Q V 8 ~ ~' ~ O ~ ~ 8 o- ., • Q ~ ~ z N ~ u' ~ Z z~ ~ ~n ~ ~ a C 8 Coast ive Oa 25.0 28 40 45 2 2 4 . in 491 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 13,247 X sp. class 100% _ $13,247 X cond. 75% _ $ 9,935 X bc. 65% _ $ 6458 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 23.0 24 45 40 1 1 2 . in 415 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp. class 100% _ $11,212 X cond. 100% _ $ 11,212 X loc. 65% _ $ 7 288 Total Value 10 Coast Live Oak 19.0 x 15.0 1 40 55 2 2 4 . in 373 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 10,071 X sp. lass 100% _ $10,071 X cond. 75% - $ 7,553 X loc. 65% _ $ 4 910 Total Value 11 E lish Walnut 8.0 x 8.0 4.0 12 15 25 3 1 4 Ju lane Ia . in 82 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,214 X sp. lass 30% _ $664 X cond. ~ 75% - $ 498 X bc. 40% _ $ 199 Total Value 12 Coast Lfve Oak 18.0 19 35 55 2 2 ~ 4 . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100%. _ $6,867 X cond. 75% - $ 5,150 X loc. 75% _ $ 3 863 Total Value 13 Coast LMe Oak 18.0 19 40 35 3 1 4 . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 75% - $ 5,150 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 605 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak 14.0 15 35 25 2 2 4 . in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. Gass 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 75% - $ 3,116 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 869 Total Value ~. ~' ~~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES , N 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box m $1,320 1= BEST, 5 s WORST 48^box~ 52"box = $7.000 ' ~ ~ 72 box ~ of 13 Job # 10-02-190 io/~o/02 • ob#1190" Job T orelli . Job Address: 2 Hill Avenue J 10/10/02 ~~ Mea surem ents Con dition Pru nlnq/ Cablin q Nee ds Pest/D lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATS BARRIE D ~ v . v ~ Z '? w ~ ai < '7 and ASSOCIATES ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ W ~aela~to52 g ~ ~ a Z o ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ } ~ ~ ~ 71535WnaiAoad ~ ~ ' W a Z w Z w ~ ~ ~ O p g ~ Q ~ o. LaGala,G 95030 C ~ ~ } ~ ? ~ ~ Z p ¢ ~ ~j ~ 0: ¢ o_ W z p ~ o: ~ ~ o ~ ~ i Wi . ~ .. vT ~ ~ Q N ~ ~ Z5 ?} W ? U U S Y v ~ v ~ O ~ F- ~. Ur W J ~ ~ ~ 2 2 ~ ~ p J Z W O ~ Z ~ g O O ~. O ~ ~ ~ 2 a 2 ~ 8 r ~ ~ 5 U v ~ v a ? ~ `~ ~ z z ~ Key # Plant Name 0 u i i 15 Coast Live 15.0 16 35 25 2 2 4 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. Gass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,577 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 788 Total Value 16 Coast Live Oak 18.0 19 40 35 2 1 3 . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,180 X loc. 50% _ $ 3 090 Total Value 17 Coast Live Oak 16.0 18 40 30 1 2 3 . in 201 X $27/sq. in: _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,883 X loc. 50% _ $ 2442 18 Coast Live Oak 13.0 15 35 30 2 2 4 . in 133 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3,582 X cond. - 75% _ $ 2,686 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 343 Total Value 19 Coast Live Oak 15.0 16 35 35 2 2 4 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X oond. 75% _ $ 3,577 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 788 Total Value 20 Coast Live Oak 17.0 19 40 40 2 2 4 . In 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp. class 100% _ $6,125 X cond. 75% _ $ 4,594 X loc. 50% _ $ 2297 Total Value 21 incense Cedar 22.0 24 65 15. 4 1 5 Calocedrus decunens . in 380 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 10,258 X sp. class 70% _ $7,181 X oond. 60% _ $ 4,309 X loc. 50% _ $ 2 154 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box = $420 36"box Q $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box a $15,000 1 • BEST, 5 =WORST Page 3 of 13 t~ ' Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02=190 10x10/02 Mea surem erris Con dttlon Pru nlnal Cablin a Nee ds PesU Dlseas e Pro blems Recom mend . ~ ~ ~ BARRIE D COATS o ' v . d ASSOCIATES P O ~ ~ w W ~ ~ ~ a 7 an Z ~ ~ ~ C) ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ O ~; N ~~3~i~$ $ ~ LL ~ ~ H Q ~ Z Z Z Z ~ Z ~ ~ O _ } a' Q' ~ ~ Q 23535funnrRmd -L„ F- @~ _ h w ~ ¢ w Z w a z w ~ '? ~ ~j O q -t Ko. LaeGdas,U 95030 ~ } w ~' ~ ~j o Uu ~ ~ ~ w ~ y ~ S ? ~ ~ ji ~ ~ ~ O O J Z ~ S ( W ' ~ J 2 ~ ~ K Q Z ~ ~ m ~ W Q 7 ~ ~ W U O ~ ~ m O 2 a x ~ p O U c~ U ~ ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ Z Z Key !f Plant Name O i 22 st ive 26.0 28 40 50 1 1 2 . in 531 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. class 100% _ $14,328 X cond. 100% _ $ 14,328 X loc. 75% _ $ 10 746 Total Value 23 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 11.0 15 35 30 3 2 5 . In 143 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,861 X sp. class 100% _ $3,861 X cond. 60% _ $ 2,317 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 158 Total Value 24 Deodar Cedar 10.0 12 40 20 1 1 2 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. Gass 70% _ $1,484 X cond. 100% _ $ 1,484 X loc. 65% _ $ 964 Total Value 25 . Coast LNe Oak B.0 x 6.0 917 30 25 3 3 6 . in 64 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,728 X sp. Gass 100% _ $1,728 X oond. 45% _ $ 778 X loc. 60% _ $ 467 Total Value 28 Coast Live Oak 9.0 '10 30 30 2 2 4 . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X bc. 60% _ $ 773 Total Value 27 Coast Redwood. 35.0 38 70 35 3 2 5 S uoia sem 'revs . in 962 X $27/sq. in. _ $25,964 X sp. Gass 90% _ $23,367 X cond. 60% _ $ 14,020 X Ioc. 70% _ $ 9 814 Total Value 28 Tan Bark Oak 10.0 11 25 10 3 4 7 Littwca us densfiorus . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. Gass 50% _. $1,060 X cond. 30% _ $ 318 X bc. 40% _ $ 127 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES • 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box = 20 36"box ~ $1,320 ~ 1 e BEST, 5 @ WORST 48"box 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box .~ ~ of 13 ,~ J Job Tit~orelli job Address: 20~i11 Avenue Job # 1190 10/10/02 ~' Mee suram ents Con ditlon Pru nina/ Ceblln a Nee ds PesUD lseas a Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ v ~ COATS BARRIE D ~' . d ASSOCIATES ~ cr, ~ ~ ~ '? ¢ K ~ ~ 7 an 05 ~ ~ ~ ' Z ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ W o ~ ~ ~ ~ (4001353t Y ~ ~ ? a z z ~ o ~ d ~ o ° ~ i= ~ ~ .W J ~ Z3535GmniRaad ~ FW- ~ ~ W ~ Z ~- ~ Z v~ ~ Z W ~ °l ~ U g gg F- a ~ Lal:alM,G 95030 } ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z C7 cn ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ µ ~.u~ i r a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~i v i:5 ~- O -- ~ ~ ~O ~ ii S . ~ ~ ~ ~ o p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ a 2 ~ 8 U ~ v U ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z Z ~ Key # Plant Name O ~ i 29 st Live Oak 12.0 13 30 30 3 2 5 . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,831 X bc. 50% _ $ 916 Total Value 30 Coast LNe Oak 15.0 16 30 35 2 1 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 790 Total Value 31 Coast Redwood 26.0 x 8.0 36 60 25 3 2 5 . fn 556 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 15,012 X sp. class 90% _ $13,511 X cond. 60% _ $ 8,106 X loc. 60% _ $ 4 864 Total Value 32 Coast Live Oak 13.0 x 7.0 5.0 17 35 35 2 2 4 . in 162 X.$27/sq. in. _ $ 4,374 X sp. class 100% _ $4,374 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,281 X ioc. 65% _ $ 2 132 Total Value 33 Incense Cedar 27.0 x 24.0 49 70 40 2 3 5 . in 799 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 21,573 X sp. class 70% _ $15,101 X cond. 60% _ $ 9,061 X bc. 70% _ $ 6 342 Total Value 34 Coast LMe Oak ~ 10.0 11 30 20 2 2 4 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. fn. _ $ 2,120 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,120 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,590 X loc. 60% _ $ 954 Total Value 35 Coast Live Oak . 15.0 x 12.0 10\9 16\11 30 45 1 3 4 1318 . in 306 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,262 X sp. class 100% = $8,262 X cond. 75% _ $ 6,197 X bc. 65% _ $ 4 028 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box . $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 m WORST Page 5 of 13 • • Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190. 10/10/02 ~` Mees urem eMs Cond klon Pru nlnal Cablin a Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ BARRIE D COATS o ~ ~ W ~ ; . ~ ~ o ~ ~, v ~' w ~ ' , and ASSOCIATES °° ~ ~' °' ~ a ~ ~ ~ _ ' '? W ~aoe-~loss ~' ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ z ~ o 0 0 ~ ~ } ~ o ~ ~ o us3swaaiaosd C ~ F ~ ~ w ~ a ~ = w ~ w o w ~ ~ ~ U g ~ w ¢ w c d LaeOala,u ISWO } ~ ~. ~ Q ~ ~- ~ ~ z C7 m Q: ~ ~ 8 ~ 3 w ~ Q F- ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w > w ~ Y F- f" ( ~ O ( ~ O ~ Q ' J x 2 U' ~ Q ~ Z ~ ~ rD ~ W ~ W ~ ~ ~ O o O o W w W w t y f , Tj ~ ~ ~ a w a w ~-- ~ ~ o' ~ v ~ w ~ a v o: a ? ~ ~ ~ o: ~ z z Q a Key # Plant Name ~ o x ~ x ~ x v 36 Coast L' Oa 17.0 x 18.0 33 35 50 1 2 3 . in 328 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,856 X sp. class 100% _ $8,856 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,970 X bc. 70% _ $ 5 579 Total Value 37 Coast Live Oak 11.0 13 30 15 .2 2 4 . in 95 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 2,565 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 154 Total Value 38 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 20 20 2 2 4 . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X loc. 60% _ $ 773 Total Value 39 Coast Live Oak 14.0 x 12.0 23 40 45 2 3 5 . in 211 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,697 X sp. class 100% _ $5,697 X cond. " 60% _ $ 3,418 X loc. 70% _ $ 2 393 Total Value 40 Coast LNe Oak 16.0 x 13.0 15\1 40 55 2 2 ~ 4 . in 268 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,236 X sp. class 100% _ $7,236 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,427 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 799 Total Value 41 Coast Live Oak 16.0 x 12.0 20 40 50 1 2 3 . in 258 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6;966 X sp. lass 100% _ $6,966 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,269 X loc. 75% _ $ 4 702 Total Value 42. Coast Live Oak 16.0 17 35 35 1 2 3 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5;426 X sp. class 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,883 X loc. 70% _ $ 3,418 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ , 5-gal m $3ti 15-gal ~ $120 24"box = $420 36"box ~ $1,320 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box 52"box = $7,000 ~ i~of 13 72"box = „ • • ~' Job ~ Borelli Job Address: ~ Hill Avenue Job # ~-190 10/10/02 Mea surem ents Con dition Pr unina/ Cabli nq Ne eds Pest/ Dlsea se Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS d ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' '~ a '? v W ,2 -- ~ '- an ~ ~ 8 N (400-3531052 ~ ~ h Z ~ ~ Z ~ ~ o o '4 } ~ ~ Y3535 funn'l Road ~ ~ F ~ ~ w ~ ~ Z y U Z w _ ~ a? ~ gS~ U ~ lmGale,G 95030 ~ } ~ ~. ~ O ¢ ~ U _ ~ ~ K Z c~ p o J ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ w O Z m ~ w 5 3 o Z m ~ ~ x m ~ w a ~ ~ Z n~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ 8 8 w w w w Ke # Pl t N ~ O w p 8 o: (~ ~ o: a! a ~ ? ~ F o: o! z z y an ame o ~ O x m x m x U U U o! U F- - 43 st 'rve Oak 14.0 15 40 25 1 2 3 . in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. loss 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 90% - $ 3,739 X loc. 60% _ $ 2 243 Total Value 44 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x 8.0 7~6 9~8 30 30 2 3 5 8V . in 109 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,943 X sp. class 100% _ $2,943 ~ X cond. 60% - $ 1,766 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 059 Total Value 45 Coast Live Oak 15.0 17 40 35 2 1 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% - $ 4,292 X lac. 65% _ $ 2 790 Total Value 46 Coast Live Oak 12.0 14 40 25 2 1 3 . in 113 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. loss 100% _ $3,052 X cond.' 90% - $ 2,747 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 648 Total Value 47 E lish Walnut 8.0 x 8.0 7.0 12 20 25 3 3 6 ' . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. loss 30% _ $770 X oond. 45% - $ 346 X bc. 30% _ $ 104 Total Value 48 Coast Live Oak 16.0 18 30 35 1 1 2 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. loss 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 100% _ $ 5,426 X loc. 65% _ $ 3 527 Total Value 49 E lish Walnut 14.0 16 40 45 3 2 5 . in 154 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 60% _ $ 2,493 X loc. 50% _ $ 1,246 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal a $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 7 of 13 n ~J r~ L J ~. FAQ Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hi11 Avenue. Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru nlndC eblln a Nee ds PestlD lseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATS BARRIE D W W J . N ~ vI W ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ W _ ~ ~ Z ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ W nl ~ ~ 140813531052 $ u_ '~ a Z ~ ~ ~ Wo ~ o ~ } ~ 0_ W -~ 4 73535SunelAwd ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ '4 ~ z a ~ a ~ 2 w Q w w Z _ ~ ~ ~ U g g ¢ ~ O = K 4. LeGaUe,G 95030 ~ ~ ~ O U F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iii ~[ ~ ~ J v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ z ~ W ~ ~ W ~ W O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a ? ~ o ~ g g z z `~ m O ~ ~ ~ o = _ Key # Plant Name 50 Coast ive Oa 13.0 14 35 30 1 2 3 582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,224 X loc. 50°h = $ 1 612 in _ $ 3 133 X $27/sq i , . . . n Total Value 51 En lish Walnut 11.0 x 9.0 16 20 35 2 2 4 . in 127 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,429 X sp. class 30% _ $1,029 ~ X cond. 75% _ $ 772 X loc. 40% _ $ 309 Total Value 52 California Black Walnut 10.0 12 35 30 3 2 5 Ju lens hindsii . . in 78.5 X $27/sq. ih. _ $ 2,120 X sp. class 10% _ $212 X cond. 60% _ $ 127 X loc. 40% _ $ 51 Total Value 53 En lish Walnut 8.0 12 20 10 4 4 8 . in 50.2. X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,356 X sp. class 30% _ $407 X cond. 15% _ $ 61 X loc. 40% _ $ 24 54 Coast Live Oak 14.0 x 8.0 17 30 35 1 2 3 . in 179 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,833 X sp. class 100% _ $4,833 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,350 X loc. 60% _ $ 2 610 Total Value 55 Silver Acacia 8.0 x 8.0 14 30 30 1 4 5 Acacia dealbata . in 75 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,025 X sp. class 10% _ $203 X cond. 60% _ $ 122 X loc. 50% _ $ 61 Total Value 56 Coast L'nre Oak B.0 x 6.0 10 25 25 1 3 4 in 64 XX $27~. in. _ $ 1,728in. _ $ 1,728 X sp. Gass 100% _ $1,728 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,296_ X loc. 50% _ $ 648 . Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal ~ $120 1 a BEST, 5 e ORST 24"box 36"box a $1,320 48"box 52"box ~ $7,000 of 13... 72"bas = 5,000 • • 4/ ~'. Job T~Borelli Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue Job # ~-190 10/1(x/02 Mea surem ents Con dition Pru ninal Cablin a Nee ds PesU Dlseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ BARRIE D COATE O ~' ~ v v J . d ASSOCIATES ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' an ' ~ _ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ ,~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ j (408)3531052 $ LL "T c7 ~ w ~ o } ~ ~ 8 ~ 235355unnYAaod ~ H ~ '? W ~ ¢ ~ = w ~ Z W ~ `~ ~ U g a ~ Lesl;alee,U 95180 } m ~ ~ ~ ~ v t- ~ ~ w Z c~ cn o: ~ ~ ~ 3 LL ~ ~ ~ WW ~ f'" ( ~ ( B o S J S S ~ ~ W J O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ J m Z ~ W W w ~ Z ~ 8 t y 8 v ^ w O W C1 O ~ ~ ~ = ~ 2 ~ O i ` U ~ U U' ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ o ~ Z Z K Key # Plant Name o 57 Coa t Live Oak 18.0 19 30 35 1 1 2 . in 254. X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 100% _ $ 6,867 X loc. 65% _ $ 4464 Total Value 58 Coast LNe Oak 7.0 x 3.0 4.0 8\6 25 25 1 2 3 . in 49 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,323 X sp, class 100% _ $1,323 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,191 X loc. 60% _ $ 714 Total Value 59 California Black Walnut 10.0 11 20 30 3 3 6 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. class 10% _ $212 X cond. 45% _ $ 95 X loc. 60% _ $ 57 Total Value 60 Coast Live Oak 16.0 x 14.0 23 45 50 1 1 2 . in 278 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,506 X sp. Gass 100% _ $7,506 X cond. ~ 100% _ $ 7,506 X loc. 75% _ $ 5 630 TGaI Value 81 Coast Lhre Oak 11.0 13 45 30 1 2 3 . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. class 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 154 Total Value 62 Coast Live Oak. 10.0 x B.0 3.0 1111 30 35 1 2 3 . in 108 X $27/sq. in: _ $ 2,916 X sp. class 100% _ $2,916 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,624 X loc. 65% _ $ 1 706 Total Value 63 Coast Live Oak 15.0 18 40 40 1 2 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 790 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ; 5-gal = $36 15-gale $120 24"box = $420 36"box m 51,320 1=BEST, 5 -WORST 48"box = $5.000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Page 9 of 13 • • job Title: Borelli REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal ! $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Mea surem ents Con dFtlon Pru nlnal Cablln a Nee ds PestlD lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ BARRIE D COATS . o ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ . a > 408 35 1052 ~ ~ '? ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~' o ~ o v/ ~? ~ o ~ nw ( 3 1 $ 23535lanaiBo~d C w ~ ~ W ~ < u`{ Z W Q Z W ~ '' ~ p ` ~ ~ LaGrlae,Gl5lA0 ~ } a ! ~ ~ ~ O t~ ~ o! ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ LL ~ ~ F } ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ z2z2 O ~ W Z z ~ w z ~- F- ~ ~ ~O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z o 2 ~ p $ . ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ H z z Key tt Plant Name O f v i 84 Coast k 14.0 15 30 25 1 3 4 . In 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,116 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 869 Total Value 65 Coast Live Oak 10.0 11 35 25' 1 2 3 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. class 100% _ $2,120 X cond. 90% _ $ 1.908 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,145 Total Value 66 36.0 48 80 35 2 1 3 . in 1017 X $27/sg. in. _ $ 27,469 X sp. class 90% _ $24,722 X cond. 90% _ $ 22,250 X loc. 70% _ $ 15 575 Total Value 67 Coast Live Oak 15.0 x 9.0 15\11 35 35 1 2 3 . in 209 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,643 X sp. class 100% _ $5,643 X cond. - 90% _ $ 5,079 X bc. 65% _ $ 3 301 Total Value 68 Coast Live Oak 15.0 x 14.0 24 35 50 1 2 3 . in 254 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 6,858 X sp. Gala 100% _ $6,858 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,172 X loc. 75% _ $ 4 629 Total Value fig Coast Live Oak 15.0 16 25 35 1 1 2 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 100% _ $ 4,769 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 338 - Total Value 70 Coast Live Oak 8.0 10 25 15 1 2 3 . in 50.2 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,356 X sp. class 100% _ $1,356 X cond: 90% _ $ 1,221 X loc. 50% _ $ 610 Total Value 1 e BEST, 5 =WORST 1~ of 13,, • ~' Job T~orelli Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue Job # ~-190 10/10/02 Mea surem ents l:on dklon Pru nlnal Cablln a Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATS BARRIE D ~' 0 v v J . d ASSOCIATES y ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ W ~ ' - e7 v an 3531052 408 ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~_ W J ~ ( ) ~ ~ 1 q z ~ SL O ~ Y ~ ~ ~ I3535fuaniRaod C ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~¢ ~ Z w ~ Z ~ ~ '9 ~ U 3 ~ ¢ ~ 8 d uec~tes,u 9sa+o } w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 LL ~ ~ ~ `? ~ ~ o a ~ t o ~ o ~ ~ ~ 5 z ~ ~ ~ o J = x E U_' a. ~ ~ ~ Z Q N ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ W W lQ ~ 8 v Q v W W ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ O 8 Q ~ U U ~ U ~ ? ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ z z LL' Key # Plard Name O x v) 2 x 71 Chestnut S les 10.0 x 9.0 8.0 119 30 40 1 4 5 Castanea s 'es 10 . in 136 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,672 X ap. Gass 70% _ $2,570 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,542 X loc. 50% _ $ 771 72 Chestnut S 10.0 x 7.0 1118 30 20 1 4 5 . in 98 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,646 X sp. class 70% _ $1,852 ~ X cond. 60% _ $ 1,111 X loc. 50% _ $ 556 Total Value 73 Coasl Live Oak 26.0 27 40 50 1 1 2 . in 531 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. Gass 100% _ $14,328 X cond. 100% _ $ 14,328 X bc. 75% _ $ 10 746 Total Value 74 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 5.0 13 20 35 2 2 4 . in 105 X $Z7/sq. in. _ $ 2,835 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,835 X cond. ' 75% _ $ 2,126 X loc. 75% _ $ 1 595 Total Value 75 E Ilah Walnut 9.0 x 9.0 13 35 30 2 2 4 . in 96 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,592 X sp. Gass 70% _ $1,814 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,361 X bc. 60% _ $ 816 Total Value 76 Monter Pine 40.0 41 70 35 1 2 3 Pinus radiate . in 1256 X $27/sq. in. _ $33,912 X sp. class 30% _ $10,174 X cond. 90% _ $ -9,156 X loc. 70% _ $ 6409 Total Value 77 California Black Walnut 13.0 x 12.0 15 20 25 4 4 8 . In 190 X $27/sq, in. _ $ 5,130 X sp. class 10% _ $513 X cond. 15% _ $ 77 X loc. 60% _ $ 46 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal ~ $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"box = $420 36"box ~ $1,320 48"box a $5.000 52"box' $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 11 of 13 i Job Title: Borelli job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Meas urem ents Cond ltlon Pru ninq/Cablin a Nee ds PasUDlseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~. COATS BARRIE D O ~' v W v J . ~ v Z ~ ~ W ~ W (4 Q ~7 and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; 5 LL " ~ ~ ~ ° _ ~ ,~ ~ .1408135310. 2 $ ~ 1 a Z _ _ ~ } ~ O T35359mniRwd ~ ~ ~ ,? Z ¢ u~ ? w w w ~ '~ g t~ ~ g a ~ d lMCale,Gl5030 } ~ ~ p o U ~ ~ a ~ ~ rn ~ Q ~ g ~ ~i ~ > ~ ~ H W ~ ~~ _ J ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m Z ~ ~ w 5~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a ~ p ~ v ~ ~ . O O z z Key # Plant Name ~ ~ O S o 2 vai S ~ g x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 78 st ive Oak 9.0 11 25 30 2 2 4 . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X loc. 70% _ $ 901 Total Value 79 Mont Pine 35.0 42 70 35 2 1 3 . in 962 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 25,964 X sp. class 30% _ $7,789 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,010 X loc. 70% _ $ 4 907 Total Value 80 Coast LNe Oak 21.0 23 40 45 1 1 2 . in 346 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp. class 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 100% _ $ 9,347 X loc. 75% _ $ 7 010 Total Value B1 SINer Wattle 10.0 x 7.0 5.0 1211 30 35 1 3 4 . in 108 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,918 X sp. Gass 10% _ $292 X cond. " 75% _ $ 219 X loc. 60% _ $ 131 Total Value 82 Coast Live Oak 21.0 24 40 85 1 1 2 ' . in 346 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 9.347 X sp. doss 100% _ $9,347 ' X cond. 100% _ $ 9,347 X loc. 75% _ $ 7 010 Total Value 83 Italian Stone Pine 24.0 27 50 40 1 2 3 Pinus 'nee . In 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. Gass 70% _ $8,546 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,691 X loc. 60% _ $ 4 615 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUBS 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = 20 36"box = $1,320 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box 52"box = $7,000 72"box .~ - P~ of 13„ ~~ Job ~ Borelli Job Address: ~ Hill Avenue y Job # ~-190 1010/02 Mea surem ents Con dltlon Pr unlnq/ Cabll nq Ne eds PesU Dlseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' '~ a ~ o ~ ~ -- a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (408)3531052 ~ ~ ~ °? ~ z ~ ~ O c~ z ~ ~ o '? ~ c4 0 N Y3535 iunnt Rand e ~ F ~ ~ v w a ~ f= ~ Z _Z y ~ Z w '~ U g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d losC~ee,U 95030 ~ ~ o: ~ ~ $$ O ~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a ~u ~ a .. ~ ~ ~ ~ O W ~ J ~ O ~ ~ ~ > ~ J Z Z ~ W ~ Y Z F- F- ( ~ O (~ O Q x j mr~ xxq~ ~ a t? w a Q W ~ pZ a ( Y ~ u l ~ ~ V Key # Plant Name ~ ~ p p o x m x to 8 = ~ U (J (J ~ U ~ ? 1 - O ~ z z K 84 st 12.0 13 20 25 2 2 4 . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,289 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 373 85 Italian Stone Pine 29.0 34 50 30 1 2 3 . in 660 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 17,825 X~. class 70% _ $12,477 X cond. 90% - $ 11,230 X loc. 65% _ $ 7 299 Total Value 86 DeodarCedar 16.0 18 50 30 1 1 2 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. Gass 70% _ $3,798 X cond. 100% _ $ 3,798 X loc. 70% _ $ 2 659 Total Value L~ W REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gale $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box a $5,000 52"box a $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 =WORST Page 13 of 13 • • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions , BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, 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 pnane 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 '/s') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not.around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic. material which is non toxic maybe 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 imgation 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 imgated plants beneath tree canopies. • • • ~~®~~® 31 1?•n ZiZII~ I) C:OA'I•I~: _.__._•1't <,~r_:• 1'rc~_:r>rv~~t._i r>n . ANI) ASSOCIA"I•I?S 23535 Summit F2d _--- Protective Fencing Los Gatos, Ca 95030 • (408)353-1052 fforticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists ` _. _ ~ r f- r_ ~-r \ ? ~ \C~ c ~., -~ i -_ " ~- f ~ -` ~ _-~ - i ~ _ ~? ~~ - - _ .. ~ ~ ~' ~ . / ~' ~~/ ~ s COn ;traction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equ,pment is allowed on the property. V Top of Fence hung with ~ }>~;adw1y . _. _ ~- W~9i construction is to take place t~eneath a (ri~`.t~nopy on one side, the Ience should tic ~itr`r; ;~ :~ 1r~rl 1,(tyc~rul tlult Ccuu;truCtion hl,t I ~'~'!~':~•~ rl ~ ~~1 I`.tlt!1 !11 X11 .!II~i II!1' !11 ~ I!1111~ I t fluorescent f lapgine tape ~ t every 10 feet. , t . t 1 6' chain link or welded wire mesh _ ~ ' 8' fence post of 2" diameter ~ ~ ~ i ~ GI pine or T-angle- post ~ \ t r ~ ~ ~ Fence placed at drip line. t 9' t t /~~ or SO% greater than the tree ~ ~ canopy r2.dius w?-ere possible \ / \ __.. - ~ cncc /~ - - - -~~ - ~~ I ;,,~. \~ ~- ~ /; ~1- ,. 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 - V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing - to t3' above ground on it ~- ~l ~• trees where construction ~'~ i~~- , will take place beneath ~ '_- U the canopy ~" ',~ ~ -- ,. ~~~=1~" Barrie D. Coate F,r Associates (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Radial Trenching The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone ..-- 1'/2 times the Dripline " Diameter -~ r . _;" ~..'% ~-lath/,i, 18 ~hc e hes aee .p 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 S times the trunk diameter of the trunk. - .. _~...~ ~_ :: - ~ - D ~ ._ : . .~ _ . rIP Cine _- ~~~ __ ~ -~--~.3.~. ~ .. .. ..: _ _ _ " ' J."`~-~~~ "~~.~ `-~;°- Shallow r~~~~ - tiot _r~ absorbing _~_ ~~ % p~ ~ _~ root ti s -- ' ,. 5 times trunk diameter~~,.;;;. .. - /, Not" o- ~ ; - ~-~-_ _ - _~`-_ -~-.~_ ,,~- ~ -:.~';:~~~;~:, . Inches dee =,~,_. ~~" - ~ Lateral line 12- P jf -~~`:. ` _~ ~--Okay ,~ ;-:.. ; • • 1i1 A 1-inch P1 od and Wood Chirps Pta~rn Buffer for Areas Beneath A Tree Canop~r which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate f~ Associates Horticultural Consultants. t~08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~~~~~3 a.. „~~ :. o ~ 9 r~ 1~ h a~. ~" ~ H ~•O P '_ ~ ~ e~ e~~ r~ I • ~ ~ ~565.S:c 565.9 u ~ / ~{ Y- .y I - 't 7 0' - - 1Ir C7.,b I` b F~'1 ~' ~L- 1+~ -- i t° eea - 1 ;^ ,~ ~*''~ r~,w'~.y `°yr y ~•~u~- '-5vw .see o « ~n I _ _ _it. ~ ~i, yh + i ~~y"~~L-} a7 ~i s'va 1 s e r,:c i. _ 4 55_~S.S ~! ~'~'~ :r, 3 `(-.~'.'~ra:. ti ~: S f'}'-_ 1 '1 ...~ ! „565.7 [t• Te I ~_- I ,.... ~/: i b ` nv s' !~ ~ ~~~ Sec . nnod5 - 1 ~ ~ ~; _ e' 0 5! ~../~ _BW ~ ~ ~ a' duv¢ I +~ ~~ -- - - g b _-_ ~ ..651.-.,:~ y ',_ ` ~-r .,:..~ ~ ~-' I•~q•;_.;,r', _ q iz ~t w •~ 'Ab 36`7.1 I' ' 1 `6j'• ~ ` ` ~ ~BW 361.0 ~ '.~-+}' ~". •~'5.~.~..~ P D ~ ~1. 6 .i - ~~ / 1, ~~ ;4y'`' i~~~ 567.91. --__ .: ~. I i I rn , . ~ nv 567..` _ ~ , ~ t 1 .~'"~ Rltf1 . u i - 1~ -... _ ' ~ - - -~---- - -+~" r- p ~, - _ 8~ Y -` - N- l •;,. __~- ~, ~~ - ;-. 1-.. 85 ,83 - y 3 ~ ~; - ! ' ~~/W ~ 'J i. ~ 74 ~- Z ~-:.. I/ o-~- r .~ yg 1 1 R007 Vii- -- % ;y ~ - ~ - ~ `_ ~• { ~"- -- 16 •" _ 19 ~_; _ - - __ 21 y ~'~ ~ ' 13 ~4 _ 17 ~ 18 'K I ~~ ,-out ` ~ . > ' `~ 369.. 11 L a:e ~ ~ I ' 22 ~ ~- 9 6 ,r q 5 ,I oNtt 4 9 ~ 9 3 3. ~oT 6-o Sn., ~ 56y: ~ 1 t n , q 9• 9 8 ~ 4 7 6. s 7. -~~ ,~2 eve ~' `-~s 1 ~ 1 ~ y "Cy ~ O '' it 1~ ,w 9 5i ~ 91 ~-.souc ~ .. 25 ~ '~ 5 2 ro,rz ~ 1 7Q1 5 9 - • ''`~~ 4 ~ e 1 oNt :b Soul' o - i ~ ~: •1 -r ~ 26 I 111 ro ~ 1 1 .,y - ut z~ m • 3 9 ~' l Nw .ew [ "' v~ fi' C '~ 57 u 3 ~_ • 1- e• • aul .e ll' ~ I I •O , a 0 I 5 6 ~ 3 ~ ! 38 e.. 3u.. t 27. T~' ~ *i. 1 ~ / el rs. ~ 1 2 ' ~+w re. i 59 IC" 'O'`58rK ' / ~ ~ 8 ~ 9'1J- ICI ~~ ~ ~ ~' 3 5 ~ . L _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - , _: #,. ~ ~,~ ,, , ! : 34 ! p .,o ~:c.3 x}--~ ):,~ sia.o ~'S9LZ-a ` 35?"f'~ 3 - ~ ' ~~ _ 67 f r ~~~ ~~ r ~ ~ .~ ...........~ .~ ~ r 7 5 i ~ "r ~~ 1 .1 1 --!- ,,«..~e ~ . ~ ~ X32 /~ 31 ~ ^.~ ,~I ' 1 ' 1 ~ 6U. _ No a ' ,65'a 64 6. i --- . - ~•= - i ~ :2:~9 I 8 0 ~'~' 7 9 .. .n'x - 7 8 7 6 ~'~' ce ~ /e' n.. _/ 6 3 61 ~ .~ gl 66 e're' ~` ' ' ~~ t,a. ~" "' PROTEC T IVE FENCING - ` •••••••. PROTEC7 TVE FENCITTG IF.TREE IS PRESERVED P1tEL~RY GRADING PLAN C2 ~ ~ ,j ~~ ~ ~ ' _ _~~-.ewm+a.- _- - _...~i~. • Attachment 3 • ~~®C~~.S '. Jr Current Owner 3ELLARMINE COLLEGE ?REPARATOR 15001 MONTALVO RD 3ARATOGA CA 95070 • Or Current Owner ANNABELLE M FREDERICKSON 20270 CALLS MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 95070 • Or Current Owner ELGART 20301 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA CA 95070. ~r Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner W R & ELIZABETH CURRY RAYMOND & KIMBERLY JAMES W & LINELLE BELL 28000 AUDREY SMITH LN ZAPATA 20090 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070. 28001 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner ARING NORMAN C & ALLISON KLINE FAY R WEISLER 200.80 MENDELSOHN LN 20121 HILL AVE 20161 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner DAVID P & DENISE MOYLES PO BOX 3525 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner JOHN H & JEAN LENAHAN 20261 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner NAI-TING & CHIN HSU 14900 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner DANA O CHRISTIAN 20230 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner MAUREEN C STURLA 20170 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner VICNENT R & SUSAN BORELLI ROBERT H & HELENA. SMITH 49 SPANISH BAY CIR 20152 HILL AVE PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner TA-HSIN & PYING-ING LIU 20125 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner HENRYS & LISA CHANG 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner HILBERT K & ROSEMARY ALBRECHT 20190 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner SHEAU-DONG & SEN WU 20150 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner WALTER J & CATHERINE FULDE 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner LOUIS W & MARY BREITENBACH 20130 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner ANDREW T & LUNG YANG 16856 SE 58TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98006 Or Current Owner STANFORD M & DUCKHAM- SHO SHOOR 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner JOHN T & KAREAN CHAPMAN GARDNER 22561 POPPY DR 815 KOZERA DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 SAN JOSE CA 95136 Or Current Owner SYLVIA R & LEONARD METZ 7280 BLUE HILL DR 1 SAN JOSE CA 95129 Or Current Owner DONALD R & SHEILA CALL* 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~i~®~~~ ~r Current Owner 3~ATON INVESTMENTS LLC t09 WASHINGTON ST 201 ~EREY CA 93940. 0r Current Owner EMMONS W & MARGARET COOGAN 20120 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner ROBERT M PATTERSON 15195 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • Or Current Owner JOHN T & KAREAN CHAPMAN 20252 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner LARRY G & MARIA VOTTA 20100 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner NOORUDIN A & H BILLAWALA PO BOX 187 SARATOGA CA 95071 Or Current Owner PEGGY M & LEO SHORTING 15252 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~i~®~~"7 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~~ day of March, 2003, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wn: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 20200 Hill Ave; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • ~'~~~~8 s r Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26th day of March 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the Ciry Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. NO. 02-215 (517-22-003) - Borelli, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two-story home with a 1,780 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. 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 maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them v~ith a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 MAP NOT TO SCALE ~,~ Bomie rae n !1^Y{ W ``~ I V V®1Y~~ ix ,~; ~ ~. 