Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-12-2003 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter ABSENT: Commissioners Nagpal ~ Schallop STAFF: Planners Oosterhous Est Livingstone, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 2003. (Approved 4-0-1, Barry Abstained) 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 Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 6, 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@sarato ag ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03- 151; Aneighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." The motion at the October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Barry absent). Therefore, this item is placed on the agenda for a deciding vote to either support the appeal, or deny the appeal and approve Administrative Design Review Application #03-151. (LATH VASUDEVAN) (APPEAL DENIED 5-0) APPLICATION #03-211 (503-69-030) -CURRY (Appellant), CONSTANTINO (Applicant) - 21851 Via Regina; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. The motion made at the October 8, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Uhl w absent); therefore, this item has been placed on the consent agenda for a deciding vote to either approve or deny the appeal. (CHRISTY OosTERxovs) (APPEAL DENIED 5-0) 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 #03-184, (393-18-010) Appeal of Administrative Decision; SAADAT (Appellant), Hamid Saadat, property owner 19681 Junipero Way, has filed an appeal of an administrative decision which requires the following: replacement trees, a cash payment, and tree removal costs for a neighbor's tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant's actions. The administrative decision was made after the appellant caused severe root damage to several trees. (CHRISTY OosTERxous) (APPEAL DENIED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION # 03-100 (397-19-027) - CILKER, 15143 Alondra Lane; -Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. UoxN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 4-1, HUNTER OPPOSED) 5. APPLICATION #02-182 (389-14-037) DORCICH ORCHARD SUBDIVISION, 13089 Quito Road; -Request for Planning Commission approval of a revised plan for a six lot subdivision of the 1.97 acre property located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The R-1, 10,000 zoned parcel would be subdivided into lots ranging from 11,118 square feet to 13,371 square feet. The six lots would take access from the proposed private cul-de-sac. The existing historic farmhouse would be restored and moved onto Lot 4, which is at the end of the cul-de-sac. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 6. APPLICATION #03-233 (C-N ZONE BOUNDED BY LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment; City of Saratoga. The Saratoga Zoning Regulations expressly prohibit drive through windows in all commercial zones. The City Council has determined that there is sufficient reason to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and report back their findings regarding the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue. (Totvl SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the meeting on November 26 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Monday, November 10, 2003 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER I2, 2003 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-100 - CILKER Item 4 15143 Alondra Lane 2. Application #03-184 - SAADAT Item 3 19681 Junipero Way 3. Application #03-233 - CITY OF SARATOGA Item 6 Lawrence Expressway ~sz Prospect Avenue SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit 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 on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION . AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 6, 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). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~sarato$a.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03- 151; Aneighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." The motion at the October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Barry absent). Therefore, this item is placed on the agenda for a deciding vote to either support the appeal, or deny the appeal and approve Administrative, Design Review Application #03-151. (LATA VASUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #03-211 (503-69-030) -CURRY (Appellant), CONSTANTINO (Applicant) - 21851 Via Regina; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to _~ remove two Eucalyptus trees. The two Eucalyptus trees are approximately 3 feet and 11 feet in circumference. They are located at the periphery of the property. The motion made at the October 8, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Uhl absent); therefore, this item has been placed on the consent agenda for a deciding vote to either approve or deny the appeal. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 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 #03-184, (393-18-010) Appeal of Administrative Decision; SAADAT (Appellant), Hamid Saadat, property -owner 19681 Junipero Way, has filed an appeal of an administrative decision which requires the following: replacement trees, a cash payment, and tree removal costs for a neighbor's tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant's actions. The administrative decision was made after the appellant caused severe root damage to several trees. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION # 03-100 (397-19-027) - CILKER, 15143 Alondra Lane; -Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 5. APPLICATION #02-182 (389-14-037) DORCICH ORCHARD SUBDIVISION, 13089 Quito Road; -Request for Planning Commission approval of a revised plan for a six lot subdivision of the 1.97 acre property located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The R-1, 10,000 zoned parcel would be subdivided into lots ranging from 11,118 square feet to 13,371 square feet. The six- lots would take access from the proposed private cul-de-sac. The existing historic farmhouse would be restored and moved onto Lot 4, which is at the end of the cul-de-sac. (ANN WELSH) 6. APPLICATION #03-233 (C-N ZONE .BOUNDED BY LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE) Zoning Ordinance Amendment; City of Saratoga. The Saratoga Zoning Regulations expressly prohibit drive through windows in all commercial zones. The City Council has determined that there is sufficient reason to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and report back their findings regarding the creation of an Overlay Zone that would allow drive through facilities in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue. (TOM SULLIVAN) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the meeting on November 26 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, December 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us C~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION O q~~ DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 8, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 2003, were adopted with one correction to page 8. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) 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 October 16, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #03-164 (510-06-013) SIDDIQI, 19102 Austin Way: Request for design review approval to construct a 5,476 square foot one-story residence. The maximum height of the proposed one-story residence is 23 feet. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 and the lot size is 47,045 square feet. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOiJS) Commissioner Garakani advised the Commission that he would have to recuse himself from consideration of this item as he resides within the 500-foot notification distance from this property. He left the dais to sit in the audience. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a one story single-family residence with a maximum height of 23 feet and a total square footage of 5,500 square feet. Materials include oatmeal colored stucco and shingle roof tile. The zoning is R-1-40,000. • Explained that the property has double frontage and access from both Austin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Advised that a fence with solid gate will be included along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, located behind the existing bushes. Existing landscaping will screen this house from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The entrance on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road will primarily be a service entrance. • Added that a wrought iron fence and gate are proposed on the Austin Way frontage. • Informed that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this project and staff has incorporated their recommendations into the Conditions of Approval. One request of the HPB was to maintain the existing retaining wall as is and to incorporate low-growing bushes along this existing wall so as not to obscure it from view. Additionally, this project must not disturb the brick road on Austin Way. • Said that the applicant is flexible enough to meet these HPB recommendations. • Stated that there is no Tree Removal Permit sought at this time. However, four Olive trees will be significantly damaged and will likely need to be replaced. Required replacement trees would have to be of a native species. • Pointed out two corrections to the staff report. One is to clarify that the proposed residential frontage is on Austin Way. The other is that the roof color is agray/brown shingle. Commissioner Schallop asked staff for the basis of the HPC jurisdiction. Director Tom Sullivan replied the issue is that the property fronts on Austin Way, a heritage lane. Additionally, there is interest in the existing stone wall located behind the right-of-way. Chair Hunter asked how much of the wall will need to be taken out for the driveway. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 15 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the maximum allowable impervious surface area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 3 Director Tom Sullivan replied that the maximum allowed is 35 percent while the proposed amount is 23 percent. Commissioner Schallop asked what distinguishes a driveway from a service road. What are the controls, basis or exceptions that would permit a service road. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this reflects a Design Review process and that the Commission could condition the removal of the service entrance gate following completion of construction. Commissioner Schallop asked if this is often done. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are not often properties with double frontages such as this one. Each applicant must be looked at on its own merits. Commissioner Nagpal asked why maintenance of the wall was seen as significant to the HPB. Director Tom Sullivan advised that what Associate Planner John Livingstone reported back to him is that the HPB thought that this wall looked as if it could be historic. Chair Hunter advised that she also attended that particular HPB meeting and the HPB did feel that it looked historical. They wanted plantings to be low so that this wall could be seen. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi, Applicant/Property Owner, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Planning Commission for visiting his property. • Said that he is new to Saratoga, having lived in Los Gatos for the last 20 years with his wife and two daughters, ages 10 and 14: • Said that he is pleased to be in Saratoga, a picturesque community. • Assured that he takes the responsibility of living on a Heritage Lane very seriously and that he is building afamily-oriented home that is focused on privacy and being unobtrusive to his neighbors. • Explained that the large setbacks will help blend this home into the neighborhood. ~ Stated that he has spoken with his immediate neighbors and those across the street. • Said that he asked his architect to design a home that avoids appearing massive but rather to blend into the environment of this neighborhood. • Noted that the City staff has been very kind. • Said that the rear entrance (off Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) is not a regular entrance but rather a service entrance, of value for a couple of reasons. Having a service entrance will allow delivery vehicles to avoid using Austin Way. However, his family will access the property from the main Austin Way entrance. • Added that two other nearby neighbors also have such a service entrance. Commissioner Schallop asked if there are plans for a driveway from the service entrance. . Mr. Azmat Siddigi pointed out that there is no parking permitted on Austin Way and that he is looking for the flexibility of off-street parking for their guests. Reiterated his sincere belief in heritage preservation, such as the brick road on Austin Way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 4 Chair Hunter pointed out that the existing house currently faces Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and asked for • the reasons behind changing the orientation of the new house toward Austin Way. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi explained that they wish to take advantage of the view of the hills that. will be gained by facing the house to Austin Way. He added that Saratoga-Los Gatos Road was not safe enough for regular access to this site. Commissioner Nagpal raised the fact that Mr. Azmat Siddiqi has expressed concern about the colored tiles on the wall in front that is proposed by the HPC to be preserved. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi expressed appreciation for the efforts and interest of the HPC but assured that this is not a 100-year-old wall. In fact, it is not very old at all. He added that there are some color tiles included on the wall that are not to his taste. However, if the HPC wants this wall to be maintained, he is willing to comply with their request. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the original plan depicts a stucco wall. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi replied yes. He said that his home designer said that the existing wall would not match the architecture of the new house. He reiterated that whatever the decision, he would respect and abide by it. Thanked the Commission for its time. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hunter expressed hope for a compromise on the wall, adding that the HPC was concerned about • using a stucco wall with a brick top. Advised that she cannot support a stucco wall with a brick cap. Commissioner Schallop asked how tall is this wall. Chair Hunter replied three feet high. She stated how proud she is that Austin Way is now designated as a Heritage Lane. Commissioner Nagpal: • Commended Mr. Azmat Siddiqi on his wonderful job working with his neighbors. • Said that this is a great design. • Expressed that she has no concerns with the service entrance from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road as it will take heavy truck traffic off of Austin Way. • Suggested that the applicant be given the opportunity not to have bathroom the on their exterior wall. Chair Hunter agreed and suggested that a good stonemason could handle and/or fix that problem. Commissioner Zutshi asked what materials are proposed for the service drive. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi: • Said that he has consulted with a couple of landscape designers and that they are anticipating some sort of gravel and widely spaced interlocking stones. • -Added that they done want too much pervious coverage but have not yet made a final decision. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 5 • Assured that they would-not use asphalt. Chair Hunter asked about the main driveway. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi replied that they are proposing concrete to withstand daily traffic with evenly spaced decorarive brick strips. Commissioner Zutshi asked if pavers were considered for the main driveway. Mr. Azmat Siddigi said that they were considered but found to be beyond their budget. Commissioner Schallop asked about the gate from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi said that it would be a solid gate. Chair Hunter pointed out that some of the existing bushes would need to be removed to accommodate a gate. Expressed the importance of this scenic highway and said that she hopes this gate will be blended into the landscaping. Mr. Azmat Siddigi agreed with these standards and assured that this .gate .would blend in with the hedges. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this could be stipulated. • Added that this is a critical area of Saratoga and supported a solid wood gate with bushes around it. • Said that this looks like a great project. • Agreed that Mr. Siddiqi did a good job working with his neighbors. Chair Hunter said that this is a lovely home and wished Mr. Azmat Siddigi good luck. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted a design review approval (Application. #-03-164) to allow a new one-story single-family residence on property located at 19102 Austin Way, with the following Conditions of Approval: • The driveway from the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road service entrance shall be gravel with widely spaced stone pavers; • The gate from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be a solid wooden gate that opens inside the property; • Allow the applicant to remove and replace the color tiles currently included on the existing retaining wall while maintaining the character of said wall and working with staff on materials for the wall, excluding the use of stucco, by the follo AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: ABSTAIN: wing roll call vote: Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi None Barry Garakani Chair Hunter reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period for this action. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Garakani returned to the dais following the conclusion of Item No. 1 in order to participate in the rest of the meeting. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-221 (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant) MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant) 20305 Sea u~ 11 Way_A~peal of Administrative Design Review Application #03-151: A neighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition. on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant requested design review approval for a second floor addition, less than 14 feet in height, to include three dormer windows located on the front facade. The total square footage is 3,527 square feet. • Said that a Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed to neighbors on September 9th. Mr. and Mrs. Frazier, who reside on Knollwood Drive, appealed as they feel the additions are significant and would result in a huge home.. They are against the trend of huge homes and feel that this home as proposed will make them feel closed in. • Stated that staff finds the additions and modifications to this home to be tastefully designed. • Advised that the applicant's offer to place trees was turned down by the appellants. • Added that another letter was received on September 27th expressing concerns over impacts on privacy and views. • Said that the applicant had a mock structure installed to demonstrate the lack of impact on views. • Said that on October 14th another letter was received raising privacy concerns as a result of two existing windows. In response, the applicant has revised these windows to two smaller fixed and obscured windows and added two skylights to provide the required natural lighting. • Pointed out that there are already two-story homes in the area -and that this proposal does not significantly add to the bulk and height of this home. • Said that staff finds this project will significantly improve the existing home and keep it compatible with the neighborhood. • Recommended denial of the appeal. • Reminded that the decision of the Planning Commission on this appeal is final. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that no landscape plan was provided. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied because this is a remodel. However, she added that she is asking for a landscaping and irrigation plan. Commissioner Uhl asked if conditions can be added for landscaping. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 7 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the existing and proposed setbacks. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the left side is six feet, eight inches. The right side has a portion that intrudes in the required seven foot, four inch setback. Commissioner Garakani asked when the neighbors were notified of these plans. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied the Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed on. September 9`h. The review period ended September 23ra Commissioner Garakani asked when staff received the plans and whether neighbors are notified when the plans are first received. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the procedure is to have staff review plans prior to notifying neighbors. Commissioner Uhl expressed concern that the only neighbor comments were negative ones with no positive support. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the process is different for an administrative hearing than a public hearing. Applicants are encouraged to contact their neighbors. However, this applicant was more • comfortable with the written notice by the City to the neighbors. Chair Hunter pointed out that many people feel that very large homes are being constructed on small properties. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Code allows floor area based upon lot size. The project is below the maximum FAR. She added that a significant amount of square footage within the existing structure. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this home would go from 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet while the letter incorrectly states that the original structure was only 1,300 square feet. Chair Hunter asked if the Fraziers refused additional landscape screening. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied she believes so. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the Fraziers are out of the country. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff was unaware of that fact. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that staff did not receive any notice that the Fraziers were out of the country. Director Tom Sullivan added that there are Code requirements that set the time frame by which appeals must be heard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 8 Chair Hunter said that the letter submitted by the Fraziers would have to represent, their position on this matter. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mark Mikl, Applicant, 12694 Largemont Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed that this home was originally a two bedroom, one bath home of about 1,000 square feet and constructed in the 1950s. In the 1960s, a second story of about 700 square feet was added. • Advised that six children were raised here. • Said that this is a solid workable structure that was well built and well situated on the lot. • Stated that with a facade facelift and asingle-story addition at the back of the house, they will create a more livable house with a total of five bedrooms and two and a half baths and a total of 3,100 square feet of living space. This will be a cute little rancher. • Said that he has great respect for the past character of this neighborhood. • Explained that this is a deep pie-shaped lot and the rear setback will be 43 feet while 25 feet is required. • Said he spoke with the Fraziers, who are nice people, but that Mrs. Frazier does not like the way their neighborhood is changing. Her objection is not necessarily to this one house but rather to the impression that what is being built these days represents "McMansions," leaving Mrs. Frazier feeling crowded in. • Advised that he spoke about planting trees on the back fence line however the Fraziers have a pool near the back property and trees would shade their pool area so they didn't want trees planted there. • Said that two letters were received from neighbors and as a result he revised his plan to address the issue of the windows. He added that he offered to plant trees to one side neighbor but they did not support the idea. • Stated that he had planned to simply maintain the existing landscaping and assured that this addition would be a great and balanced improvement to the neighborhood. • Asked the Commission to approve his project. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Mark Mikl about his decision to rely on the City's mailing of notices to neighbors instead of approaching them personally to discuss his project. Asked why that was his choice. Mr. Mark Mikl: • Replied that he thought it would be awkward to solicit support personally, as they might feel that they are giving up rights by supporting his project. • Said that he had thought this proposal would stand on its merits and therefore decided to rely on the City's noticing process. • Added that there was no problem until the last day of the review period. • Said that with their appeal, the Fraziers simply want to make a statement of their concern that their neighborhood is changing. Commissioner Garakani said that the intent of the Fraziers seems to be a desire change that trend starting with this project. Mr. Mark Mikl said that Mrs. Frazier does not like the stucco Mediterranean style house typically found in South San Jose. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 9 Chair Hunter agreed that it is hard for people to see their neighborhood change. Commissioner Uhl: • Expressed concern that there is no proposed landscape plan. • Said that it appears that this is just an attempt to make money with no concern -for the neighborhood and that does not sit well with him. • Added that this is not a neighborhood project. Mr. Mark Mikl: • Disagreed and said that he was raised in the Brookview neighborhood and now lives on Largemont. • Said that in its current condition, this is not a livable structure. • Assured that he will maintain the feel of the neighborhood and the home will have a nice kitchen and family room. • Agreed that he will also "try to make a dollar" with this project. • Added that he could actually see his family living in this home as their current home on Largemont is in a noisier neighborhood due to its proximity to the freeway. • Assured that this will be a great project. Chair Hunter pointed out that the dormers will make the front of the house more attractive and that many aspects of this project are quite attractive. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Mr. Mark Mikl is open to providing screening on the right side. Mr. Mark Mikl reported that those neighbors, the Dings, didn't want additional landscaping. The Fraziers did not want to shade their poolside area. Added that he has no problem putting in trees. Mr. Gi Wu, 20320 Knollwood Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition. • Said the main reason he selected his neighborhood was for is single-story pattern. • Stated that this project would violate the privacy of neighbors on the side and rear. • Added that there is no reason an addition cannot totally be single-story. • Urged disapproval. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this house is already two stories. Mr. Gi Wu said that the second floor was only used as attic space. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Gi Wu if his home is similar in style. Mr. Gi Wu replied that his home has a flatter roof and no windows for the attic space. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Gi Wu how he would feel about having additional trees planted. • Mr. Gi Wu said that there is a compatibility issue that planting trees does not solve. Added that he has no problems with asingle-story addition to this home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Uhl pointed. out that the roofline does not change and that no additional height is being added. Chair Hunter pointed out that there would be an additiona193 square feet on the second floor as a result of the three new dormers. Planner Lata Vasudevan reminded that this space is at the front of the house. Commissioner Uhl said that from Mr. Gi Wu's residence, this would not be visible. Mr. Gi Wu reiterated that the second story was not previously occupied: Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the County Tax Assessor considers this to be an existing two-story home. Mr. P.J. Ding, 20297 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address his concerns. • Said that he is an immediate neighbor to this project and has a major concern about privacy impacts as activity on the second floor will significantly increase from previous uses. • Added that the architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood, which is a predominately one- story neighborhood. • Said that he had tried to do a two-story addition himself and was unable to do so. • Asked the Commission to consider all concerns. • Expressed concern about the administrative procedure.. • Said that his wife tried to leave a letter with the Planning staff and that they were not made aware of the appeal process available. Thankfully, the Fraziers did know of this right and did appeal. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. P.J. Ding if he is okay with the replacement windows. Mr. P.J. Ding said that he is okay with the obscured windows. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if the only big windows on the second floor are located on the front elevation. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. She added that there would also be skylights. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. P.J. Ding if his concerns to the plans have been responded to. Mr. P.J. Ding replied yes but that he still has some disagreement with this project. Commissioner Garakani asked if one concern is that if there had been no appeal filed, he would have had no chance to speak up. Mr. P.J. Ding said that this is a concern. Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding if he constructed his house a couple of years ago. • Mr. P.J. Ding replied correct. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 ~ Page 11 Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding what process he went through. Mr. P.J. Ding replied that a public hearing was held where lots of concern was raised against his proposed two-story home. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this hearing was before the Planning Commission or staff. Mr. P.J. Ding replied the Planning Commission. Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding how he would feel about having trees along the .side property line. Mr. P.J. Ding said he would be okay with smaller trees. He would- be concerned if larger trees were planted with the potential that they could fall over on the structure. Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that effective October 3rd, the Design Review Sections of the Code have been improved. Commissioner Garakani asked if such a project such as this one would still be approved through an administrative hearing if there were no objections. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes but added that objections can either be worked out or the project could be appealed. Ms. Jennifer Yu, 20315 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Advised that she went to the City to complain about this project but was unaware of the appeal deadline. • Said that she did not realize that this was atwo-story home but rather a home with an attic. • Said that as a two-story residence, it would generate more activity on the second floor. • Pointed out that the original owner had four children and not six as mentioned by the applicant. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that this is clearly atwo-story home and how it was used previously is not an issue. • Said that windows in the front do not interfere with views or privacy. • Pointed out that not one neighbor offered screening trees has said that they would be appeased by the addition of trees. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated her agreement. • Said that she did not see these windows affecting the neighbors. • Agreed that the second story already exists. • Said that a maximum utilization of this site is a bit of a concern. • Pointed out that there are no privacy impacts. Commissioner Uhl: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 12 • -Said that this applicant is trying to maximize the allowable square footage for the purpose of sale. • Added that the neighbors have a clear concern against two-story homes in this neighborhood. • Expressed his full support for this appeal. • Said that there is a lot of room on this property. • Stated that he does not like the way this proposal went through the review process. • Suggested that the applicant take another shot at developing something more in context with the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani: • Echoed the comments of Commissioner Uhl. • Said that this should result in a win-win situation for everyone and that the wishes of the neighborhood should be considered. • -Pointed out that the neighbors are not happy. • .Agreed that he too does not like this process and supports the appeal. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that the process did not work for some of the neighbors but that for the future this process has changed. • Stated that she too is not in favor of "McMansions." • Added that this particular design on this property is appropriate with most of the square footage inside of an already two-story structure, which results in no impacts on views. • Said that the same character is maintained. • Stated that this property owner also needs to be given the ability to make improvements. • Supported denial of this appeal. Chair Hunter: • Stated that this house is already atwo-story and that she does not find an impact. • Agreed that it is hard for neighbors to see change. • Said her opinion would be different if this project were adding a completely new two-story element. • Added that this will be a completely different house with this remodel. • Supported denial of the appeal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Administrative Design Review approval to allow an addition to an existing home located at 20305 Seagull Way, with the added condition that the landscape plan be reviewed with neighbor feedback and input, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Hunter, Nagpal and Schallop ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None This resulted in a tie vote. Upon consultation with staff, it was determined that the appropriate follow up action is to bring this vote back to the full seven-member Commission as a Consent Calendar Item to break this tie vote. Commissioner Barry will be asked to watch the meeting tape prior to the next meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 13 • PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 *** APPLICATION #03-159 (503-27-029) ESTAHBANATY, 14250 Elva Avenue: Request for- design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. (LATH VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the demolition of a single- story home and the construction of a 2,876 square foot two-story Mediterranean style residence. Building materials will include stucco and gray roof. • Described Elva Avenue as a mixture of both one and two-story homes as well as many architectural styles. Many of the new homes in the area are of a Mediterranean design. • .Informed that the applicant has showed his plans to the neighbors and they have indicated their support. No letters of concern were received about this project. • Said that staff is recommending the planting of screening trees at the back of this property. • Added that there are six trees on the property. One (#3) is on a neighboring property growing at an angle onto this property. Two trees (#2, which is a palm, and #4, which is a cedar) will be removed and require replacement. • Stated that staff finds this project meets requirements and recommends approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked how tall the entry feature is. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the fascia is 15 feet high. Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification on what that means. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied the projection of the roof where the gutter is located. Chair Hunter asked if the 7,000 square foot parcel with a 2,900 square foot home is within allowable standards. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes, according to Municipal Code. Director Tom Sullivan added that the project is four square feet from maximum allowable. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty, Applicant/Owner, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for making a site visit and staff for their work on this project. • Advised that he has followed the requirements of the City and that he and his neighbors are excited about this project. There have been no objections raised by his neighbors. His son and daughter are . excited too. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty if he has strong feelings -about the height of the entryway feature. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty replied no although it is the same as what neighbors have been allowed. Chair Hunter asked about the two specimen sized trees requiring removal. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty said that one is actually on a neighbor's property growing sideways. Commissioner Schallop: ~ Said that this is aone-story home within a few feet of maximum allowable square footage. • Said that the only difference between this and the previous one is that no neighbors are raising concerns. ~ Suggested that it is important to apply the same analysis and critique in order to be consistent. • Added that he has no major concerns about this proposal. Chair Hunter said that having neighbors coming out in opposition makes a difference. When they care enough to attend a public hearing, it should be taken into account. Commissioner Schallop said that the end result should be consistent. Commissioner Uhl said that he completely disagrees with Commissioner Schallop. This project has five to six neighbors in support and the architecture is compatible with its neighborhood. This applicant will live in this home. Commissioner Schallop said that it is dangerous to take into account whether an applicant plans to live in a home they are constructing. Commissioner Uhl stated that this is a great project. Commissioner Garakani agreed, saying that he objected to the last project as it was not awin-win situation. On the other hand, this project has lots of neighbor support and the neighborhood will benefit. Thanked the applicant for supplying a landscape plan. Commissioner Nagpal said that reducing the entry may not actually be a good idea. Said that she likes the design although she is concerned about the size of the house for its lot size. However, she is inclined to support this proposal. Chair Hunter said that while she would like to see the entry feature lowered, she is fine with this project. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the neighbor to the north has any objection to the windows proposed. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty replied no. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission approved Application #03-159 granting Design Review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 15 Approval to allow the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new . residence on property located at 14250 Elva Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-215 (393-26-040) INGLE 19817 Braemar Drive: The applicant has filed an appeal from an administrative decision denying approval of a newly constructed retaining wall located within the front yard of the above-noted property. The 55-foot long concrete block wall ranges from 26 inches to 75 inches in height across the front of the property, which is located in the R-1-10,000 district. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is appealing an administrative denial for a newly constructed retaining wall, built without necessary permits. This wall is within City right-of-way, two feet from the back of curb. • Said that a complaint was received. • Informed that the owner had been told to apply for permits. • Said that the result of the administrative review was to require that this wall be lowered to a permitted height of three feet. The wall currently ranges from two to six and a half feet in height. It is constructed on a property with 10 percent slope. • Advised that there may be a basis to support this retaining wall height if a Variance is sought. • Recommended denial. of this appeal and that the applicant be required to reduce the wall to three feet in height. Chair Hunter asked if there is a punishment or fine for constructing this wall without permits. Commissioner Garakani suggested that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City red tagged the project. The fact that the contractor improperly constructed this wall without necessary permits is a civil matter between the property owner and his contractor. Commissioner Schallop asked if this property owner can still come back with a Variance application if this appeal is denied. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Ingle, Property Owner and Applicant, 19817 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that he is proud to be a citizen of this country where he is allowed to express his opinion. • Expressed agreement on the importance of discussing projects with neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 16 • Stated that he spoke with his neighbors over the last two and a half years about the construction on his property. • Said that since the Stop Work Order was issued on his property, he has spoken with neighbors and that they were surprised by the issuance of a Stop Work Order for his property. • .Said that he has written support from his neighbors. • Said that there is a natural grade on his property of 10 percent and 15 percent from the road to his house. This lot could be considered a hillside lot. • Said that the base of the house and the top of the retaining wall are at the same level and that this wall holds land/dirt in place. • Agreed that he was in ignorance of the need to get a permit to put in this wall as he had thought that he was simply reconstructing the existing wooden fence. • Assured that he wants to comply with Ordinance requirements as they are what makes this country great. • -Said that he understands the need for rules and that these rules work in most cases. However, in this case topography issues offer a reason to support the need for this wall as built. There is a problem with the slope that needs to be solved. His front yard is not safe and they need a wall to protect his four and six-year old children. • Advised that they plan to plan ivy and vines on the wall. • Thanked the Commission for listening to his position and for their site visit. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Mr. Ingle's .immediate neighbor did an outstanding job with his retaining wall. Mr. Ingle pointed out that their slope is smaller. . Commissioner Zutshi asked why Mr. Ingle is not applying for a Variance. Mr. Ingle said that this is a new process for him and that he will do whatever is necessary to achieve compliance. Commissioner Zutshi said that the wall looks bad right now: She added that while she understands Mr. Ingle's need for a retaining wall, Code does not allow it as it is currently constructed. Mr. Ingle reiterated that he does not yet know all of the steps required. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the original plan depicted a stepped down or terraced approach and it appears Mr. Ingle was told by his contractor that it would be too expensive. This wall was to replace the previous wood plank wall. Mr. Ingle agreed that the price quoted for the wall as depicted on the original plan was higher than what was ultimately installed. Chair Hunter advised that Code requirements limit front yard walls to three feet in height.: She added that the Ingle children could actually hurt themselves if they were to fall from the house side of the wall to the ground below. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 17 Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Ingle what his objection is to the requirements of the Planning Department. Mr. Ingle said that the restrictions don't comply with the needs of his property. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the wall be brought back. Mr. Ingle suggested that once the greenery is growing on the wall, the wall will fit right in. Commissioner Garakani questioned who would maintain the ivy when it overgrows onto the street. Mr. Ingle replied that he would see to it that the ivy does not grow into the street and added that there are many different kinds of ivy available. Ms. Susan Speedy, 19833 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she lives right next door and is okay with this wall. • Added that once it is covered with ivy, it will look good. • Stated that it is an improvement over what was there before. Mr. Jonathan Ing, 19834 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that the wall is a good thing to have as it protects the street from dirt and mud. Once landscaped, it will be good looking and will be okay. • Said it is not fair the amount of sleepless nights this issue has caused his neighbor, Mr. Ingle. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if a com Taint was received. P Planner Ann Welsh replied that an anonymous complaint was received. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Nagpal asked if replacing like with like would require a permit. Planner Ann Welsh replied that any retaining wall requires a permit. Up to fifty percent of a non- conforming wall can be replaced. Any more than that and a new permit is required. Removing and replacing a wood retaining wall with concrete requires review and approval: Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the physical location of the wall has changed also. Commissioner Schallop sought clarification that the issue of a Variance is not before the Commission this evening. If the appeal is denied, the applicant can apply for a Variance and it would be brought back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Uhl asked why the issue of a Variance was not brought forward tonight. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the filing fee for a Variance is $1,500 and comes with no guarantee of approval. The Administrative Review fee is $150. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 18 Chair Hunter: • Stated- that she is sorry that this has happened to Mr. Ingle but that something, approved by the Commission represents a precedent. • Said that the City has Codes and rules for front yards to prevent people from walling in their properties. • Added that this wall was installed without permits and represents an open and shut case. Unfortunately, in this instance too many things went wrong. • Said that the Commission has to think about the rest of the City. If not, .everyone will simply ask for forgiveness. Commissioner Garakani reminded that a Variance is an option. Chair Hunter agreed that seeking a Variance is possible. Commissioner Uhl asked what is wrong with bringing the wall down to the allowed three-foot height. Commissioner Garakani said that they would have to go with two offset walls. Commissioner Uhl said that there are alternatives that are very workable and that the Commission cannot set precedent here. Chair Hunter added that the only time higher walls are allowed is when a property is located on a major thoroughfare.. • Commissioner Nagpal: • Said the issue is not the appearance of this wall but rather the need to not set precedent with this wall. • Added that it is great to see the neighbor support. • Recommended denial of the appeal and that the applicant either comply with the three foot height or seek a Variance for a higher wall. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for a two stepped, three-foot wall. Mr. Ingle: • Said it is necessary to allow exceptions to general regulations. • Pointed out that this is a new procedure to him. • Said that the Commission should consider specific needs of each property. Commissioner Garakani explained, to Mr. Ingle that the Variance process is the means for considering exceptions to Code requirements. The Commission must go by its laws. Commissioner Uhl said that Mr. Ingle can apply for a Variance. Chair Hunter reminded that since he would have to pay the $1,500 filing fee for a Variance application, he might be better served in spending that money to make his wall conform. She added that the . contractor should have known that permits were required for this wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 19 • Commissioner Uhl said that while Mr. Ingle can apply for a Variance, it is a risky proposition as Variances are tough to obtain. It is simply another procedure available. Chair Hunter suggested that Mr. Ingle speak with his contractor. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission denied an Appeal (Application #03-215) and upheld the administrative denial of a retaining wall that exceeds the maximum allowed height of three feet, on property located at 19817 Braemar Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Commission Training: Director Tom Sullivan advised that plans are underway to schedule Commissioner Training. Two potential dates are Monday, December 8`h, or Tuesday, December 9`h, at 5 p.m. He asked the Commissioners to respond to him on their availability for these dates. Topics will include issues such as the Brown Act and Open Meeting Act requirements, etc. COMMISSION ITEMS Oak Trees in Distress: Chair Hunter asked staff what can be done about a couple of 300-year-old Oak trees that appear to be in distress. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City Arborist has been directed to look into the matter and offer suggestions on what might be done to save these trees. Heritage Lane -Austin Way: Commissioner Garakani questioned why Item #1 was sent to the Heritage Preservation Commission when one of the Conditions for establishing Austin Way as a Heritage Lane was that no additional requirements would be imposed on property owners as a result of said designation as long as they don't touch the brick roadway. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this matter be discussed further another time. He added that even if there is no direct cause to send something to HPC, they are offered the opportunity to review any project and offer recommendations if there is perceived to be some issue of an historic nature. COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on September 17, ,2003. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 20 ;, Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners / FROM: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Assistant Planner LY DATE: November 12, 2003 RE: CONSENT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA: APPLICATION #03-221, (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03-151 ENCL: Letter from property owner of 20305 Seagull Way, Mark Mikl The motion at the October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Application #03-221 resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Barry absent). Therefore, this item is placed on the agenda for a revote to either support the appeal, or deny the appeal and approve Administrative Design Review Application #03-151. Also at the October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission voted 6-0-1 to require the owner of 20305 Seagull Way to work with the neighbors on a landscape plan prior to issuance of Ciry permits. If the appeal is denied, then Application #03-151 will be approved with the added condition regarding the landscape plan. Attached to this memorandum is a letter from the property owner, Mark Mild for your review. • ooooo~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~~ '' NOU G Q 2003 To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Mark Mikl C, ~ `' G~ ~ARATOGA Date: November 3, 2003 Re: 20305 Seagull Way, Application # 03-151 Dear Commissioners Respectfully, I ask that in the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting that the Commission open up for discussion and consider your approval of my application and denial of the appeal: Below is a summary of matters as it relates to this project that I would ask you to consider: 1) This is my first application before the Commission. After the last Planning Commission meeting I much better understand the importance to the Commission of neighborhood support. Prior to the October 22, 2003 meeting, I had opportunities to discuss with various neighbors the remodel plan, and those neighbors were very supportive of the plan. Since our last meeting I formalize the surrounding neighbors support for the project and have included l O letters in support of the project for your review. Attached please find a Neighbor Survey, I believe it is a great summary and shows the neighbors strong support for the remodel project. 2) The remodeled house will be a representative of the original character of the neighborhood with a modern touch. 3) Adjacent neighbor concerns I believe have been addressed with revisions to the existing side windows (smaller, fixed, obscured). A) My neighbor, Ms. Eu, on the left side of my property, and Mr. Ding, on the right side of the property, both stated in their public comment that they were happy with the side window solution. Both had issues with the second story becoming more active. As we know per the public record the house is a two-story house. The house was very quiet over the last few years as it was basically only lived in by a widow, but please remember it is my understanding this family raised four children and the two bedrooms upstairs were heavily used in the 70's and into the 80's. I was given incorrect information for the real estate agent who I bought the house from, he told me six children were raised in the house but per neighbors it was four children. B) The neighbor, Mr. Woo, behind the property to the right, stated he had privacy concerns but it was determined that no second windows would be seen or would infringe on his privacy. The single story addition is less than 14 feet in height and is approximately 43 feet from the rear property line, much more than the 25 required feet. It was interesting that he did not desire any screening. 0~~~®~ . 4) The house size in appropriate for the following reasons: A) The footprint of the house doesn't feel like a 3,111 (w/o garage) sq. ft. house since the existing second story of approximately 700 is what I would call "tucked" into the existing structure; the height of the existing two story structure is only 19 feet. Also as the Commissioners observed in their site visit, that the addition to the back of the house is in balance with the existing house and in relation to the lot. The first story addition doesn't just ramble through the back yard of the lot. B) Mr. Ding's single story construction of two or three years ago I believe is 3513 sq. ft (w/o garage). Being a newly constructed single story house it has a much larger footprint and seriously rambles across the property and is closer to the rear property line than in our proposed project. C) The two neighbors who share the rear property line, Frazier (appellant) and Liu, have houses at more than 2500 sq. ft. and I believe have a larger footprint on a slightly smaller lot than is my property. I am sorry that a landscape plan was not submitted and did not mean any disrespect by it. My plan was to maintain the existing landscaping: I am more than willing to plant trees or other screening plants and I shared this desire with adjacent neighbors prior to the last meeting. To date, I haven't had, any neighbor's state, this is something they wanted, but ! as you have already approved in the last meeting, 6-0, as it relates to this project, I will be very happy with my adjacent neighbors to come up with good landscape plan all working together. I respectively ask that you take these items into consideration and please approve what I believe will be a great house for the neighborhood and for the City of Saratoga. Sincerely, Mark J. Mikl 12694 Larchmont Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Home 408 257 5741 Work 650 849 1614 • ~OU~®3 NOV. 4.2003 10.35AM ESSEX PROPERTY .TRUST N0. 4884 P. 2 • To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Mark Mild Date: November 4, 2003 Re: 20305 Seagull Way, Application # 03-151 Dear Commissioners Unfortunately I have been scheduled to be on the east coast for business on the day of the November 12, 2003 planning commission meeting and I can't do anything-about rescheduling this trip. Senior exeeutivcs of the company that I work for are requiring me to go on this trip. My wife Rachel Mild and my architecddesigner Lorraine Riess will be at the meeting if you have any questions regarding our project. My memo to the Commission dated November 3, 2003, really covers all the points that I wish to make but if anything comes up from the time you received this package to the date of the meeting, one of them may request to address the Commission with any additional information. Again I am very sorry that 1 will not be able to personally be there for this important meeting but aan confident that my wife Rachel and designer Lorraine will be able to answer any questions that you might have. ~' rely, Mark J. Mikl 12694 Larchmont Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Home 408 257 5741 Work 650 849 1614 • ~®~~~4 Neighbor Surve~20305 Seagull Way ~ M]M ~ v3n~'z8 PM Property Address: 20305 Seagull Way Applicant: Mark Mikl Applicantion #: 03-151 Date: 11/3/2003 I, Mazk Mikl, visited neighbors on Seagull Way, four houses to the left (to Ted Ct.) and five house to the right on both sides of the street Below is a summary of my visits House # Last Parcel number on Sea ull Name Comments North Side of street 386-52-016 20255 n/a visited twice no answer 386-52-017 20269 Fatjo supports remodel project, has lived in this house 52 yrs., letter attached 386-52-018 20283 n/a unable to contact, per neighbor currently on extended trip to Hong Kong, this house is a newer lazge two story 386-52-019 20297 Ding likes second story side window fix; doesn't like that Applicant's existing second story becoming more active, Ding house is newly constructed 3513 sq ft single story 386-52-020 20305 Mikl APPLICANT 386-52-021 20315 Eu likes second story side window fix; doesn't like Applicant's existing second story becoming more active 386-52-022 20325 Perry supports remodel project, has lived in this house 53 yrs., letter attached 386-52-023 20339 Lin supports remodel project, new to the neighorhood, letter attached 386-52-024 20353 Liu supports remodel project, house was remodeled a few years ago, letter attached 386-52-025 20367 n/a unable to contact, house under remodel South side of street 386-52-040 20268 Obz supports remodel project, letter attached 386-52-039 20282 Miller supports project but "doesn't sign things", no letter attached 386-52-038 20296 Doi supports remodel project, has lived in neighborhood for many years, across the street from Applicant, letter attached 386-52-037 20310 n/a numerous attempts to contact, unable 386-52-036 20324 Meng supports remodel project, letter attached 386-52-035 -20338 n/a contacted right as leaving for trip out of town, didn't have time to discuss 386-52-034 20393 Zorka White supports remodel project, letter attached 386-53-006 20380 Guo supports remodel project, letter attached 386-53-005 20394 Savata .supports remodel project, letter attached Two houses which share rear property line with Applicant House # on Knollwood 386-30-014 20308 Frazier Appellant, dcesn't want to feel crowded in, doesn't like "McMansions" Applicant maintaining chazacter of house, single story addition still 43 feet from reaz property line. Appellants 2507 sq ft, 5 bedroom, 3 bath house has comparable foot print to Applicant's 3,111 proposed sq. ft. remodel due to approx. 700 sq ft of the existing second story "tucked in" to house with existing roof height at approx. 19 ft. of my existing two story structure 30-029 20288 Liu Privacy concerns, though rightfully determined by Planning Commission in October 22nd meeting no aspects of second story would n' f' cause privacy concems, single story addition to back of house no greater than 14 ft. in height and still 43 feet from rear property line. ~. Liu's 2512 sq ft 5 bedroom, 3 bath house has comparable foot print to Applicant's 3,111 proposed sq. ft. remodel due to approx. 700 sq ft of the r~ existing second story "tucked in" to house with existing roof height at approx. 19 ft. of my existing two story structure r To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, Am the resident of the property at: o ~ <~ q Sew G~~ v I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, ~ ~~ ~C~ ~U D 3 - • I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel- plan. Sincerely, ._~~ • ~~~~®~ To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, Am the resident of the property at: y ~,~ /2 ~ i o ~~9 i?t'S~ I~~~w ~ I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, ~c ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: i 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the. Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, i~ ~~~®~"7 To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, ~ee l a>1 ~ ~ v~ Am the resident of the property at: 2c~33~ ~er~ ~u L ~ ~ ~a~~ U ~ v I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, D ~~ ,~~ I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) .Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, • •i • ~~~®®~ To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, Am the resident of the property at: _ I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark MiJkl on, ~~/02/~ 3 I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, fia--. ®~~~~ ,. ~~ To: The City of Saratoga Planning. Commission I, ~, ~ ~ ~ Am the resident of the property. at: ,. I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, . /~_ 3~- 03 I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, ~i. (/~ ~i ®~o~~ • 1 r To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, Am the resident of the property at: I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission. should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, 0 ~~~~ i~ ~~~®~.~ To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission ~. I, Am the resident of the property at: I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, ~o % 3 I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1 Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely, ~ • ~®'~~~.~ To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commissie I, 12~i~2J2~ ~~ . ~_._.; Am the resident of the p:.r ~<<y at: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.r-~C~-~. I have reviewed the propose; re.~ cdel plans rer %0305 Seagull Way and have also visited the nroper:::~ with Marlc Mikl on, ~ 1 ~ r- ~ U 3 _I .~_._. I believe that the house with the proposed rei.~odei plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Le a great ~~presentative of the past character of the neighborhood with an undated look: y 3) Fit nicely in the nei~~:corl;~~~ and also :n relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighi~ors surrounding the property. 1 believe the Planning Commission should approve , its -e--- _-~~' _ ~w;;. Sincerely, ;1 ®~~~~ ., To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, L Ir --5 ~ ~ w~i Am the resident of the property at: 2o3gv s~~Gu1~ way I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, ~o _3~ _o~ • I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) .Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. Sincerely,. •i ~ ~~~~5.4 To: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission I, ., Am the resident of the property at: V ,. I have reviewed the proposed remodel plans for 20305 Seagull Way and have also visited the property with Mark Mikl on, d~ ~ ~ l C~ ~ l/ a ~ zd~.~ I believe that the house with the proposed remodel plans will: 1) Be a house that I think will be a great addition to the neighborhood. 2) Be a great representative of the past character of the neighborhood with an updated look. 3) Fit nicely in the neighborhood and also in relation to the lot size. 4) Addresses the concerns of the neighbors surrounding the property. I believe the Planning Commission should approve this remodel plan. ~~~~~~ OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA CO T CALIFORNIA B O O K P A G E `~ 3 86 52 CONRILED IN CO^'~aM• ••.^p N/i45F.C.32'7 ~~~~ . E! :.:., .~,~.~ :_. .. . ALFIiEJ E. CAF.LS'vN - A3Z:::wJB ~~g 45 TRACT N= 5088 ---_ --. ' _ ~' -'- 163.29 113 'b 132A7 ~ . . •~• ~ -•- •-- I TS A.99 I 13At 73.M 6.70 J Id.fT 163 ~ ~ 1 / 4 ~ 6 ~ 7 j 6 ; 9 ; Ip 67 ~ 66 ~ 65 I' 64 ~/ 6II ~ 2 /+ ; 3 ~~J ~ ~' ~ V$ ~! Ig i i I 1 u' ~ PY ~I / el ~0 'y (ti9 ,:,`, usos-_--q_L i v'~ ns I 1 I °' rl of .I ~/ ~ __ R ---- --- r 2B I ~7 1 26 I 25 I ~ ~ ~ -I ~ 1 ~ - 1 ~ L / 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I f / •,/ ;bIL ~ 27~I 4~ d'i ~ ~ I I i I I I ~ r ~ ~2 / ~ ~~ I ~ ~~ ,' W ~.. 1 1 I , I I I toroS f / , ~ '1 I ~ 7s I n Ts 73 7a. ~s 7 a4el i ~ Qj / . h ~6 PCL. C g ~ 1.. = 100 o~os oaaa r fJ row to u roast tout :oa/s ---~• o, / ~R SEAGULLLE HOMESITES UNIT 1 • N= 787 AZULE HOMES/jE. ~ / r, i hre ~ ?/ ~'J s4 Gaa6n std 8 - ~J6a33- ~ __r~____ toast sWtL ra6/o ~'/T ° ~ / i ~ a - 6z.so -n.a>a n.d 7211 s..>. +or~ `~ a i ~6 eo. ~ ` 6 $ 3 ~•• ~ r ?ate / Q n s d ^ $ 4 , O y~ w 36 / ; 3b/ r a , ~ ~ ~ ~~ / /e~ .a T / / b dr 4,~` / ~ 1 ~~ .{ 3-- uz3 r 20 N.~`~r ~l@ ~ i A '00 / ~~ ~>> ^ ~ \ `~~ ~ 27 I c6 ~ 23 ~ `r`te /@ ~e° ``~~ / ~' 'Qy~0~,2 oaf ~° 6 y, ~ ` ~` i r,Jl i ,~ ~ ~ ~ti /moo, `F; 1 , 1 .Y' ~ jQ ~2 ,i., / J ~ ~' ~ ~. 'FP .~', v /v Q OR ~4 ~~6A3 'i 23 ` ~~~ -~~ , Q ~ Kq -~~, ,~~ ~ fy ~ ~ti vti / Q W O ~ ~ O J 60 ~~ of `~`y ~Q=p r~ Q - - 53 w Z' 1 3 1 a I 6 I `~ ' ~~ ZI g° ~ 1~ i I t ~ ~ n I i i 1 ~~ Ili BK ~ 163b-----~" 3/ 1 '~ ~ '-dl ©' 366 3 ------ {- ~ i 1 '~ O ~'1~ i 1 i i ~$ " '~ z ~ I I 1 ~ w us TS ' n I Ts 1 is I Q roiaJ ~ roan rout ~' ~ SEAGULL - - WAY (~ ~ TR. N= IB4 AZULE HOMESITES UNIT 1 i ! • ~~ y: ITEM 2 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner DATE: November 12, 2003 RE: CONSENT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA: APPLICATION #03-211(503- 69-030) -CURRY (Appellant), CONSTANTINO (Applicant) - 21851 Via Regina; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to issue a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Eucalyptus trees. The motion at the October 8, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Application #03-211 (a tree removal permit for two Eucalyptus trees) resulted in a tie vote of 3-3-1 (Commissioner Uhl absent); therefore, this item has been placed on the consent agenda for a deciding vote to either approve or deny the appeal. • ~r C•. k~ I. i / / .~ t01E: PRIOR f0 FOJNDATON INSPELTOIN BY THE CITY, THE RLE OR LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A YLRITTEN LERTIfILATION TIAT ALL EUILDIN6 SEI3ALK5 ARE PER PPPROYED PLVLS. '^r ,o ~ /~O ``~ `w' ~nl 4, ~~u PROJECT INFORMATION: I ZONIN6~ R-I-40,000 A P.N + I 897-19-021 L07 512E 40,'719 SF. L93 ACRES) PlAOR AREA: HBUSE= 4531 5F. POOL HOUSE= 480 5F. 6ARA6E= 900 SF. BASEMENT= I,I00 5F.(NOT INLL. A5 FLOOR AREN I 5,912 5F. MAK. FLOOR AREA= 6p20 5F. 7 5,9'72 SF. : OK- LOT CgVERA6E: DRIVEWAY= 3biO 5F. ENRTY FDRLH= 170 5F. REAR PORCN= 330 SF. REAR VERANDA= 300 SF. (EJ POOL= 650 5F. POOL HARDSLAPE= 090 5F. U6HiMF•LLS= IBO SF. ' PAVED;VlALKS= 169 5F. 8,"139 5F. + 5,972 BP= 12,'111 SF. MAX. LDi COVERABE= 35%(LOT SIZE) .3X40,'89)= 14¢SIb3 5F. i 12,'171 SF.:-0K AVERAGE 517E SLOPE. 0.39% 1 PRO.£LT DEF.GRIPTION~ M) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONTOUR LENGTHS CW(d+i LENGTH LF. tm 155 T1 ms ~eo+e tw sss~s tm isaea tot im.4o mi +at.re too xozr nga+EG',iE COxTaaLENCix= +,aseas~ e= ODZmtNLI s= ooa5itii team =aax AREA: I °°L ~. I i i i ~I I, {' i, I~ N~EX. __ -- 5HEET': DESCRIPTION: GS SITE PLAW ROOF PLAN A-I I GROUND LEVEL PLAN A-2 BASEMENT PLAN A-3 ELEVATIONS A-4 ELEVATIONS A-5 SECTIONS L-I LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 ( PLAN71N6 PLAN G-i ~ DRAINAGE PLAN G-2 I GRADING SPEGIFIGATIONS ER-I i ER0510N CONTROL PLAN 1 ~ U ~ N ~ ° O 1 ~ . V L 6 Q Q ° u Q ° I z III IWI W ~Q LQ I° w K I- 0 Z "~w ~ wYZ wOp u~g W~~ ~ Q ~J o~z U W~° Q'~Q ~ - ~ 3°5v fY y WQ:~ z~r Q N T.P. ~_~~ V.L. --tlAlE H/1/03 -SCE t1~- 2002-03 CS _~ • i GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ~TM SCALE: I/8"=1'-0' ~ ftEVI$ION9 BY _-~ I__ _~ __~__ _--_-- 1 N U ~ n Q 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ '~ N Q Y 4 a 0 z W III F 'IWI W JQ ;Q 0 w o Z ~~w v wyZ COQ u~g z U ~- ~ w~~ -~Q °~z U W~° 6 tt~a V~~ i°~e ~ y wLY~ z~~ 4 N oRnwN T.P. -CFECxE6- V.L. 4/14/03 1/8"=I'-O" ~a~ua- 2002-03 ~- A-1 ~~ • ~- ~i I , r~ I II L___ r----~~ i i i i L____~ BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 118"=1'~0" , I ~ II I I II I II I I } li I I I I Ir_____________~ I I I I I ----~ I I ~ ,I ~I ~ I I i I ~, i I i I I ~ I v J ~ I I r------i ~i. i ~----------___________J i ' i i -------- ~' -------, REVISIONS: BY ___._~_ ~-_ _-_-~ ,___T_ I Q iN U ~ ry Q 0 ~ , O ~ ~ '~ Q N Q u Q a Q J X til F W JQ ,< I° w ~~ o z u~W ~O- WyZ W d u~g - ~ J zU ~ w~~ 4 wS~° ''\\ ~- Q~Sz2U C Q V ~ ~°~~ ~ Wa,~ z~~ Q n ~ T P. I I V.L. 4/14/03 iE-- ~/8"=I~_0~~ ~H I 2002-03 '-- I I I A-2 ' 1 I ,~ I I ~ ~ I I i I - I I I I ~~ ____ I ~ I r- I i I i FRONT ELEVATION r1 U REAR ELEVATION • fsourt+) scn Le. lie~•II'-o' NOTE: SEE SECTIONS SHT (NORTH) SLALE~ 1/8'=1'-0 A-5 FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS RENSIONS' BY ~_ -~ Q , N U ~ ry ~ 0 0 ~. v '6 q V K Q a 0 z w I~I f IWI WI .IQ ~Q IO K w rc ~~ o z ~~w ~O- ~~g W a W~~ ~~< o~Z r w~~ ~ Kea ~~~ ~°~v IK ~ W ~ N z ~ ~ Q N DRANN T.P. V.L. 4/14/03 S U8"= I'-0" 'J66N0-- 2002-03 -"~HEET'- A-3 R16HT SIDE ELEVATION I• (EAST) 9GALE: I10'•I'-O' NOTE: SEE SECTIOINS SHT. A-5 FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS REVISIONS: I BY __ _- i -!-_ Q I If1 U ~ N ~ 0 0 ~ ~ F 16 Q V d J z w III IWI W JQ ,Q I° W o Z `~w ~ wYZ ~Od ~~g z[) ~~~ w~~ Q W ~ Q * ~ V r<~Q ~~~ ~°~~ a ~ w ~ ~ zg~ Q n o wN T.P. --- V.L. 4/14/03 -~b6A6-- 2002-03 A-4 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ~ (ri EST) ~~ SECTION A-A racmwr.tza¢_.._..., J. 200 ~. .. .`.: 194 I I NOTE: BENCHMARK LOCATION PER SHT. ER-1 REVISIONS: BY ~- Q I N U ~ ry ~ 0 ~ ~ V F I Q Q Y a Q a 0 Z w IIC~II ~ IW W ~Q ,Q ~I ° W ~~ o Z "~w ~ o~g wOa w~~ ~~Q °~z U r Wir° 6 ~~a ~~~ i°~a R ~ z5~~ 4~n urcawrv T.P. --"THECR€6'~- V.L. aar~-- a/14/03 3~a~- ~-'-- 2002-03 ---s`NEEr- A-5 i ~ ~ `~~~/ / \ ~ ~~~ /~ \ / / ~ ~A'TPT(A1Ep1\ I~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~I C ~ ~R ~ 2~/, I ~ ~ 23e'.. ~ ~ ,~/ ~ t w a1°0~~ ~ ~ I \~® ~~ ~ ` /~, 1 \ I ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ / O b ~ /' , T~cE / ~ I//~~/ O // \ \ _ _ ~ / / I~,~ • / ' ~ '- \ \ }b'~OM ~, 1 ~ ~F- \ / ` / i~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ _ ~ ,~, ~ '1, ~\ ~~~~ ~ ,(q~@ ~. ~ „~~ ® ~W131m q. `~i ~~ 0 • ~, 55, I ~~~ s J~ ,, 11 69"PM.~LUhP LAYN ArF.A . sso w,n ~~ Q~ EX18TMi F'CtlL ~~ / P~~ o~ ~ , ~ I ®'i O ~ Nppoa~,~~r , I 3'p ~~-~ ~ ~~~ ~ ? ~' 8p0 ~ \~-= ~-- 1kW i / // ^^~,~ \ \ y /~ /// /lam// ~/ ~-+= \' ~ ~\ \' \\ \ \ ~ /~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r 1 /`__~ \ \ i ,~F~ ~~ V ~ ,~ A ~ ,, ~~ R m,o" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I l I i I ,y,~` ~ ' ` ~ , I /; I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~, I o / ~~ ~ I ~ GOLDWBT PATV~WT I \ / I I I ~A~A.nm.q~ly , ~ ~\,~~/ ~/ I '.I iI i~ PJY EQIIFMEItf 'K' I AFEA • 930 pA. ~/ ~ JI r i ~ °~ / ~. // IP FpIiT~ l I O I 0 V I III ~°® ~ - .____ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I _ / i ~~ ~ /~,~ I~ ~ A ~ ! , / y a 11 / iI ~` / \ AFEA . Be0 ~qM1 ~ I ~ / .W I//I I ~ I a ~ A(&A .990 ~qFt. ~~a-- ~ ~~ i / u+>:a. t:o .qn off, ~ I ; ; XI, ~.~~ ^~~~ ~~ s 0 o ~ I AiEA .930 p.h. I / ~ ~ --Y ff61D - /\. ' 1 j 1 vE Ex. iFEE © ~ i ~~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ - , ~ .- -_ ~ o ~ r 1 I~: \ ~ V ~ I ~-~ ' I 1 ~pE vE EX TaEE \ ~_/ i ~ ~_ \. ~~. _,~ / ~ \ \ t b LO / ~ \ Wq~~~` y ~ //~n ~~. ; ~ ~ ~ . 1 0 / ~ \ ~ ~ \ \ ' ~D" LGg1R I o°OOy ~~ ~~ /tip ~\ ~~~// O ~ ~ ISO ~i~.~- ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~'~ NOpD23,~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ \ \ ,\ I I,; \ \ ` / \/ 1 ~; I ~® ~ ~ I ~ -~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~r~ ~ I u~ ~ ~ I I i I ~` '` ~, I I~ ~~ -_ ~ I ~~~ ~ Iv ~, ~,, ~,~ ~ ~ Il ~ I ~,~ ~ ., O~f ~k~ O , ~ I 1 ~~-U 1I' BR ~\ I I v ~ I r ~ ~ , ~~I i I ~~ 11 /I I / II II ~ I r I I36°8vD I r ~Q'' I l' i I ~r PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN ~' eUdE: 10'. I'-0' l ~ << ~~,.~ i ® ~ ~ > ; ~ ~~T ~ '~ - ~ ~ Po F! DD ~~~°2 ~ ' ~ \ Po _ ~ OD N OI i ~ ~ ~ DD ^V / ~ \ _~_ ~ \ / I I tlCUCFlR ~ CID(-~ ~ ~ RNt DD i8 '~ ~O ~ ~ ' ,, ~O / 76" ~ \ ~ ~ ~~i`-'~ W f~ z N \~(; ~ ~ ~\~I\~ \ ~/ e/ / / ~ ~LRYPTGfl'cRl ~~, ~ / ~/ ~% / ' \ ®/ / E ~' / RcM ~ // ~--- / / ~ ~ E i r i ~ ~ ~ ~~ D ' POD E\ MAT ID-) ~~ / ` Z~~~a ~E E plo ~ ~ ~ ~1~T OA ORR FB A\y~~ DATI I ~ ~ -, N~ DA '41f AO ~ ' GD-4 ~ IQ R! l '^ ~ N bRtS+ E / \\ / E E D t LDR Hti /~//// DA ~ DA E % -y e uA Frci ~ / 0" TREE / GRR-T AH~1 //~N/%~~ i DD ~, , NJ - W / . 0 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ul ~°"~D~ VI ~, ~~ `\ ~ ~ N LI ~ ~ ~~ ~ -' ^ II ~~~ ]~ R o \ V£ Ex. TREE N /f0" l / -! \ ~ Lv y i j ~ -. N Vi ~T ID-9 \ \ \ \ Yf l? \ \ \ ~~ ~ N ~-- i ~iT vv v ~ \ i i, ~ ~ ~ to-e yr I Itt PI N\ ~ ` V F8 .I V ' ~~ ~ ~ Irt ~ I~ ~ t ~ oo . I I / i FMtt I ~ DD ~~\i ~~ , \~ ~~ Tr I ~ D N m ~ ~ I ra ~ N ~/ i/ PIiT '~' tt / ~ ~ \ /~ ' ~ I ~,®~tt GD I I ~ y ~® uT-e ~~ ID UDC a, MbE ,rt I ~/ , ~ Hd / /, ~, ~ ~,i I , ~ ~,, - h ~~° R~D ~ N / ~ W ' ---i / r~ ~i~~nn i ~~ VI O y\` ~~ roo I __ 1 ~ YY // ID^ wRFMDYc E%iREE J ~I Rp~ II E I r I E,f \ ~~ ~ + ~ ~ LAY CM1 GC . _ / A ~ I ~ MR ~ / E ~ OVE E%. TRE'c ~ ~ ARC ~" -f> r \I ~, G Lv-D ~ L ws ~-~ a " l GV / TRI. ~ I !I I / N I ~ iV / ~`U ~ r~-Ip P a .r, I / D T~ I LOR-J •0 GER I R / SA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T G~-a aze -~ v ,d" ea~R ~ TREE REPLACEMENT 3C4~EDULE ~ 1TY9 TM N4MB OP PLONf BIffi 0 COST 17.1 T AOR AOER Md4BONPM1LWI %BO% 0 If70 (eAl 0, b T Oq mEiC+16 aGRNOLIA N 00% 7 U0 fEN T to eeauDla aermeRnRau weox a Imo~Eu ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~ ,~s ~ _ aRC• F0 Qn z mm; s ~ ~ ~ m oN~u ~~Z~o rc ~ Q ~ 0 0 o a z m a ~<~~ ~ F ~ F N ~0 ~ 3 r s 3 a ~QirE3 ~_~,~ ~~mA ~mo~ o~~m d ~uz~ ~ ~ J O wQ~Q d w 0 ~z oW~o d J J ~ $ ~u~~, J NOiE~ t eEE PLANi0l5 f'LNI FOR TREE REFM.ACEl41i LDDATIDN ti / \ •~ ~' / / / I ( I ~ R - TPEE N.1'IeER TO BE REMOVED P1WN e \ _ i" ~ ~ ~ I rrna~vxaraaaw.n~xau~rlrevem M. 6. ~ ~ ID" L®h ~ S A "~ 9 ~ ~~ ® ~ ~ Ggy(p \ ~ ~ ~' vYgl \ i / / o ' ~ 73"OAr ~ ~ r i RN.W. ' I '~ ` / ~ PROP03ED PLANTING PLAN Au~usT i smms r^ / ~ ~ / --, 1 ~ -6 ~ ` '` / / ~~~ r ecraE~ Imp. r-m~ ~ , VJ ,~ ' \ ~ ~ ro"LDDMR 1 ~~ ~/ ~ ~ / I lmll a ~i_mll ~ ~ _ a ~ O WD l~n\~ /~ ` _ ~ ~ ~ % A.R ~ '~ ~ Z I ~ I ~ ~ roe Iln V ~ ~ ® \ _ / o~tn~ it - ._, ~_ ~ ~~-='I ~ i ~ ~ ,{ .~ • GENERAL NOTES • WORK SEWENCE M THE EVENT ANY SPECUL SEQUENCING OF THE WOPoC IS REQUIRED BY THE OWNER OR DIE CdV1RACT0R, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE A CONFERENCE BEFORE ANY SUCH WOPo( IS BEWN. 91E EWUWNAAON: 1HE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL 1HOROUfAILY ETUUI9JE THE SITE AND FAMILWBZE HIN/HERSELF IMTH THE CONdAONS UNDER Wf9CH THE WORN IS ro BE PEJ3'ORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLL VERIFY AT THE 91E ALL MEASURFNFHTS AFFECDNG HISMFR WORx AND 91ALL BE AESPONSBLE Fdi iNE CdiRECAONS Cf 1NE SAME NO EKTRA COMPENSATION WILL ~ ALLOYkD TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ExPENSES DUE roHIS/HER NEGLECT TO EXAMINE OR FAILURE ro DKCOVER, CONDIACNS W14CH AFFECT HIS/HER WORN. lEA AND SUNG ENGNEERINC, INC. EXPRESSLY DESERVES ITS COMMON UW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY PoGHiS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE Nor ro BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FOPLI OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY ro BE ASSK,TIF1) ro A THIRD PARTY WITHWT FlRST OBTAIN9IG 1HE WPoTIEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF LEA AF81 SUNG ENdNEF18NG, INC. IN 1HE EVENT OF UNAUTHOFBZED RASE OF 1HESE PLANS BY A 1NIPo) PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD HAflNlE55 LEA AND SUNG ENGINEERING, 97C. CdI51F1UCDCN IS ALWAYS LESS THAN PERFECT 9NCE PROJECTS REWIRE THE COORdNADON AND INSTN1AAdi ~ MANY INDINWAL COMPdJENTS BY YAPoWS CONSTRUC110N INDUSTRY TRADES THESE DOaMENTS CMlNOT PORTRAY ALL COMPONENTS GR ASSEMBLIES ExAC1LY. IT IS THE INTEN110N ff THESE ENGWEERINC DOaMENTS THAT THEY REPRESENT A RErISONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN THEIR CONTENT IT IS ALSO RESUMED BY THESE DOaMENTS THAT CONSTRUCAON RENEW SEANCES WILL BE PROV1aE0 BY 1HE ENGWEIA. SHaU) THE OWNER NOT RETNN DIE FNdNEER TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES, OR SHWID HE/SHE RETAIN THE ENG6VEER ro PROMDE ONLY PARAAL OR LIMITED SERVCES, 1FBiN IT SHALL BE THE OWNER'S AND CCHTRACTdt'S RESPONSBQJTY ro FULLY RECOGWZE AND PROVmE THAT STANDARD OF CARE IF DE OWNER CR CONIRACTdi OBSERVES OR OTHERWt~ BECd~S AWARE aF ANY FAULT OR DEFECT IN THE PROJECT OR NONCdVFORMANCE PATH THE CONTRACT OOaMEN15, PROMPT NPoTIEN NORCE THEITE~ SHALL BE gVTDi BY THE OWNER AM)/OR CONTRACTOR TO THE ENGINEER. 