1~ x 0 a FW a 0 N M O n a `p 4 m E N K m c m a 0 a c p O U m 0 Q 0 0 r~ N F U W ~N ~a ao ~N SITE SITE GEa~IERAL NOTES aa+~+nL I. na CamWr DO0RR11R OE71IE nR SCOPE ff Rlp Alm oar nE f0E5i O9Wtt 6 CCMIWCriOA YA1Wx5 AM0 60NOW991P, 1 ORAafS pOGE fDERx AAR II91G QIAAS ff CDRII41Cn0A NEIE N41RNS ARE Iqr 9>ECPICAIlr 6mCA1ED B4t AAF ff sApAR ouRACER ro QrAAS 9mRA nlE CaRWIa 91ALL PR01mE A REASaAflT 6R0UflF p1O6'AEiAllO1, 9RtCi ro 1NE REARR AIm APPAOTx ff pf ARpECi. 1 nE CapWIOi s RE9roX5dE ro xOm nrt AROIECr ff 06C1EPARQS a COIR1L15 p iff CONS1RUCna OONRFNA foam 6Rpc 99u1c NmAR rtR rolspucna PW$E ff nR PA0.ECi, 4 ALL 801(AmIGEO a ArIk0 a ANY Ca1R/,Ci p40RRilr 9W1 B[ SWRkO Alm NSIALLEO RT nR QIERAL CapACroR. UAE55 anRRRSE Rolm C00E8 At0 REtAA,.ATpNB 1. AIL 10a 91A1L ff M COIROINAIICE Rni ALL APPUCI9F COOR UR$ Alm 000NARCE$ ff nE O1r Alm S7AiE a SIA19NCII0l 7. nE QIm7A1 CanGC1a 9uLL H RESP06NF Fa PR41010 q1 YA1Q6xS AIm 64601AIBp N AQffmWQ ^M AEE CmES Aq REQAARff15 00R76N10 Cff6IgICnON, 6pON10 ACCESS AMD nE UE ff FAQInR A6 9;1 PoRn1 By 7EDFRAL S7AE Alm LffAE . CCOR 81110pO QPARn1EXr AQXCES Alm nE ORIEIE s alpc Roars p1O1 ARE Is' a I6OEA 811 ff mpIIA A9 n4a ARG 1. YffAroREO SPRNIRER S131EY I$ AEOIRED Ai CARAQ Alm YAp R[9ffJIQ PW $ARAroW CODE Alm fRE 05116[1 AEp1RF9RMR 9.E(AT103~6 I. ROa E1fYAnaS AfE RERRaCEIU ro ra ra ff nE 98ROa, uR1ES5 NOIEO OnRAR6E. r orEamon I, nE QNfRx Ca1RWroR 9iN1 SffERxSE AIO mECr >a EaCUIIOR ff nE Rffp ANO S4N1 H 911ELr AESP0r96.E fa ALL mRSlwcnoRS REARS anroos, E0N0lf5 Alm PROQUTAES 2 ALL RA1O6A15 9pLL EE RAIgED TIRO 915Tx1E0 p ACCa0.WQ Np OE YARFACNAER'S SPE0FlfAnff6 ANO RECC161F1mAnai s capuroa ro PROAff ALL 900014 AAOORG Alq BRACOm REQARN Ar NALL AImCk1A10 YQAIIFD FlINAFS EaPRar Alm FA96p1E0 CdR0a11R I. ALL aRR9O15 SRALL ff 19N1p p nE FlFIA 7. 9pf1190R4 a1FSS x4w an6RNSE, ARE CI'ER m A pWUES fl FAQ ff CffgEE Ai FOaWna C FACE ff CffR7EE YA54RY airs 0. FAQ ff $NOS 1 ORIE55 NpiEO OnmiRSL A FN91 SOa A9 PIASIFN a t[RARK RE 6 N010gOQD p nE OA019a /. W Imi $CAIE Fimll IIR ORA6NG5 ,. RESroRC wr 6Aa ro ol6oxAE mmllgll L REFUA99k REARR Alm REJ9A91 1 CUin1YC 91LCAAf RE1mNAL ff ELSNIO CONSRUCiRIN ro PEAY11 pS7AWiml1 a PERf01NARQ ff MEp 10p /, PAR7INC Ai1N0 ANO REPUI'Iffp IEOUAEO ro RESIDE YAEaxS ANO FN19E$ 1197 4 161 S rorx 6AaApr u. • 191.165 - I7m u. R 8At681f 1,760 SF. F1FBT RApt 412: u. 159-1167«119)496 Y 9JRAtACr 119 3 Ai SEAR ~~D ~~ I,]ff u. 9R1GC1 162 S AI STAR e~ of enucnns FlRSr fEaoA 5/77 u. sEmm 11498 I,xe u. rorx 4110 ss. rorx l~wolc eASEA91q 4s19 u. lmfi 9pQ0 AAFA OEXOIFS AREA QO4CIE0 Ar CROAAnOR AIL AREAS 019A IS' NEgll (OnRA MAN 9WN MEI,S) ARE caREO rRQ As REffRE0 8r CmE ' 80lWER>0TA0EGLCUATgN6 Y•7~ PROJECT DIRECTORY owrl~ wlwlr AIm 91SW 9aEW ne414oQ4 ua p6AE sAx ,asE. G 9s11o coral: RRQ71r eoEU1 LA}DBACPE ARgi)ECT ~ uEaR6Wa Iff PER9AN ORK. SUE 297 9RINTYAE4 G 91069-1517 rd (109) 115-7190 Fa (1991 715-7109 Calal• JY UUOERBR1O1 ARCFiiECT Aanl 981599 xAQr AAQIECR . 650 CAl1FORNIA $IREEi, Id ROOR -__$AR.fAARC6C0. G NIB-77a . __ _ _.-.._ 1t 1119541960 Ed Ib " Fes a195/.19ro Cailocc CREO RACtt . Efla~l f fD196.101G 1995 xrA RS1A A19NR sARAroG G 95aro it (/0!) 667-6571 Fec (106) 667-7135 Caelat FBH' PAEEYAN C~ EfiGEEA IIER ! 1Rpli 180 5[Orr BAAEVAR4 8104 22 SW1A QAAA G 97051 it (~) R7-fi%5 Fa; (108) 711-5611 cora0 BNRr sw6rr 1095 FQSW SIRfEi SAM fWRO9:O, G 91105, it (115) 511-9117 fa (115 515-'A71 colaO awl RERRpQR A~ P6iii011ANCE ~ECFCATANB YEWARLx OE9a SroO0 5170 4ATIff1 ROW. 9111E 9 CaCa0. G 91519-168 Ft (977( 660-668 Fa (975) 660-/N6 Cmlal OCR0. AlAifi PROJECT INFORMATION ,) AB~9B0118 PANCfi. M~fftl 517-77-OW e) PRDJECTA0GF7~ 1020A IRl AR7AE sARArow G 95010-681 c) 0NP6R wrnlr eaou a) E7®TN011~ vACVIr wr e) Z0t~4G DBIIICT R-I-14000 q LOT ffi& ~ I m ¢ INtreR ss.l AEn Ln W ~n,945 u.) NOIF 1.65 W - .06Q5 AO R0.R ffnrana • U7'. u 1 rrrAO e o rm usy v ~--- PER i5-/5410 (d); 4ao6 ss.. m ss. Fa EAa 1,900 Sv. ff xEi 9E n,46o - a99o • n,90c 77 % A Si. • iW V, 4aoo ss. « :m ss. • 47a u. (ALLORA6f ssJ A) e¢E OF elsucrur 6A9Am1n I,7m u. 11sr ItocR 4/a u. gCOm ROOR 1.109 SF. rorx: 4710 SF. (1[55 null 47 I~P61Vpt~ 91E COY (R10NABIL PFR IS-ItO~ lSt) PRff0A0 BUONQ 5112 SF. PRff0¢D p6ERAT: 4657 Y. PAffdS<D AEAR IORAQ Alq PAim9 1,98 SF, PROP09D OA7FB0 OCO0 191 SF. oeu6alu FOprANS ~ PdQ 87 ss. rorw 14B1ss. E7E1NO NEr 9E AREk 77,005 SF, 9E CORRAOE: I461f0 < ]Si • p COPE AT BEILDl10 9EE APPA01RIAn1T II ~) Av8iA0E BIIE BE.OPEI .ao19(7Yt17ao1 / 1.161.7x tR A l0i v Aae eF RE~oetce IER PROJECT DEE~PTION Ca5061Cr A 148 110 $rORY 984E FAIRT AESmO1Q ^p E>nlpc vACN111cr. Rn ~QRQ Q9a AR6 uxoscAPl PAESEaE nE NAARx CNNIACIEN ff ERSINO 91E INDEX OF DRAW9~CS callEfl+Cm' Aa1 Roan nAlr Rm PRaECr NIOINAna A41 9E PUM A45 9x4N0 YC10N A19E CIYL C-i SUR9EY ORANXO c-: aAalc AAO ORNIAQ R.w A101 ~. BASEYai FE0O1 PI1N--_-_ .. _ . A7Ai fR51 Ft0a PUN am sEm9o Pica PIAR Ala Koff aAR A41 Ma1N EI1RAna (f9ai MIAna) A42 FA51 ELErilla IIFFI 90E) . A6,1 solnl EUVAION (REAR EI1VAnO1) A6/ EST ElE1Ana (Aplr 90EI ~~~ LI LYm9'AR PUR - RJFFW U UAOSGPE PUN Alm Q1A45 Y ~r ~r10 rrr Arr~iaironw awr ~Y.r/Orf I M Ac 1 o,E9 W.4o9 u. '• a pr~yRmrr9O.•YP~M an~• ^i~ BORELLI RESIDENCE 9NMT09A G KORTH $ U N S E R i HAGEY ARCHITECTS Bb0 CALIPORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 a) s.ssa. t seo FAx at sssa. t s~o 14U[5 Rm AfY19ffK Na 0.1E 6tv5ePno11 aoim PINNIM, REIE9 09.1607 nxwc 91B6rrx Q 110A03 RMMO RE9A1Rrrx ® 01.0147 PUINPm AE919Rirx PRa[cr RumER 9Rr nnE VICIiIY 6NP AIO RiO~Cf !Fq#IATiON -- _yyE__. _. - AS N01EO 9EET MRIffR A0.1 2 LOCATgN AIAP x~a f° e(w t• • KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 415.954.1960 FAX 415.954:1970 IS91ES AHD RENSIGNS N0. DAIE DESCAIVllON 09.03.02 PLANNING REVIEW 09.19.02 PLANNING SUBMITTAL m 12.04.D2 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ® OtA3.03 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL RRO,ECr nuuem 02331.00 sNEEI nnf SITE PIAN SCAIE 1"=2D'-0" SHEET RuXDER A0.2 A4 pNYtlL7 MO MARX WR1Y NR.MXO NADI (SSflA1F BN9UA NR IXNL9~ ISI ¢ AT AIBIR61 kA NAY NR ~ 0.gRAA@; URA Al A NdINI MXI~ IPXpI R N ARIIiS'1 BORELLI RESIDENCE SARAT0011 cA ~, C • c i s. i i i i ~~ _ . MA%IMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PER ZONING REGUTA1pN /15-12-100 .._....... _~- t- ~_ - _ ~ I, ~ 12 i ~ I \ ~~ ~i ~ ~. i ~ I ~ I j I ~ o I I .i 570.5 SECOfLD fIWR ~ ] I ~ l L vi J _ I i ~ -_ j~ .. ~-_ 57D' _.. __ EL. 568.5' ~ GROUND FLOOR __.. 569' - '-_ _- ~- -A -. _, - .-. - -- ~566' LME OF EXISTING CRAOE ~ UNE M PROP06EO CAPeE ~ EL 557.75' BASEIkNT ~ I ~ SITE SECTION 2 ~pe•.r-r _ .. MAgMUM ALLOWABLE HBGHT PER ZONING ACCUTAIICN ~IS-12-100 '~ --' JJ t i, ' - __. ~.~ ~~_ - -. I ~ __~--_ -._- --J ~~ j _.._ ~, ~..~ m ~ -___. -~ ~` l0_. I ~o W ~ ~ o y p ~~ ~? N OR I I w -- ---- SECOND F . ~\ ~ `\•` `\\ LO ~ ,\. 'l 0 I _ -. 569', {_ - _ '- _ ,. °" -. ____ __.5 - ~. ~.. I s7o ~-.° _ ___ _-..___ ___.__ _ ~,.,,. ~-~.,.- _ ~ .. .__ ? aF;~ ; _. _ _,.-.,ter ~. ... - -.. GARAGE ENTRY APAOIV ~ __~,..,^ _ ~=_____~ 568 -_ 566n~~ ~ _ _ -__ - - - - 567 ~ . ~ ~ - ~~ . - _ __ , ~ ~ 5 ~ _ _ __ - .... _ 65 ____.. ______-_ 1__- ' UNE OF EgS11NG GRADE ~ EL 557.75 BABFA&Ni 81TE 3ECTION ~Ae'°ra ALL MM.Ii N. Wfip W7AIY AifM4.I9LW iPRAN404IDW A1A IOWIRW ARV 0 A9 A9PP61 I,N/ WC WI R WRsCAR0. 4fl0 W99kPlX WAN11 N71W RATNI W flt A'WNA01 BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOOA CA KORTH SUNSERI H A G E Y ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCIBCOA CA s41O6 415.954,1960 FAx a 1 sssa,l s~o 2' 1 69JE6 AND RENSIONB' N0. OAIE OESCRW110N 09.0].02 PLM'NING RENEW 09.1202 CS1EN1 R£AEW 03.19.02 PLANNING SJBMIITAL Q 12.07.02 PLANNING RESUOLNTTAL ®o1.o3oa PLANNIxcRESUnunAL PROJECt NUMBER 02331.DD 4iEC1 iNIE BUILDING SECTIONS AT SITE SCALE 3/16° = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER A0.3 ` i • Brawing: \\RAY\PRCJ€CTS\02JJ1- Boralll Realdanee\Crowinga\Plot\Plannlnq Reaubmlilal\C-1,dwg ,,~ ~ _1 I / II f. ~ C ~~ ' ~ I / I~ / V BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CA KORTH $U NSERI HALEY 563., ARCHITECTS II ~,. ~ PZ.,±~ s9>~ 670 1'WC 6!861 .~ u a TW 570.2 ~ ~" ~ ~ I , f f BW564.7. '~ 9 5 ~ r,~, e•s'oa< II ,,.o.x O ;x.91 0~' ' ~ "'rW I 850 CALIFORNIA STREET / ; °6' `c 56d )3.5 ly.;lo g'D1.K vac Dnx 1•H~- I SAN FRANCISCOf CA 94108 i r r, I ; ~ m 8~ - ,]5~ ~~ D ~W: - ABBREVIATIONS /~a~ sssD ~~ AB 567 ' SPA -- D 6,. „ - / ` 415.954.1880 I c1e ,~~ ]z ~n ~ ~ FAX 415.854.1970 5675 . 1 ' q ~ HC ~ZI IL 90 AC . ASPNALnC CONCRETE '. y'` ~' BW bbal - ~ ~ /~ ' 0 / ~ '"n,- a e m BLBG BUIIBINO i. f I - ' I ' --. °-) us[ / I TOIL 668b / ~ ~ H + nce BW BOTRMf OF WALL A T FINISH GRADE ~~' ----~vt-~-cw I I T f/T L/Cd11WEldddffHllT rs0~ 1sY f ~ ~~ I ' ~~/.rte LSl ~ ®x.,/ / ~ ~ `> ~g~ 6~ ~C _) 0 h / ; CL CENIFRUNE ~ . I -'--_~_ ~ c o" Y GRAVEL HC s [END ss C x 51..23 / tz B'9' oiK (,UNC GONGRErE ~ f d 4 P `l~'~ FAD 6G% 0 `s)a3'°,Irr.x ~ ~' s_r=. `cH: 5raK ~: o+K ~kfi5 ~2 ,E'rd~ G /6 ~ ~ / „,0.]2 ~• )'6 6~' I ] ~ 5J6P ~ ' I/"c__ ,IT/ ~rq :w s ~~„~j DM1 c c}' 6c. A l y'aF_ / y OW DRI4FWAY. - 569.1 f TTT bA AG567.5 D ~~ ~..I Ep EBGf OF PAVEMENT use ,-,i/_I - __ v ~ 5`c..N .y-'r x 5)z1t / T ~ e"can~ a ~°-"" FENG FENCE !!NE •~ ~ r ~ /;; ~, c=f'' Sn.r m• s' a ~ . _ i ~b~Y rF FINISH R017R x. ~"6ua~ ~ ~ s'e O i ~ 4 - a 9.0 ~ 70 ~ C ~ - ~ FH FIRE HYDRANT `''/, ak` d~ 5'697 a -- _~' / ,!/ ~_ ~ raD GROUND KIER & WRIGHT I I D5 'o ~ I r ~ ~ CIVIL ENGINEERS b SURVEYORS, INC. J r] _:' _~ 0~ U~ ~~~ p~`- ® 0 ~ ~ // R> ~ ~~ ~ -~ ° ~ / HC HWSE CORNER 3750 Scatl Bwlrvord, fiullding ?2 (/06)721-6665 I ~6/~ ~ 569b ~ 5..~ 1 1iu l r'~Ct" Stlnlo Clara. [allfornla 9505/FA%(/06)727SAE1 'z ~ ~ ~ o b~ ~ 5]6.3 INV fNV£RT ~VAnON W ' °i ~ I ~ I~ i ~ ~ PV PAVEMENT, ~ ssa i ~ F°=)- ~ ' 16~ ( I s` ~ Rw REDWDDD .. / / 5'0.95 I ~.T .>,C i'pnx C I ~ r~~. N / •a° 9 '~~ Snl6< E~ p-, EP I LN~FENCE - 5a•-CAS j p 5666 ~ ms ~ ~ A % ~ ~ 1 5120] _ _ r @ 569'. / / j~ S]].m ~ ,Z ) a ~ 1 .m OIL- wn ' als wn ~ ~ ~~~ ,!t JIB y ~In cl"'c ~ m~~e 5):.0 ~ n~ ~ _ SY1.13 P. 28x - 566, CNU ~ •5HC/ G5~5x- i • EC M T5"/, 276 u• ~cP I x ]))) -- , f 80 00 / ~ / atone ~ ~ ~ 5~69< / os e ~i ' ~I ,EF til 15'3.]9 5) ~ 514.] X 596. u ~~ C o= - O ~ 3"Cox , n3 5 ° )'Cnx-0 9'11-..~...° sn.c ~F' / / .x ~Cax c,.~. ° l 96'DM 5n) s)ve r~ u-~ F / I / FQ1W / I/ INN `P'~.~ X75,4,. `5 / ~F -' 1 ~ , ~ ,eaeea- - = o ,. , ~" FAO'I -_ ,~~ o I~_ ROAD ~~sN E nppR n6 ,~P' 11,tx CkJ StJe GRASSY. ~ 6 IYAFIL4 --_ I /,c~5pr p ~.z 5~`:0- ~ -~ .P~NC~ '' )mr~ ~OVERFl.OW b ~ GS., uc)IDII: ~M1 ' C 4' STII ~ , ~.D ~ I ~' 4.5 4 sN1~Aw./~ 0 ~ ~~ 6 , y'10 j / 1 ~~~-" 9`~os-alb iw xY~ •ez,a - ~ z sctzo I ~' _5.e< .']"^~4% - , ~ - P r u. ne- c: ~ 6lE1B1ANNB11ttR AD 567.5 6~ rH:• ' /; 5]. s I 7Y - S'~. 9' 5 C ,K j I / i I ,• 5 ti . cove w) "' X s;~o ° `fie °' ~ f ~ / 1° 9' °In. .Y' au4¢ 6.9 TW 57d2 II /q ! _ , SG:Y MD 6Wtl )'cox ~ 6DDE a / / 6)5 ~ PAYJ,r'N f ,a / % i ~ r.9 569.7 / ~ x ~ - ,; C / I' \ h ubj j 1 ~ FAY ~.Cn. .' ~ f" " / K ib_3:~' 0.~1 OS'Mx ° O ' II F1". .,: UI S;S~ ~';'.? C51C.4 5.~ ~ 5)'t.1~ 517.8 - ~' i' n" i ' / ~ he I ~. r I, 1 fx0 ~J 6 ~ °6, ~ t- 'te'e' ^b--"= < ann ~ e'w~a'c.4K j ~ Wr 1.. 5)1. ~ $ J2 °5~]; ~lxx rfNO ~ x .15a J$.3~ / e:_, r; 6 s ^I& ~ ~~ I c7 I~ - _s.•_ lea'"~ ~ .IsS^~>? ~n R; ~t?.~ .. .. _. / dY r ~ RCS • Si•? SG[ SE 1 55d . -- ----- _ ~s f0' STORM WATER RECHARGE DEVICE 1 SCALE: 1' a 2~ sspn sAN~rARr SEWER cLEArv our I ' ~ SSMH SANITARY (SEWER MANHOLE ~~ ~ 5,8~ 3 Tac rpP of ua+TWUCHr GY.WCRE7E '~ e'n our. ISSUES AND RENSIONS S.Ni.J rw TrAe of w L N0. DATE OESCAIP110N I ~ - N110D I' Q DEC. s}, 2002 PLANNING RESUBMIITAL - . ~'r^; n = 1~ WATER FAlIIICE7 ~'..-"-. ~~ ~ I JAN• bl 1c03 ~NiRb R65n18NAibYU WM WATER METER 5)'<E ~° LEGEND a PNU IR PROPOSED EAiSnNG / ,]Hx THEE _ _! I or PROPERTY 11NE -__- Y /-~tlyr iC1+C _ _ _ _ _ ~F Scrole 1' = TTl /f EASEMENT v 73 s z c']o" oag SPOT GRADE I 1~ =5~ AREA DRAW ® r MANHOLE ~ 0 JOINT POLE ~ FOff' HYDRANT ~ F PRO.ECi NUWBfR TRff i ~-- A02753 O.J STORM ORAMJ ' SANITARY SENER 1 5s. 7ElfPHONE I SHEET nnE '-- PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN OVERHEAD _ 0., _ FENCE UNE_ ( ___-_y_-._ CWrOUR ~ -T70- --.27.0-__ SCAIf raDCE ~ ---R---- 1'-20' EARiHWriRK CURB i ---. RAWWi 770 CY RETAMIND WALL ® O ~ RAW FILL 160 CY ~ $ BENCHMARK i IMPORT 0 CY 70P ~ FIHE HYDRANT EI.EV=559.2 (ASSUMED) , SHEET NUMAEA EXPORT 570 CY I ' WANn1lE5 DO NOT W(T.UDE I BASEMENT lXCAVARON ~ Q0.0FESSIpN h~AoO~RAY S~gl9^~ > ~, ~' ,, ¢ "` ]2167 ,:-: . F * DP ,2.71-01 * C 2 sf D1NI1 ~.~ '~ OF ¢NU4GA - THESE PROGRESS PR/N15 ARE SUBMll1ED W/nlOUi SIGNATURE PFR RECENT AMENDAIFNTS (EFFECnV£ JANUARY I, 2001) 10 SfCnOVS 6775, 6775.3, AND 6775.4 pF iHf PROFE551CM/AL ENGINEERS ACT PROHIBITING INTERIM OR ORAFi DOCUMENTS TRC61 CON7A81MC iNE ENGINEERS 9CJ-IARIRE. Xr'el'x C-GRAD-TBB, C-GRAO, C-la C-AAV~ C=SiE C°9S U$fR: duCdn !.•~dwg~Al2f~3~UN[~C'RA0'PEl1MIi~Cf-(POP).dq NOVEW9ER 27, P00? B:5J AM it g~ 8 1 k 4.=~~. /1~i ,- ~~ ~ . ~~ ~' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ P~ 1 \ N~ \\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,- \ \ 1 ~~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ C \ \~ -- \ 1 I r 7 ~~ r I I I I I I I I a I /` I I OPERABLE WNDOW I +/ ;I I ~~ 1 l 13~_y' 9'-4 1/2' I I 4' I ro ' 1 1 I NESn6ulE I Lrol r I I ~ uP ~1 I I sTUDv e T -I B002 on ~NE OF . '.~ $~ 1 51{riICHi ABOVE f, i ~ i ;~ 1 1 'k 1 ~ CA81E BCN 8 COMMUNICATIONS k7EVAplR , I ~ 1FlEPHONE VAT ~ ~ ' L JJ ~ ~ ,~ EE i0 S70RM OAAINAGE -EE - / ~ ' _ ~ ~' E- - 70 SANITARY SEhFR - E' 5'-0" DEEP SJMP PI~W PIT ~ )/t$ ~ ®® 4'-0' DEEP SEWAGE EJCCTCR PIT // L 1 1 A7.5 --- ~ -~~ 400 A. CRICUIT BREAKER PANEL O _ _ _6 ~ ~~ bl I ~ \ SERNCE CIEARANCF REOlAREO t ' t BYSR7EM BDtl.EA lU1G ® -}-I-1/2' WA. WATER 9ERNCE-~ _ _ _ _ x J T ' BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOOA, CA ~---------1 I f_J L_~ I I I r~ ~ 1 I I <' I 1 r~ 1 I ~ ~-- -1 I 1 ~~ ~\ ~ 6~ ~~ 1 L, I I 1 I I 1 L ~ ~-----------~ ---------~ I I I I I ~ 1 ~-~ I I I I ~ I I I ~ I I I I ' I I <~ a~ I I I n m OPEAABlE MINDOW j 1 +/-12 s.F. aAZINC I ~- -------- ~' .., I ' ~ +/- 12 S QAZINC ' ~' --~ r~--------~ --- _ ,r__-_ EGRESS LADOEA ~~ARDOW_____J 2 A7.3 2 A7.3 PER UBC 310.4 • I sA>uplr ABOVE I ~ ~ +/-1z SF. c1AaNC . ~- . ~ _~. ST~ACE ~~p~ E 1 WVED GETTING ABOVE 8005 .. 1 _ W£T BAR A7 B 1 A7.3 NON UANINC FlRFPLACE D J CIEAESttIRY N1NOOIY ABOVE CONDIIICHEO MNE STOR GE S L 1J S.F. GU2WG A FOA 200 B1L I ~• SA1llGN7 ABOVE . oPERABIE DoDR I I ~/ V ~ I +/-12 v. aAnNc ~'I OPEAABI£ RESH-AIR INTN(E LW4EF URNACE I CENTRAL VACUUM SYSffM sc~PCl'P~ I ~ b ~ ~ 2 i PpP o c~ pt~ I a ~ "' u I G~R~'~ i ~ n f ~,~ I A - I I I I I I L____________ ________J~UIff OF STRUCNRE AOONE a /- KORTH S U N S E R I HALEY ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 9AN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 418.984.1960 Fax 415.854.1970 i~'~ I~ , ISSUES ANO AFNSIONS fN). DATE CESCRIPDON Ds.laoz PLANI$NC suelRRu ®12A1.02 PLANNNC AESUBMIRAL D1.0303 PLANIIRG AESUBMIRAI PROJECT NUMBER D2331.00 sHEFr nnE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 3/16" = 1'-D' r I V SHEET NURSER A2.01 1 I BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN AM~.ra k4OAAAN01 W MII.I N1RWr IHElFAA1 MRII W/RMR W7M4 WD VMA14~ KN ~ wt uiw4f! A4 Wr npi eE q,RCAik9, 4&P. A41P9L WAMN Ifl.A . AIC AA111017 ~ \ •'.'. \ n AIaLE renocwl \ p \ ~ SF. GLAZINQ__________ i a I \\ ~ P' I L J/\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BASEMENT NOTES: \ \ \ \ NABITARLE BASEMENT AAEA~, 1797 SF, p \ \ \ \ MECHANICAL BASERFNi AREA: JBJ SF ~ \ \ l \ 10TAL BASEMENT SE = iJ97+JA3 = 1 7W S.F. \ \ \ ~ PER CBC 1207.2 \ NANRAL UGNT AREA REWREO. \ ~ =10E OF 1397 Sf.=110 SE \ TOTAL AREA PRONDED = ISJ} S.F. \ / / \ C PEA CBC 1207,] NANRAL MEN111AnON REWIRED: \ ~ = 5R W IJ97 S.f. = 70 S.F. \ , tt1TA1 AfiEA PROVIDED = 701 S.F. \ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ V ~ BASEMENT FINISHED fL00R IS 556.5' ~ ELEVATOR PIT DRWNACf T.BA. i 8 0 f t s x ` ~ I \ \ LORARY lox /r p I I ~/ 1 ® PORCH '> \ 7035 \ i ~ i ® I (x) EDUxrax I 1 ' TAOaI 10171 ~ I ~~ BREAKFAST ~OROOM (/'~~ ` 1a~2 ~ib3 ~/ / p~ V BA1H ` WH 1 ioib - . l - ~ L _ t6 ~I ~ `;~ 1 YJTCHkN ~ 103i ~ ~ r _ _ _ _ SHOWER 1019 , .. ~ ~ ~~~ 1- ® ~ ~ CL~ET H02 DRESSING 1021 1(a 8i ~ igLEi 101 , ' 4 1022 i ~ BA1H SKILICHT 70 . _ _- i - BEDROOM 1011 ~ ~ 101 1Ll >, ' SHOWER BA`EMENr .. J ^~~JJ 1015 4'-G 3/<~ N _ _ _ _ -- h aosE7 ,;, - ,Imo - ,.. OEE ~ ~ ~~'M'~ •^ Lf07b] __ __ _ I POACH 1027 ~ 10'-1" ~ Hal o ~ IOOB 1, OS{T 1037 I °• \ / 'a I TESPBULE 1 01 (. ~ _- - ii7/ ~,~ . ~ YESHBUIF I , , - - .., ,.., , ,,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1~ 1 ) PORCH HALL I HALL I N / i 103t~ I 1029_ I I i® I I \ / L I I I I NuL 1oz6 I I \ r~ ualrnEUd~wDrxEar __ ~.., __________ ., ~ _ _____ ___________ ,. __ ___ ~, FliOM BAS ENi .. x,1 aasEr ----------- --- ----- - • ' 1W8 I I I I ~I UP I -n 1/ B 12-1 1/a >m¢r I v III I . UP i0 VESriIUIE KWBULE IOw ~~ %~, I " gN Y I I SraR SECOND 1047 FL R - g05q j H~ ~ ~ III I I FlTNE55 STA W ^ f Ef. 580.5' I qO ' ; ~ - / I W1NOOW BELOW STAIR ' - 0 2 10'-il 3/4' ~ UUNDAY ~ _ ~~ ~ / / ~~ • A ~/ AA LANDING i0 BASEMENT r.8.0. i0 BASEMENT ~ ,, ,,., :. ,., ' , io1 __ ~-- ------- - - I I - I IY ~ - ~ ~ uNEOEacvAnaN ~ „, . , ,.,;' ,> _ ___=_ ,. I vESneu~ I I CHANCE ~ o _ _ _ _ ENTRY ~ ( iW5 I DN 1 OSEi ~ / " 1004 EK15>1NG 2Y OAN RECYCIf 10] YES If 70 BASEMENT 1M ' ~ 6 \ / / /2 \ i f i \ ~ ` , ~ \ iCIIET ., PORCH 1003 1 CH iooD I 1a2 I'-9" 11 l 11 GARAGE LINNC~OOM 1a1J O E.E. 5sss' (N) rouxrAw 400 A EIECIRICAL~ 1 . sEHwc~ Aw METER PANEL GROUND FLOOR PLAN INSTALL PER PC9E HEIGHT ~ 7Pr•~`6 M E Y P WI I OW I ~IIENYIEW MNWNOMAflII OW{EEIE AW NY AN IWIIEIEE RI a NMEf.I AHI YO R 101 NF dONIEA 1160 A fMEil EMEII MIEN tlMNO R NE AIfl1ElE BORELLI RESIDENCE BARATOGti CA KORTH S U N S E R I HaGEY ARCHITECTS Bb0 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCI6C07 CA 941 OB 41 b:964.1960 FAX 415.954.1870 ' ISSUES AND RENSIONS N0. OAIE OFSCRIPBON 09.12.02 CLIENT RENEW 09.19.02 FUNNING SL~IdITTa m 12.01.04 fAPNNINC RESUBMIRAI , 01.03.03 BANNING AE9JBMIRAI PRO.ECi NUMBER 02331.00 SHEET xnt GROUND FLOOR PLAN 3/16' = 1~ p" ~' 0 4 0 \`~// CT MEET NUMBER A2.02 lA~ ,\ \ ~ O ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ ~ s ~ ~ C ~ N ,~ \ ~~ IP~~ ~~ \~ I I .. ~ I I. . I I E- I~ '~ OVAL wtx -- ~~ __ m I I ~~ I I ~ / ~ E-- ~ j I I ---~--- iIi ~ , i E7~.AOANCOVEREO BALCONY ~ ,. 1 m/ ~ w ~-„ I ---- ---- ---------- ------j - .I I F.F. 5795' '1{ 4 1. 4 8.1- 07 3 06 7 - Ff. 579.5' i "a ~ I ~ rv/ I I I ~- -~ /o\ ON OPEN i0 BEIOW ill\ ~ ~ P~ 0 ~ V ` ~' I ~ `~ L ~. \ \ I~ ~ ` L/ y ~, D BORELLI RESIDENCE 9ARATOOA CA KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS 850 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCI3C0~ CA 94108 415.954.1980 FAX 415.954.1970 iswES ANO AENVOas N0. OAIE DESCRNIIOA ' ' 09.7201 0.1ENr RENEW .. _ 09.19,Oi PEANNINC wBNIriAL 0 11.04.02 PUNNING AE6UBNIit1LL 01,0}.07 PUNNING AEw941t1AL PAO,rtcr wuXR AssESa~s vAxcE~~ 6n•aao9 SNEEr PRE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 90ALE 3/16' = 1'-0' .' 0 4 8 `,~~~///I' m S4EEt xuVBEA A2.03 i SECOND FLOOR PLAN mr.r.r to OU~Y]x9 MIN'u4eY Ni[i0i bG 06AN4 Ailw uO YPAID1~p0'HKxR[IWw ~. VIdMNGRN~MP ~YIItM ~D~IIf MI.W4[i ~, / ~~~ / / /~ j i ~ ~' ~~ \ ~~ ~ ~ \ \ \ V A \ ~ \ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ \\ \~ A \ N W COPPER DOWIER (IYP.) SLA1E ROOF i sC11PPER ROOF CRaN IOIINIEIiNAL 00'IAIS OUT IF SCUPPER roo Low roR ~aacEwr Rocs B.U.R., SLOPE f0 SCUPPER, LINE OF CaVi STRIP PANTED NEraL~sNrucHr I CWPER PAAAI'ET FLASHING cRICKEt 1 --~-- I T I I I I I I i• aUlf-UP ROOF W/ PPAAPF[ SLOPE = Y' IN 1'-0' (I1P.) _- W.... ~ ~ ~ / ( I y I I I I I I l ~ ~ ~ - --0---- 9U.R. SLOPE i0 AOOF DRNN RoaF DRAW ro wrERNU oDWxsPaui, CONNECT TO STCRI/ ORaN RWI® PAINTED META1 SNYllCHi 011 T~ ..J ...J ...J ~~ Lea `F`~ T O I O W ~ ~ L~ ^ ___~ r--_~ r___n I I I I I I I ~---- i ~ ~ / L~~1 \ ~ ~ ~ TI~ ~ ~~ T I 1 VWW ~y I ~ I `~~ SNtt1CNf I I I ~ SNYllCBi { 1 ~\ .\ BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATO60. CA KORTH S U N S E R I HAGEY. ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCI6C0~ CA 94108 415.954.1960 FAx 415.BS4. i 970 i _~ i f~ IssuES AND REVlsloas . N0. DATE DESCRIP110N 09.03.02 PLANNMG RENEW 09.19.02 PLANNWG SUBNI1rAL 12MA2 PIANNNC RESUBw1TAL 010303 PIANt.lG RESUOMIrTAL PR04Ci NUNRER azs3LOo SHEET 1NLE ROOF PLAN SCALE J~16° - 1' ~,~ U o a a m - _---., ~ \ q ~ I CllANEO 'EIEBROYI ROOF N _ / ~ ~ \ rC ~ A 1 \ ~ \ ~ N ~ UNE a GJI~(R \ ~ ~~ y sNED RaoF eELaw A2.04 ~ ~ I aINNEr i ROOF PLAN -.---- I I ~nr.r-v AN PRARIF; MG INOR rARAa NKA@NP MRw WXNNS PR71A NOW.WQn~NGRfI AW YAr R7l tlA R7U611., 4F P~WIIMWI RIIM WNANI 47 NI AW4RCI c T T ~ ~ I • 'ICAI SLOPE BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOOA CA KORTH S U N S E R I HALEY ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCOI CA 94108 415.954.1980 FAx 415.954.1970 D / E 9` C ISSUES AND IMNSION9 N0. DAIE OESCRIPIION 09.19.02 PUNNWG SIRINFIA m 12,04.02 PUNNrvG RESUBIIIIIAL ® 01,0001 PLANNWG RESUBMIiiAL ® 0132.0! PUNNNG AESUBMIiIx PRO,ECi NUMBER 02331.DD sNEEi nnE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BDALE 3/16° = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER A6.01 i i 11 SiOY' COPING f ® VENEER SIONE I ®1 SiAiG ROOF TILE ® SIAIE ROOF nLE i ® COPPEA ©ctEnd waoo eunA I ®PAINIED ALUMINUM i a n wr.,cala) © PArvieo ~w ®YcNELN STONE Q Tl. WE~CONC) D. SLAB) I ®1 SION1C COPING ©PAINiEO WOOD l3' i FLOOA (L0. iL WL. CONC.) Ls' I RDOR (r.o. n. wr. coNC.l I I I I i 0. TL. WIj CONC) A I NORTHWEST ELEVATION ~ 1 I NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT ELEVATION) MF MM:MI~ W MIND! 94WeM AR€!RY4 NLSW ~ERNIE AKNN NB Y/69W®PA 01C M011(RI MB y!~ tt41 UL?M!un0.1~o M N !M1I NW11AI WBAIf L! -k MAII¢I :~~ B I NORTHEAST ELEVATION A LEAST ELEVATION j BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOOq CA J KORTH S U N S E R I HALEY ARCHITECTS 6S0 CALIFORNIA STREET I SAN FRANCI8C0~ CA 84108 415.954.1980 ` FAx 415.954.1970 II ~L7 SGIE ROOF nlE r L'e SIAIE ROOF ntF I I~ COPPER 6, p) QEAR VroW 8N15H ~ I~ PAINTED ALUMINUM L' WI. CONC,) ~ ISSUES ANO REASIDNS xo. oA>E o¢cmPnoN ~~ VENEER STONE ~ 09.10.02 DLPNNBIO 918MIttAL I' 1201.02 PUNNING RE9UBMIiTAL. i~ PAINTED W000 OI.OSOJ PUNNINC'RESUBNIiiAL . I ® 01.220.] PLANNING RESUBMIIIAL Li. 'M. CONC.) SLABI PA0.ACT NUMBER 02331.OD SHEET nnE I EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS { I SCAIE S4EET NUMBER .; EAST ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE ELEVATION) Nk B&MAIA M9 A9RAI MII~M X~M9K MRA ~R11MN MAIM AW'MM1'Et4f91AA R flF N9Rf6T M4 Mf pl N: PSflffAPA, URB 919R1F4D.OIW! AIIRMI i A MF A90NnF1 A6.02 f I i • CUTLER DRAINS ONTO UPPER ROOF ' it STDNE CLAD CNIMNEY W/ SIDNE COPING I DPPER ROOF LL3 C (SOUTH-ELEVATION i• EL 579.5' SECOND fL00R (i,0. Li. NT. CONC.) _ ~ _`1 I ~ IL:JI _ _. 1 ~' rte{ EL 566.5' 1-~- ' -I i .~ GRWNO FLOOR (T.O. LL Wf. CONC.) D I EAST ELEVATION • FTC- 11179CAL SL( l -_ li II r Bl l WEST ELEVATION A ~ SOUTH ELEVATION I f 1 I SOUTH ELEVATION (REAR ELEVATION) II I l1 STALE ROOF ME ®67A1E ROOf OlF COPPER ©aEAR WocD nNISH i ®1 PNNRED ALUMINUM DDwN sPOUi D6ues 0.. 579.5' ONTO BUILT UP ROOF sECaND FLOav (Ea u. W4. caNO) I ~- ®VENEER STONE 0.. 5665' . GROUND ROCK (i.0. Li. Wi. CONC.) © PPNTEO WWD ~ - n StarvE carryNc LO'~S"-'4 1"~?' - 5;fi ~- ri;J;i:' .c. .- ~- -- -~; - ~- _ -_ -- - . z .. -- -_ __ _ -~-.:.. - -. I B I WEST ELEVATION © PAINTED WOOD R (T.O. Li. NT. CONC.) BORELLI . RESIDENCE SARATOGq CA KORTH S U N S E R I HALEY ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCI6COA CA 84108 415.954.1960 FAX 415.954.1970 C E B - D' IssuES uro AEws[as N0. DALE OESCRIPTICN 09.19.02 PLANNNG SUBMIIIAL m 12.01.02 PUNEWG AE6UBMIITAL ®01.0.7.07 PVuYENO AESWNIIIAL ®m 22w PuNNNC AESUBMInu PACJECi NUMBER 02331.00 SHEET LIRE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER A6.03 w WF66 WB ~Nl41 N41,4k NRF.AWR N'NAI IRRflNR P~ MR VMe9A9! A4F P PE N4aDl4T MP F~, we ¢ ggrnim. ette a a54cA? Mwou11P11AI gA0.m W mt MAnFf7 E (SOUTH ELEVATION E I WEST ELEVATION r, ~- .~ B I WEST ELEVATION I Tt 91ONE COPNC ®11NEER SIQVE Li 8F0.TE ROOF TILE L®STAtE ROOF TILE corrcR Lr. wr. ca+c.) . ©PA1N1E0 W000 ~l4NEER S10NE . LT. Wi. CONO) ©CLEAR M1'000 FINISH ~1 PAINIEU AIUMINUN I I EL 568.5' I CROUND FLOOR (T.0. Li Wf. CONC.) i J WEST ELEVATIOIN (RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION) I 3~6._I~_D. 9MF~ RN ~rw>~ N><A`NIIAEP F~NR ALAN uP9a>~ ~ ~.. AWIRST N. ~~ p~~ ~,~A~ ~Aa~P;m p~N ~m~ an?m a nl ~ADRI BORELLI RESIDENCE SARATOQA CA KORTH SUNSERI HALE Y ARCHITECTS 850 CALIFDRNIA STREET SAN FRANC18C0~ CA 84108 415.954.1880 Fax 41 Ei.984.1970 C ' _ B 0 1541E8 ANO RENSIONS N0. DALE DE9CAN-ON 09.19.02 PLANNING S18NITTAI . 12.01.02 ' PLWNWG REBUBYITTPL 01.03.03 PLANNING AE8UB41TTAL ® 01.22.03 PLANNING RESUBNIITAt PROdCT NUNBER 02331.OD SNEEi WILE EIfTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE ' SHEET NUNBER A6.04 D I SOUTHWEST ELEVATION a a yS F~ pyg C 6 E P9 Sa. p@5 9 ~I ,(56),13 GALLON HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / (CAUF.TOYON) :.(25)15 GALLON MYRICA CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE) .~~~ ve F .... ~~..r ~ 1 (29)15 GALLON HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (CALIF. 70YON) TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPE BUFFER & FENCING PLAN EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED (NUMBERING CORRESPONDS TO ARBORISTS "TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS' PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE 8 ASSOCIATES) 6tiHIGH VINYL-CLA[) 'CHAIN UNIT FENCE' (TYPICAL) ~ ~ ~~ ~DD1f~9 d3( ~ BORELLI ~ RESIDENCE 8ARATOOA,CA rn w APN 517-22-003 U ZONE Ri- 40,000 w --- F1 io rr,~,7 ..-.-... _.. ... _ rNT 11~ ~N 1~~ I , Y~ LINK FENCE ^ LAIDERB/WGH /~ A'~5 S O C I A T E S. IanduapDArchi1x11ueRlanrmg 102 PersIBNDrNB; S1ri1e202 Sunnyale. CElibnua 940841517', 1408)70.4-7380 601p305CgpE u.~ ~. lAVpfy~4 m ~ Ww cn ~ ~ N,.2418 0 " e~ za NO.. BA1E 07.25.02 09.19A2 11.08A2 ~j 12402 aI o303 _... r (18)15 GALLON- MYRICA CALIFORNICA ~ (CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE) I ' / NOTE "OUAC SYSTI LINE; 4C,TOR TO INSTALL 15LER" DRIP IRRIGATION ALL PiiOPOSED PROPERTY SHRFIB PLANTING INDICATED I TREE REPLACEMENT TABLE VAS.VE ASSESSMENT: io D 10 20 4D SCALE: i" = 20' E%ISPIBU 61TE 99P.ES TD DE 46g0V1:D VALUE P4 ~ 5 3,106. /5 3 ]09. e11 3 199. ed9 1 s 1,za6. /50' 3 1,612. esl s 109. e55 3 61. es3 s sl. a]o s s1 D. eIl i. m. E73 3 556. /01' i 131.' 103 i I, DI O. 101 3 1,1]3. { TOTAL VALUE: 316,]49. PRDPpSID 0.EPLACENENT TAEE6 VALUP. (121 36" BD%~UUERCU6 ACRIPDGIA S 15,Bd0. (1) 26° BOX ACkR NACNUPNYLLUN S 430, (41 IS GALLON AESCULU6 CALIEVRNICA S 400. I TOTAL VALUE: 3 16,'!10. 155UE8 AND REN81~'S OESCAe'P0N CLIENT PRESENTATION Cff Y SUBMITTAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CRY SUBMITTAL flrWNlnro ~=sveMithTL PROJECT NUMBEA 02331.00 __ SNEEt 1111E TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPE BUFFER & FENCING PLAN SCALE 1" = 20 -0" O SFEEi NUNBEA L-1 ,~`lP~t, "VIPE~T'C7 t$~10.0. VItJ~L~G11'0 ~ gro.Y."fePKAII, I I:- 7EN91orl~ ~I a~aP MIOOI.e oM -~~PIA°A, ~~~~~~~~ IMt$~0. ~f U.' ~~I~ ~~o ~ FIN'S ~ Nl GN9e5 Np iRDll SULVI NPLVpD~VIi I IX4DNQ 1a1.'A ND aWA6 YONI P M Ai0e4t1 W YAY NN Q DNl.,A D~ G ~PBD rrllOR Mip at~l! 611[49811 - ~% - ' ~ 1 NOTE ALL PROPOSED SHRUB PLANTING WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF THE EXISTING NATNE OAK TREES SHALL BE NATNE OR INDIGENOUS DROUGHT-TOLERANT SHRUBS WATERED WITH A'QUADRA-BUBBLER' DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. FINAL LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SHRUBS WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FlELD BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT; TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING R007 STRUCTURE AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING NATIVE OAKS \~ I ` / / zz'ov[ CW ~ • ® ~ aMs I~'~ ' , 4inut~' IN rt® ItY~. 7AVItiB 9iMIE6 - a~Ft' r ~ . Le LT~ GRa~Em~r C6D MNf -'G MG1. L ~aA~ ~~q ~ dOrl~ ~ n ~~ I /~~~PA~6C ~Ilh.r~ ~ +~ie ~ I GL4oB)ry83.92$n• '~ ~d,kM~.L°a~' a~N ~" DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH °..~; STONE WALL & FLAGSTONE PATIO -~~_, i~~~'~--~\ ERETAINING ®~va4K~ //'O~Lcggr~`~ [nsau; u1~aAS~ Qo• [tueaaKS Fes" ~ l"- INTERLOCKING CONC. PAVERS 'w I ~ 0/ SAND 8 AGGREGATE BASE ~ p~E 32 , STORMWATER DISSIPATOR' (REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS) ~ I;a4 ~ ~ Hy )UNIT/ FLAGSTONE ENTRY COURT ~ a PAnos 36" BOX NATIVE OAK .REPLACEMENT TREES ~. ~. ' 3' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL' FENCE W/ STONE COLUMNS, 3G Q ve ra ~i", SMC 5-HIGH AUTOMATIC ENTRY GATES W! STONE COLUMNS 9 ~~~ \ SV CW 1 DECOMPOSE GR TE r •""'~~ GARDEN PATF~W ~ G nlwc NATURAL POND. ~' 9 (~ 8 WATERFALL, \m~• ~ yJ~4wvrl ~ 27 is \x I r~~r9' LM 3 i _ 1 ~ ra)rE-,G I5 I ~\ CWK / ~ "OAK MNM<T • 9; r ~ $ ~lyf 7 I r~ ov ~ L -~ - e"`~ BAK ~~ ~\ ~ ~ t 1 THIS AREA T NAT RAL(TY .) MAIN c)r" ` it W u ~ MEADOW ~~ i r3~Ahm. ~ fi w U W Er LLN U o rd r Ow [~ ~ w I No to ,~ ~ 0 0 e ~~d ° 7i44r ~II~"` 5~ mw 'oa ~ w UO I >w~ ZYF I _SJW ~ZN . =Q EOU~ I n °~° Rv% e~r4 9bvL~i I ( BORELLI RESIDENCE 8ARATOGA CA APN 517-22-003 ZONE R1- 40,000 ~~ ~ ; u~wi~';~a. a. ud s ¢~ vlev~ Rr A t aSt a O~ Nf@ Pr>~~ ' ~ ~ a=. ~° v~ ~ te - ~ I s 1 ~ R. D~t~R1~hk'reu~la4. "~' INTERLOCKING CONC. PAVERS @ DRIVEWAY ~?~ I I?"~ \044 Zm'C7°'O iP,~r%^~ah w.wta°. ., R%M Y.. y ``" (~.5;. u d%e.'x'M°WU. T~Q~ y~~ y.,~~W P~Tno~) D 10 20 40 y ~'F~ a4 . SCALE: t" = 20' ~ H I1 • ° E ~~, cJY6rm -'... ~ '"~ ~. A S .S O C I A T E 5 r °~ : ; ~~ ~~ ~ 1oleiai°~ ^ LBndBCepeArchilecWrnlPlBrutirig ~ 1.:.. : , o ~g a " i FM w ~i~ 102 Porsian CkRC, Su@e202 $unryuBle, CAliforrGB 9408&151]' 4GB174S73Bo I a' a V n H)A*~r . ~W. 'r ~ ( e -- rn" I L0ad1 °~ A+u ~-I i '~t W+ ~w ' ~ ~I CoLanSSCgAF 9 ,1 a _.. _ I I .~ y W w c ~, ` i No. 2415 A'%'' ENTRY GATES, COLUMNS & FENCING a~ ~a s ,4 ~ OF~CAUFaW FlRE-REIMDHIT ARCHRECNFAL HEAW CEDAR UTfICE PANELS ' SiMNE ROOF 2xeFApO, I A6~WOOD ISSUES AND REN90NS KOR9EI RAILING iD MATpH f4WPOSED WOOD ~ N0. DAff OESLFAPACN axeocucoxu DEatTYR 4aTSIDESn 07.25.02 -CIJENT PRESENTATION . REDwooDDauaws I 09.18A2 CITY SUBMETTAL I 11.0&02 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Q 124A2 CRY SUBMRTAL ol•D3.d3 p4RNNhs6 BE5u2Mi1174L I -B 1 wN >o °~ ~ 23 -'~ ~ ' Q ®tES15114 ° 9~ I ~ IiwFr / .y ~ ' I v w /Br W~ TOP of taut. oBCn o aK L/ A1K \'WAL'H%1' \XM<M„ / ( ~ ~-\ i ~/ / O ~" w < w w M PROJECt NUH~R ~ ( 02331.00 G"~ ! °is IWAC /5 ~~~~"`"'"` ~ / ` ~ /~~ ~ ° + ki SO e• LA ~~ y/ ~'AiV.WT~ ~~ L ~ ASK r r ~ ° \4/ . r1 O O F r ~ W =. FRONT ELEVATON ~ GA2EB0 ~ ~ SNECI BRE / ~ _ r 4~~ ,'' ~~; \ ~ ~ / ~ -! e' s'A / ° Y~,~S ~ ~ __ 'GAZEBO DETAIL PRELIMINARYLANDSCi1PE .._ , °~ ~i ~°° f . ~ ~_ 1K A,K "" y ~ M PLAN & DETAILS r - J ~ ° ~ (4)15 GALLON je• 15' ~ u ~u ~ 'AAA' ~ SCALE I ~YE~r ~u v` / NATNECALIFORNIABUCKEYE `F I (~ wK A,~ 29 ~ a~K B'MY 1° = 2D'-0" qnB MG ~ REPLACEMENT TREES C ` ~u ri `~-~~~ e 65' $~ACK 6' HIGH BLAC~`'~'-`~`M'' REaMw~ / ~"~ ~~ (~3' IGH ~STL FENfCE) CL FENCE \\ i ~ ~ _ -. / ~ (z Y4-F8° ra~ld' 0 C~--- REPLACEMENTTREE LEGEND ~-' LANDSCAPE PLANT PALETTE AND LEGEND ABBREY, BOTANICAL NAME COlAAtON NAME SIZE ABBREV. ' BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ~.~ ~~~ -~~ HE .. ... ~ HIBI AC AESCUwS T R E E H LA SCUS SYRIACUS ROSE OF SHARON 15 GALLON LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA ENGLIBH LAVENDER 5 GALLON CIWFfkaIICA GILIFORNM BUp(EYE 75 GALLON APB ACER PALMATDM LTB LAVATERA THURINGIACA AM ACEN LIACROPHYLLUM BGI.FAF MAPLE 24'BOk "BLDODG000" RED JAPANESE MAPLE 36" BOX "BARNSLEY" _ TREE MALLOW 5 GALLON ~~ QA AUERGIS AGPoFOUA COAST LIVE OAX 98'80% CO CBRCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REOBUO 24" BOX MC MYRICA CAOFORNICA CALIFQNA WLC MYRTLE 15 GALLON CP CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYAUM WASHINGTON HAWTHORNE 36" BOX PJ PIERIS JAPONICA LILY OF THE VALLEY LFT LAGERSTROENIA PAUREI SRRUB 15 GALLON ' "TUSCARORA" CRAPE MYRTLE 36" BOX PM POLYSTICIIUM MLINITUM WESTERN SWORD FBRN 5 GALLON RXO AHODOOENORON SPECIES RHODODENDRON VAR. 15 GALLON S H R U B S AND P E R E N N I A L S RH AOSA BANESIAE LADY HANXS'EOSE 15 GALLON RO AOBMARINUS OFFICINALIS ROSEMARY 5 GALLON AEG ABELIA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' DWARF ABELIA 5 GALLON AG ABELIA GAANDIFLORA GLOSSY ABELIA 5 GALLON GRO UND COVERS CJ ' OA -CAMELLIA JAPONICA DICEBONIA ANTARCTICA JAPANESE CAMELLIA TASMANIAN TREE FERN 15 GALLON 15 GALLON CVY COPROSMA 'VERDE VISTA' FROM 1 GALLON CANS @ 30" O.C. DB DIETES BICOLOR AFRICAN IRIS 5 GALLON FC FLOWERING SEASONAL COLOR FROM 4" POTS @ MA%, 12" D.C. ' DO DAPHNE ODORA WINTER OAPNNE 15 GALLON L SOD LAWN ("MEDAILLON DWARF FESCUE OR APPROVED EQUAL) DV DIETES VEGETA FORTNIGHT LILY 5 GALLON LM S LIRIOPE MUSCARI (BIG BLUE LILY TURP) FROM 1 GAL. @ 24"O.C. ' ' HA HA HETEAOMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON HEMEROCALLIS HYBRIDS EVHAGREEN DAYLILY 15 GALLON 5 GALLON NC HV SCAEVOLA i1AWE CLUSTERS (FANFIAWERI FROM 1 GAL. @24"O.C. SANTOLINA VI9ENS IGRHEW LAVENDER COTTON) FROM 1 GAL. @36"O. C. ' RI/,SSF ARRnR I~FTATT ALL WAMC AO Ie1B WIp14 ML°aD IDO1015aAIQ 43111E MD IN19Bm qa Q K AWIRii lYE W1 Mt [ 4UalU.Im. UID U1 a90.0®rlplpp 101N1 f0®II a M AW161 SHEET NUMBER L-2 /, ~*. • • ~I~~i BORELLI RESIDENCE 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA KORTN $UNSERI HA6 EY ARCM ITECTS U 2002 ~~', 860 CALIFORNIA STREET FOURTH FLOOR 9AN FRANCISCO CA 84108 415.854.1980 ~'.: ''. RENDERING OF ELEVATION FROM STREET NOV 26, 2002 ~--- MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (2 potential cases) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Streit noted that on behalf of the Saratoga City Council he send out condolences to the family and friends of the ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, ,~ Norman Kline, Vice Mayor. Ann Waltonsmith, 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 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 5, 2003 was properly posted on January 31, 2003. Mayor Streit noted that on behalf of the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga City Council he would like to express our deep condolences to the family and friends of the astronauts of the space shuttle Columbia. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ . The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Jack Lucas, 17171 Zena Drive, -Monte Sereno, explained to the City Council that he was the newly elected Board Member for West Valley College. Mr. Lucas stated that when he ran for the Board he made a commitment that he would visit every school and city and make himself available for any comments or suggestions. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive; noted that he recently called the City to report an abandoned couch on his street and no one ever showed up nor did any-one from the City return his phone calls. Daniel Hoffinan, 19403 Vineyard Lane; thanked Vice Mayor Waltonsmith for withdrawing her support for the resolution against the war on Iraq. Mr. Hoffinan noted that if the Council should consider any resolution in regards to the war, the resolution should support the efforts of the United States. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that she is opposed to the United States taking preempted military action. . Lisa Kurasch, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, noted that she welcomes discussions of all opinions on the possible war in Iraq. Ms. Kurasch noted that this topic should be ~, discussed in an open and public forum. Ms. Kurasch noted that she is opposed to any -- preempted action taken by the United States. Sue Wingerter, 20630 Lomita Avenue, requested that the City Council agendize an open and public discussion to about sending a message to our Federal government regarding the impending military action in Iraq. Ms. Wingerter noted that she feels the citizens of Saratoga have the right to an open and public discussion. Bob Wallace, 12881 Foothill Lane, requested that the impending war in Iraq be discussed in an open and public forum Kathy Ottenberg, 12881 Foothill Lane, requested that the resolution on the war against Iraq be placed on the next agenda for discussion. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Norbert Fronczak, Parks and Recreation (PRC) Commissioner, stated that last year the PRC took on the project to examine the City's fee schedule for parks and facility rentals. Commissioner Fronczak stated that the examination was now completed and the PRC would like to submit their recommended fees to the Council for discussion during the next budget discussions. i 2 COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ~^ terested in lacin an resolution Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that she is not m p g y regarding g the war on ion the Council agendas for discussion. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the City has received many emails and phone calls on both sides of the issue. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she feels the Council did provide a forum for . discussion this evening. Councilmember Bogosian asked for support from his colleagues to place a resolution in regards to the war on Iraq on next Tuesday's agenda. Councilmember Kline thanked the citizens for coming tonight and standing up for issues they believe in. Councilmember Kline stated that it is wrong to address the debate national issues during City Council meetings. It is wrong for practical, legal and moral reasons. Councilmember Kline stated that it is impractical for the Council to debate these issues. Councilmember Kline stated that the City Council does not have the resources or mechanism to investigate and analyze the issues with the necessary due diligence that a City Council needs before voting. Councilmember Kline noted that we do not have a legal authority over this issues there is nothing in our ordinance that provides jurisdiction over this issue, we should not give our personal opinions disguised in as city resolution. Councilmember Kline stated that he does not believe that the Council has a moral right to pass such a resolutions. Councilmember Kline does not support Councilmember Bogosian's request. Mayor Streit noted that he does not support adopting a resolution taking a stand on the war on Iraq. Mayor Streit stated that he does not have a problem holding a Town Hall meeting for a debate. Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff take care of Mr. Becker's issue regarding the abandoned couch on his street. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF FINANCE COMMISSIONER Recommended action: Adopt resolution and administer Oath. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE FINANCE COMMISSION 3 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING AJAY NARIAN TO THE FINANCE COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Ajay Narain. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -NOVEMBER 6, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2002. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2-0 WITH KING AND KLINE ABSTAINING. 2B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 10, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 10, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 18, 2,002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KLINE/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. 2D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JANUARY 15, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR JANUARY 15, 2003. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSTAINING. 2E. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. • • • 4 Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that item 2E be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked for an explanation for the charges on page 13 to Scotty's Automotive. Director Cherbone explained that BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 2F. PLANNING ACTIONMINUTES -JANUARY 22, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. AMENDMENTS TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Introduce Ordinance; waive first reading; direct staff to place the matter on the Consent Calendar for February 19, 2003. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-005 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE AMENDMENTS AND RE-ADOPTION OF THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE FOR THE SARATOGA CODE Due to possible conflict of interest, Councilmember Bogosian and. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith recused themselves from the discussion of item 3 and stepped down from the dais. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan noted that the City recently adopted a new Housing Element of the General Plan. One of the "Programs" contained in the new document is Second Dwelling Units. Program 1.1 of the Housing Element calls for the City to adopt a revised set of regulations governing the development of second dwellings units on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. The Housing Element also includes Program 4.2 -Amnesty Program for Existing Second Dwelling Units. Director Sullivan explained that this past legislative session, AB-1866 was passed and the Governor signed the measure into law. In brief, this bill requires local governments to use ministerial process for approving second housing units and prohibits them from applying any development standard that would have the effect 5 of precluding and affordable housing development fro receiving a density bonus and concessions. The legislation also set the maximum allowable size of a second unit at 1,200 square feet. Also the City will not be able to require Second Dwelling Unit applications to be subjected to a Use Permit. However, Director Sullivan noted, the City can establish developmental standards that provide protection to neighborhoods as long as they do not, in and of themselves, preclude second dwelling units. The City can also develop incentives so that the second dwelling units can de deed restricted in a manner that provides that if they are rented that they will be rented to a very low or low income family unit. The proposed Ordinance amendment addresses both the new second dwelling units as well as existing second dwelling units. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, noted that she fully supported the proposed ordinance. Charles Butterfield, 1566 La Pradera Drive, stated that the language of the proposed ordinance does not provide for adequate parking, a minimum of a two- car garage should be required; this increase would help keep cars off the streets of Saratoga. Mr. Butterfield also suggested that the number of bedrooms be increased from two to three. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. In regards to Mr. Butterfield's comments regarding garages, Director Sullivan stated that the language regarding garages comes from the Housing Element, which this ordinance has to comply to. In regards to increasing the number of bedrooms, staff feels that is the best way to control the number of cars. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, WAIVE THE FIRST READING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE ITEM ON THE FEBRUARY 19, 2003 AGENDA. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND WALTONSMITH ABSTAINING. OLD BUSINESS 4. SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SERVICES AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and authorize Mayor to execute agreement. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained the significant features of the proposed agreement as follows: • Based on a fee=for-service model • Chamber will provide information concerning who to contact for services community events recreational opportunities, lodging conference facilities, schools, directions and other general information 6 • • • City will pay Chamber $10;000 per year • Term of agreement if from the date of approval through June 2007 • Distribute the City's quarterly newsletter and Recreations' class schedule ~~~ Ray Froess, Chamber of Commence stated that the Chamber and the City have worked very hard to finally come to a solution. Mr. Froess thanked the City Council. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would not be supporting this agreement. Councilmember Bogosian stated that $10,000 is a lot of money especially since the City does not know whether or not the Governor proposed budget cuts will pass. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the contract does not spell out the specific function of the Chamber nor is there any form of monitoring by the City. Councilmember Kline stated that he disagrees with Councilmember Bogosian that most service agreements do not have a lot of deliverables. Councilmember Kline noted that this contract should be reviewed every year. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. 5. SEPTIC ABATEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AND WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT CONTROLS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: :•~ Accept Report and provide direction to staff. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone presented a brief history on the adoption of the Septic Abatement Ordinance and explained that the City has several programs underway to protect water quality and develop a better understanding of the water quality problems in the City. These include ongoing testing, requiring the removal of septic systems, working with the West Valley Sanitation District to identify faulty components of the sewer systems, and public education. Director Cherbone stated that these. efforts have identified two major sources of contamination 1) a leaky sewer pipe located at the intersection of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Big basin Way that was repaired by West Valley Sanitation, and 2) a sewer lateral connection directly to the storm system located near 4~' Street, which was capped. off. Director Cherbone noted that the City Code requires properties served by septic systems and for which public sewer service is "available" to connect to the sewer system pursuant to a schedule and certain conditions set forth in the code. The City has interpreted the word "available" to mean, among other things, that the residence lays above the grade of the public sewer system so that the sewage can flow from the residence to the sewer system by gravity. This interruption has been applied only to existing residences. New homes constructed below the grade of the public sewer system generally are required to install pump systems. The 7 connection requirement was interpreted to exempt below grade homes served by septic systems because it was believed that cost of installing the storage tank, pump system, and piping necessary to convert from septic to sewer service would - beprohibitively expensive. New information indicates, however, that the costs of conversion, while substantial, do not differ from the costs of converting above grade systems. Director Cherbone explained that this is because a smaller diameter pipe can be installed at lower cost that the installation of a larger. diameter gravity pipe. Director Cherbone stated that because the City has historically interpreted the City, Code to exempt below grade, systems from the septic conversion requirements, the City Council could amend the ordinance to state that a public sewer system shall not be considered "unavailable: if it is above the grade of residence. The City records indicate that 18 homes maintaining a septic system with "below-grade" exemption. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance and if Council desires can consider it at a future meeting. In regards to sewer lateral inspection program, Director Cherbone noted that this program would allow the City to identify sewer laterals that are in poor repair and that could be leaking sewage into the groundwater and from the groundwater into the City's creeks. Because the leaks maybe slow or may be located in -areas shielded from view it is difficult to identify potential leaks and conduct the inspections necessary to enforce the Code's requirements. In addition, in many cases the sewer laterals have not been constructed in a manner that would allow testing to check for leakage. The traditional method of testing involves a water or air pressure teat in which one enc o the sewer lateral is blocked and the water level or pressure is monitored at the other end of the later to detect leakage between two points. This form of testing requires that the sewer lateral have two clean-out junctions; one at the structure on the property and another at the property line. The Plumbing Code requires most new structures to have clean out installed at the structure but does not require a clean out at the property line. Director Cherbone stated that staff currently does not have enough information thus far concerning the costs and mechanisms for implementing a sewer lateral inspection program. If Council desires, Director Cherbone noted that staff would investigate this program further and bring this information back to the Council at a later date. Consensus of the City Council directed -staff to make residents aware of the fact that there is financial aid that would help subsidize sewer hookups, educate the public on the status of the creek and bring back the ordinance for public hearing. 6. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider Gilbane Building Company's request for additional funds to cover extended staffing needs and authorize staff to amend Gilbane's contract as directed. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained the following: 8 • Change order activity Change order #5 was finalized and includes funding. for replacement of moldy wood blocking, replacement of the cantilevered rood on the northeast side of the building, and rerouting electrical conduit. • Credit from San Jose Water San Jose water required a deposit to cover expenses of their work related to the library. The final costs were less that the deposit so the y issued a check for the balance of just under $20,000 • Tele/Data Bid The bid was received and the amount was less than anticipated. • Temporary Library Sacred Heart billed the City for the work at the temporary library. • Phase I fees Attorney's fees related to the Bankruptcy have been increased in the budget to reflect a more realistic expected total. • Budget Status $14,579,376 • Gilbane Building Company's Request for Additional Funds Project Kamal Ariss has requested additional funds for staffing. He had already budgeted the project engineer to be on site through January and the project manager through February at no additional charge. However for the engineer's time in February the manager's time in March, Ariss requested additional funds of approximately $30,000. Further negotiations have occurred and now the City will not be billed for any of the engineer's time in February and will continue to provide service and support on a part-time basis through the end of the project at no cost to the City. The project manager can remain on the job at a cost of $3,200 per week for a total of $12,800. Field Paoli Field Paoli has requested an additional $504 to redesign the anchor bolts in the parking lot light fixtures that were installed incorrectly in Phase I. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that with the approval of the request to increase Gilbane's contract by $12,800 and authorize the Field Paoli change order would increase the total budget by $13,304 and bring the project total without contingency up to $14,592,680. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH GILBANE AND FIELD PAOLI APPROVE CHANGE ORDER I N THE AMOUNT OF $504; AND INCREASE THE AUTHORIZED BUDGET FOR LIBRARY EXPENSES i BY $50,000 TO $14,650,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9 NEW BUSINESS 7.. SARATOGA ROTARY EVENT -BUILDING BRIDGES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that at the December 18, 2003 City Council meeting Dr. Armstrong of the Saratoga Rotary addressed the City Council under oral communications. Mr. Armstrong informed the Council of the Rotary's plans to hold their first weeklong celebration of cultural diversity called "Building Bridges". City Clerk Boyer reported that Dr: Armstrong explained that the Rotary hopes to develop a weeklong celebration of cultural diversity in Saratoga during the week of October 18-26, 2003. Mr. Armstrong explained that the weeklong program would wrap up with a daylong event, with the help of multiple sponsors and participants, at West Valley College. Using educational programs, entertainment and food Rotary hopes to raise awareness of intercultural relationships in Saratoga and seek ideas for reducing conflicts throughout the world. City Clerk Boyer stated that Mr. Armstrong suggested that the City of Saratoga participate in this weeklong~program. Staff recently contacted Mr. Armstrong to discuss what level of participation the City should have and different options of events. City Clerk Boyer explained that staff would like to recommend the following options to the Council for discussion: • Open House at City Hall from 3:00 p.m. - S:OO p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2003 • City Hall Tours • Sheriff and Fire Department Demonstrations • Parks and Public Works Demonstrations • Mayor and/or Councilmembers could set up a "Meet and Greet" booth at the 10/26 event Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to attend the Rotary Planning meeting on February 11, 2002 and inform them of the City's participation with staff recommended activities. 8. APPOINTMENTS TO GATEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disband the Gateway Task Force; send letters of thanks to participants; appoint a new committee. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. 10 Director Sullivan explained that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution ' ~ recommending the Council adopt the Gateway Design Guidelines. The Gateway Task Force went beyond typical Design Guidelines in that regulations were being developed to implement the Design Guidelines. These "regulations" became a matter of disharmony between the business interests and the residential members of the Ad-Hoc Committee. The Planning Commission made a valiant attempt to . find middle ground. The Mixed Use ordinance, which includes Development Standards, and that Gateway Design Guidelines, became blurred to some extent. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends the following: 1. Disband the existing gateway task force that has been meeting -since the mid 1990's. 2. City send letters to all the people who participated in the original Gateway Task Force 3. Form a new smaller committee consisting of two residents, two member of the immediate commercial area, Councilmember Kline, and himself as the staff liaison. Director Sullivan noted that if an alternative would be to add a Planning Commissioner. Director Sullivan explained that the new Gateway Task Force should be specifically assigned the task of creating a true Gateway Design Guidelines document, along the lines of the Village Guidelines or the Residential Design Guidelines. The Gateway Design Guidelines would need to be consistent with our existing commercial ordinances. Councilmember Bogosian asked why a Planning Commission is not included in the new Task Force. Mayor Streit stated that the idea was to keep the group small. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that a Planning Commissioner be added to the group and requested that Council hold a study session to provide direction to the new Task Force. Director Sullivan noted that if the Council wants to add a Planning Commissioner then another Councilmember be added to keep the odd number of members. Councilmember Kline suggested that perhaps the Council could review the first draft to make sure the Task Force is on the right track. Councilmember Kline noted that she supports staff recommendations, keep it small keep it moving and bring it back to Council. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like a Planning Commissioner to the new Task Force. Consensus of the City Council to disband the old Gateway Task Force, send out thank you letters, form the new Gateway Task Force adding a Planning .Commissioner and Vice Mayor Waltonsmith. Il AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported the following information: Hakone Board -actively working on their Master Plan and fundraising efforts. Cities Association -main focus is to get VLF and RDA money back to the cities. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith had no reportable information. Councilmember King reported the following information: KSAR -recently toured the station and discussed ways to get the public more involved. Sister City - Muko Sister City representatives will be in Saratoga on February 24, 2003. Councilmember Kline reported the following information: Library JPA -discussed budget funds. Took a different route and reduced their contingency funds. League of California Cities -Rebecca Elliot is trying to put together a group to rally on the steps of the Capital. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information West Valley Sanitation -won an award at the CSA for organizational innovation. SVACA -will soon be meeting with a facilitator to discuss possible scaled down services. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that staff provide information on the recent oak tree disease to the citizens of Saratoga. Director Sullivan suggested that the information be placed on the City's website and in the Saratogan. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. 12 Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 13 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING YOUTH COMMISSION LIBRARY COMMISSON LIBRARY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 . The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session, Senior Center, 19655 Allendale Venue at 7:00 p.m. 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 Norman Kline, Stan Bogosian, . Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Kathleen King ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Lori Burns, Human Resource Analyst Joan Pisani, Recreation Director Taffy Lowrey, Teen Coordinator REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 11, 2003 was properly posted on February 7, 2003. 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 JOINT MEETING WITH YOUTH COMMISSION 1. Mayor Streit welcomed the Youth Commission. The following Commissioners were present at tonight's meeting: Ross Levine, Chair, Phillip Baker, James Ballingall, Kelly Burke, Michael Byrne, Valerie Farnum, Shruti Jayakumar, Joanna Lee, Jackie Luskey, Tami Maltiel, Andy Miller, Elise Schartz, Ted Sclavos, Conner Skelly, Deborah Wu, Taffy Lowery/Staff Liaison. Ross Levine, Chair/Youth Commission thanked the Council, for the opportunity to explain what the Youth Commission has been doing over the year. Music Festival -Commissioner Baker noted that on May 7, 2003 the Youth Commission would be sponsoring a concert featuring 10 bands. Concerts -Commissioner Ballingall noted that so far this year the Youth Commission held two concerts. The first at the Warner Hutton House and approximately 40 people attended. The second concert was held at the Community Center and over 300 people attended. Dances -Commission Schwartz noted that so far this year the Youth Commission has raised $2,500. Commissioner Schwartz stated that there were two more dances this year. Commissioner. Schwartz stated that this year a dress code has been enforced and a Deputy from the Sheriff's Department is present. Street Dance -Commissioner Burke noted that at the Chamber of Commerce Street Dance held in August the Youth Commission sold glow necklaces and made $1,090. Warner Hutton House -Commissioner Byrne stated that 40-60 students per day attend participate in the after school activities at the Warner Hutton House. Fundraising -Commissioner Farnum stated that the Youth Commission have been brainstorming on future fundraising events such as bowling alley trip, car wash, karaoke night, movie night, day camp at the Rotary Art Show, and bingo night. Annual Appeal -Commissioner Luskey noted that this year the Youth Commission brought in $6,625 in donations from the Annual Appeal. This year 68 people donated money. Girls Night -Commissioner Jayakumar stated that on March 7 & 8, 2003 the Youth Commission is sponsoring "Girls Night". The sleepover is open to 6~', 7th, and 8th grade girls. Events such as makeovers, movies and games will be offered. Restaurant Night - Tami noted that the first restaurant was Fresh Choice and the Youth Commission made $50.00. The next restaurant will be Baja Fresh. 2 New/Future Activities -Commissioner Wu reported that next year the Youth Commission would like to have a haunted house at the Warner Hutton House and hold a 9-hole golf tournament. Website -Commissioner Lee explained that the Youth Commission s website has been incorporated onto the City's website. Skate Park -Commissioner. Scalvos reported that the skate park was moved every week to a new site. Commission Scalvos reported that 131 waivers were filled out and 112 of those waivers were Saratoga residents. By the end o the summer 364 kids used the park. Unfortunately, Commission Scalvos reported that two pieces of the skate park were stolen at Redwood Middle School. Skate Park -Commissioner Miller reported a few problems with the skate park such as it takes at least 2 people to set it up and take it down and approximately 1- 2hours. Commission stated that t he Youth Commission feels that the skate park would be more of a success if it had a permanent home such as Gardner Park. Commission Miller added that the Youth Commission has had a few requests from different group to rent borrow the skate park. Recently the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department has requested to use the equipment on March 2, 2003. Commission Miller stated that the Youth Commission is seeking direction from the City Council. Consensus of the City Council to allow the Youth Commission to rent the skate park out. Mayor Streit noted that recently the City has been working with the neighbors to reopen the trail; as a result of this a neighborhood task force has been formed to look at the whole park. Perhaps the skate park could be added to their discussions. Chair Levine thanked the Youth Commission for attending tonight's joint meeting and thanked Taffy Lowery for her support. Chair Levine stated that the Youth Commission is accomplishing their goals and finding out new ways to serve the youth of Saratoga. Mayor Streit declared aten=minute break at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 2. LIBRARY COMMISSION Mayor Streit welcomed the Arts Commission. The following Commissioners were present: .Marcia Manzo/Chair, Anne Cross, Kathy Foscato, Pragti Grover, Lori Burns/ Staff Liaison Chair Manzo introduced Dolly Barnes/Head Librarian, Saratoga Library and Melinda Cervantes/new County Librarian. Dolly Barnes explained the Library's move once construction is finished: ~ 5 week process • Temporary library would stay open for the first two weeks of the move • No library services for 3 weeks • Furniture has been ordered • Moving company scheduled • Lining up community volunteers to help In regards to the temporary library use Ms. Barnes explained that the temporary library is only 6,000 square feet compared to the old library, which was 18,000 square feet. The temporary library was only stocked with less than half of the collection. Within the second or third month the temporary library had 60% use and by December over 100% use. Commissioner Cross explained that the volunteer hours have been rising and the Library is asking the community for 1000 hours to help with the move. Commissioner Cross noted that anyone who is interested in helping for a minimum of 2 hours can contact the Library or visit the City's website for more information. Mayor Streit asked when volunteers would be needed. Ms. Barnes stated that volunteers would be needed the first day of moving. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith suggested contacting the Warner Hutton House. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that 60 students are there everyday after school.. Ms. Barnes noted that she would tell the Youth Librarian to contact the House. Chair Manzo noted that recently the, goal of the Library Commission has been to educate the new members. Chair Manzo noted that the Commission has had many speakers from the County Library attend their meetings to discuss and explain various programs and budget. Chair Manzo noted that the Library Commission has taken on the responsibility to find docents who could take groups of people on tours of the new library once it opens. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith suggested aself-guiding tour with a map. Chair Manzo suggested using the architect's design and annotating it. Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian, thanked the Council for the opportunity to introduce herself as the newly appointed County Librarian. Ms Cervantes briefly explained her background noting that previously she worked. for Contra Costa County, which consisted of 23 libraries. Ms. Cervantes briefly explained that Measure A which was passed by the voters in 1995 sunsets in 2005. The County has recently set up a subcommittee to develop an RFP for a Polling Consultant and hopefully a ballot measure will be placed on the March 2004 election. 4 Ms. Cervantes noted that the County Library supports the cities efforts to keep VLF monies because the library system benefits from it too. Ms. Cervantes noted that the County Library System also receives funds from the Public library foundation. Those funds have been reduced in the current fiscal year but not currently slated to be reduced in next year. The one area she wanted to bring to the attention to the Council is Transaction Based Reimbursement (TBR) with the Governor's proposed budget this fund is zeroed out next year. This issue is the Library's greatest concern for next year. This cut would take $1.4 million dollars away form the County Library's budget. If all of the governors proposed cuts go through next year it would total $2.7 million dollars, which is 10% of their. operating budget. The JPA is considering allowing the County Library to use some reserve funds if the Governor's budget cuts go through. Mayor Streit thanked the Library Commission, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Cervantes for attending tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit declared aten-minute break at 8:10 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 3. ARTS COMMISSION Mayor Streit welcomed the Arts Commission. The following Commissioners were present at tonight's meeting: LeRoy Murray/Chair, Tracy Halgren, Mary Ann Henderson, Betty Peck, Lisa Pontier de Mattei, Mary Lou Taylor, Sylvia Wolhmut, Kim Saxton-Heinrichs/ Staff Liaison Tracy Halgren, Arts Commissioner, noted that Chair Murray was note there yet so they would start the presentation without his introduction. PUBLIC ART POLICY. Commissioner Halgren noted that the draft Public Arts Policy was in the Council's packet for tonight's meeting. Commissioner Halgren noted that the Arts Commission was seeking input from the Council. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Arts Policy was done very well. Mayor Streit concurred. Mayor Streit questioned why wouldn't the policy come into play regardless of the length of the loan of art. Commission Halgren stated that anything less than three months they would consider an exhibition, though if the Council desires they could be amended. Mayor Streit questioned page 2 in regards to public liability and financial capacity of the city. Mayor Streit asked how would the City fund the security of the art on display. 