1HE ENGINEER SMALL NOT NAVE CONTROL OF OR CHARGE OF AND SHALL NOT BE RESPONSBlE FOR CONSIRUCAON MEANS METHODS, 1ECHNIWE$ SEQt~NCES, OR PROCEDURES, OR FOR SAFETY PRECAUAONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NYkBf, FOR THE ACTS OR ONISSIGNS OF DIE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTORS, GR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING ANY ff THE NDAK OR FOR THE FAILURE OF ANY OF 1HEM TO CARRY WT 1HE WORK IN ACCORDANCE M1H THE CONTRACT DOaMFN1S SITE PROffCDON: PROTECT ALL LANDSCAPING THAT IS ro REMNN. ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS RESUTANG FROM EKCAVAAON, GRADING, OR CdiSTRI1CTN7N WORK SHALL 8E CORRECTED OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO AOWTIONAL CW'f ro THE OWNER. 1HE CONTRACTOR SHAll BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 1HE LOCATION OF ALL EIgSRNC 511E URUTIES AND SHAH COdB)INATE THBR REMOVAL OR MO081CAAONS (IF ANY1 TO AYgD ANY INTERRUPDdE OF SERMCE TO ADJACENT AREAS. 1HE GENERAL CON ACTOR SHALL AJFORM HIM/HERSELF ~ MUNIpPAL REWLATIONS AND CARRY WT HIS/HER Wdd( N COMPLUN M97H ALL FEIJERU AND STATE REWFiEMEN1S ro REW FIRE HAZARDS AND INJURIES ro THE PUBLIC STANDARD GRADING NOTES ALL GENERAL NOTES, SHEET NOTES, AND LEGEND NOTES FWND IN 1HESE DOCUMENTS SHALL APPLY, TYPICALLY THRWCHOUT IF INCONSISTENdES ARE FWND IN THE VAPoWS NOTATIONS, NOTIFY THE ENdNEFR pWE01A1ELY IN WPoRNG REWESRNG CLAPoFlCAAON. THESE DRAIWNGS AND THEIR CONTt?IT AAE AND SHALL RENAM THE PROPERTY OF lEA AND SUNG ENpNEdBNC, INC. NHEIHER THE PRQ£CT FOR WHICH THEY ARE PREPARm IS EXEaTED OR NOT. THEY ARE NDT TO ~ USED BY ANY PERSONS dr OTHER PROJECTS OR EXiQISI0N5 OF THE PROffCT E%CEPT BY AdiED.IENT IN WiiIANC AND N11H APPROPPoATE COMPENSATION TO 11iE ENGINEER ALL WOPoC SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND TRADE STANDARDS MHldl GOVERN EAdi PHASE OF WORK 9ldLdNG, BUT NOT UNITED ro, CAUFDANIA MECHAMCAL CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE CMJFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE CAUFORNU FlRE CODE CALIRANS STANDARDS AND SPECIFlCAAONS, AND ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND/OR LOCAL CODES AND/OR LEgSLADgJ. IT IS THE RESPdJddLItt OF THE CONTRACTOR ANO ALL SUBCONTRACTORS ro CHECK AND VERFY ALL CONdA0N5, DIMENSIONS, LINES AND LEVELS INDICAUD. PROPER FlT AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL PARTS IS REQUIRED. SNdAD 1HERE BE ANY DISCRFPANdES, IMMEDIATELY NORFY THE ENGINEER FOR CdiRECAON OR ADJUSTMENT THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO DO S0, iFE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTION OF ANY ERROR. ALL dMEN90NS AND CONDIACRS 91ALL BE CHECKED AND YEPoFlEO ON THE JOB BY EAdi SUBCONTRACTOR BffORE HE/SHE BEdNS HIS/HER WORK. ANY ERRORS, OMISSION, OR pSdiEPANCIES SHALL BE BRWGHT ro THE ATIENDON OF THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR BE1•'dE CONSIRUCBON BEGMS COIJMENCENENT ff WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL INDICATE KNOWLIDFf AND ACCFPTANC£ OF ALL CONdACNS CESCPoBED IN THESE CONSTRUCRON pOCIAlENTS, OR E%ISDNG ON 51E WHICH CaLD AFFECT THEIR WORK. THE CILKER RESIDENCE 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA APN: 397-19-027 0 ., ., I - .wuR~ -f''-esr-yq~r-sue ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I__- ~' a ~ c^ ~- -... _-~ ... _ . GS. yJ[ k ~ r_ I ~ __.._ A ~ _ - ~ T~~Y ' __f P _.I ._.. _. . 1 ~~. ~ a 1 i `~y ~ ter 3 . ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ I ^' ~~~•~ r--- ~~ ~ ~~ 934 : Q - ~ F 3x E' r m,a ~ I 4oxW.st+.¢~'I ems, ~'~~ ~~ I J,~ t I ~~~ ~, w,~ ~ ~ ~ 'a, 'ti .~ '` ~~~ 1 zO.o ~ I, - v, T ~ ~~ v1 I ~I I 4 I I:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ L '~ I BOOS i I ~ ~ ~ »' ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ `~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ tA~ aF ~ L _. ~ , _ ~~~~ ~ ~ KR:d8PJ3Y ~_ Yb~~ .~~ J ~' .,. e, ~..n ,__ I ~ ui_ . _~ , _ N.,1 _ . __ I I ~,~ i~ G ~ ~ ~nar ~ j j i ~:~ ~i ~~ ~/ ~ l o I I i .\~ -J- -'-- ~ I ~ /~ ~ I AREA of oEruL ~ ~ ~~, _ oy~J ~~~ ~ -- KEY MAP SCALE i'm30' ABBREVIATIONS AB. AGGREGATE BASE NAx AC ASPHA.IT CONCRETE N.H. 0.D. AREA DRAB) MIN. RC BEdNNING OF CURVE NON. BA[ D BEAPoNG 4 DISTANCE (N) BM BENCHMARK NQ BW BOTTOM OF WALL N.LS G8. CATdi BASIN C k G aR8 AND WT472 0/ ~ ) P CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE PED (SM001H INTE78CR) P SE c.o. aJ:AN WT . ~ CONC. CONCRETE P P CONST CONSTRUCT ar -ROM . . P U E CONC. CDR. CONCRETE CORNER . . P V C cr. D awc YAI:D dAMEh'A . . . R D.I. DRS 84LET R.C.P. D.LP. aCTILE IRON PIPE PoM EA EACH RW EC END OF aRVE ply EL ELEVAAONS S TAVEIIENT Q SAN. EO I EOUPN (E) EXISANG ~MH FC FACE ~ aRB 51T FF FlWSHED FLOOR SPEC FG F9EISHEO GRADE ~ FlI FYtE HYDRANT SSMH ~ FLOW ~ 5T C GA GAS GAGE OR GALA . G9 dTADE BREAK . HC HANDICAP STRUCT HDPE HIGH DENSITY CORRUGATED T POLI1THYlDff PEE ro HORD: HORIZONTAL TEMP. HI PT RICH PORIT ~ H 8 T HUB d: TACK TW IA. MSmE DIAMETER TIP. INV. 9TVEAT ELEVARON P.U.E ~ JUNCAON BOX Y.C JF ,bINT TRENCH VCP J.P. JOINT URUTY POLE VERT. L lENG1H W/ LNDG LANONG tF uNEU FEET WnA MA>aMUA MANHOLE MMIMUM MaNIwENT NEW NUMBER NOT TO SCALE ON CENTER OVIIt PLANTNC AREA PEDESTRIAN PUBIJC SEANCES EASEMENT PROPERTY UNE POWER POLE PUBLIC UDUTY EASEMENT PaLnwn diLOPoDE RADIUS REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE PoM ELEVARON RAMWAIER PoC4iT OF WAY SLOPE SANITARY STCRM DRAIN SAx81 DRAIN MANHOE SHEET SPECIFlCARON SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER MANHd.E STREET STAAON STANDARD STRUCTURAL TELEPHONE TOP CF aRB lOAPORMY TOP OF PAVE1kNT TOP OF WALL 11PICAL PUBLIC UTAITY EASEMENT VFRTM.AL. CURVE 41TPoFlED CLAY PIPE VtTNTK;AL KITH WATER UNE WATER METER REFERENCES THIS DRAINAGE PLAN IS SUPPLEMENTAL T0: 1) TCPOGRAPHK: SURVEY BY LEA @ SUIG ENGINEERING, ENATIFD; 'RIPOGRAPHIC SURVEY THE dIXER RESIDENCE Tslu uaNORa LANE SARATOGA CAUFdMIA 2) SITE PLAN BY lEA d SUNG ENGiNET]TWG, ENDTLED: 'GRADING d: ORNNAf;E PLAN' THE dLxEA RESDENCE 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARATOGA CALO'ORNIA 3) SdL DEPORT BY RCMIG ENCIFfffR, INC. ENRTLED: 'q:OIECHNICAL INVESAGARON' dLID:A RESDENCE 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA DAtE OCTOBER 2002 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO 1HE AB01E NOTED SURVEY AND PLAN, AND SMALL 4II8FY 80TH EpSDNG AND PROPOSED ITEMS ACCORDING ro THEM. -~ VICINITY MAP NO SCALE -~- Q PROJECT DATA JAMES ~ ELIZABETH dUQSR 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARA70GA CAIIFOPNIA R.C.E 31878 LEA 4 SUNG ENpNEERAVG, AVC 2485 NWSTPoAL PARKWAY WEST, HAYWARD, CA 94545 (510) 887-4086 iccctcnR'c_ PARCEL NUMBER; 397-18-027 .93 ACRES CdlTaR 6lTFRVAL• 2 FTX)T INTERVAL (EIOSANG k PROPQSFD) II LEGEND PROPOSED DESCRIPTION 8C1#7DARY o RETAINING WALL - - - SUBDRNN LINE - ~ Ad1'NNE -SO- STORM DRAIN UNE -SS- SANITARY SEWER UNE -W- WATER UNE -P- PRESAIRE UNE - SET BACK UNE -3...r3 . SWUE FLOW dRECAON ® CB CATdi BASIN ®JB JUNCTION eox ®SUNP SUMP PUMP ~ AD AREA DRNN 123.00 ~~ SPOT ELEYATIdJ --~ FLOW dRECRON BENCHMARK yO~~ CONTWRS ~~i~ C' TREE TD BE REMOVED ,~.~ X%' TREE 8.u-~3 N tU o ?r ~~ ? N N ~ ~ ~~ W a r~ J Y~ Z ~ KQ m LJJ N d ~ W 60~~ = U ~U~m y w oamo a1F ~ 2Qtt1v a s m~sx J o rvi~~ n m W ~ UwCYt zz~ Q a ~ a ~~id AU z W O [] H-I W ~ ~ a I,~y L(~ a ri ~ J U C~ W W W M~ E"1 H EARTH WORK QUANTITIES aT FILL (N) BUILDINGS 100 CY, O C.Y. (N) BASEMENT 480 C.Y. 0 C.Y. 25 CY. 20 C.Y. Toro .. . OFFHAUL 585 C.Y. REN40N5 BY JOB N0: 2030125 DATE: 01-15-02 SHEET INDEX SCALE: AS NOTE ~~ DESIGN BY: JT C-1 A1LE SHEET DRAWN 9Y: lC I C-2 GRADNG & DRANAGE PLAN SHEET N0: C-3 GRADING SPEOFlCADONS ER-1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C- 1 ~f ~ A SHEETS iti `~i • I , ~I yv / rwa7 ~__~9°(;,~K /, (NEST 239 4T \~' ~,~x D. ,T ~__ _ ~w ~~ 4 ~,, ~ --~--~.:~- ~~ ~~ -- -.-~----~ t_...~ 'l ~ i i ~ ~ _~_ _ ~ --- _ ~'~ ` )EARTHEN J p•,?1 1`C ~~~ 4 t rA~-- - -. ~~ ~ ...._... - ~2; ~ - I ~•, ~.L.. A ~J'~iy~~y'~~~~. 2 __ ~ .' lll~lGYi ~OBJO ~ 1WAATCH E 208.50 / ~ *„ No 7 1 r~J`~ Y^ '80~ \ FG ~ r ~~ ~ ~ ~ I Z ~ r ~ I ( ~ ~ 2G4:e ~ ~~ MATCH (E) wALL ti's , ' ~ b, s to 26 ~ ~ 3 o I ~ ~ (N) RAnawamT ~~. ~' -2 ~ ' ~ r ~,, j~~i.a ~ VICINITY MAP z <<_ m ~ ~ ~e np~tuHE ~ a - \;%\_ ~~~ I ~SCALE~ 1" ~ 10' NascuF ~ w aa~"I ~. \ ~ (N) GARAGE ~/ ~ ~ , - I ~ OL. ~9 ~ 0 ~'" ' ~~ ~IAi~ ( Z ~ ~~om SLAB 204.64 3 i l I ~ w SL~e I r ~, ,' " \ (N) Eu+n,E~„O \ ANNOTATION KEY N W o o ^s O I w i 05 2 ~ ~~ i \ SWALE 2 \ \ SLOPE FlNISHED GRADES A MINIMUM OF 5X FOR THE FlRST 5' AWAY FROM THE °a ~ ~ 3 m O ' ~' d~ 2~ ~ I I i FG '~ ~" t4 ~ I r,f II` BUILDING PERIMETER. DIRECT TO DRAINAGE TO DISPERSE ON-SITE OR TO THE < 5 m * ° x ~ I \~~i. "' ° a '\~w °~ a ° 6 ~ 0 ~, ~' ~ ~ ~ J i\~U`hO V;) ~ O ON-SIZE S70RM DRAIN SYSTEM MAINTAIN 6` CLEAR FROM BOTTOM OF MUOSILL J 0 Ni.°.~ N ~ ~ w ° w w ` ~ ~ '~ I ~~ 2 00 \~ ~~`L TO FINISH EARTHEN GRADE. A CURB WALL FOUNDAnON SHALL BE USED TO AI10W FOR LOW FNISH FLOOR TD EARTHEN GRADE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND . rY' w I'r ~'. ' C ~ FC O ~~`5~ ~ w w U ~J ° ~ ' f ~~ ~ STRUCNRAL PLANS. `~ I' O I ~~ w ~ ~T %~~ ~ 1 ~ \~ DEMO (E) WALL ~ ( \~I e ~ - ~ ~ 'i ~ ~ AS REWIRED CONSTRUCT EARTHEN SWALES AT 2X MIN ANO BERMS AS REQUIRED TO DIRECT \\ Z ~ ~~ ~1 a- 47i TI •G~ZIw~VA f -~~ A~~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ( FLOWS TO DAYllC41T OR THE ON-SITE STORM GRAIN SYSTEM IF THE SWALE I 4~G-~, L V s ~4 ~~`- (E) TREE ro/\ ~t ~~\~ O EXCEEDS 5R PROVDE GEDTEXnIE REINFORCEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL _ 8 - _ BEREM04EAU 70 A. (E) ORIYEWAY \, I 1 d- a (, I ~ ~~ ~ ~%- ~ ~ ~ ~ ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDA710N5 TO PREVENT EROSION. SWALE SHALL BE 4" DEEP I ~, ) ?,~" ~~~!6 1~ e" .~l w ~0 _ ~ (N} 'H01JSE I ,~ TO REMAN ~, ~ 2 ~E~ ANO 12' WIDE q I I ~~ - i ;y ryl ~ i~ ~ '~~' w ". w / S ~ FF 2059 ~ '~2 50 A r~ 2 0 ~ ~ \ Q ~ P~ONOE 2X MIN. SLOPE ACROSS ALl FLATWORM (1R MIN. FOR CONCRETE) ~1 m ~}~/y U~ ~L ~w~b y~ 1. ~, w w w PAD 202.0- 1 J ~ n ' W / ~1 ~ \ \ ~ L O AND/OR PANNG AND SLOPE TO DAYLJGHT. flEFER TO ARCHITECT'S PLANS FOR W H I ~I h`{A^ 2~rSFCrtrr'~ W w w 1' } t/' DEMO {E)HOUSE -, rr,1 ~1, ,1~; ~2u.00' / MATERIAL FNISH AND LAYOUT. -TYP. r~ ' ~ l ~~L CL) w ( w w .. I ° ~ f 1 ~ OT Lr t- r (~ BASFJIENT ~ ~ SE~AIX I W ~ /-~ a ~ w w w w ~ 11 $18DRAW O ~, ', CONSTRUCT (N) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY. MATCH INTO (E) DRIVEWAY WHERE POSSBLE. ~ ~ +~ w w ~ ~ A. a A ~ ~~, I , ~ ~ i o4 (N) ASPHALT SHALL BE X' AC 0/ X" AGGREGATE BASE (COMPACTED 70 95X) rr~~ j ~ ) w w ~ ~, J0 ~ il~ ~ ° ~ I ~~C~ ~ 0/ SUBGRADE (COMPACTED TO 90X) SAW CUT (E) DRIVEWAY WHERE DEMOUnON F-~ O I I~ w ~' ° '/, ~ 50 ~ / ,1 p ~(N) RAINWA1E~t'~--~ I _.~,J~ ~ REQUIRED FOR (N) CONSTRUCnON. PROVDE nE-IN PAVEMENT WHERE (N) AC W -( I m w !~ ' ~ 'T', gT1UNE 6 AL~. MEETS (E) AC GPoND (E) AC TO 0.10 DEPTH FOR AC OVERLAY. QI p..l (~ I ~ ~ {. w w Iy~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ _ ~7D ~t. ~. i ~ ~ p ~ ~y LL w'w w ~ ~' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1-' ~ v O ~5 REMOVE (E) TREE PER TOWN STANDARDS. I"T w w~i 20.0 ' (N) P~ ~. ~ ," ~ :/~COTG ~ ~ ~ ; .I a V ,~ ~ ~ ETBAC _ ~ ill' 1 ~ ~ „~~' ', ,~ ~' ! ( TREE`•~p ~ HATCH (E ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' g Dl3A0USH (E) IMPROVEMENTS (INCLUDING (E) HOUSE, UTILIRES AND NAAOSGAPE) W ~ U ~ _ i ~ ~Ff { J~ ;__ - ~ ~, ~J ~ B~1(2EY04fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ NECESSARY FOR (N) CONSTRUCTON. I .V N RAINWATER ~ • 1 ~ v ~" ~ w } '+- ~ i t ~ ~ 1 \5~ i ` 7 SLOPE GARAGE 01X MIN. (1/g° PER FOOT) TO PROVDE FOR PROPER DRAINAGE O O ~~~,, ~~(N) BASEMENT ~_0 ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ 'b ~g R'~~~ ~ ` ~L ~ 11'~ ~, ~< 'SLAB 1945/ - ~ ~ - LL1-L ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~NSTRUCT (N) RAINWATER nCHTLINE. USE 4" PVC (SDR-35) SLOPED AT 1X MIN. M"ti (,,' ~ \ 111 i r tiL L ~ 4~ AD 1920 ,~; '~ ~1 1% L ~ ~ D(2ECT TO ON-SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. RAINWATER ngiTIJNES MAY BE W ~\ ~w \ / ~ ' I' ~~~ ' / -~ ~ ~ Lw, U ~ ~ ~ F ~ PLACED IN COMMON TRENCH AS THE BUILDING SUBDRAIN, BUT MUST REMAIN A I ~ i ~.%~ ~ .' ~ LL ,+/~'~~ ~~ ~ ,<, ~ ~ ~ LL~L~ L ~ I (~ DEDICATED SYSTEM UNTIL DISCHARGING INTO 7NE STORM GRAIN SYSTEM 0.5 ~ ~-I i ~' ~ ~' ~ '~ .1 ~ ~ ' ~ tiL L~ SHOWN. PROMOE CLEANOUTS AT MAJOR CHANGES IN DIRECnON AND AT 50' 1~ CH ~ ~ i. V ~~ ~~~ ~ r " i i ~ 4 1' U~ ~( ~ ~ - o ~., ~ ~~ : ~', y.6 ~I L L ~ '"1 L`} ( I+U INTERVALS MAX. ALONG THE nCH'fLJNE. AVOID USING 90' FTTINGS AND INSTEAD Fri ~..I ~J I ~ .p-~. L {"C~ ~ ~~ ' L "~ ~ 'M) P~~ ~1 ~ USE TWO 45' FlTIINGS OA LESS YrRENEVER POSSIBLE THE ROOF GUTTERS SHALL i ~ ~ ~ ~N~ ~U~L ~~' ~L-a ,„1. ~~,J L' ' ~~ .TU ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ N HAVE SCREENING TO PREVIIJT CIOGgNC OF SYSTEM. THE nGHNNE SHOWN IS ~ lCJ ~ a A, ~ u ~I ~I ,,,~~L L ~~ LL ~,_ FG ~ ~~ (N~EaRTH SCHEMATIC. REFER TD THE ARCHITECNRAL PLANS FOR ACTUAL DOWNSPOUT ~ I ` HOUSE ~ i y ~, ' .rswAl~o~ ~ LocanoNS. '~ U~ Q ~ F ~~.. L. ~A C1 '~ IJ~ PAC 2017 ,L~ 1- L T-~i5a P.A, \ ~ CONSTRUCT (N) BUILDING PERIMETER SUBDRAIN. USE 4" PERFORATED PVC ~ ~`~, \ . _ °~ '. ;-' (SDR-JS) SLOPED AT 1X MIN N17N THE HOLES DOWN CONNECT TO DEDICATED ~ ~t-1 ~ / ~, ~ ~ L' 1 ' i \~1 t, I 3~ \\ O PVC nGHTLINE SLOPED AT 1X MIN. MAY BE PLACED IN COMMON TRENCH AS THE \\ ~\\\ I '1 ' ~' ~ ~~ O1G 1 ~ ~ ~~ 1, I ~, ( RAINWATER nCHTIJNE, BUT MUST REMAIN A DEDICATED SYSTEM UN71L 1 y~, / DISCHARGNC INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AS SHOWN. PROVIDE CLEANOUTS \ \\ ~ / ^PJI•' ~ ~ ! L "L~ (N) HOUSE - _~ ~. yXI AT MAJOR CHANGES IN DIRECTION AND AT 50' INTERVALS MAX. ALONG THE '" 1 i d _ e~~ J,L FF.2050 '~~ d I y,g,20} SUBDRAIN AND nGHTLINE. AVOID USING 90' FlTRNGS AND INSIIJD USE TWO 46' . 4 _ ~~,~, ~ aAO: 2020 ~ ~. I ~ I~ FITTINGS OR LESS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. ~~ I I • ~VI A, L ~l_MATCH E at 1~ E TREE TO 1r ~' I O ~ \\ r N~ d s "'" ' OBE REN0IED ~; LL~" ~'~ ~ ~ }fir I I PRDUIDE SUMP PUMP FOR LIGHTWEll DRAINAGE AND BASEMENT SUBDRAINS. USE '~ ~ \~ p1 ~. ~ L~ 7~~ `~ L j 'bRMNDFDS SUJ32' SUMP PUMP OR EQUAL. PLACE PUMPS IN "CHRISTY V-24' ~U7, ~` ~~ IAI'e~~.,; (('~pprr}}~ ,~,~„', ~ a fi l ~r- ~/i/U '~~ I ~ Q MAPS- ( 10 FIDES WTH CONCRETE BOTTOMS THE BOTTOM OF THE SUMP SHALL BE 18' ~I ~ \ ;, ~} F ( ['~~ ~ 1"/ 1~1Y0tnq ~ L L L-'", 1~1 90 ~ ~ I O BELOW niE LOWEST INVERT IN TO ALLOW FOR SOME HOLDING CAPACITY BEFORE Il -~` ~~ IS i ,_~ ( (f0~E MAIN. '~ V `1 . ~ ~' ° LL1X- ~ ~/ I , a ~E] TREE TO 5 I ~ PUMPING BEGINS TO PREVENT SHORT CYCLING. PROVDE BACKFLOW PREVENRON I-~ "h~ ~ COPIHC:204.T" .~L'~A LL ,1-I' Il a IBE REM04ED0 ~~~ DENSE IN DISCHARGE UNE. SUMP ~1 IS FOR BASEMENT LEVEL SUBDRAINAGE ~~V ~ ~~ \ ~3~ ~ e L~L, .. I I ~ SUMP /2 IS FOR UGHTWELL DRAINAGE. ~J v; ~ ~ ~ ~ ° (N) C04ERED ~ . i ~ 04 0 1 1 I ~ '~ W ~ ~ ~ 1 PATIO V-, - 1 I ( CONSTRUCT (N) UGHTWELL 1MTH 6' MIN. CURB EXTENDING UP BEYOND iNE VA ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ' , ) ~ ~ ','~ 6 ~ I flN15HED GRADE. PROVDE 4' PVC PIPE OUT 1MTH GRATE IN BOTTOM OF H"A r~ kk ~ ~ o ~ / '\\ 4 / ,A 1 I , I ~I 11 UCHTWELL FOR DRAINAGE. PROMDE 3' OVERFLOW PIPE AT SIDE OF UGHTWELL. Q V \L~ /1/\ ~ ~y ~~ , J ~~ THE BOTTOM OF THE UGHTWELL SHALL BE 6` MIN. BELOW ANV DOORS OR +~ S! ~ ~ ~ \ "~ i i I WINDOWS FROM THE BASEMENT PROVIDE 6` MIN CURB ABOVE FNISH GRADE AND \. O ~\ 6 ~ \ ~ ~, _ _ C E?/ RAIUNC PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SEE DETAIL 1 r~rkk ` \ V v ~ - - vI ~ ~ ) C-3 ~ AJ,, ~ ' 1 `~~ I ( 11$E ro \ ~ Pfi0V1DE SEWER EJECTOR PUMP FOR BASEMENT PLUMBING. USE GRUNFOS N \' ~f ` ~ \ _ \~, ; k ~ ~~O ~ ~ 12 '8E-50' SEWAGE PUMP, PROVIDE BACK UP POWER. EJECTOR PUMP. LOCAnON TO W ~ ~ J ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ BE DETERMINED BY ARCHITECT. A •RIn91NG PAD NOTE: ~ ~V i,.-. ~~, ~~~. ~~ ~n I Q ADJUST PAO LEVEL AS V A ~ ~ f I REQUIRED. REFER TO ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ ~ \ f A I 'I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ - I . ~ 13 DELETED smucTURaL PLANS FaR ~ ~`_ ~ ~ A /. ~ ~ ~ , IiL ~ - „ . 10'•MAPL~ 1a ~~rED FOUNDAnON SECTION TO ~ ~.'~ ~ \ - \ .~I ,~ ~ ,(~/ ESTABUSH PAD LEVEL \ ~, \ - _' .__.. J ~ ~ .._ . I T ~ '~ _. `' O ; •~ ~. ~\ C"L \, ~ ~ CMG ~ /' I ~ 1' CONSTRUCT (N) PVC (SDR-36) STORM DRAIN UNE. MAINTAIN J' MIN. COVER AT PLAN GHEq(Q STORM DRAIN RETENTION: \ ~ 0"T ~ --~ ~-' ~ - ~4' .k~ 19 15 All RME, EXCEPT WHEN ENTERING 1HRU CURB GRAIN BO%. SEE PLAN FOR SIZE 6- 0-03 ~ JT ALL STORM WATER IS PROPOSED TO BE --- ~''~ ~ t I / ~ / i ~ ~ _ AND SLOPE. ARCH REWAONS RETAINED ON-STE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ~ ~ i '' I "~' 1 "~ g-19-0J JT USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT F~ VI ~QG ~ ~ 1 L- ~ ~T' ~ ~ $ - ~, ~ ~~ ~1" ~ ~ I- 16 ~EIETED - _ ALL nMES DURING CONSTRUCnON. REFER `~ - >r ? 5 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~lll I TO EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR f L-.NCE ~h'` \ -~ ~ e ~ li ~ _ ~® CONS7RUCT/RECONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PER Citt/SANITARY - - \ ^'E ~ ~ LI N"~ - p DISTRICT STANDARDS USE (E) CLEANOUT TO CRAOE AT PROPERtt LINE. USE 4' FURTHER INFORMATON. ~ \ - _ ~ _ _ ~~ - - ~ / ~ ,i' = P,VC (SDR-26) SLOPED AT 2X MIN. PROVIDE CLEANOUT TO GRADE AT HOUSE. NOTE: ~ ~ ` L~ ~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ (~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ - ~+ ~ ~ ~~~~ CONSIRUCT/RECONSTRUCT WATER SERNCE PER CITY/ WATER DISntICT AEMSQVS BY OVANnnES ARE BASED UPON BANK YARDAGE ~ / ~~ LA AL ~ ; ~ / i AND DO NOT INCLUDE TRENCHING. / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 1 19 STANDARDS. USE 3/4° COPPER SERNCE MIN. d V /% / 17 ,, ~/~ 1 ~ JL~PE JOB N0. 2030125 \ \~ // (N) ~~~. V / ~ O~ ~ 7 Q" '' ,':q` ~ ~ REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ADDInONAL INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT ppTE: 3_y6-03 ~,, 2D DISSIPATOR ~. ~O M) WATER EASEMENT 19 NO LIMITED T0: ADDInONAL UTILITY SERVICES, DIMENSION CONTROL, DEMOIJnON .\ ~~, I ,~ " Q ~ ~ ~~ Ig ~ I D DETAIL, TREE PROTECnON MEASURES AND LANDSCAPING. SCALE, 1. = 10~ \ \ N \" J F ~U,( ~~ • ~// O ~~ k / 20 CONSTRUCT (N) ENERGY OISSIPATOR. SEE DETAIL p DESIGN BY JT '' ~"'11 ~~` / 0 ~~ ~ / ~QLONDRA LANE (40) C_3 oRAwN er: Mc ~~ ~'~ ,~`, ~ , , v c~ l-1' ` .,., ~...~ , ; /,~:, ~Y'l C'C~___ SHEET N0: r,, •- _rrs, '±\ , ~f Ix~----,~ ---OSS NOTES FOR TRENCH WORK NEAR TREES ~ ~ 7,ns ;'i p , i "~, wM Inu,6~ \ ~ ' ~ / / '~ y ~ INV 194.70 ~ ~\ A.) HAND-DIG AND TUNNEL AROUND ANY R00T OF 2' DIAMETER OR LARGER. ~ ~Mi 1~1 r F\ // ~~ '\~ \' ~ 8.) DO NOT SEVER ANY R0075 OF 2` DIAMETER OR LARGER. 2 \'~ A ~~~~~ ~ ,~ ICI I~ ` ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~~~ 1) C) REPUTABLE TREE CARE COMPAQ YCONCERNS MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A OF a \ _ - G 1 I n. I A; __. 9 ~'T A ~, ~, Q' ~ SHEETS ,, • E v i OI i o, 9a GEIEHAL rro>ES: AlL GENERAL NOTES, SHEET NOTES, ANO LEGEND NOTES FOUND IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL APPLY, TYPICALLY 1HROUGNOUT IF INCONSISTEN IE F C S ARE . ND IN W THE VRAIWS N i ' N IF O A I l0 5 NOT Y 1H E ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY 1N WRITING REQUESTING CURIFlCADON. THESE DRAWNGS AND R1EIR CONTENT ARE AND SHALL REMAIN 1HE PROP R Y E T of LEa ANO suN G ENGINEERING, INC. WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE PREPARED IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY ARE NOi TO BE USED BY ANY PERSONS ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT IN WRITING AND WRi APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE ENGINEER. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND TRADE STANDARDS WHICH GOVERN EACH PHASE OF WORK INCLUDING. BUi NOT LIMITED T0, CAUFORNI0. MECHANICAL CODE. CALIF-RN10. PLUMBING CODE, CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE CALIFORNIA FlRE CODE, CALIRANS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIOyS, ANO ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND/OR LOCAL CODES AND/OR LEGISLATION. IT I$ 1HE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS i0 CHECK AND VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. LINES ANO LEVELS INOICAIEO. PROPER FIT AND ATTACHMENT DF ALL PARTS IS REQUIRED, SHWLD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCIES, IMM I Y N - - ED AIEL O11FY THE ENGINEER FOA GORR T N EC ION OR ADJUSIME T THE EVENT OF FAILURE i0 DO S0, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PESPONSIBLE FOR GORRECRON OF ANY ERROR. ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE CHECKED AND VERIFlED ON J Y THE OB B EACH SUBCONTRACTOR BEFORE H SH "I E E EEo NS / HIS/HER WORN. ANY ERRORS, OMISSION, OR DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO 1HE ATTENTION OF 1HE OWNER/CONTRACTOR BEFORE CONSIRUCTON BEGINS. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK BY 1HE CONTRACTOR AND/OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL INDICATE KNOWLEDGE ANO ACCEPTANCE OF ALL CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, OR EXISRNG ON SIE, WHICH COULD AFFECT 1HEIR WIXiK. wargE sEauENCE: IN 1HE EVENT ANY SPECIAL SEQUENCING OF 1HE WORN IS REWIRED dY THE OWNER OR THE CONTRACTOR, THE CONIRAC70R SHALL. ARRANGE A CONFERENCE BEFORE ANY SUCH WORK IS EEGUN. SITE EXAMINAROIJ: DIE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL THOROUGHLY EXAMINE INE SNE AND FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF W1H THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE WORK IS TO RE PERFORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AT 1HE SITE ALL MEASUREMENTS AFFECTING NIS/HER WORM, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTIONS Of THE SAME NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED TO 1HE CONTRACTOR FOR E%PENSES DUE i0 HIS/HER NEGLECT i0 EXAMINE, OR FAILURE TO DISCOVER, CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT HIS/HER WORK. LEA AND SUNG ENGINEERING, INC. EXPRESSLY RESERVES I1S COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT ANO OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTB'IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHARGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION ANU CONSENT OF LEA AND SUNG ENGINEERING, INC. IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A INTRO PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD HARMLESS LEA ANO SUNG ENGNEERING, LNG IRAN P,F T SIN E PROJECTS CONSTAUCitON IS ALWAYS LESS PE EC C REONRE THE COORDINANON AND INSTALLATON OF MANY INOINDUAI Y VA 0' N 1RU 710N INDUSTRY TRADES. THESE C MPONENTS 9 RI DS COS C 0 DOCUMENTS CANNOT POP,TRAY ALL COMPONENTS OR ASSEMBLIES EXACTLY. IT IS THE INTENTION OF 1HESE ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS THAT THEY REPRESENT A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE IN 1HEIR CUNTFNT. li I$ ALSO PRESUMED BY RJESE OOCUMEPIiS THAT CONSTRUCTON REVIEW SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED BY RTE ENGINEER. SHOULD THE OWNER NOT RETAIN THE ENGINEER TO PRONDE SUCH SEANCES, OR SHOULD NE/SHE RETAIN THE ENGINEER TO PRODDE ONLY PARTIAL OR UNITED SERVICES, THEN IT SHALL BE THE OWNER'S AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBIUtt 70 NLLY RECOGWI2E AND PROVIDE THAT STANDARD OF CARE. IF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR 085EFVES OR OTHERWISE BECOMES AWARE OF ANY FAULT OR DEFECT IN INE PROJECT OR NONCONFORMANCE VATH THE GON1RACi DOCUMENTS. PROMPT WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF SHALL BE GIVEN BY TILE OWNER AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO 7NE ENGINEER, THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT HAVE CONTROL OF OR CHARGE Of AND SHALL NOT AE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRIICDON MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEgVENCES, OR PROCIDURES, OR FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECnON W71H THE WORK, FOR 1HE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTORS, OR ANY OTHER PERSOIJS PERFORMING ANY OF THE WORN, OR FOR THE FAILURE OF ANY OF THEM TO CARRY OUT THE WORN IN ACCORDANCE WII1H 1HE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 97E PR0IECRON: PROTECT All LANDSCAPING 1HAT I$ TO REMAIN- ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS RESULITNG FROM EXCAVATON, CfiADING, OR CONSTRUCRON WORK SHALL BE CORRECTED OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING SITE UTNNES AND SHALL COORDINATE THEIR REMOVAL OR MODIFlCATIONS (IF ANY) TO AVgD ANY MiERFUPRON OF SEANCE TO ADJACENT AREAS. 1HE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM NIM/HERSELF OF MUNICIPAL RECULADONS AND CARRY OUT HI5/HER WORK ' 1N COMPLIANCE W1H ALL FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS TC REDUCE FIRE HAZARDS ANO INJURIES 70 1HE PUBLIC. C~ADINC~i & ~tAN11AGE NOTES a E%GYATION A. UPON COMPLETON OF THE CLEARING AND GRUBBING, SITE PREPARATION AND STRIPPING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL. MAKE X AVATI N D LINES AND GRA S NOTED ON THE PLAN. WHERE EC O ST DE REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER, UNACCEPTABLE NAilu< 50115 OR UNENCINEERED FlLt SHALL dE OVER E%CAVATED BELOW 1HE DESIGN GRADE SEE SOILS REPORT BY ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. DATED OCTOBER 2002 FOR DISCUSSION OF OVER E%CAVARON OF THE UNACCEPTABLE MAIERIAI. AESULIINC GROUND LINE SHALL BE SCARIFEO, MOISTURE-COIJDIRONED AND RECOMPACTEO AS SPECIFIED IN BECKON 4 OF 1HESE SPECIFICARONS COMPACTED FlLL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED i0 BRING GROUND LEVEL BACK TO DESIGN GRADE. I. SCOPE OF WORK THESE SPECIFlCAiION$ AND APPLICABLE PLANS PERTAIN TO ANO INCLUDE ALL SIZE GRADING AND EARTHWORK ASSOCIA'FEO PATH M T' T TH FURNISHING R J T I U IEIG 9UT NOT LI I cD 0 E 1HE P 0 EC NCL D A A OR TO LS AND E IPMENT NECESSARY FOR SITE OF LL L B 9 W CLEARING AND GRUBBING, SITE PREPARATION, DISPOSAL OF E%CESS OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL, STRIPPING, KEYING, EXCAVATION, OVER E%CAVATION, RECOMPACRON, PREPARATON FON SOIL RECEINNG FILL, PAVEMENT FOUNDAnON OF SLABS, EXCAVATION, INPORTARON OF ANY REWIRED FILL MATERIAL PROCESSING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTON OF FILL AND SUBSIDIARY WORK NECESSARY TO GOMPLLTE 1HE GRADING TO CONFORM i0 THE LINES, GRADING AND SLOPE SHOWN ON THE PROJECT GFADING PLANS. 2 GENERAL A. ALL SITE CARPING AND EARTHWORK SHALL CONFORM 70 THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THESE $PECIfICATIDNS, SOILS REPORT BY ROMIG ENGINEERS, LNG. DATED OCTOB67 2002 AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRADING ORDINANCE B. ALL FlLL MATERIALS SHALL BE DENSIFIED SO AS TO PRODUCE A DENSIN NOT LESS THAN 907. RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED UPON I n 15 Fl ENSITY IESi WILL ATM TEST DES GNA ON 0 57 ELO D S 8E PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM TEST DESIGNATION D1557. THE LOCATION ANO FREQUENCY CF THE FlELO DENSITY TEST WILL BE AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 1HF RESULTS OF THESE TEST AND COMPLIANCE W1H TILE SPECIFICATONS WILL SE R OF 1HE WORK All A ORY OMPLE ON TH ASI$ UPCN WHICH S SF Ci C EB AND FlLL SLOPES VM BE JUDGED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ALL CUT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON PLANS, BUT NO STEEPER THAN rno (2) HDRIZONrA1 ro oNE (T) VERncAI. C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 1HE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF ALL THE EARTHWORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND $PECIFlCARONS NO DFVIARON FROM THESE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE MADE EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL BY iHF CITY ENGINEER. BOTH CUT ANO FILL AREAS SHALL BE SURFACE COMPLETED 70 THE SARSFACnON OF THE Gtt ENGINEER AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL GRADING OPARONS AND PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE. PHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NORFY THE Gtt ENGINEER 0.7 LEAST TWO (2J WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO DOING ANr SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK INCLUDING CLEARING. a aFAluNC AND cRUeeEEc A. 1HE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCEPT THE 511E IN ITS PRESENT CONDITON. ALL EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $IJALL BE PROTECTED. ANY IMPROVEMENTS DAMAGED SHALL BE REPLACED BY 111E CONTRACTOR A$ DIRECTED BY THE CITY W1TH NO EXTRA COMPENSATION. Es ExcEPr F N N THE D. ALL ABANDONED BUILDINGS AND OU DA710 S, ( P FI T R MAIN FOR LANDSCAPING PUft OSF.S , 1HOSE SPELL ED 0 E ) ' FENCES. VEGETARON AND RNY SURFACE DEBRIS SNPLL BE REMOVED ANO DISPOSED OF OFF 1HE SITE BY 1HE CONTRACTOR. B URFACE N TANK AN ANY OTHER SU S . A ANDO ED SEPTIC S 0 C LL AB $TRUCNRES EXISRND IN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR FlLL OPERARON. ALL APPURIENANi DRAIN FlELOS AND OTHER CONNECRNC LINES MUST ALBO dE TOTALLY REMOVED. 0. ALL ABANDONED UNOERGROUIJD IRRIGATION OR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE REM04E0 OR DEMOLISHED. THE APPROPRIATE FINAL EPTN AND I H I 5 DEPEND UPON THEIR D DISPOS RON OF SUC LNE R M R D MOURON SHALL LOCARUN AND 1HE METHOD OF E OVAL 0 E BE DETERMINED SY THE CITY ENGINEER. ONE OF 1HE FOLLOWING METHODS W1LL BE USED: (T) ENE ATRENCH ND TOTALLY REMOVE THE UTILITY LINE FROM B. EXCAVATED MATERIALS SUITABLE FOR COMPACTED FlLL MATERIAL SHALL BE UT7LIZE0 IN MAKING THE REQUIRED COMPACTED FlLLS, THOSE NAIVE MATERIALS CONSIDERED UNSUITABLE BY THE Gtt ENGINEER SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE SITE BY llff CONTRACTOR. PLAd1l0, SPREADNO AND COMPACiWC FlLL WTFIDAL A. FILL MATERIALS THE MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR USE AS COMPACTED RLL SHALL BE APPROVED 8Y THE Gtt ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATONS, THE NAIVE MATERIAL IS CONSIDERED F IT F FILL HOWEVER ANY NADVE MATERIAL DESIGNAT_D SU ABLE OR TA T Y ~N INE R HA L E REMOVED FROM THE UNSUI BLE BY HE CIT ~ G E S L B Y 7RAfi0R. ANY IMPORTED MATERIAL SHALL BE SITE B THE CON APPROVED fOR USE BY THE Cltt ENGINEER, IN WRIPNC, BEFORE BEING IMPORTED TO 1HE SITE AND SHALL POSSESS SLIFFIGENT FlNES TO PROVIDE A COMPEIENt SOIL MATRIX AND SHALL BE FREE OF 4EGETARVE ANO ORGANIC M1fAiTER AND O1HER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. ALL FlLL V0105 SHALL BE FILLED ANO PROPERLY COMPACTED. NO ROCKS LARGER THAN THREE INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL BE PERMITTED. B, FILL CONSTRUCRON iH CI Y N WEER SHALL APPROVE THE NATIVE SOIL SUBGRADE E T E G P A M T f ANY OMPACTEO FILL MATERIAL. UNACCEPTABLE BEFORE L CE EN 0 C NATIVE SOIL SHAH BE REMOVED AS DIRECTED BY THE Cltt ENGINEER. THE RESULTING GROUND LINE SHALL DE $CARIFlEO MOISNRE CONDIRONED AND RECOMPACIED AS SPECIFED IN SECTION 4 OF 1HESE EPECIFCATIONS COMPACTED Flll MATERIAL SHALL DE PLACED TO BRING GROUND LEVEL BACK TO DESIGN GRADE GROUND PREPARATION SHALL BE FOLLOWED CLOSELY BY f11.L PLACEMENT TO PREVENT DRYING OUT OF ME SUBSOIL BEFORE PLACEMENT OF THE FILL. 6. INE APPROVED FlLL MATERIALS SHALL 8E PLACED IN UNIFOP.M I T A NO THICK R THAN 8' 1N LOOSE THICKNESS. HOR ZON AL L YEAS E LAYERS SHALL BE SPREAD EVENLY AND SHALL BE THOROUGHLY BLADE MIXED DURING 1HE SPREADING TO ENSURE UNIFORMITY OF MATERIAL IN EACH LAYER. THE SCARIFIED SUBGRADE AND FlLL MATERIAL SHAH BE MOISTURE CONDITIONED TO AT LEAST OP7SMUM MOISNRE. WHEN THE MOISNRE CONTENT OF 1HE FILL I$ BELOW THAT SPECIFIED, WATER SHALL BE ADDED UNTIL THE MOISNRE WRING THE COMPACTION PROCESS. WHEN THE MOISNRE CONTENT OF RTE FlLL IS ABOVE THAT SPECIFIED. THE FILL MATERfAL SHALL BE AERATED BY eLADING OR OTHER FA M iH NP E M ISNRE CONTENT IS A$ SPEGFIED. SANS CTORY E DDB U L M U AFTER EACH LAYER HAS BEEN PLACED, MIXED, SPREAD EVENLY AND MOISTURE CONDIRONED, IT SHALL BE COMPACTED TD AT LEAST THE SPECIFED DENSITY. THE FlLL OPERATION SHALL BE CONHNUEO IN COMPACTED AYERS S SPECIFIED A60VE UIJRL THE FILL HAS BEEN L A BROUGHT 70 THE FNISHED SLOPES ANO GRADES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. NU LAYER SHALL BE ALLD'tiED TO DRY OUT BEFORE SUBSEWENT LA'!ER$ ARE PLACED. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT SYlALL BE OF SUCH DESIGN THAT IT WILL BE ABLE TO COMPACT THE FlLL TO THE SPECIFIED MItJIMUM COMPACTON W11HIN THE SPEGFIED MOISNRE CONTENT RANGE. COMPACTION OF EACH LAYER SHALL BE CONTINUOUS OVER ITS ENTRE AREA UNTIL THE REQUIRED MINIMUM DENSItt HAS BEEN OBTAINED. CUT OA FILL SLOPES ALL CONSTRllCTEO SLOPES, BOTH CUT AND FILL, SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2 TO i (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL). DURING 1HE GRADING OPERATON, COMPACTED FILL SLOPES SHALL BE OVERFILLED BY AT LEAST ONE FOOT HORIZONTALLY AT THE COMPLETION OF THE GFADING OPERAnOr{S. THE EXCESS FILL EXISTING ON THE SLOPES SHALL DE BLADED OFF TO CREATE THE FINISHED SLOPE EMBANNMENi, ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE TRACK WFLKED AFTER BEING BROUGHT i0 FINISH GRADE AND MEN BE PLANTED WITH EROSION CONTROL SLOPE PLANTING, THE CITY ENpNEER SHALL AE\PEW ALL CUT SLOPES TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADVERSE GEOLOGIC CONDIRONS ARE EXPOSED. IF SUCH CONOInONS DO OCCUR, THE ENGWEER7NG GEOLOGIST SHALL RECOMMENG THE APPROPRIATE MIiIGARON MEASURES AT RTE nME OF iHEIP, DETECRON. (2) EHCAVATE AND CRUSH THE UDLITY UNE IN THE TRENCH, (3) CAP THE ENDS OF THE UTILITY LINE WITH CONCRETE TO PREVENT 111E ENTRANCE OF WATER. THE LOCARONS A7 7, NIHICH THE UHLI1\' LINE WILL BE CAPPED WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE LENGTH OF THE CAP SHALL NOT BE LESS IRAN FIVE FEET, AND THE CONCRETED MIX EMPLOYED SHALL HAVE MINIMUM SHRINKAGE. F, SITE PREPMtAlION AND STRIPPING A. ALL SURFACE ORGANICS SHALL BE STRIPPED AND REMOVED FROM BUILDING PADS, AREAS f0 RECEIVE COMPACTED FILL AND PAVEMENT AREAS. B. UPON THE COMPLETION OF 1HE ORGANIC STRIPPING OPERATION, 1HE GROUND SURFACE (NADVE SOIL SUBGRADE) OVER THE ENTIRE AREA OF ALL BUILDING PADS, STREET AND PAVEMENT AREAS AND ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE COMPACTED FILL SHALL BE PLOWED OR SCARIFIED UNHL THE SURFACE IS FREE OF RUTS, HUMMOCKS CR O1HER UNEVEN FEANRES WHICH MAY INHIBIT UNIFORM SOIL COMPAC110N. THE GROUND SURFACE SHALL 1HEN BE OISCED OR BLADED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES. UPON ENGINEER'S SARSfACRON, 1HE NEW SURFACE SHALL BE WATER CONDIRONf,O AND RECOMPACIED PER REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL. STOFlMWATEFI NOTES TORMWAIER POLLURON. PREVENTDN Ng IBS:. 1) STORE HANDLE. AND DISPOSE OF CONSIPUCRON MAIEflIALS AND WASTES PROPERLY, SO AS i0 PREVENT 1HEIR CONTACT WITH STORMWAIER. 2) CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL PO7ENRAL POLLULVJ TS, INCLUDING SOLID WAS1E5, PAINTS, CONCRETE, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, CHEMICALS, WASHWAiER OR SEDIMENT, AND NON-SiORMWAIER DISCHARGES i0 STORM DRAINS AND W0.1ER COURSES. 3) USE SEDIMENT CONTROL OR FlLiRAiION 70 REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM OEWATEAING EFFLUENT. 4) AV010 CLEANING NEUNC, OR MAINTAIPING VEHICLES ON SITE, ExCEPi IN A DESIGNATED AREA IN WHICH RUNOFF IS CONTAINED PND TREATED. `) DELINEATE CLEARING UMI'T5. EASEMENTS, SETBACkS, $ENSI11Vf OR CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFER ZONES, TREES ANO DISCHARGE COURSE WRi FIELD MARKERS. AR AS FROM CONSIAUC1lON IMPACTS USING P R N UNOISNRBED E 6) PROTECT ADJACENT PRO E TIES A D VEGETARVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OF FlL1ER5, DIKES, MULCHINf OR O7NER MEASURES A$ APPROPRIATE. 7) PERFORM CLEARING ANU EAA1H MOVING ACTI4IPES DURING DRY WEATHER TO THE MAXIMUM EX1EN7 PRACTCAL. 8) LIMIT NJD 11ME APPUCARONS OF PESTICIDES ANO FERTILIZERS TO PREVENT POLLUTED RUNOFF 9) LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS. 111 NOTES ARE INTENDED In BE USED AS A GENERAL CUmELNE TIE RFfFAfI1CID SOILS REPORT FOR THE PAO,ECT MID GO1flMRIG AOFNCY dtAODIG ORDNANCE SHML SUPERSEDE 1NFSE NOTES TIE SDIS ENDNFER IIAY MAKE ON-511E RECOYIEHDAiIONS dIPoNG CRADNlG OPERADON& 10) AVOID TRACKING DIRT OR MATERIALS OFF-SITE; CLEAN OFF-SITE PAVED AREAS AND SIDEWALKS USING DRY SWEEPING METHODS TO THE MAXIMUM E%iEN T PRACTICAL SUPPLEMENTAL MEA5IIRES A. THE PHRASE "NO DUMPING -DRAINS TO BAY' OR EQUALLY EFFECRVE PHRASE MUST BE LABELED ON STORM DRAIN INLETS (BY STENCILING, BRANDING, OR PLAQUES) TO ALERT 1HE PUBLIC 70 ME OESINAl10N OF STORIA WATER ANC i0 PREVENT DIRECT DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE STORM DRAIN. B. USING FILTPARON MATERIALS ON STORM DRAIN COVEP,S i0 REMOVE SEDIMPIi FROM DEWAIERING EFRDEN T. C. STABILIZING ALL DENUDED AREAS AND MAINTAINING EROSION CqJ TROT MEASURES CONTINUOUSLY FROM OCTOBER 15 ANC APRIL T5. D. REMOVING SPOILS PROMPTLY, AND AVOID STOCKPILING OF FILL MATERIALS, WHEN RAIN IS . Mp RI HA R W1H FORECAST IF RAIN iHRF.AIENS, STOCKPILED SOILS PND O7NEP lE ALS S LL BE COVE ED A TARP OR O1HEA WAIERPR00F MAIERtAL. E. STORING, HANDLING AND DISP09NG Of CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND WASTES 50 AS i0 AVOID THEIR ENTRY TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS OR WATER BODY. F AVOIDING CLEANING, FUELING, OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN AN AREA DESIGNATEp TO CONTAIN 0.ND TREAT RUNOFF. G UMIRNG AND RMING APPLICARON$ aF PESTICIDES AND FERRUZER TO AVOID POLLUTING RUNOFF a sEASaJa ums AxD Dw,RTACE croNTRa FlLL MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE PLACED, SPREAD OA COMPACTED WHILE IT I$ AT AN UNSUITABLY HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT Oft N 1HE WORN DURIN OiHERWSE UNFAVORABLE COiJDIRONS. WHE G IS INTERRUPTED FOR ANY REASON THE FILL OPERATIONS SHALL NOT BE RESUMED UNTIL FlELO TEST PERFORMED BY THE GTY ENGINEER INDICATE THAT THE MOISNRE GONDITIIXJS IN AREAS TO DE FLLED ARE A$ PRENOUSLY SPECIFIED. ALL EARTH MOVING AND WORKING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONTROLLED i0 PREVENT WATER FROM RUNNING INTO EXCAVATED AREAS. ALL EXCESS WATER SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED AND THE SIZE KEPT DRY a DUST CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY FOR THE ALLEVIARON OR PREVENTION OF ANY DUST NUISANCE ON OR ABWT iE1E SIZE CAUSED BY DIE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATION EITHER DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADING OR AESULTNG FROM THE CONDITON IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR LEAVES 1HE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL LIABILITY INCLUDING COURT COST OF CO-DEFENDANTS FOR ALL CLAIMS RELATED 70 OUST OR WIND-BLOWN MATERIALS A71A18UTABLE 70 MI5 WORK, COS1 FOR MIS ITEM OF WORK IS TO 8E I TH X AVAn ITEM AND NO ADDITONAL INCLUDED N EEC ON CCMPENSATON SHALL BE ALLOWED, 1A INDEMNITY THE CONTRACTOR WILL HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND THE ENGINEER, THE OWNER AND HIS CONSULTANTS AND EACH OF THEIR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES RND AGENTS, FROM ANY AND ALL LIABNlY CLAIMS. LOSSES OR DAMAGE ARISING OR ALLEGED TO HEREIN, BU7 NOi INCLUDING THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF 1HE OWNER, 1HE ARCHITECT, THE ENGINEER AND HIS CONSULTAIJTS AND EACH OF 1HEIR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS. It. SAFELY 1N ACCORDANCE W1H GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSIRUC110N PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL RE SOLELY ANO COMPLETELY N I F ft C DITIONS OF THE JOB SITE. INCLUDING RESPO 5 BLE 0 ON SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS ANO PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE Of THE WORK. IRIS REONREMENT WILL APPLY CONTNUDUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HWRS, THE DV1Y OF THE ENGINEERS TO CONDUCT CONSIRUCRON RENEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS IJW INTENDED TO INCLUDE REN W OF THE ADEQUACY Of THE GONTRACiOA'S SAFETY E MEASURES, IN, ON OR NERA INE CONSTRUCT)ON SITE. T2. aARMIIEE Nf1iHER 1HE FINAL PAYMENT, NOR THE PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT, NOR PARTIAL NOR ENRftE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE PREMISES BY 1HE OWNER SHALL CONSRNTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK NOT DONE IN ACCORDANCE WI1H THE CONTRACT OR RELIEVES THE CONTRACTOR OF LIABWTY 1N RESPECT TO ANY E%PRESS WARRANTIES OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAULTY MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP. THE CQYIRACTOR S4ALL REMEDY ANY DEFECTS IN WORK PND PAY FOR ANY DAMAGE TO OTHER WORK RESULTNG THERE FROM NHICH SHALL APPEAR 1WTHIN A PERIOD OF ONE (i) CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DAIS OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF RTE WORN. Ta 1RQIflI BACKFlLL ETHER THE ON-SITE INORGANIC SOIL OR APPROVED IMPORTED SOIL MAY BE USED AS TRENCH BACKFlLL THE BACI(FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE MOISNRE CONOIRONED PER THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS OF NOT MORE IRAN SIX INCHES IN HORIZONTAL UNCOMPACTED LAYERS AND BE COMPACTED BY MECHANICAL MEANS TO A MINIMUM OF 90X RELATIVE COMPACTON. IMPORTED SAND FLAY BE USED FOA TRENCH BACK9Ll MATERIAL PROVIDED IT IS COMPACTED TD AT LEAST 907. REIAnVE COMPACTION. WATER JETRNC ASSOCIATED W77H COMPACTON USING VIBRATORY EOWPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED ONLY 'MiH IMPORTED SAND BACKFlLL WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. ALL PIPES SHALL BE BEDDED 'NTH SAND EXTENDING FROM THE TRENCH BOTTOM i0 TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE PIPE. SAND BEDDING IS TO BE COMPACTED AS SPECIFIED ABOVE FOR SAND BACKFlLL. la ERO51011 caNTRa A. ALL GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RELATED WORK UNDERTAHEN ON THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO ALL TERMS AND CONDIHONS OF INE Cltt GRADING ORDINANCE AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE. B. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES TO ANY PUBLICLY OWNED AND MAINTAINED ROAD CAUSED BY THE AFORESAID CONTRACTOR'S GRADING ACTINIIES, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR iFIE CLEANUP OF ANY MATERIAL SPILLED ON ANY PUBLIC ROAD ON THE HAUL ROUTE. WINDOW OR DOOR LEDGE 90' FlTRNG 9 J" PVC OVERFLOW PIPE TR MIN 6" ' 3i K6" REDUCER 1X ~ CURB F NECESSARY 6` "Y FlTDNG 1K1' FlTRNG 4"K6` REDUCER IF NECESSARY 6` PVC DRAIN 4' PVC DRAIN PIPE PIPE 1 LIGHTWELL DRAIN DETAIL C-3 xoT m scALE NOTES: C. THE EROSION CWJTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE OPERABLE DURING TH R FIRST TO APRIL FIFTEE TH. E RAINY SEASON DCTOBE N P N I TO BE COMPLETED BY OCTOBER EROSION CONTROL LAND G 5 FIRST. NO GRADING OR U1ILITY TRENCHING SHALL OCCUR BETWEEN OCTOBER FIRST ANC APRIL FIFTEENTH VIJLESS AUIHORI 'D BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Zc D. A R C iR ' M A URES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNRL LL E OS]ON ON 0~ E S DISNRBED AREAS ARE STABWZED AND CHANGES TO THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MADE TO MEET FIELD CONDIRONS ONLY VlI7H INE APPROVAL OF OR AT ihlE ' DIRECTION Of THE SOILS ENGINEER. IE. DURING THE RAINY SEASON, ALL PAV<D AREAS SHELL fiE KEPI ~ CLEAR OF EARTH MATERIAL AND DEBRIS. THE SITE SHALL RE ~I MAINTAINED 50 A$ TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT-LADEN RUNOFF T- I ANY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. F. ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE INSPECIIZ AND REPAIRED Ai THE END OF EACH WORKING OAY DURING THE RAINY sEASON. G, WHEN NO LONGER NECESSARY ANO PRIOR 70 FINAL ACCEPTANCE W DEVELOPMENT, SEDIMENT BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED OR OTHERWISE DEACDVATEO AS REOUIP,ED BY RIE CITY. ~I H. A CONSTRUCDON ENTRANCE SHALL BE PRONGED AT ANY POINT OF EGRESS FROM INE SITE TO RGADWAY. A COIJS7UCTION t° ENTAAiJ E SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF COARSE DRAIN ROCK 2 70 . C MINIMUM DIAMEIEP.) AT LEAST LIGHT INCHES 1NICN BY FlFTY (50) FEET LONG BY TWENTY (20) FEET WIDE ANO SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNRL THE SITE IS PA~fcO. I. ALt AREAS SPECIFIED FOR HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE NOZZLE PLANTED I WITH STABIUZAiIDN MATERIAL CONSISTING OF FIBER, SEED, FERTILIZER l ANO WATER, M1xED AND APPLIED IN THE FOLLOWING PROPORDONS: FIBER, 2000 185/ACRE SEED, 200 185/ACRE (SEE NOTE d BELOIV) FERRLIZER (11-6-4J, SCO LBS/ACRE Ii WATER AS REOU EO FOR LC 0 IR APP I Aii N I 'J. SEED MIX SHALL OE CLYUE ROBINS CR g18O/CR ,9190/C4k y120 K. WATER URLIZED IM 1nE STABWZARON MATERIAL SHALL BE OF SUCH QUALITY THAT li WILL PROMOTE GERMINATION AND SRMULAIE GROVYiH OF PLANTS. Ii SHALL 8E FREE OF POLLUTAWT MATERIALS AND WEEC SEED. IL. HYOROSEEDINC SHALL CONFORM TO THE PRONSIONS OF SECHUN 20, "EROSION CONTROL ANU HIGHWAY PLANTING', OF TH`c STANDARD I SPEGFlCARONS OF THE STATE Or' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF A T T I TR NSPOR ARa'I AS LAS REV SED M. A DISPERSING AGENT MAY BE ADDED TO THE HYDROSEEFiING MATERIAL ~ PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR FURMSHES SUITABLE ENDENCE THAT THE ADDIRVE 'MLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ME PERFORMANCE OF 1HE SEEDING MIXNRE. N. $TABILIZADON MATERIALS SHALL 8E APPLIED A$ SOOrI AS PRACnCABLE I AFTER COMPLETON OF CRAOIrIC OPERAnONS .ONO PRIOP TO THE ONSET OF WINTER RAINS, OR AT SUCH OTHER TIME AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY I ENGINEER. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE APPLIED BEFORf_INSTALLATION OF OTHER LANDSCAPING MATFRIAL$ SUCH AS TREES, SHRUGS AN- GROUND COVERS. ' 0. 1HE $TABILIZAiION MATERIAL SHALL AE APPLIED WITHIN 4-HWRS AFTER MIXING. MIXED MATERIAL NOT USED WITHIN 1-HOUP.S SHALL AE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. I P. THE CON'fRACiOR SHALL MAINTAIN 1HE SOIL STABILIZATION MAiER1AL AFTER PLACEMENT. 7NE CITY EEJGINEER MAY REQUIRE SPRAY APPLICAnON OF WATER OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACRVIDE$ TO ASSURE THE EFFECRVENESS OF 1HE STASILIZARON PROCESS. APPLICARON OF WATER SHALL 9E ACCOFJFUSHED USING NOZZLES THAT PRODUCE A SFRAY THAT DOES NOT CONGENIRATE OR WASH AWAY THE STABUZAl10N MATERIALS. 15, CLFANIP i THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN THE SITE CLEAN, SAFE AND IN USABLE CONDITION. ANY SPILLS OF SOIL, ROCK OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL MUST ' BE REMUVED FROM INE SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR DURNG COIJSiRUCTION AND UPON COMPLE110N OF 7NE PROJECT. COST FOR TH15 ITEM OF WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE EXCAVAl10N AND CCIMPACRON ITEM nND NO ADDITONAL COMPENSARON SHALL BE ALLOWED. 1HE INTENT OF AN ENERGY DI651PAlOR IS TO DISPERSE THE COLLEC11E0 DRAINAGE AS 'SHEETFLOW ONTO THE E%ISTNG GROUND SURFACE, WHICH 9NULATES THE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NANRALLY OCCUR IF NO OEVELOPNENT 'AERE PRESENTS ON THE SITE. - 6' TO 12' ROCK ( PRODDE SCREENING AT \~/ ENDS TO KEEP ANIMALS Wi. 1 ~ ~-GEOTEXIILE N Z 0 ~ tt Z ~, Ll.I 0 Z a C7 , W '^ rc W ~ U ~ z ~ ~ 5 Q _ U W JI I ~N ~N 3m rc¢ az a~ 0 a4 z~ m^ -6 N a~~a n x .,I. W~ wzz U~~, zao w~r~ ~QU wz ~O N W w o y~ H V /~~~y W "'{ >~ V o z TF, A~I U N4 ~ W C'3 U nW W z U a tt U SOUO PIPE 1. SLOPE INTERIOR SLAB OF LIGNTWELL 0 TR MIN IN ALL DIRECTIONS 70 DIRECT FLOW TOWARDS INLET. 2. MAINTAIN 6` MIN FROM BOTTOM OF SILL/DOOR TO BOTTOM OF uDITWELL 3. INSTALL `NETNAH R-AT41" GRATE AND 3" PVC WT GOING PIPE D1 LJEdi1WEU.5 NOT INTENDED TO HAVE F00T TRAFTTC. <. INSTALL 4" METAL GRATE AND 4' PVC OUTGOING PIPE IN AREAS INTENDED TO HAVE FOOT TRAFFIC. 6, INSTALL J' PVC OVERFLOW PIPE AS SHOMN. 6. C H MIT TO 1HE CONTRA TOR 5 ALL SUB OWNER IN WRIRNG THE NEED FD2 PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF DEBRIS. 7. REFER TO SIRUCNRAL PLAN fOR WALL CONSTRUCTION DETPIL $iED TO GRAIN ~ ~ 6' MIN. -~ NON-~~ T r POLYESTER PLAN CHECK 200' 4.00' -~ GEOTEKIILE fi-20-03 ~ 'D 2' MIN - - g' MNJ REVISIONS BY 6' TO 12" ROCK `~ NO: 2030725 DISCHARGE PIPE ~ DATE: 03-21-0' SCALE: AS NOTED _ DESIGN BY: JT PERFORATED PIPE (HOLES DOWN) DRAWN BY: LC ,I PARALLEL TO CONTOUR NOTE: ENDS OF SURFACE DRAINAGE DISCHARGE SHEET ND: OF' SLOPE PIPE SHOULD NOT OE CAPPED. PERIODIC MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED TO KEEP DISCHARGE ~-~ 1 FREE FROM BLOCKAGE 2 NERGY DISSIPATOR DISCHARGE C_3 NOT TO SCALE OF 4 SHEETS ., Ie M 1 ~` tR // 0 (• s'C,4'd ~,_ r - -ON-_ ..-Oil-. . l ~ ~ -+r ~ . ~~ I„~~ ~~`....,, ~+ o ;;T~ ~~ ~'~ 5F .'. C'°~, 1_~ ~ ~ ~~~tt ~~ s~ ~~r~ '~ \~ \, ~. :. ~~ osa ~~~,~ i~ a~ ~ v~ ~~ t CEDAR ~ d'~ _ ,p -~t ~ ~ I, ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~( I k ~ 3' 'DWOOU ~ ~ (~ ~ ` ~I I ii ~\ ~ ~`~7E . `' I jI } S 1~ t ~, ~ .r, NrbP~crr ' ~~ ~u~ ~ ~ %, Ott ~ '~' ~" ti~ ,~ ~ (NJ~HOV~ ~ ~ Ii c u-I.< ~ :~~ i ,, ~A ,y , , ~,. l~ ~ ~~,.. ~4 ~? ~ ~~ r ~ ~ Dg2~ ~~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~,~ TI c~,~\ [', F I L TUai ~~~ :ti ~ ~;i~(f:~7,~ ~~ e~~la~w~~ V~~~ PRONDE~gJLPGRARY SAIIDBAGS, OR STRAW ROLLS ~a AT FLOW LINE P~~d~µD D~AB.~: NEST 239.4T i 10' ?UF -OH~ ~.~ \ _. ~ _- ~ - hW ~ i I, P E f ~A N - - Lµ-. -~~ ._" _ - ~T~. ~ !, T~ ~a>use r .~ Iy =~:r ~, l~.V tad ' :. ',. t (N) P001, ~~t aaose ~ A. ~ b ~, ~. i~. n .\ F e ~~ / /~ ~ ~ L jr / ~L - :'/ ~ ~ ~_ I~ , ,~ Ib X,i~~ ~ ` ,I' i1 I li . ' .I III k~~ ~I i~`MAPi .. tw . e 1l I__ NTAnON BASK! AT EACH ACCEPT STdWWATER UCnON PER qTY 8 0.B.AG IE; sEw ALL OTHER INLE15 N ACCEPT STORMWAIER AND 91PORAPoLY TO FUNCnONw BASIN INLETS. -TYP 1~r u lh~'iRJw~ d~ ~ t l ~.(~uµJ ~~,~~ PROWDE SLT FFNC£ OR STRAW ROLLS PEN dTY & AB.A.G STANDARDS, PLACED AT THE PERIMETER ~ SITE ROPES -TYP. c iV PROWDE ROd(ED CgISTRUCnCW ENTRANCE i I PER CRY do AB.AG STANDARDS 4i USE MIN. 8' 7HICX z 1Y HIDE X 50' LONG. *--L~ATE~/ RaocanE ouulaNC coNSTRUCnaN I '~ AS REOD AT THE END OF PAVEMENT. I U40 f r uA ~ I t,'.C I ~,< ~/~ oy ~.~. j I 8.00 ~ ~ ALUND.RA ~ ; ~ _ o ~ ~~ A^~ i ~~ ~~ ~, -- -- _. <, l ~ i ~ EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES I THE ERGSON CONTROL NEASURFIS$R`ALL CONFORM VATH ABAG STANDARDS, CRY STANDARDS AND 1HE APPROV~~~1F{~NS ENGINEERMG DEPARTMENT. ALL MATBilALS NECESSARY FORF~PZV~BPROVED ER0610N CONTROL MEASURES SHALL ~ DN Sn: BY OCTOBER 75TH AND IN PLACE BY NOVDABER 1ST. EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM SHALL BE BJSTALLm AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE RAINY ~ASOt7, OR FIN7N NDVEMBFR 1ST 1HROUGH APPoL 1ST, N}NdEVER IS LONGER. IN THE EVENT OF RAIN, ALL GRADING WORN d TO CEASE IMIAEdATFlY AND THE SRE IS iD BE S:HFD W ACCORDANCE W1H THE APPROVAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN. THE Cdi11UCTCR SHALL BE RESPON98LE FOR CHECKING AND REPAIPoNG EROSCN ca+mol svsTVS aFm+ EACx Sra±W. PROffCTS MUST HAVE ALL CUT AND FlLL SLOPES PROTECTED BY S®ING AND PUNCHING THE SLOPES WITH STRAW OR HTDROSEEDING ANY AREAS aF DISTUPBED SOIL SHALL BE SEEDED OR REPLANTED TO THE SAnSFACnON OF TI£ dTY ENGINEER PRIOR Tb NOVEMBER 1ST, OR FPLAL TNSPECnoN, NHICHEVER Is LONGER. , ADdnONAL EROSION CONTROL L~ASURES NAY BE REWIRED BY dTYS FNdNEERIN6 DEPAAINENT OR BUBDING OFFIOALSI PROkC75 SHALL ANY ACCUMULAndI OR DEPOST OF dRT, MUD, SAND, ROdCS, GRAVA OR DEBRIS CN THE SURFACE OF ANY STREET, ALLEY OR PUBLIC PLACE OR IN ANY PUBLIC STORK DRAIN SYSTEMS EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THE EROSON CdITROL MEASIRES 5}IALL PlCLUCE AS 1) 1HE nMING OF THE dtADING ACnVInES OUPoNG ME DRY NONTNS IF FEASIBLE, 2) 7ENPORARY MID PERMANENT PLANTING OF EKPOSED Sd4 J) 1EMPdtARY SEDIMENT BASKS AND TRAPS, 4) PLACEMENT OF STRAW GRWND COVER OR MI%.CHMG OVER EXPOSD SOIL PRKNi TO 1HE RAINY'SEASdI, AND/OR 5) IEIAPdTARY SLT FENCE ADJACENT PROPEAnES AND UNDISNRBED AREAS ARE N BE PROTECTED FROM CONS1RUCnCN IMPACTS. SETNNENTAnON IADEN WATER IS NOT PERMITTED lb LEAVE THE 9TE NEASUR6 STALL BE TAKEN SUCH 1HAT THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND DISPOSw OF THE CONS1RlICnON NATEPow AND WASTES WILL BE PREVENTED TO HATE CdTTACT W1H STORK WATER. INAPPROPPoATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND NAINIENANCE PROWSKlNS CAN LEAD, TO HEAVY FlNE FTtdA THE REdONAL WATER pUwTY Cd1TROL BOARD(RN9C8) DURING PROJECT CCNSTRUCndi. SPECBTC MEASURES SHAD BJCLUDE: CONTRACTOR STALL PROVIDE IA ROGGa:•0 CONS7RUCnON ENTRANCE PER ON AB.A.G IF A SEPARATE ENTRANCE IS UTW2ED FOR CONSTRUCnON TRAFFlC. PROVIDE SILT FENCE AROUND~PERDIETFR OF EXPOSED AREAS (ESPEdALLY ALONG PROPERTY LINES) TO PREVENT SLT FLOWS oFF-STE PROVDE SEDIMENTATICAI BASN(S1 AT ALL INLETS WHICH ARE 70 ACCEPT RUNOFF. ALL OTHER WLETS ~SH ~ TEMPORARILY SEATED. `AY ~ ~ !