5 Commissioner Halgren noted that that security issues needs to be addressed soon. Councilmember Kline stated that he supported the proposed Arts Policy. In regards to procedures for donation s of public art, Commissioner Halgren noted that the Commission would like to know how involved does the Council want to be in dictating what items are displayed. . Councilmember Kline suggested a trip wire be established which would trigger Council involvement, perhaps based on the value of the art. Commissioner Pontier de Mattei asked if the City Attorney has to review the Arts Policy. Mayor Streit responded that the City Attorney does need to approve the Policy. Consensus of the City Council that the Policy should be incorporated into. the contract between the County Library and the City, so the City can control the art. INTRODUCTION Leroy Murray, Chair/Arts Commission, briefly recapped the background of the Arts Commission. Chair Murray noted that the Arts Commission was formed in fall of 2001. The Arts Commission is an advisory agency to the City Council. The Commission is not authorized to set policy or give direction to staff. The powers of the Arts Commission shall be to foster, encourage, and assist the realization, preservation, and advancement of the arts for the benefit of the citizens of Saratoga. Chair Murray noted the Arts Commissions significant accomplishments since the last joint meeting with the Council on September 24, 2002: • Art in the Park 0 1St annual o Wildwood Park 0 28 artist, approximately 800 people • Preschool Mural o Unveiling ceremony conducted • Mustard Walk 0 2nd Annual co-sponsored with Heritage Preservation Commission Library Re-opening o In the process of securing major art exhibit ~ City Public Art Policy o Initial draft completed Chair Murray noted that members of the Arts Commission are now represented on the Memorial Arch Committee, Library Grand Reopening Committee and the Gateway Task Force. • 6 Chair Murray noted that the Art Commission has had numerous guest speakers at their meetings such as Dolly Barnes/ Head Librarian at the Saratoga Library, April Halberstadt/ Curator for the Saratoga Museum, Dr. Don Head/Saratoga art collector, Bruce Davis/Executive Director for the Silicon Valley Arts Council and Phyllis BallingalUHPC. ART IN THE PARK Commissioner Henderson reported that the Commission held their first Art in the Park held at Wildwood Park. Commissioner Henderson stated that the biggest complaint was the lack of promotion. Commissioner Henderson noted that next year some of the local wineries could participate in the event and perhaps more entertainment. Commissioner Henderson noted that next year would be bigger and better. GATEWAY TASK FORCE Commissioner Pontier de Maffei noted that she and Chair Murray represented the Arts Commission on the Gateway Task Force. Commissioner Pontier de Mattei pointed out that they got involved just prior to the Council's approval of the Gateway Design Concept. Commissioner Pontier de Mattei stated that they did get to help draft the language that was added under the Planning and Design Objectives to "promote site design and other opportunities to encourage the display of public art". Commissioner Pontier de Maffei noted that the Arts Commission has been working with the architect, contractor and the Public Works Department on materials, landscaping and signage. Commissioner Pontier de Mattei noted that the Arts Commission would help identify the best locations for public art in or adjacent to the comdor. MUSTARD WALK Commissioner Taylor stated that this year the Arts Commission co-sponsored the 2„a Annual Mustard Walk. Commissioner Taylor stated that most of the artist were hesitant to participate this year due to the fact that last year's event was poorly attended. Commissioner Taylor noted that 8 artist finally agreed to . participate in the event. As it turned out, all of the artists enjoyed themselves so much that they promised to return next year. Commissioner Taylor stated that Approximately 800 people attended this event. PRESS KIT/PUBLICITY Commissioner Wohlmut noted that she has been working on a process to utilize the Recreation Department's activity guide, Saratogan, KSAR and the Saratoga News. 7 LIBRARY Chair Murray noted that the Arts Commission has been focusing on the Art Wall, which is on the right as you enter the Library. Chair Murray noted that the opening display would be loaned from Dr. Head a private collector in Saratoga. Chair Murray noted that the pattern format on the wall covering is not is not . keeping with a wall for hanging art. Chair Murray noted that the covering would be removed for the initial show and after the show the acoustics impact would be evaluated. The wall covering maybe reinstalled after the opening of the Library: In regards to the art for the initial show, Chair Murray explained that the. value of display could range from $100k prints to $5 million originals. Security is the biggest concern for the Arts Commission. PROMOTION OF POETRY IN THE COMMUNITY Commissioner Peck explained the various poetry readings that take place in the high schools and stated that someday she hopes the City would have an official Poet Laureate. Mayor Streit thanked the Arts Commission for attending tonight's meeting. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested a staff report in regard to possible locations for a permanent skate park. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that the Sister City Delegation would be at City Hall on February 24, 2003. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that he has been asked to sit on the panel to select a new Saratoga union School District Superintendent. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 8 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 4:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Planning Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: SEA Conference With Legal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code .Section 54956.9(c): (2 potential cases) Conference With Legal Counsel -Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government'Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Liability Claim (Gov't Code Section 54956.95 -Claimant: Jenkins, John Agency claimed against: City of Saratoga MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. 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, Kathleen King, . Norman Kline, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith; Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Cherbone, Public-Works Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Livingston, Associate Planner • • REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 5, 2003 ' Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agerida for the meeting of March 5, 2003 was properly posted on February 28,.2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Wanda M. Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, stated that she and her husband urge the Council to annex a property located in her neighborhood to the City of Saratoga. Mrs. Kownacki stated that the property adjoins a parcel located at 19288 Bainter Avenue, which is in the City of Saratoga, which in turn adjoins property owned by her family, which is also in the City of Saratoga. Mrs. Kownacki stated that two other additional properties touch the parcel. Mrs. Kownacki stated that the owners of the property have submitted plans for Building & Site, Design Review and grading permit to the County of Santa Clara on February 14, 2003. Mrs. Kownacki stated that it would be to the best interest to Saratoga if the City annexed this property. Specific concerns regarding this property are appropriateness of the design and construction to the neighborhood, potential tree removaUlack of protection, and grading of hillside land. Bert Martell, Fruitvale Avenue, pointed out the that the City has taken steps to clean Saratoga Creek by mandating residents to replace their septic tanks by hooking up to the sewer lines. Mr. Martel noted that since he first reported that West Valley Sanitation was using the southwest corner of West Valley College and Fruitvale Avenue as a so-called staging area, which was used as a dumping site for the used wet drill mud from old sewer lines, the City has done nothing to help him. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from the Los Gatos Rotary requesting that the City of Saratoga support their 26~' annual "Great Race" which will be on Apri16, 2003.. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Bogosian requested staff for an advisory letter on the possible annexation of Redberry Drive. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested a status report on Mr. Martel's issue. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION -SCIENCE FAIR WEEK MARCH 9-15, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. 2 Mayor Streit read the proclamation declaring the week of March 9--15 as "Science Fair Week". 1B. PROCLAMATION -COLON CANCER AWARENESS MONTH STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation declaring the month of March "Colon Cancer Awareness Month" and presented it to Gay Crawford of the American Cancer Society. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2. HOUSING TRUST OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY - ROCCIE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Rocci Hill, Executive Director/Housing Trust, thanked the City Council for allowing her to update the City Council on their progress. Ms. Hill presented a brief background on the Housing Trust noting that it is a public/private initiative spearheading the creation of longer, affordable housing and assisting first-time and low-income homebuyers. The Housing Trust-was founded in 1997 by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the Silicon Manufacturing Group, Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homelessness, and the Community Foundation of Silicon Valley. The mission of the Housing Trust is to serve, as a catalyst to develop specific, desperately needed housing in Santa Clara County through a creative mix of corporate and community investors. In pursuit of that mission, the Trust is dedicated to building and sustaining a revolving loan fund and grant-making program that will leverage other housing resources throughout Silicon Valley. Ms. Hill noted that after less than two years of fundraising and local involvement, the Chousing Trust brought together gifts from all sectors of Santa Clara County Community, totally an unprecedented effort of over $20 million committed to affordable housing. Ms. Hill stated that with these funds the Housing Trust promised their donors and their customers that they would leverage $200 million in home development. Within 14 months of lending, and after dispersing only $8.5 million, the Trust has already leverage over $385 million in private development, helping 1652 families. Carl Guardino, President & CEO/Silicon Manufacturing Group, thanked the Council for their support and asked the Council's permission to request the City Manager to help promote the Housing Trust in various City publications. Consensus of the City Council to allow the City Manager to promote the Housing Trust in the Saratgoan and the City's website. • • ,~ CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES -FEBRUARY 1, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 3A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian requested that on page 4 the following be added: Further management reductions in City Manager's Offices WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2003 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 19, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 3B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. . Councilmember Bogosian noted that he was not present at the meeting so he would have to recuse himself. Mayor Streit noted the same. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2003. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT ABSTAINING. 3C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/KL1NE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3D. JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2003 BUDGET FLASH REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 3B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted for the record that all positions in the City Manager's office should be looked at when it comes to cutting positions. 4 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2003 BUDGET REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3E PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 26, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. ' WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 3F. AMENDMENTS TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE - SECOND READING AND ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 218 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15-56 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS Due to real estate interests, Councilmember Bogosian and Vice Mayor Waltonsmith recused themselves and stepped down from the dais. heriel Jensen re uested that Council ull item 2F from the consent calendaz. C q p Cheriel Jensen, Quito Road, stated that she opposed to this ordinance. Councilmember King asked Director Sullivan the State already passed a bill and the City could wait until the State imposed their rules or the City can act now and create out own ordinance. Director Sullivan responded that due to the recent passage of AB-1866, requires local governments to use a ministerial process for approving second housing units and prohibits them from applying any development standard that would have the effect of precluding an affordable housing development from applying any development from receiving a density bonus and concessions. Councilmember Kline added that AB 1866 stated that City's would not be able to require second dwelling unit applications to be subjected to Use Permit. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15-56 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS. MOTION PASSED 3-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND WALTONSMITH ABSTAINING. • 3G. CLAIM OF JOHN JENHINS; CLAIM NO. GL-054463 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. John Jenkins requested that Council pull item 3G from the Consent Calendar. John Jenkins, 115 Sierra Linda, Los Gatos, noted that he was involved in a hit-and- run accident in the intersection of Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenue on December 12, 2003. Mr. Jenkins noted that every light along Saratoga Avenue was flashing except this particular one. Mr. Jenkins noted that the Deputy told him that this particular intersection has always been a problem and he should file a claim against the City. Mr. Jenkins requested that the City reconsider denying his claim. Conesus of the City Council to continue this item in Closed Session after the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. MILLS ACT PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution establishing the City's participation in the Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE MILLS ACT PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM Due to the fact she owns a historic house, Vice Mayor Waltonsmith recused herself and stepped down from the dais. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that at the joint City Council, Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on January 21, 2003 the City Council directed staff to come back to the Council with a report on the Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program. Planner Livingstone explained that the Mills Act is state sponsored legislation granting local governments the authority to enter into an agreement with individual property owners to allow reduced property tax payments for the restoration and continued maintenance of their historic property. This is an economic incentive .for property owners to preserve and maintain their buildings. 6 Planner Livingstone noted hat all homes that are on the existing Heritage Resource List would be eligible for the Mills Act Program. The Heritage Preservation - Commission (HPC) would initially screen the applications to ensure that the structure has not significantly been altered since it was placed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The HPC would then make a recommendation to the City Council based on their evaluation of the structure. The City Council would than ether approve or deny the request. If the request is approved the actual contract would be brought back to the Council on consent calendar. Staff is recommending that the Council limit the applications for five a year. . Councilmember King asked if a homeowner has to apply every year. Planner Livingstone responded no; a homeowner only has to apply once. The length of participation depends on the contract that was executed. Councilmember Kline asked if an analysis of staff time need to monitor and enforce this program been done. Planner Livingstone stated that a full analysis of costs has not been done. As far as monitoring and enforcement it is proposed that the Heritage Preservation Commission would review the homes on a yearly basis. Councilmember Kline noted from his experience in the City of Santa Clara this program takes a hug amount of staff time. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing, Norma Koepernik, Chair/ Heritage Preservation Commission, stated he recently met with the County Assessor office and he took him though an example of a home in the Mills Act Program.. Chair Koepernik noted that the homeowner could save between 25%-65% in property taxes. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing. Mayor Streit noted that he supports the proposed program, but is worried about future enforcement. Mayor Streit noted that he supports up to three applications per year. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he supports the program but would like to see staff develop a protocol on how staff will enforce the program., Councilmember Bogosian stated firmly that it is no the Heritage Preservation Commission's job to enforce the program. Councilmember Bogosian stated that staff should handle Enforcement. Councilmember Kline noted that he supports the program except he feels the number of applications should be limited up to three per year. This program is a tax break for the wealthy. Councilmember Kline stated that the City would loose revenue as a result of this program. He supports limiting the applications to three per year. 7 C. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION LIMITING; LIMIT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO THREE A YEAR; SUBJECT TO COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1. 5. REVIEW THE EXISTING CRITERIA IN THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 13-15.010 THAT IS USED TO EVALUATE A STRUCTURE'S POTENTIAL TO BE PLACED ON THE HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that at the joint City Council, Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on January 21, 2003 the City Council directed staff to come back to the Council for discussion on the existing criteria used to evaluate potential historic resources. Planner Livingstone briefly explained the current criteria listed in Heritage Preservation Chapter 13-15.010 of the City Code. r1 ~J Planner Livingstone noted that he contacted several surrounding cities and stated that that do not have criteria written in their ordinance but rely on the review of a Historic ,Consultant and their Heritage Commission. Councilmember Kline noted that Council's direction at the retreat was to come back to Council with the definition of what "historic" was. Defining what . "historic " is very political. In the City's Code the building only has to meet two out of seven criteria. Councilmember Kline noted that there is nothing wrong worth the City's ordinance it is very broad and buildings are reviewed on a case- by-case basis. Norman Koepernik, Chair/ Heritage Preservation Commission, agreed that the ordinance is fine, but the HPC needs to develop some process to help with the placement buildings on the inventory list. Chair Koepernik requested another joint meeting to further discuss this. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to set up a study session with the Heritage Preservation Commission to discuss the following issues: • Mandatory v. volunteer placement on the resource list • Definition of what is "historic" • Grant applications to hire a consultant C: OLD BUSINESS 6. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that following: • Construction Schedule The change order that will include delay days has not been finalized. Thompson Pacific submitted an unacceptable request for days that is under negation. Staff expects the completion date to move into late March/very early April for a number of reasons including delays resulting form problems associated with obtaining permanent power. • Budget Status $14,612,371- (total costs both committed and change requests) In regards to GenCon's bankruptcy, Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that one of the subcontractors settled with the Surety. Councilmember Bogosian stated that today he went on a tour of the library and it is in his opinion that if pushed, Thompson Pacific could finish the library by the end of March.- Mayor Streit requested that staff meet with Gilbane and Thompson Pacific to get a firm completion date. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for the update. 7. GATEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS PURPOSE STATEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and approve purpose of the Gateway Design Guidelines. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the Council representatives and staff met on February 12, 2003 and developed the following four purpose statements. Director Sullivan briefly described the Gateway Design Guidelines purpose as follows: • Successful Business Environment in the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Corridor • Enhance the Neighborhood quality of Life • New Commercial Projects to be Consistent with the Rural Character of Saratoga • Gateway Desigri Guidelines to be consistent with existing Saratoga Zoning Regulations Councilmember Kline noted that amended bullet point #2 and provided copies to the Council for consideration. Zoe Alameda-Broody, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that she was a property and a business owner and has participated in the Gateway Task Force since 1996. Mrs. Alameda-Broody asked why the Council has decided to start the process all over again. 9 Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated that several residents and business owners pulled out of the process because they refused to support the proposed document that, went before the Planning Commission. Al Saul -Pro ert owner 12200 Sarato a-Sunn ale Road, stated that he has been p Y g Y~' involved with the Gateway Task Force since 1996 and he supports forming a small task force. Mr. Saul noted that the new group should be consistent and the plan should benefit everyone's interests. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, noted he has lived at this address since 1967. Mr. Mallory stated that looking at the guidelines a few things stand out to him: ensure that the Gateway provides unity and consistency to create an attractive theme to the Gateway, encourage a retail destination for the local community, pedestrian friendly for future mixed housing and commercial users. The Council has changed the zoning to allow more high density in this area. Councilmember Kline explained that the Task Force is not exactly starting over. Due to the fact that several residents and business owners pulled out of the process, it proved that it was not awin-win situation. The document presented to the Planning Commission was not design guidelines. Councilmember Kline noted that a small group, more focused, would be able to sit down and hammer out Design Guidelines. In regards to the purpose statements they are general guidelines to use to direct the Task Force in the right direction. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports the purpose with the amendment proposed by Councilmember Kline. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO APPROVE PURPOSE OF THE GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH THE ADDED AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT #2. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 8. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA CODE - RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING SITES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-015 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA CODE - RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING SITES Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that one of the areas that continue to create complaints from all Saratoga neighborhoods is the unsightliness of construction sites. This was discussed at the recent City Council retreat. 10 Director Sullivan explained that if Council adopts the recommended resolution it would set the process in gear to develop a remedy to the situation. It is envisioned that the ordinance amendment will require that construction sites be fenced with opaque material. The ordinance would also require that all equipment, material, portable toilets and trash dumpsters be maintained within the confines of the project. Director Sullivan noted that the Grace San Felippo project located at 18460 Sobey Road is an example of what a construction project should look like. Director Sullivan stated that this proposed amendment to the Building Code portion of the Saratoga City Code; the Planning Commission is not required to conduct a separate public hearing and adopt a resolution making a recommendation to the City Council. Councilmember Bogosian requested that. exceptions be added in regards to sightlines. KING/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND ARTICLE 16 OF THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING EXCEPTIONS TO SIGHTLINES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK SAFETY NET EXTENSION -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract; authorize City Manager to execute contract; authorize staff to execute change orders. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that Congress Springs Park currently has a safety net structure between the park and the freeway to act as a barrier for wayward baseballs and other flying objects. The net system was erected in 1994, and is approximately 1320 feet in length, with heights of 35 and,45 feet. Director Cherbone explained that last year, as part of the park rehabilitation, a section of the safety net was raised 10 feet to provide better protection from balls hit from the new Pony League field, .While this work was being done, inspection of the existing net material revealed extensive deterioration, the effectiveness of the safety net will become progressively compromised as time goes on. Director Cherbone stated that the work proposed in this-report would add extension netting and replace existing netting material to afford protection along the full length of the park. Director Cherbone noted that sealed bids for the Congress Springs Safety Net Extension Project were opened on February 25~'. Unfortunately the City did-not receive and bids on the project. It was found that very few companies perform this type of highly specialized work. Staff mailed bid packages to approximately 5 companies and 10 Bid Exchanges. 11 • Director Cherbone noted that only one plan holder showed interest in the project, and staff made apost-bid inquiry with this firm. Director Cherbone noted that because the City had gone through a formal bid process as specified by the Public Contract Code and received no bids; staff was able to solicit bids informally. Staff solicited the sole interested company, Ace Golf Netting, whose proposal was $43,724. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. NORTH CAMPUS FENCE PROJECT -AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract; authorize City Manager to execute contract; authorize staff to execute change orders. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that sealed bids for the north Campus Fence Project were opened on February 25, 2003. A total of three contractors submitted bids. Central Fence Company submitted the lowest bid of $61,600.00, which was significantly above the project estimate of $25,000.00. Realizing that .the lowest bid was well above the total funding amount available for the project, City staff negotiated with Central Fence Company to lower the bid to $29,725.00. This was accomplished by opting to leave the fencing that is in good condition on the east property, providing disposal services, and specifying an equally durable but less labor-intensive fence design. Director Cherbone noted that the scope of work includes furnishing all material, equipment, and labor to erect wood fencing along portions of the North Campus perimeter. WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 11: SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY LEASE AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide final direction to staff on lease terms to be negotiated Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that library services in Saratoga are provided under a lease agreement between the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara Library. The City owns the building while the Library provides the material, furniture and personnel. The most recent lease was set tot termite in 12 2003 with the ability for 30-year renewal in 10-year increments at the Library's request. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that with the expansion and renovation of the Saratoga Library, either a new lease or a lease renewal is needed to reflect the building changes and update the remaining terms and conditions. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that significant deletion's from the old lease include language about land, acquisition, design process and construction, bond issuance and repayment terms, and termination resulting from failure to secure financing. The new lease carries forward many of the dame terms and conditions of the old and significant provisions follow: • Use of Premises • Alterations, additions and maintenance • -Taxes and Utilities • Liability and Insurance • Termination Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that tonight staff was asking Council for direction on specific terms and conditions for the new lease: • Term length • Cafe Operator • Exterior building maintenance • Digital HVAC system assistance (not an issue at the present time - Library- staff satisfies with equipment) • City Council use of Community Room • Art Wall Surface • City of Saratoga Art Policy Consensus of the City Council to provide the following direction to staff in regards to the Library Lease- agreement: • Term length -10 years • Cafe Operator -Friends of The Saratoga Library. Approach the Friends on allocating funds to help defray maintenance costs for library and Book-Go- Round. • Exterior building maintenance -City maintain exterior. County, not just budget but implement a sinking fund to with $5,000 per year with inflation clause. • City Council use of Community Room -City set use policy related to the community room and get first priority. • Art Wall Surface -City control use and materials. used; staff to gather cost estimates for prep work. • City of Saratoga Art Policy - must be incorporate into lease agreement. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for her report. 13 COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Ma or Streit re orted that followin information: Y p g Finance Commission -starting to work on the City's budget. Heritage Preservation Commission -Mustard Walk was a huge success. Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reported that following information: Arts Commission -finishing the Public Arts Policy Councilmember King reported the following information: Public Safety Commission -working on the Blue Hills Traffic Safety Plan. Held the first meeting with neighbors and parents. Councilmember Kline had nothing to report. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: Librar~pansion Committee -process of preparing a list of items that Village Green Neighborhood Task Force- soliciting comments from the neighbors regarding the second survey. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that staff provide Councilmember King with a footstool. Vie Mayor Waltonsmith. announced the Cities Association annual Bocce Ball Tournament will be on June 12, 2003. Councilmember King requested that the Book-Go-Round be analyze in regards to future expenses it may need. Councilmember Kline added that he thinks all City buildings controlled by other groups be looked at and find a way top fund them for maintenance cost- perhaps the user groups should pay for the maintenance. Councilmember King reported that t a car's windshield was shattered under the Quito Road over pass due to a rock that was thrown over the bridge. Councilmember King asked if staff could look at the bridge to make sure it was high enough so this doesn't' happen again. City Manager Anderson noted that he would direct staff to do so. Councilmember Kline requested that Council guidelines be developed in regards to policies and procedures for running and efficient meeting. • 14 OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned the open meeting at 9:30 p.m. and noted that Council would return to Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room. There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 10:30 p.m. and announced that the claim filed by John Jenkins GL-054463 would be paid. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • • 15 Page 1 of 1 Steve Prosser From: CADOJ mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:38 PM To: Steve Prosser Subject: Applicant Processing - CADOJ (.BIL03031416100171:591691.) Detail Billing Report for SARATOGA, CITY OF ATTN: FINANCE DEPARTMENT FRUITVALE AVENUE SAN JOSE CA 95070 Billing Code: 140208 Billing Period: O1-Feb-2003 to 28-Feb-2003 Name DAVEY, KIMBERLY L MOSES LEWIS, CHERI STOUT, ADAM L TORREZ, REBECCA L WRIGHT, MARK A FP Date SOC Client ID Total Fees LSID 02-26-2003 564-69-7353 $32 966 02-04-2003 284-68-6939 MP02 099 $32 966 OZ-18-2003 561-87-9564 MP03 103 $32 966 02-28-2003 622-03-8153 $32 966 02-14-2003 545-19-6429 REC $32 966 Generated: 3/14/03 4:03:41 PM End of Report • 3/17/03 • • •