//I~i" ~ a ~ STRAW ROLLS BUST BE QLACED ~~ ~!! ALONG SYOPf CONR7U ~ T~ ` (~ AAIACENI ROLLS SNA11 ~ ~ ~ TM.MLY ABUT-~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Y t I ~~ ~ ry1 SPAClNC DEPfN05 ON SOIL TYPE AND SCOPE STEEPNESS T~ E ~~ u~ 1• o~ i~ °, S .~ kz 4= (NOT TO SCALE) PUBLIC RIGHT- Of-WAY \\ ~50' MIN. _. I' i ~l- 1-_ _j i ;.'.. B' MIN. I ^.i-. EXISTING GROUND PROVDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION PROFILE BETWEEN STABILIZED _ CONSTRUCnON ENTRANCE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ~50' MIN, Ili PUBLIC E%ISnNC -f ~_ , RIGHT-OF GROUND _ i-- t WAy PLAN CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NTS Ll~E B£INM£N7 ORGWIC M47T£R, AND NATIVE SEEDS ARF CAPTURED BEHIND 7NE ROCCS 3"-5" (75-725mmJ ~~'`~~ ` 8 =!0" D4L ~~~~~ T (200-750mmJ /% ~~~~ ~ G! \\/\ 1"X 1"STAKE (25 x 25mmJ NOTE I. STRAW ROLL /NSTAIUTlON~REOITMES 1HE PUC£MENT AND SECURE STA!(!)NC OF THE R01L IN Cam Tai COIJTWR. RUNOFl1 MUST rNCI` BE ALLOWED ~O RUN "~ 1 RA,1 °s uNVER oR aaouNV Rocc. ROLLS LOCATION: N; ~P• N Z } .~ ~ rc N ~- W i ~a C7 J Y m Z rca m w p aJJ ~ s yWj QOM r ~ u ~`o°ro etl ~ ?amN d S ~~o W ~ NSv4 `~ n 0 i wzz a W~f~ Q~la d U a x~c~ w o x ~ ~ H ~ ~ 0 U~d U Q 2 N a z U z'~ o ~' H N0 W w RENSIONS BY JOB N0: 2030125 SCALE: 1" = ID' DESIGN 8Y: JT SHEET N0: ER-1 Of 4 SHEETS ~~ `, R ~~ Planting list S ~SYM SIZE NAME OF PLANT COMMON NAME TYPE QTY. ACR 36 BOX ACER MACROPHYLLUM -REPLACEMENT BI6 LEAF MAPLE T 6 QA 24 BOX QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA -REPLACEMENT COAST LIVE OAK T 2 55 36 BOX SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS -REPLACEMENT REDWOOD T 3 CAM 15 6AL CAMELIA SASANGUA "HANA JIMAN" LST 23 CRA 15 6AL MALUS FLORIBUNDA FLOWERING CRABAPPLE T 3 DD 15 GAL DODONAEA VISCOSA "PURPUREA" HOP BUSH LST 12 FS 15 GAL FEJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA LST 20 LI 15 GAL LAGESTROEMIA I. "TUSCORORA", "BILOXI", "TUSKEGEE" CRAPE MYRTLE T 2 1 i POD 15 6AL PODOCARPUS CRASILIOR YEW PINE LST it TU 15 GAL TIBOUCHINA URVEI.IANA PRINCESS FLOWER LST 13 VT 15 6AL VIBURNUM TINUS "SPRING BOUQUETTE" LST 42 A6 1 GAL AGAPANTHUS -VARY LILY-OF-THE-NILE SS 30 AJ FLAT AJUGA REPTANS GC 10 AN 16AL ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUS KANGAROO PAW S 5 6ER 16AL GERANIUM INCANUM 6C 12 6ER 16AL GERANIUM "BIOKOVO" 6C 46 HM 16AL HEMEROCALLIS -VARY DAY LILY SS 45 LV 16AL LAVANDULA PINNATA LAVANDER SS 24 LV 16AL LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA SS 24 N 1 GAL NEPETA x FAASSE~ CATMINT GC 20 TC 1 GAL TEUCREUM CHAMAEDRUS GC 35 ~~ TH 16AL THYMUS x CITRIODORUS LEMON THYME GC 16 TRJ 1 GAL TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE 6C 55 ARC 5 GAL ARCSTOSTAPHYLLOS "H. MCMINN MANZANITA S 32 AZA 5 GAL AZALEA "MADONNA" S 14 C&D 5 GAL COLEONEMA & DIOSMA -WHITE ANGEL BREATH S ~ CK 5 GAL COPROSMA KIRKI NCN S 24 CRR 5 6AL CORREA "CARMINE BELL" AUSRTALIAN FUCSIA 5 40 DA 5 GAL DICSONIA ANTARCTICA TREE FERN LS 6 E 5 GAL EALAEGNUS PUNGENS SILVERBERRY LST 30 GN 5 GAL GREVTLLEA NOELII NCN S 43 LOR 5 GAL LOROPETALUM °RAZZLEBERRY" 5 33 MA 5 GAL MYRSINA AFRICANA AFRICAN BOX LST 26 MC 5 GAL MYRTUS COMMUNIS TRUE'MYRTLE LST 16 PHT 5 GAL PHORMIUN TENAX -VARY NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 16 PITT 5 GAL PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA "WHILLER DWARF" S ~ RHO 5 GAL RHUS OVATA (INTEGRIFOLIA) SUGAR BERRY S ~ RSM 5 GAL ROSMARINUS "TUSCAN BLUE" ROSMARY 5 38 • CILKER RESIDENCE 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARATOGA, CA ITEM 3 • r • I~EP®IZT T®T E PLANNING ~CJMISSI®N Application No./Location: 03-184;19681 Junipero Way Type of Application: Appeal of Administrative Decision Appellant: Hamid Saadat ~ Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: November 12, 2003 APN: 393-18-010 Department Head: i i :..- i ......i B4yt~t~zJ ~_~ I n~~fao~ I i ~ --T---r.--.T - ~. -J%~ \ i ~~ ~te $ ~ ' ~ 7 I \ t # ~,~ ~_ a . ,. __ 1 c r.--- - ~ , ' ~ -c, ~r ~«.~ r ~ _~_„r ''- --- i ~ ~ ~A ,- L__ ~ ~ > > - .. _ J `danipero - .__- - ~ w a o - _ _ o y --- I Pal~rmo ~ - - t ~_ ~ ~ ~ -~ - 0 -a _- _ La Vi~$a ~ m.~ C Uv ~ t ~ ~ - Project Site - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, - Parcels w ithin 500 ft __ ~ -Eset~efa W a I _ ~,/ hydro _ ~ , ~L_ pr.... ~ ,,1 ~- Parcels --- ! ~ ; r- -~--_ ~ ---- -T- I f --._.......~T..... 1 I I -...1 0 --~-•l9'T~Q„~ `( . n f 500 1000 ~ -r- r ~~; .-,f..T_L_. ~'_-~O-X-i.._.._ --- i _._._.r.. -~ ~ub~t~.. I_ 19681 Junipero ~1Vay Application No. 03-184; 19681 Junipero Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Hamid Saadat, property owner of 19681 Junipero Way, has filed an appeal of an administrative decision. The administrative decision was made after. the appellant caused. severe root damage to several trees both on his property and an adjacent neighbor's property. The adminstrative decision, dated September 10, 2003, imposed conditions requiring the appellant to: install replacement trees; make a cash payment (in the .form. of additional replacement trees), and to cover tree removal costs for a neighbor's tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant's actions. During construction of a new driveway the appellant damaged the root systems of four bees, three of which are located on a .neighbor's property. The City . Arborist recommended removal of three of the four trees due to severe root loss, which effectively resulted in the destruction of those three trees. The damage to the fourth. tree was inconclusive and thus replacement trees were not required for this tree. Three of the damaged trees are located on the, Hernandez property. at 13020 La Vista Drive. Initially, the Hernandez family requested that the trees damaged on their property remain; however; due to questions of the stability of tree #2, they have now decided to allow its removal. • o Tree # 1 is located on the appellant's property. This tree has been removed. Removal. was conditionally authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to the arborist report recommending removal due to damage to the point of destruction. o Tree #2 is located on the Hernandez property and they have agreed to have it removed because it was damaged to the point of destruction. The Community Development Director has concurred, again based on "the conditions requiring installation of replacement trees, making a cash payment (in the form of additional replacement trees), aild covering tree removal costs for their tree which was rendered unstable as a result of the appellant's actions. o Tree #3 is located on the Hernandez property and they would like this tree to remain since it does not present any imminent danger. The Commuiuty Development Director does not have the authority to order or approve its removal since the Hernandez family owns the property on which the tree is located and they are not willing to join in the request to remove it. Additionally, the City Arborist has found no imminent danger with this tree. Under these circumstances the owner of the property on which the tree is located bears full responsibility for the tree in the future. o Tree #4 is located on the Hernandez property and they would like this tree to remain since it does not present any imminent danger. Application No. D3-184; 19681 Junipero Way The administrative decision, dated September 10, 2003_ was determined based on all three trees damaged to the point of destruction based on the arborist reports and the City Code. Relevant background documents have been included as attachments to t11e staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Arborist Report, dated August 25, 2003, August 28, 2003, September 5, 2003 and valuation spreadsheets. Response by Arborist to appellant statement. 2. Correspondence from City Staff dated August 28, 2003, September 3, 2003 and September 10, 2003. 3. Appeal statement from the appellant including appellant's arborist reports, by Debbie Ellis. 4: Mailing labels. 5. Photos. STAFF RECOMIVIENI)ATION: Hold public hearing and take appropriate action. Staff recommends the Planning Commission frame their determination on this matter as involving the issuance of a tree removal permit for trees #1 and #2 with conditions. such as a cash payment {in the form of replacement trees), removal costs, city arborist mitigations and/or replacement trees as the Commission sees fit. ., • ~; Attachment 1 • :~ AR~OIZ ~s®uRCEs ~~ ~-~p •~~. ~zo~~~~donc€~ o~¢~ia~.ieu~~u~al ~on~ak.~tinr~ cs :._12E£ ~az~ ~~ AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES RECENTLY DAMAGED AT 19681 JiJNIPERO WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 i• Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A . • Site Inspected: August 22, 2003 Report Submitted: August 25, 2003 p. ,, ~ ?.?9J a ji9~ /~i€ ~f :t;'~ ~ %t,'srl~: a.9~1•-;re• z~y~tt•€:cStC'2i~t't'fIIAP.~.i1~i ~; ~C.=h ~. ~L.~TS 1`".:ICI} t/ S~V ..I ;Z ~ 99 f~CJ ~• 1.-LS^.. ~~l}.~'S '' yJ~ ~. t.~~4 ~.. ~.~~~. t.: ~~`L£~j :~cli i~i ', If%~Z ',~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I assess damage to trees caused by recent grading for hardscape at the property of 19681 Junipeio Way. This report presents my findings and provides mitigation to "compensate for the damage. A .schematic identifying the general tree locations and numbers is attached. FINDINGS There are four. trees- affected by recent grading activities. They include. one Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) #1 and three Monterey Pines (Pious radiata) #2, 3 and 4. Tree #1 is located on the property, whereas the other three appear to be on neighboring ones. Tree #1 Tree #1 has a 25.7-inch trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade, is an estimated 40 feet tall and has a canopy spread of 45 feet. Severe root damage was caused to this tree as an estimated 75=percent of the root area was affected within one-foot of its trunk. I found four significantly large scaffold roots which were severed, and as a result, the tree's stability is extremely compromised. This tree appears in overall. poor health as its leaf color and, size, as well as shoot growth are significantly less than normal. I strongly suspect these symptoms were apparent- long before the incident occurred. Based on the amount of damage, the tree's appearance, and its weakened stability, the tree should be removed as soon as possible. Mitigation includes replacements equivalent to the tree's appraised value of $3;220.1, Tree #2 Tree #2 is comprised. of two trunks originating from grade. They have trunk diameters of approximately 21 inches at 54 inches above ground level, is an estimated 60 feet tall and has a 45-foot canopy spread. Its health condition appears good. However, its structural integrity is less than ideal based on the two trunks growing from grade with a somewhat close angle of attachment.. Severe root damage was also caused to this tree as anestimated: 50-percent of the root area was affected. I found one large 10-inch diameter root split at approximately six feet from. the trunk. I also found several one; to five-inch diameter roots that are exposed and damaged. ' The appraisal amounts were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. This method was used in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'" Edition, authored by the Council of Landscape Appraisers, 2000. • • • An Assessment of Damaged Trees. at 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga t'age 1 of s City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 2S, 2003 Based on my findings, I believe the damage has adversely affected the tree's physiological health and structural stability. I recommend this- tree is removed- and replaced with new " trees equivalent to its appraised value of $1;420. Tree #3 , This tree has a 26.2-inch trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade, is an estimated 60 feet tall and has an approximate canopy spread of 50 feet. It appears in overall .good health and structural condition. I estimate the amount of root damage at 30 to 40-percent of the total root area. Though no large roots were found to indicate the tree's stability has been necessarily compromised,,,. this amount is above the typical threshold for a tree's survival and I believe its longevity. and vigor -has been significantly compromised.. As a result, the tree has become highly susceptible to several pathogens that commonly attack weakened Monterey Pines. Based on my findings, this tree should be considered a loss. Whether it remains or is removed, I recommend replacements equivalent to its appraised value of $2,100. Tree #4 This tree has a 22.7-inch trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade, is an estimated 60 feet tall and has an approximate canopy spread of 45 feet. This is the least dama ed of the trees observed, with an estimated 15-percent of the total g root area affected. I believe its longevity has been affected, however, whether the damage will significantly promote its decline is questionable.- As such, rio mitigation is recommended for this tree. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. As damage has already been done, I suggest the stop work order is released provided no further grading cuts occur within 25 feet of tree trunks #2 and 3. 2. As mitigation for the loss of trees #1, 2 and 3, I suggest their combined,. pre-casualty appraised value of $6,970 is replaced with new trees of equal or greater. value. The replacement sizes and values are as follows: $120 for. a 15-gallon; $420 for 24-inch box; $1,320 fora 36-inch box; $5,000 fora 48-inch box; and $7;000 fora 52-inch box. 3. Acceptable tree replacements include the four species provided in the report prepared by Deborah Ellis, dated August 24; 2003, or the following native trees: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big" Leaf ,Maple . (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). • An Assessment of Damaged Trees at 19681 Junipero YT'ay, Saratoga: Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2003 4. If tree #2 remains, I suggest the exposed roots are cleanly severed using a ,chainsaw, • handsaw and/or Toppers just inside the excavated area. I suggest a retaining. wall is established against the existing soil grade and constructed without further grading cuts. •i •~ An Assessment of Damaged Trees at 19681,Iunipero Way,' Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 3 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2003 19681 JUIPERO WAY -~ ~. NOT TO SCALE N ~~ sessment of Damaged Trees at 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga f Saratoga Community Development Department ~ • r . ,. *- - ~ ~® ESOi.:~1ZCES "'~+~"~ _:'i0£~-3LC7t2Cd.~~i~2130'LGCttL¢3L'LIRL L:DY25tb#.~LYLC~ CT ~.3'LEE t,:Ct c£ -- Tom-, : _ ---- Project No. SAR.03.118 " August 28, 2003 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: ADDENDUM to the August 25,.2003 Report for 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga Dear Christy: This letter serves as an addendum to my report dated August 25; 2003 in connection with the grading and hardscape installation at the above referenced site.. The following are my findings and recommendations derived from a site meeting with the property owner, Mr. Hamid Saadat, on August 27,.2003. • 1. Tree #1 was being removed at the time of my site visit, and trees #2, 3 and 4 are planned for retention. Replacements presented in my previous report still apply."for tree #1, as well as trees #2 and 3 (whether or not they are removed). 2. No further grading cuts should occur within 25 feet from tree trunks #2 and 3. 3. Concrete should not be poured within seven feet from the western. property boundary fence. Within this area, no trenching or rototilling should occur. 4. The soil fill currently within the seven-foot setback shall be removed manually 'and relocated outside from this area. 5. -The exposed roots two inches and greater in diameter shall be.cleanly severed several inches inside from the edge of the seven-foot setback: Upon doing. so, .the root end should be wrapped in plastic and secured with tape or a rubber band. 6. I suggest a retaining wall is established between the concrete edge and elevated soil grade (for the seven-foot wide area). Soil must be placed behind the wall to cover the severed- roots. 7. No motorized-wheeled equipment or vehicles shall operate on exposed soil within 25 feet from the trunk.. ' ~.~i. .~O.t- LJ295. ~sI2 .~t'~84€t). C..'.::~ii~i~`1'?ltia ~~'-'~~~.~~=' ~ 'stir"..33: c`it'~/(1I't'E'S41'TGt~sQ1P.fii1~'i~€II~i.T3C%L' P;iot~e: 6~£~.654.~~~; t=ai: 6w'C~.C:~=~.=~~ ~- =_ice»sec? Ci~~~t~'aett~a• »796%F • ~_J • ~~~~~ ~ ~~i-:_ 20~~~-:ectzczL~ rc~s,~a~ieta.~~u~t~.~ ~atzau~tin~ ~' :_P~EE ~C3.E August 28, 2003 Christy Oosterhous. page 2 8. Supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #2 and 3. I suggest laying soaker hoses on existing soil grade at approximately six. feet from the existing fence, and supplying approximately 250 gallons every two weeks for the next two months: The same should be repeated-next year, beginning in June and continuing through September. 9. A three-inch layer of organic composted mulch shall be placed within the entire seven- foot wide area. A three- to four-inch layer of decorative bark or mulch can be placed on top. Sincerely, z` C, f~.~`-~', David L. Babb ,RCA Consulting Arborist ~'.~~.. ~C'\ „_ ~~4_ ~'1i1 tkt.k;C'`i?. C.-Fifl.€3: i:.l.{! ,~ -! ~itl~ ~; ~~_ C..tst.. CES~cZi~~rt~'~..,'lii._z~t P~ic~tie: C~~>O~.f~~4.3~i ~ F'.,;.. ~s`>t~.t_`, ..S~R~` ~ L~ce~~:s~c Cr~~r~ct~r ,.`'Sb~~_ _ lgC3 ES®LII~~S ~-y ~7 ..'+.iv..= J-'~SDF.1.LEU~i2~ ~i+[7O'ZLCS.4L~tL.'LQ.L ~GSYLS.tL~LLYL~ ~ _J'L~E. i.rGL'LE . .. Project No. SAR.03.118 September 5, 2003 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Structural Stability of Tree#2; 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga Dear Christy: This letter is prepared in response to the question of whether tree #2, the Monterey Pine located on the neighboring western property along the boundary fence, should be considered unstable due to the recent soil excavation and root damage that occurred at the above referenced site. Based on the amount and size of roots severed, I believe the tree is at high risk of failing as its stability has been significantly compromised. As recommended in my initial report, this tree should be removed. I suggest this occur as soon as possible, to eliminate its- risk to public safety. Note that aside from its stability concerns, this tree is expected to significantly decline over the next few years. Should you have additional questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely; David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist i ., ~, r ,(fit., I~O~ ~:'7?t ~'v'•.I1 J~rt:t~. ~¥]z<•; ii1u. ~~t=;~,? ~' :i"`F~3;.: c',~'hail'',SOtF2'CcBftL;E~i1'i:i331I:.3sBf. I?hc,~e: t~3(}.(i5~.~?_ 1 ~ ~a~: ~~t~.v4~„_ _ __ ~ i,eens~:-~ Cca~tr~~ctc~• .,79&?~_ ~'~ R RESCILIRCES tom, ARB O - ~zofESSionaC ogzCozieuCtuza.C eonsuCtin9 ~r ~zsa gaze Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Prepared by David Babb ,RCA Property Owner: Saadat Site Address: 19681 junipero Way - Sarato a, CA 95070 Inspection Date: Au st 22, 2003 Report Date: Au ist 25, 2003 TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; 1992 Established by the International Society of Arboriculture; 1992 • Diameter m.:` 25.7 " Species: Coast Live Oak (~uercurA~rifoliA) Tree #: 1 ( ). Group: 3 _ $1,805.00 1. Replacement Cost $37.00 per inchZ 2. Replacement tree Basic (per square inch) Price 3. Determine difference in trunk areas If diameter is 30 inches or more, determine TA n _ - 518.48 A. TAw = 14.6 B. Replacement tree TAR = 503.88 C. Subtract TAR from TAA (3A-3B) _ - $18,643.73. 4. ivlultiply Basic Price by area differences (line 2 times line 3C) _ $18,643.73 5. Adjust step 4 by Species rating 100 % - $20,448.73 6. Basic value =line 1 + line 5 _ $7,157.06 7. Adjust line 6 by Condition 35 % 8. Adjust for Location Location = (Site 75 Contribution 10 % + Placement 50 % / 3) - - $3,220.68 . _ $3,220.00 9. Appraised Value (round line 8 to nearest $10) TOTAL = X3,220.00 ~~`~ ~ ARBOR RESOURCES f ~, n ('~ n ~ZOfES1LOYl[tL OTZITOZLdZLLE1IZQ.L C~OitSU.CtlIZ9 ~ :JZEE . C.:QZE Prepared for: Prepared by: Property Owner: Site Address: Inspection Date: Report Date: City of Saratoga Community Development Department David Babby, RCA Saadat -19681 )unipero Way Saratoga, CA 95070 August 22, 2003 - August 25, 2003 TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1992 Established by the International Society of Arboriculture, 1992 Species: Monterey Pine (Pious radiata) Tree #: 2 1. Replacement Cost 2. Replacement tree Basic (per square inch). Price 3. Determine difference in tnuik areas If diameter is 30 inches or more, determine TA n A. TA,, B. Replacement tree TA R C. Subtract TAR from TAA (3A-3B) 4. Multiply Basic Price by area differences (line 2 times line 3C) 5. Adjust step 4 by Species rating 20 6. Basic value =line 1 + line 5 7. Adjust line 6 by Condition 50 8. Adjust for Location Location = (Site 75 Contribution Placement 10 % / 3) 9. Appraised Value (round line 8 to nearest,$10) Diameter* (in.): 29 75 % + Group:. 4 _ $1,805.00 $27.50 per inchz - 660.19 - 19.6 = 640.59 _ $17,616.09" _ $3,523.22 _ $5,328.22 _ $2,664.11 $1,420.86 _ $1,420.00 TOTAL = $1,420.00. *Due to limited access, the diameter was not measured and is estimated. The 29" diameter represents the approximate sum of the two trunks' cross-sectional areas. • • • ` ESOLIRCES .,~.~ .~ ARBOR - ~zofsssianaC o~Z~iozieuCtuza~ eonsuCtln9 & ~aEE Craze Prepared for: Prepared by: Property Owner: Site Address: Inspection Date: Report Date: City of Saratoga Community Development Department David Babby, RCA Saadat 19681 Junipero Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ___ August 22, 2003 __ Aulnxst 25, 2003 TRUNK FORMULA METHOD FORM FOR NORTHERI~I CALIFORNIA, 1992 Established by the International Society of Arboriculture, 1992 Species: Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) Tree #: 3 1. Replacement Cost 2. Replacement tree Basic (per square inch} Price 3. Determine difference in trunk areas If diameter is 30 inches or more, determine TA A A. TAA B. Replacement tree TA R C. Subtract TAR from TAA (3A-3B) 4. Multiply Basic Price by area differences (line 2 times line 3C) 5. Adjust step 4 by Species rating 20 6. Basic value =line 1 + line 5 7. Adjust line 6 bS' Condition 75 8. Adjust for Location Location = (Site 75 Confributioii Placement 30 % / 3) 9. Appraised Value (round line 8 to nearest $10) Diameter (in.): 2G.2 Group: 4 _ $1,805.00 $27.50 per uzch2 = 538.86 - 19.G = 519.26 - $14,279.52' _ $2,855.90 _ $4,660.90 $3,495.68 75 % + _ $2,097.41 $2,100.00 TOTAL = $2,100.00 A~~c~~ Esou~c~s -' ~'-' ~2a~sssio~z.rk~ c~¢~o~icu~Euaa~ ~arz~.ar.~tira~ ~' ~~eE ~caze • October 28, 2003 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Grounds for Appeal Letter by Mr. Hamid Saadat; 19681 Junipero Way, Saratoga Dear Christy: As requested, I have reviewed the letter prepared by Mr. Hamid Saadat in connection with the recent grading activities on his property at the above referenced site: My comments" regarding the letter's last paragraph, which discusses the methodology used to derive the values for trees #2 and 3, are presented below. The trees' monetary values were calculated for the City by using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and in accordance with the V`'estern Chapter of the ISA: ,This methodology is the most current for appraising trees within the Region that includes the City of Saratoga. In his letter, Mr. Saadat indicates the Trunk Formula Method presented in the 2000 version of the Guide foY Plant Appraisal, Ninth Edition (ISA) has been revised -from the- 1992 version. -This is not correct. The 2000 version differs slightly from the 1992 version and is considered a separate appraisal method. In my opinion; both versions are acceptable, practical, and effective means for appraising tree values. Note the. values obtained from using the 2000 version are generally lower for many tree. species than the.1992 version. I believe applying values derived from using the 2000 version would be acceptable, provided the same variables presented in my appraisal worksheets are utilized in the calculations. Any worksheets used to ascertain the lower numbers Mr. Saadat refers to in his letter. should be provided to the City for review prior to approval. Sincerely, ,:, ; .~~ ~, Y .f ~r,r David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist ~.~: ~~~ 2525, Sin ~~ie:tec,. i,a~iriril;~: ~;=~4€~2 ~ ~'.rst~il: ~~•t~~~•resources`eurt~~I.Enk.ne.t t'}~oa~e: ti5t~.~5~.3~5t E, ~?t3~:. ~_`;i).G~:~;..,=<~ ~ __>cense;d Cg3~trac~ar µ;~'~76~ • Attachment ~~ 2 S l D '- fin` O ' ' ., ~_ 3 ~, ~ ~ - l ~ ~~ - ¢ •Y E August 28, 2003 " Hamid Saadat 19681Junipero Way ~. ~ Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Hamid Saadatt: . On August 1.9, 2003, the Code. Enforcement Department investigated'and confirmed violations:of the Saratoga City Code occurringon your property located' at 19681 Junipero Way. As a result of the damage to four trees adjacent to the construction site., Saratoga Code Section 15-SO Tree Regulations require an administrative fine and tree replacements in agcordance to the recommendation of the City Arborist. Section"T5=50.120 Violations: Penalties regarding tree regulations states: . (b)-Where replacement trees will not provide equivalent aesthetic quality-because of the size, age; or -other characteristics of the unlawfully removed (destr,oyed) tree, the Planning Director shall calculate the value of the removed (destroyed) tree.... Upon the determination of such value, the Planning Director may require either a cash payment to the City, or the planting of replaeemenf trees as designated by the, . Planning Director, or any combination thereof. (1) To the extent that a cash payment is required'for auy portion or all of ~thevalue"of the removed.: (destroyed) tree(s), such payment shall be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees are planted. The total value of the trees per the City Arborist is $6970.00': The City of Saratoga requires that a fine of $6.970.00 (one-half the value, of the trees doubled} to be paid to the City of Saratoga. The penalty;amount is in addition to any outstanding arborist fees.above the initial $1000.00 deposit. Payment of the penalty amount and any additional arborist fees are due on or before September 30, 2003. In addition, you are requiredto provide a landscape plan providing for any number of replacement trees with a Total value of at least $3485.00. The City of Saratoga requires the planting of native species and must approve any landscape proposal prior to implementation. Failure to comply with any part of the penalty requirements will result in enforcement action including, but not limited to citation; and Notice of Code Violation proceedings against the property. Please contact me at (408) 868-1214 if you wish to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and compliance., ~~ ~~ Sincerely, ~ .. ~~ . Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer ~`~ . ., ,~ vry T 31 ~ 7 ~a x:' za~~,f S 1$s~~'; ?~~t;r~~ti: { :('; ? ;,;~~i.l.°~'~'(;:3~~~~; C~!~I~E:C~`i)a~~Il~ ~-!~~070 ~ ~-`EC)cS') ~~'(iz~-l?0(} ~~~~~C~~~~ CCs[3NC-TL NlLi1~1I3T;tS: `s:,u:<is'4?;sras,:e.~i. Uc:(:<~!>er `u2, 7.=)5Ei (_-vt~n B~kcr . September 3, 2003 .lo,h~ tb9ei~:a:fc~y, Nick Streif Hamid Saadat ~~~,~, wrakor,~mith .1.9681 Junipero Way . Saratoga, CA 95470 Dear 1V1r. Saadat: Thank you for meeting with myself and your neighbor, Paul Hernandez, this morning. Based on Mr. Hernandez's desire to retain the damaged trees which .are located on his property (tree #2 and tree #3) it is required that the mitigation measures for these trees begin immediately as prescribed in the arborist report. ,The monetary fine ($6,970) required pursuant to the city's letter dated August 28, 2003 may be used toward mitigation. In addition, replacement trees are required, at half the value, for tree #1 at thistime ($1,610). Please submit a landscape plan with the proposed replacement trees at your earliest convenience. Include size, location., and species on th.e landscape plan. Replacement .trees are not required at this time for trees #2 and #3; however, a bond shall be posted for a minimum time period of five years. This bond shall ensure for at least a five-year period that if tree #2 and/or tree #3 decline during that time the tree removal costs will be covered by you and replacement trees shall be installed at your cast. A bond in the amount of$7,040 (double the replacement value of tree #2 and #3) is required. Upon maturity of the five-year bond the city may require the maturity date be extended. This administrative decision maybe appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the date of this letter. Please contact me if you Dave any questions (408) 868- 1286. Thank you for your cooperation. Regards, ,, -, ~_ ~~.:.. Christy Oosterhous, AICI' Associate Planner Enclosure: Deposit of Security Fortn. o~ ° °~ ~~ O ~ '~ ~~ t ~~ ~ ~x~~: z ' r r« ~`~{` t s September 10, 2003 Ha~mid ~Saadat 19681- Junip~ero Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Saadat: Thank you for your flexibility. Due to concerns with stability, the Hernandez family has regrettably decided to allow you o remove tree #2. As a result, the following are updated. requirements from the City: • The required replacement trees ($3,485) shall be planted on the Hernandez property. • The monetary fine ($6,970) required pursuant to the City's letter dated August 28, 2003. shall be used as replacement trees in the subject areas on both properties. It maybe used toward installation costs. The fine shall be split. $3,485 shall be required for replacement trees to be installed on the Saadat property in the subject area and $3,485 shall be required for replacement trees to be installed on the I~~ernandez property in the subject area. ~ ~ ~ ~~ • Removal cost for-tree #2 shall be incurred at your expense. Using the: company the.Hernandez family has requested for their quality ofwork-the Saratoga Tree . Se7-vice. Removal -shall include grinding of the stump. • ~ It is required~that yoti coordinate with the Hernandez family regarding thespecific `- .location, size, and species of required replacement trees at yol~r earliest.`. convenience. (Note: $420 fora 24-inch box; $1,320 fora 36-inch box; $5,000 fora 48 inch box; and $7,000 fora 52-inch box) .This administrative decision maybe appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the date of this letter. Please contact. me if you have any questions. (408) 868- 1286. Thank .you .again for your cooperation. •i •' Attachm THIS BOX TO BE COMPLbETED _- ,~- ~ _ ,1, i TE RECEIVED:HE `~ ~~~" DA I ~~ y ~ HEARING DA~E: FEE: ~ ~ RECEIPT # t% ~: ~ i I Ml t1 ]" CITE' OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI®N ~~~ ~- ?~~~ . APPEAL APPLICATION c~~~v o~ sA~~ro~~ This two-part application-must be submitted to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070, by 5:00 p.m. within fifteen (1 ~ ) calendar days of the date of the decision. Appellant Name: ' `~~ ~ Address: ~ ~ ~ .~1 J~~~~=~w$c:r ~.. ~` ~' Telephone #: Name of Applicant (Tf different than Appellant): ~"` Project file number and address: ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ; -~r , Decision being appealed: ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ,..~ ~ ~, ~; ~~ w, d. Grounds for appeal. (letter may be attached): ~rY - ~ ~~~,~~-~ ~. Appellant's Signature Date (Please do not sign this application and the attached authorization-until it is. present at City offices) • • Appellant Name: Hamid 5aadat Address: 196$1 Junipero Way, Saratoga 95070 Grounds for appeal: I have the right to a functional driveway, and the roots of my neighbor's pine trees had damaged my previous driveway and needed to be. removed in order to construct a new driveway. Preserving the roots (which would entail building on top of them, in some way "bridging" them) would not be possible because of the significant grade difference that would be created between the.driveway and my garage. Since the neighbor's tree damaged my driveway it seems to me that they should then have to share in the cost of repairing my driveway. I have also not been able to use my driveway and garage for the past 3 weeks due to the delay caused by this tree issue. I would consider it fair however, that I pay nothing for the damage to my neighbor's tree roots, but to plant new screening landscaping along the fenceline near tree #2. I request that the planting area between the end of my driveway and the fence be reduced to an are of 4'xl 1' (because tree roots have already been removed in and beyond this-area, and tree #2 should be removed),. and additional trees planted in this narrow planting area will likely also cause additional pavement damage to my driveway. I want this planting area., to be 4 feet by 11 feet because any area wider or longer will interfere with the concrete path going into the backyard, making the entire back of my garage which, up to now, has been vehicle accessible, totally unusable. Regarding the installation of a linear root barrier along the driveway (in order to prevent future tree root damage to the pavement), research has shown that these barriers tend only to delay and reduce such pavement damage by tree roots. Instead of planting trees in this area, I would rather plant tall-growing screen shrubs (as D. Ellis suggested in her letter of August 24, 2003). Regarding the amount of the monetary fine, my consulting arborist Deborah Ellis has checked the City Arborist's tree appraisal worksheet. The City Arborist used the 1992 Trunk Value Method, whichwas revised in 2000. Deborah Ellis appraised the trees using the current 2000 Trunk Value Method, and also using the City Arborist's same species, condition and location ratings and came up with values for trees #2 and 3 that were less than those of the City Arborist. SEP 1 fi 2063 • • • • ~~~~~~ 1~'~;%r7 t~'1~tfIT\~'j~).,[~ .,t'E:~T'la~ ~ S:~I~~t"I't'lt'i~1.> tm'~~LIr()F~~T.:~'?",c7rt? • (=~O~Z 4t7~-1-~U{I 7niti:tT7.>Ci1'3CE%1 l)ttl ~)Fii±T `~S?. i3~.~i=, September ?. (}, 2U0 1~3arni,ct Saadat 18681 Jul~il~ero ti~~ay, ~'arato~~a, CA `~5Q7C) c.;_~;i ~~;3R( ..~, j_,g08_•~r _:17,'1 ~4,'t:17-iit~',~ 17ear ~r1r. Saad~t~ • Thank. you fdr your i7e~czbi.lityr. Date to concerns with st~.hilit~; ri,.e Hernsride~ faxnily l~,as re~-ettably decici.ed tt~ a~lUrv you to retnor~e tree #~. ~ s a result, the fol,lc~win~ are updated ret~tdxenlents from the t:.'ity: « The required replacetneni frees ($3,48 j shall be planted on the ~Ic.z-nandez property. • I'llc rnor~etar}r 211]x: i;$G,~ i C1) rcc{tiirc:d pursuant to Y;Y,,e ~~"it~t's letter daied August L~, 2~~)3 shall be used as reglacernent trees in the subject_areas on moth pro . ez~ties. It may re used tautard installa~tiox~ c(~sts. Thy fins. ,hall ~c split. `63,4~> shall be rc;q~urecl for replacen~ei~t trees to be instal.l.ed on the Saaciat property in the.st~bject area at-ta ~3,4~~ shall be required :tor replacement trees i4 be installcfl~ nn the Heinandcz .property in the subject area. + Removal cost for tree ~2 shall be. incitrred at your expense:. Usiztg the company th.e :Fietnandez family h,a.s zequested far their gttal.ity of work the Sa~a~v~u Tree Service. Removal sriall iztciude gznding of t1~e stump. • It is required that you coordinate wi.ih Che Y1enlaaidcz i"ae~iilj~ te~,ars:Iiti_, die specitL location, sire, and species of required replacement trees a~ your earliest GOt1v~Tlt e9T'tC c. ~Nc~te: ~~~?© fora 2~1-inch laox; $1,32U fora 3F,-inch box: ~S,Ot~O fora 48 inch box: and ~7,t?UO fur a ~2-inch t~ox} Tlu.s administrative decision maybe: appealed to the Planning Co~»1?~ission within lC- days of the c~iate of this letter. Tease contact me if you have arty questiotas (4i18) 8b8- lz8n. Thank you main for ;-uur coopcratiu.e7. n t1U?cj 6h ;,.::^.yP1Gi,i .ra, .r • ® , Deborah Ellis, MS -: ;~ ;..`, Consulting Arborist.& Horticulturist ..~ ~ `'_. ~' ~ ~z . ~,, ,- ~r_- - ~,. :Seriice since 1984 Hamid Saadat 19681 Junipero Way Saratoga, CA 95070 September 8, 2003 Re: Monetary valuation of your coast live oak tree, and your neighbor's pine trees Dear Hamid: I have reviewed the Saratoga City Arborist's tree appraisal worksheets. I think that the various. individual ratings the City arborist used are fine, and I agree with them. Using the City Arborist's ratings, I calculated exactly the same value ($3220:00) for the coast live oak (tree #1) on your property. For the two neighbor's pine trees (Trees #2 and #3) however, my yalues were less than the City Arborist's values. The reason for this discrepancy, I found, was because the City Arborist used the 1992 Trunk Value Method from the 8t" edition of the Guide'for Plant A raisal, and I used the more current 2000 Trunk Value Method from the 9t" edition of the Guider. In the 2000 Trunk Value Method there is a significant change in that the costs of an installed replacement tree and its installation are adjusted by the Species rating. Previously in the 8r" Guide, the Basic Value of the tree is added back into the calculation after the basic price has been adjusted by the Species rating. When the species rating is 100% (as it is for coast live oak #1), both the 1992 and 2000 methods will produce the same value, all other factors equal. When the species rating is less than 100% however (as it is for Monterey pines #2 and 3), there will be a difference between the 1992 and 2000 methods. In the. case of Monterey pines #2 and #3 I calculated $1040.00 and $1450.00, respectively, compared to the City Arborist's values of $1420.00 and $2100.00. My value for pine #2 was $380.00 less, arid for pine #3 $650.00 less, a total of $1030.00. I checked my 2000 Trunk Value worksheet against the sample calculations in the Guide on page 75 and came up with the same values ds presented in the book, to make sure that my spreadsheet was correct: Sometimes tree appraisers will use an older method to calculate tree values, possibly so that the values can be extrapolated more easily to other appraisals that have been done in the area. Or, perhaps the City of Saratoga has requested that the 1992 trunk value method be used instead of the more current methods used in the 9t" Edition of the Guide to Plant Appraisal. In any case, I have included my three appraisal worksheets to follow. Sincerely, 1~e66ie. Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting .Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305, W.C.I.S.A. Certified Arborist #457 ! Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9r" edition, 2000. Edited by the Council of Tree & landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL. This document was emailed from Deborah Ellis at decahCa%pacbefl.net. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 1 of 4 • • • f ' .Deborah Ellis, MS ~' ~, ,~~ ~,>.:_; Consulting Arborisf & Horticulturist .-~ ~ +~~ ~; : a~ _ _ ~_ ,Servii.e since 1981 Trunk Formula Method For Northern California 2000 .... _._ _ _ _. a ._ __~ _. ! Established by the International Society of Arbonculture, 2000 E ((For trees less Than 3D inches f1BH (trunk diameter measured at 4 5 feet above the ground) __.~.______._ ._.~.~. .__. -_____ _ m _ ~.__ 1 Appraised Vakre = 8asic,Valrae X Condition X Location ~ ._... __._.. _. ~ _ ._ .._..... .. r ~ .. .. .. Basic Value = Renlacemeirt Cost + (Basic Price X jTAa TArj X Species) _ ..., 3 ..._. _.._ { 3 = L ^N _ _..... .._.._ _........... ._ .... ...._.... _. .. ... .. F __. ,.... ..w ... t€. ....... _ p -,__ p 3 S _ecies ~~aercus a rrfoha ___ Tree # ~~1 .._ _._DBH X257 ;_Grou"~ ~~ ~ ~~~ .._.. _ _ 1 _R~ lacem~ge~tt Cost ,$1805 X wholpesale cost of 48 in box tree) _ ~ _ P _ ~__ ~ __.._~ - _~ , ._ ,Cost of lar est common) available trans lantable tree as installed at an average location _as established for _N Galif. by the Western Chapter. of thew) SmmA1992am__If the appraised_tree is in a location which wdl make in tallat~on of a replacement e_.pecially difficult or expensive increase this line to account for the costs above ~ _k ,_.._. ......_.. _. - r -- .__ _....._._ .. the average: _____ .:._ _.. .___ .... _ _._..... .... ..f_._...__ ..._... _i ~.... ..............E _._....,,.. _... „_ 2. Replacmenttree Basic (per siluare inch) Pnco:__ _ _ $37.00 per sq: inch from Table 11-1992) f ~......._ .. t.. .. ... .... .. .... ..... ... 3 Oetermme difference m trunk areas ~ ' _ " .. 3 ~ If dA 30 inches or less determine TAa TAa (0 785d2) a ~ 518 48 sq inches ~ . _._. . _ .__.. _ , . _ . b Replacement tree TAr ~ _ _. _. _ _ , 14.60 sq inches _.. (refer to table 11 1992) _ c Subtract TAr from TAa A -3B 503.88 s inches _. _ `d. Multiply Basic Pnce by_area"differences _ ._ _. .__ $37.00 per sq in X_ 503.88 sq_in +1805"""_ _ $20,448 73 and add basic cost of replacement tree. __ ~ ~2.) __, ~ .r...__ __.,__~3C_~..,_' _ _______ ` _....._. ~5 Adfust_ste 4 ay Species ratm~_. ..._.. 100% _;... ~ ~ ( _ _ _ i $20,448 73 . 6 Adjust Ime.6 b~_Canditian ~ 35% _ r _ , _; _ __ .. $7,157 06 _ ~ ~ ~ ~7. RdJust for location _. _.. .... t . . _ Location (Site Contnbution Placement) ! 3 ~ .............._.._____,_..___.. _ . _.. ,.w._ ., _ . ___ ~ _ j 75% + 10% + S0% 135% f 3 d5% ,....Ad~ust Line 7 by Location i _. _.... .............. ..... .. $3,220.68 '_~ f i , ... ~ _ ~8. Appraised Value Round to nearest $100 if >! $5000, if <$5000 to nearest $10 ~ $3,220 00 E • PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decahC~pacbeli.net. Web site: http:I/www.decah.coml Page 2 of 4 ~~~ .Deborah Ettis; M$ ~ :. _~,t ~.~ e}i s_.~ Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ~ , ~ ~. L,`J ~ ~_ Serrrice situe 1984 ____ _. ___~. _ _.N _......__~.~_.~.._._.~__~ __ __..,_._..._- .__ ______._.~..~. _ _~_' Species P~n~s radiata __Tree # 12 DBH . 29 i Group: d ~~ 7. Replacemeut GBsrt ..: __$1$Q`'._~~.wholesale cost of d8 in. hor tree) _ .......___... ____,_?... ____ _ ___.. Cost of largest ,commonly available transplantable tree as installed at an average location, as established for N Calf by the. Western Chapter of the LS.A 1992, If the appraised tree is in a locafion which will make ' _~ installation of a replacement especially diffic-u~lt or expensive_ increase this line to_account for the costs above ._. ~ _. } the average _.. _x____~ ... .......... ._.. _... _.. _ _. ~ __._ _...__. _.. _ ~ .. .... _ ._. ... ___. -- - --- . .. _ _ ......_. _.. _ ...:....... _ .....z _._._ . __}._._ c fner square inchl Rrice: ~27.~a0 {per sq. inch tfrom Table 11-1992) - 2. Renlacmeut tree Basi .09 79 PO Bax 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 40$-725-1357: Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.coml ~i • • Page- 3 of 4 l~ u • ._-'~ :~, ®eborah Elfts, MS , , ~; r>. ~; ;. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist _ ~' ~ _ ~ ~' _~ Service sixce 1984 Trunk Formula Method For Northern Cailfornla, ZOOQ ... ..~ -:.... 4. a ,. Established by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2Q00 ; For trees less than 30 inches DBH runk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the ground) i i _ ---..r ...__......___ _.__.__..u_.u_.._.. ,......._.. .m..._ .._....,_ _ ._.. .____ ~ ____ _ _i Appraised Valtre = Basic Value X Condlilon X Location I .. . _ Basic Value Replacement Cost..±_(Basic Price X jTAa TArj X Species) ~ _ _Species ,P~»us radiata _Tree # '3 I DBH: 26.2 Group,. 4 S _ 1. Re lacement Cost ' -$1805 X wholesale cast of 48 in box tree ; I P ~__ _~ .. _. ~ ._.. __~ _. _. _.._ . ~ _ Cost of largest commonlu available transplantable tree as installed at an average location as established for N Gahf by the V+festern Chapter of the I S A 1992}. If the appraised_tree is in a Iocat~on which will make ' _ installation of a replacement especially difficult or expensive ~ncreaserthis line to account for the costs above , the average. , ._.. _ __... __._... .....' _.._,~.w. __ _..._ _... ~. .___~ ___ __ 2 Re lacment tree tgasic er s ware inch Price: $27.50 ~ er s inch from Table 11 1992 I ~ .. I P _.~~p. Q .. __ __ ~ __. ~ __ .__~ p q _. J..... _ .___._ _...... ... ._._.._ _._. __._ _. _ __.._ ~ ._ .. s `3. Determine difference in trunk areas .... v _ _... ____.., .._ If dA 30 inches or less determine TAa ~ ~~ a TAa ~0.785d2~ _ _ 538.86 sq .inches E......_ . .. .. .. .'.... .. ... .....__. .... ..... b Replacement tree TAr 19.60 sq inches (refer to table 11 1992) ~..__ ..___~ ... _. __ __ w_-. _ _.. c Subtract TAr from TAa ~3A 3B) 519.26 sq inches . _~.. ~~ Multiply Basic Brice by area differences _ ________ $27.50 per sq in X 519.26 sq in +1805 ~ $16,084.52 and add basic cost of replacement tree _ ..(2) _ _ _.' ~3C.)._... ................ ._ `.5. Adiust step 4 ha Species rating 20% _ $3,216.90 PO Box 3714, Sarntoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Emnil: decah@pacbell.net. Web si#e: http://www.decah.com/ Page 4 of 4 • Planting area Back of the garage 10' _~ Garage Not to scale Tree #3 Junipero Tree #2 Way .. (~ 4' J.~ ___ 11' ,z, • •i •' r~ • ~1 ~J n Hamid Saadat 19681 Junipero Way Saratoga, CA 95070 August 24, 2003 t Re: Relandscaping of North side of house along driveway to restore lost screening and potential future loss of neighbor's large Monterey pines (Pious radiate) 1 e - pir~:s (-,~--,, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® e s ® ^ ^ ® ^ ~a ;. C O C ___ C C; ~~ ~~1 s ~l s ~--~--~ ~ I -5 ft: wide border I C I Inndscaping border I ~ ~~~ I planted -with fast I C ~~-- ~ growing screen I • shrubs from 18- ~ I '; gallon contniners. ,/f I C 1961 Garage ~,r I i ~~. val..'` Y p w ~ C' • ^ I ~ ~\ ,~ ~~~ ~ yC '` ~ The Site Sketch above is not to scale and is diagrammatic only. The purpose of. this sketch is to illustrate the type of screening planting that might be installed in order to. mitigate the loss of the neighbors pine trees (#1, 2, & 3), and your coast live onk (#4). ~s~ ~. _ .,- m ~.. .-~~ Pa~~ '6 ~s u C i Dr lli~r N Dear Hamid: We met at your house today to discuss how to best the removal of your existing driveway that caused damage to the roots of your neighbor's pine trees, and also to a large coast.live oak on your property. In my opinion and from a "whole site management" perspective, it would be best to leave a 4 to 5- foot wide planting strip along the property-line perimeter of the driveway, and to plant tall, fast- growing screen shrubs, instead of trees in this area. I believe that screen shrubs would be a better type of plant for a narrow planting area that will be fairly close to pavement. If trees were planted in this area, there will be a much greater chance of future pavement damage caused by the roots of these trees (such as the damage that was at least partially caused by the neighbor's pine tree roots). Although smaller-stature trees than Monterey pines could be planted in such a planting area, over time the natural form of most trees will probably leave a gap in screening between the top of the fence and the bottom of the tree canopy. From a screening perspective therefore, it would be better to plant screen shrubs that can be trimmed to fit withih a narrow area and have the ability to maintain a dense cover of foliage along their entire length, throughout their landscape lifespan, if properly managed. If the City requires that you plant trees, l recommend that such trees (if planted on your property) be planted in areas where there is adequate room for these trees to grow to their natural size and form without causing problems such as pavement damage. Another option might be to plant new trees on your neighbor's side of the fence, although I have not seen the neighbor's property and do not know if this would. be possible or practical. If the screen shrubs are planted as recommended, then they should be spaced 4 to 5 feet apart. Prior to planting the planting area should be rototilled thoroughly (this assumes that the neighbor's pine trees, at least pine tree #1 has been removed). Organic soil amendment such as nitrified redwood compost should be thoroughly mixed into the soil by spreading 2 to 3 inches of the amendment on the rototilled, leveled soil and then thoroughly mixing this into the top 8 to 12 inches of soil. At the same time a complete fertilizer (e.g. 15-15-15) at the rate of 15 lbs. of product per 1000 square feet of soil surface, should be mixed to the same depth. Irrigation should be provided for the new shrubs, preferably automatic, and either sprinkler or drip system. A 3 to 4 inch depth of coarse wood chip mulch should be spread over the soil surface and kept 6 inches away from the trunks of the new shrubs after planting. This type of treatment, along with the planting of healthy, vigorous plants, should help these new shrubs to grow quickly. Possible shrub saecies to slant: • Pittosporum tenuifolium (this is the screen shrub in your backyard, along the south fenceline, photo next page) • Prunus ilicifolia, holly leaf cherry (very drought tolerant when established) • t_aurus Saratoga', shrub form, Saratoga laurel • Prunus caroliniana Bright `N Tight', Carolina laurel cherry mr s ~~? . C7 • Pc~~e ? csf 3 ~~ ~_J • I~_ ~ eorf~t ffi This letter is just a brief suggestion of what might be done in the area around your driveway, and to help you, the City and your neighbors reach an agreement on the treatment of this area. Before you begin however, l recommend sketching out a to-scale plan of the area as it exists at this time, and then developing more accurate landscape plans after that. I would be happy to help you with this after I get back from my out of town trip August 27 through September 1. Sincerely, ~e6bie Pittosporum tenuifo/ium shrubs. growing along your, backyard south perimeter. These particular shrubs have been pruned to remove lower branches, possibly to reduce foliage density in this area and to produce a more open feeling. They have also been pruned to maintain their height at just a few feet above the top of the fence. If given ndequate light however, Pittosporum tenuifoiium can maintain foliage along their entire length, for many, many years. Lanky shrubs (those that have lost lower folinge and;/or density due to shading by upper branches) can often be rejuvenated. into a dense shrub by cutting them back to short trunks. Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist 8~ Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, ASCA Registered. Consulting Arborist #305, W.C.I.S.A. Certified Arborist #457 PS: I am emailing you separately, as an attachment, all the digital photos that I took of your North side yard today. Ec~ " ~~':.. .~,,,: ~ ,m.~,.,. ~.~.~~ . _ ~ .~ i'c~ge a-f 3 E ~ t ~ _ v x ~;,. 4 ~zti ~; , r ~~ t } i Ii ~ ! 'i ` l~~~~, 1 /~ ~.. ~ ~ ` { i ` ,t ~ _, .. ' `~ ~ ~ ~.. ti ~~~ ~ y .w' ~ t ~l_ 'dr~ M'~ y 7 ~. V~ .1 ~~55 ~ ... ~.. Y NSidel~ard4.jpg ~ ~ ,. .~ ,. ~4 ~. .: ~ ~ Pipe.JP~ __ Pittosporum~ledge.lpg __ ~. __ ! ., Smooth deed Sheets"' RICHARD A BROWN 12877 GLEN BRAE DR. SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID D & CARMEN BAYS 12915 ABERDEEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 LIDIA V LEON 12889 GLEN BRAE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 5160 GENES & JANE SHAW 12903 ABERDEEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ~. VINCENT G & PATRICIA . GERALD ALBERICO 12918 ABERDEEN CT RONDAS SARATOGA CA 95070 12906 ABERDEEN CT SARATOGA CA 95470 .._ __ _ _. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO SOUTHERN PACIFIC SARATOGA CA 95070 TRANSPORTATION SARATOGA CA 95070 ..._ PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO COX AVE COX AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GERALD L & DLANA PARKER GEORGE D JOSEPH 19720 VIA ESCUELA DR 13090 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN R & THERESA KRAEMER 13070. LA VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 _ ___ _ _. RUDIGER 13060 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT J & KAREN PAYNE 13040 LA VISTA DR JIM J LIt:J 13030 LA VISTA. DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 __ _ _ ... _ _. AN[JRADHA SRIDHAR RALPH H & FRANCES WOOD 19681 TUNIPERO WAY 19661 JUNIPERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MARIA R GUERRA RUTH & LINDA LEND 19660 JUNII'ERO WAY 19680 JUNIPERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 _. __. JOHN M & KELLY PALMER DAL S OH 19710 JUNIPERO WAY 19724 JUNIPERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 /i.~ ~eea:~ur~ ,f~dr~6rescc a aF,ssl~ ................. . . _.. ~. __ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION SARATOGA CA 95070 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO COX AVE SARATOGA CA' 95070 PAUL L HULME 15222 MONTALVO HEIGHTS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 1VIARILYNN D & DOtTGLAS~ NAGEL .13050 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA CA .95070 PAUL S & DONNA HERNANDEZ 13020 LA VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 __ PETER & IDORIS VUTZ 19640 JUNIPERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 YAW-JENG & CHEN HWANG -19700 JUNIPERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 _. . HYO S LEE 19737 JUNIl'ERO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 i 9 acPr 51F~t1~ Sr11@0th Feed S~1eet5Tnn SUNIL P & SHAILA JOSHI 19551 CHARDONNAY CT S TOGA CA 95070 WEINZIMMER 13096 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ALEXANDER C & LING-RI.7 WANG 13034 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 __._ . __ YU & CHAO WU 13033 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 HOREN & JENNY CHEN 19567 CHARDONNAY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 HYOP S & YOON RHEE 13078 VIA ESCUELA CT SA.RATOGA CA 95070 . __ __ DAV ID A LEE 13012 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 _.__ ._ SHIRAZ M & MUMTAZ SHIVJI 13055 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 Use template for 5160 HENRY M & ELLEN YANG 19628 VIA ESCUELA DR SARATOGA CA -95070 YAO-CHINE S & JANET CHEN 13056 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 LYON T & ANNE LIN 13095 VIA. ESCUELA CT SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 KRISI-I _ & PAl`?MA _ __ RAMAKRISHNAN 13077 VIA ESCUELA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ---~~ _ ! acs~r ~1~(1 w~ gy'm` ~n-f ,.-r-..~.;~, 'F~'7'L. ~,~a ~, j" ~ ~4"~ ! 3 ..- - - ~ ~' L.i ; r r "_~ ,~~ Eye!- ~I~:.~J ~' ~' v"~;.'°~: n j~ tt~ c§ s Tit:.' i 1f~~a1 >~ tt _ ' ~i ~ ~' ~ ~~ Yi: i V Yy ti~ , ~: ~~~ r ~,-t,. *q ~ s'~bt~ r k~°'"~.K c"~~~~ of ~i,* -kt~S+r u ~ ;~?A ~' .. ~ nv 1 ei'~.. .. rip ~ ',~ ~'f -~, jF'*~ ? -j~I ,` . ~_~ - ~/ - ~~~+ ~~: s :. z.., _, v.. Y- --z~ ,~ rrf ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ ~~t~«~ 4"1+~t, r C ~ ~ P ..f ~ S~' i ~ ~ r r. g T - ~~ .i~ r - ~ ~ "~ ~ ~y, ~t, A~ l~ ~.~ S9 1~`` ~{ 7 - ~ 4j ~ _- - fir. n~- - ra i,T a .C r~ II R~"""i t i/ ~ it ~' tr~'~ 'i3 li tYa t ~~{ i ~ 1 4R1' ,y'~'I ::S f~ ~ '$ }+„~ r xf ~ ` ~ .ip rF£,i . l _ . t if3 . ;i_$~ 'S '-t;. .,wr wit fl !E ~ ~_ ' t i;.~~ -'"~ - ~ E' i r~_ a t ~ ~r ii.F .. `:. ! ^y !~. r .. rli ~fi -t*i ~} •-,a iln '/~, 7r S!",. i _ ~~ii ~~.~~ -j ~ ~ ..; ~ 1 ~'~, _ r y ~ ,'~ i~ 3 ,fF -hY~. .«. ~~~~ q l,tt a - ''i'~' -. +L aj ~.: J ~~ ~' AI - ~ t ~e~ .C ~ ~ ~ iFr . ? f.i .'~t ~~Y ~ °k ~ar ri I M' ~1 ~7 ~ i.~~ r ~ 7 .. r t ~~ W ~ f ~ ~ f1'V.~~ ..~-l-r' _ •~~ ~•Y'-.uY,A ~L ~" ..~~C ~{J~ 1:ti 'Y~. _ v i. ~ t Fs ti " ~t, a .~ ~~ ~ ~ ;~ :,;~ try>-',~', {{l~ .~5 ~t ~ 41 ~~~~~~ ors - = `, r. ~.. er ~ ~ {tb s ".,~ i ~ _ _} i .f fi ~ t ~ ~ ._ _ jsf ~ ;-y. 1 yK}F j t : i ~w ~ ~~34 ~1~ i` c j ~ ` ~ . ~ M tS'1 F~.- y wt? ~? me`- ~~-~.': ;fi ~ ° ` ' ~ ~ , ~1 ~' ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~i~ c 9 Y, ~ . . t ~ r (' ~~ ~ T`- , jr~ ~ {kt.S L~t S f~ - ~ ~ ~. s. y y ~ `r 7 "1*t'1 t `.4 ~ jf~~ ~y j{ ~ ~ ~.i t r l li r r ' `~ # ff ' ~ ` `~ y '5~ ]i•~j- ~,Y~ t ; ~, t i ~ y ~i ~ c; ~ ~ ti. - .,w -7 ~ Y ~ ~'~ l,1- s - ~ ~ c ~l ca, ' .~ ~~- >c ~l~v._ ~ ~._. ~ ~ - .t trig. ~'~ ~e-~ r ~ [i~ r 4- r `qi'~ , ~ ~ ~ ,~ q > ~~}.l i '~ ' , ~ ,. ~y ~~>. 1 ~ ~+r ~, Mti~~ 4 ~ it . N ~ ti i •~ ^fY;l _ "~ ~. i e ~~ ~ ~ < : ~ ,x! ~1 ram„ ~ ~~ -. h ' K a ~{ ,~- ~~ f•; ~,~ ~. f ~ ~r ~r~ ,I. ~ ,r ~ 2 ~. ~ y ~ _ .. r . . - ~ _ ~ _~ _ ~ .~ ~~~ • n, . ''.'~ ~ `~ ~ i c ~ ', ti ~~- e i r tl a~~ - ti5 j ~ ~' t } 7 kr ~ y f' r ~ ,: e ' ' 'i y ~ ~ :', ~ ye' f L. ~ ~ , `~ i r-r _ a ;, 4~_ i ~ K ~ C? f i i Y - 2~ ~ .s :}}3~ o .. ~ d-, t ~ ,. _ '1 e _ ~ ~ _ ~ i Ex.'s ;~~_ _ E s _ . t t t _ ~? t' ?. a ~~ ,,.~ - 1 ~ ~ ~~ - ! ~, : ei 7 ~C ,,,~a ,`~r ~ d' . _ ~ ~~. ..-fig ~ t Y t ~.~ x v y~~{` t}n : F ;• r s 7 7 f.'I' S M ~ ~ ~ z -f _~E ~ ., a s :s ~ is t t7 ~ i. r n~~ ~ t tr i` r 1 L: _ ~ M ~ r. ` . ~ t - ~ !'Y1 ~'.~ rf ' ~1 1Xy r A ~ i ~t_y ~~•y iii, .. _ a ~ __t _ - .. i-~~ - i~._ fir. 3 4 ~ k . ~ } r l.k e i ~.~t 5 ~ (~, f~ ~~ F ', r. r~ f'.. n~ , S ~«} ~~ !t .'~, ^``i - fi ~r 1' ~, tai ~ ~ L ~ R~'}•~ X ~ ~lr ~ 1 r 1 ~ ,~ ~ ~. v r ix ,~ ~ ~ { j 5 Y "~ ti't e h~ r ~` r [fn z x ~r ~ 3 r ~' _°~ r i s~. y ~~~,,,,7~ ,,,,~~Y~ a E ~ ,l/~ 'tat~Y ,'h , rx, ~.11i1j~7` ~~x ~ vl ~Y •7~Y ~ ~w s . ~-< '~ Tj, 4 y ~ ~ ~ ..~~-rJ' ji. + SE,. _Sit.~'~.4i~,s~ t.l._ i'~ _ ,y~S' -~ ~' , ' '`~~ ~ tit ~,~. ~~.,`,'::.u ,r /1,. ~ i t: ~,~~>.~ ~ ~~: .. ~ i :_ ~ ,r rte. l r~ Jr '. ~,. rif°° y Y , w .~, ~ , ~ `~ 'd- ~ - ~ 1 f - '•~ Y r h4 ~:2 t~ ~el '~ ~`Y t~° ~ ' MF3s ~' .: a '~i1 w i:, ~. - .,~ tai ~~Y ; ~ -, 1 f .. b ~,.fa ~r,~,ti3{~. _ i €' y4?Y ~` _ I: ` t y~ ~ `` Y ~.~ ~'- t ', j , -1 , ~j,~e-~ ~,i=' t a. t~ Y .. >, %; r. ~ 1 ~_ q'*,;, ~ ri y M1 7 }_ ,r ~ _ ,tr' .~''r,'~'~.- ~ .a ~ ., ~, ~ ., .. A' ~nrF ~« ~ i ~ ~ , ~ ; { ~ E K3 a y ~-y J ...'~1~'/' "~ ~+ ~` ' ~ ~° ~ ,=r x ~ ~~ i.t ti h { ,~ ~ - 1 ~`• ~hv t .~i ~~ ~ s '3 s ~'~ ~~x• ~~ ~}YT+; r 1 J '. st '~ t y ~ t /' ti f r E ~ {<~_" ~ 1 . s n. ~ i r' '~ ~ ~ ~~, isy, ~ ~~'' } °~ 4 ,k r y~_.. _ti ~ . s~ ~, f y .~ i ' ~ "+.. ~5 ~ 1 F ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ tai= ~~; ~ tx3, ~~. ~?" - F -, ~i ~ { ~t k - 'F' '' Lit •~~ , r.:.,V ~ i :_~ e.E t ~. ~ r~ ~' ck - ~ i.~ ~~ ;1 ,.y ~i t ., i'~ ~~ t e ,F'4 ??~~ - t t t Yom.. 1t ~1~~, '[~I (~ # Z i} ~ : ~i~7 ~. F y>S''1~ tt t `~ '~. ~~' ~ ,e. , s 1 '~` ~ ~ .. _. t} _ ~ .z. i ,. _ _ -. i ~~ ~ ~~ , _- '' _ `,,' _ ,. f~ a Y M' .y ~ Y C~ ~ ...~ ~"' ~ y . ~ ~} '.sue} t ~.. (it%~ •. f} 1 ~ ~ T~'~ ti ~~ ` ~.rE r~ 'Hr '~' ~ Sa? .. `. ~?3y_ ~~ ;,. ~- ~ ' ~j ~ . _ _ ~. i' ~y~J 1 ~~~: ~~ ~ ~. ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: App # 03-100/ 15143 Alondra Lane James Cilker John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~ ~~ Design Review for a new single-family house November 12, 2003 397-19-027 Department Head: ~ Abndra Ln 15143500 ft buffer Abntlra Ln 15143 0 Abntlra Ln 15143 parcels in 500 ft N • ~~ 0 150 300 450 600 .~Nl_U TI 15143 Alondra Lane o~oo~o~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 04/24/03 09/16/03 10/29/03 10/29/03 11/06/03 Request Design Review Approval to demolish the existing 2,500 square foot house and construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" C~ • ~~~®®~ File No. 03-100;15143Alondra Lane/CilkerProperty • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,719 square feet gross and net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.39% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing 20 cubic yards of fill and 125 cubic yards of cut. The Ciry Code does not count basements as grading therefore 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, Pool; light wells and Walkways TOTAL Maximum Allowable 31% 35% 5,972 sq. ft. Main Floor Garage Pool House (Basement), not counted TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garages C:~IvlyDocuments~Design Review 03Wondra In 15143 Staff Repo.doc 6,739sq. ft. 12,711 sq. ft. 14,251 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 4,532 sq. ft. 960 sq. ft. 480 sq. ft. (1,10o sq. ft.) 5,972 sq. ft. 6,020 sq. ft. Min. Requirement 30 ft. 30 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. 21 ft. 20 ft. 21 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. N/A 12 ft. 0~~®03 File No. 03-100;15143 Alondra Lane/Cilker Property PROJECT DISCUSSION . Design Review The applicant is requesting approval for Design Review to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The proposed house is located in a unique location on a dead-end street. The homes. in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will be a combination of Cedar wood board and batten siding and a stone veneer at the base of the structure. The wood siding will have a green stain. The roof will be brown standing. -seam metal. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the majority of the proposed house will be 15 feet in height, with only a few portions of the roof line reaching the maximum height of 26 feet. The majority of the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stonework along the base of the facade and main entry that will break up the elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The house is unique in that it will only have • 47 feet of structure facing the street. This along with the wood siding, brown roof color, and landscaping, will considerably minimize the perception of bulk. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the house will be surrounded by the existing tree canopy including the proposed new landscaping. The structure will blend in with the surrounding landscape with the brown earth tone color roof and green cedar siding. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties in that it is a single story house on a large lot. The applicant will also maintain the existing landscaping that surrounds the property in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan. • 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 existing mature trees that surround the site will also be maintained. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Ef ficiency".The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The main living areas-face south for maximum benefit of solar heating. The house- will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high- energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. • C:~IvlyDocuments~Design Review 03Wondra Ln 15143 Staff Repo.doc ~ ~(~ ®®jq File No. 03-100;15143Alondra Lane/CilkerProperty • Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing a large 960 square foot four-car garage with open parking for at least two cars in the driveway. Trees There are 19 protected trees on the site. The applicant is proposing to remove four trees. The City Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The City Arborist report dated May 9, 2003 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The applicant is proposing to replace the removed trees with six 36"'box Big Leaf Maples and two 24" box Oaks. In addition to the required replacement trees the applicant is also proposing to install three 36" box Redwoods in addition to the extensive landscape plan. 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 is proposing four fireplaces. Only the great room will have awood-burning fireplace. 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. 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 Plari Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the same location as the exiting house and surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be earth tones that will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape. • C:~IvlyDocuments~Design Review 03Wondra Ln 15143 Staff Repo.doc Q~'10~ ~~'` File No. 03-100;15143 Alondra Lane/Cilker Property 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 application. for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • C:~IvlyDocuments~Design Review 03~Alondra Ln 15143 Staff Repo.doc SJ ~ v ®® `~ • Attachment 1 ~~d~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cilker;15143 Alondra Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the 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 majority of the proposed house will be 15 feet in height, with only a few portions of the roof line reaching the maximum height of 26 feet. The majority of -the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including stonework along the base of the facade and main entry that will break up the elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure.. The house is unique in that it will only have 47 feet of structure facing the street. This along with the wood siding, brown roof color, and landscaping, will considerably minimize the perception of bulk. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the house will be surrounded by the existing tree canopy including the proposed new landscaping. The structure will blend in with the surrounding landscape with the brown earth tone color roof and green cedar siding. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The proposed project will protect the privacy of adjacent properties in that it is a single story house on a large lot. The applicant will also maintain the existing landscaping that surrounds the property in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan. • ®~®~8 • 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 existing mature trees that surround the site will also be maintained. • Polity 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 main living areas face south for maximum benefit of solar heating. The house will meet the. State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high=energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the- applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review. and Grading Approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6_0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by caref ally considering the visual impact of new development. Land Ilse Element Policy 5.0 The Ciry 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 same location as the exiting house and surrounded by existing and proposed trees thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will be earth tones that will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape. 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 James Cilker for Design Review has been approved and 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 September 2, 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. 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. S. 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. Landsca e lan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote P P 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 hadscape area. . 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount -and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. . ®~~~1~ 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 Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that .the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. ,The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 15. The 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 fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Inspection. 16. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of the Building Permit. CITY ARBORIST 17. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated May 9, 2003 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 (5) 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. 18. Prior to issuance of a Building or Grading permit if required, 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. ~~~~~~ 19. 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. 20. The applicant shall submit one complete set of building plans to the Planning Division with the Building Permit submittal to be routed to the City Arborist for review of the final landscape, irrigation and grading plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 21. Required Fire Flow:. The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20psi residential pressure. -The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrants that are spaced at the required spacing. 22. Required Fire Flow Option: Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail and Specifications W-1/SP-4. 23. Required Access to Water Supply Hydrants: Portions of the structure are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. 24. Provide an Earl Warnin Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, Y g installed per City of Saratoga standards. 25. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Standards #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth flat horizontal ceiling. 26. approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CITY ATTORNEY 27. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. ooo~~~ 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12`h day of November 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upori 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 ~~®®1~ • Attachment 2 • Q~~~~1~ • • .? A.k-~: ,- ARB~ RESO~,IRCES '; ~ZOfE11GOIZQL Pr'Z/~O~LLG~LICtil2ClL C~Ol2bU.LtGlZ9 GT :./ZEE C.:RZE AN ARgORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE CILKER RESIDENCE 15143 ALONDRA LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: CILKER APPLICATION #: 03-100 APN: 397-19-027 Submitted to: Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Plans Received: April 30, 2003 Site Inspected: May 6, 2003 Report Submitted: May 9; 2003 • P.O. Box 25295, San I,~iateo, California 94402 Q Emaii: arbcrresources@earthliuk.net Phone: 650.654.351 ~ Faa: 6~0.654.s3~2 Licensed Contractor #796763 000'15 • M 9, 2003 David L. Babby, Registered C• Iting Arborist ~' SUMMARY • Nineteen Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. Twelve are located on the subject property and seven on neighboring ones. Plans propose removing trees #7 and 8 to accommodate the driveway expansion. Trees #1 and 18 will be significantly damaged by implementation of the proposed design, and should be regarded as a loss. Design modifications to ensure the survival and longevity of these trees are not encouraged. . Tree #2 has a less than ideal structure and invasive root system. If retained, mitigation measures are recommended to minimize root damage impacts. Removal of this tree should be allowed if the applicant makes this request. Tree #4 will be endangered by expansion of the future driveway beneath .its canopy. Modifications to the plans are necessary to promote the survival and. longevity of this tree. Minor to moderate impacts are anticipated for the remaining trees, provided the recommendations presented in this report aze carefully followed and incorporated into . project plans. To ensure protection of trees #2 through 6, 9 through 17, and 19, I recommend a bond of $12,354. With the exception of tree #8, replacement trees are recommended for all removed trees. ASSIGNMENT This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Sazatoga's Community Development Department in response to the proposed demolition of an existing one-story single-family residence, and construction of a new one at 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga. This .report reviews the effects of the proposed development on Ordinance-sized trees exposed to potential impacts; identifies each tree's condition, species, and size; establishes tree appraisal values; provides recommended bond values; and presents recommendations for mitigating trees being removed and impacted. A summary of my findings is presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. The recommended tree protection fencing locations, as well as tree locations, numbers and canopy dimensions, -are shown on an attached copy of the Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan (sheet C-i) prepazed by Lea & Sung Engineering, Inc., dated 3-26-03. Note trees #6, 10 through 16, and 18 are not shown on the plan. Their locations were plotted by me and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. Cilker Residence, 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga Page 1 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~®~~6 M 9, 2003 Consultin Arborist ~' David L. Bobby, Registered g • REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS Nineteen trees were inventoried for this report. The most significant of these trees include #3 through 6, and #10 through 16. The trunks of trees #10 through 16 are located on opposite sides of the west and southwestern property boundary.. As such, they should be regarded as highly valued specimens and protected accordingly. Trees#7 and 8 are planned for removal to accommodate a new driveway and 18-inch high wall. These trees have poor structures, the worst being tree #8, which has two trunks seemingly held upright by a support cable. Removal of these trees is appropriate and replacement trees are suggested only for tree #7. The future home's proposed footprint will significantly affect trees # 1 and 18. The footprints are respectively proposed five and three feet from their trunks. As such, a significant portion of their canopies and root systems will require removal. Design modifications to ensure their survival are .not suggested. Whether they are retained or removed, they should be considered a loss. Plans propose constructing a portion of the new home beneath tree #2's canopy. I anticipate this will remove 10 to 15-percent of the root zone area, an amount tolerable towards the tree's survival. Measures to minimize damage are presented in the recommendations section. Should the applicant request to remove this tree rather than follow the measures, I believe this would be appropriate as this tree has a less than ideal structure with an invasive root system. Tree #4 will. be affected by the proposed driveway expansion beneath its canopy. Revisions to the proposed plans are necessary to promote this tree's survival'and longevity, and include designing the new portion of the driveway and wall outside from beneath the canopy. . A Swale is proposed across the root zones of trees #3, 4 and 6. The swale's planned depth beneath tree #6's canopy is minimal; however, much more significant beneath trees #3 and 4. To lessen the impacts, I suggest the swale's depth beneath the canopies not exceed four inches at any given point. The other option is to relocate the swale. The proposed Dog Run is anticipated to significantly damage roots belonging to trees #12, 13 and 14. In the case of trees #13 and 14, the roots are expected to be two to three times their canopy width. I suggest the Dog Run either be relocated or established without requiring soil-cuts. • Cilker Residence, 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga Yage ~ o,~ ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ®O~O~r! • • May 9, 2003 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist RECOMMENDATIONS All- recommendations presented below aze based on plans reviewed and are intended to mitigate foreseeable damage. If revisions to the plans occur, recommendations may. require modification. Tree Protection Fencing 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed before demolition and construction begins, and the arrival of heavy equipment to -the site. It shall consist of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven at least two feet into the ground and. spaced no more than 12 feet apart. The fencing shall be located as shown on the attached plan. 2. To allow access for removing the existing patio and walkways, temporary holes are necessary within in the section of fencing located outside tree #16 and 19's canopy (one hole each). The fence shall be closed immediately thereafter. 3. Where beneath canopies of retained trees, the fencing shall be established no further than one foot from the existing wall and driveway, u d be established no furtherthan patio: Where beneath tree.#2's canopy, the fence sho four feet from the future home's footprint along the canopy's southwest portion, and two feet from the existing home's footprint along the canopy's northwest portion. 4. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives final approval. Modifications to the fencing should be approved by the City of Saratoga. All development activities must occur outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, material storage, vehicle parking, and dumping of concrete or other construction materials. 5. The fencing shall should be inspected and approved by the City of Saratoga before demolition begins and the arrival of heavy equipment, as well as after demolition is completed and construction begins. Tree #2 6. if tree #2 remains, a root zone buffer should be installed beneath its canopy, between the protection fencing and future home's footprint. It shall consist of a four to six-inch layer of coarse wood chips covered by 3/4-inch plywood. This plywood should then been be securely fastened to enable a sturdy walking surface. 7. Where beneath tree #2's canopy,. the existing home's foundation must be removed by hand, as well as digging the future home's foundation. Demolition 8. The existing patio, walkways and home's foundation shall be removed by hand (i.e. jackhammer). Immediately (within two hours) after removing these features, generously fill the exposed area beneath the canopies with approximately four to six • 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga Page 3 of 5 Cilker Residence, City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~00~~8 . ~ • ° David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 9, 2003 inches of coazse wood chips or soil (less than 10-percent clay content) and keep moist for a penod of two weeks. The removal of the wood chips or redistribution of soil must be performed by hand. 9. The loader used during the process should be a small rubber-tired tractor and remain on paved surfaces at all times and off exposed soil and roots. Root Severance Guidelines 10. Roots two inches and greater in diameter shall remain intact. If accidental damage does occur, they ,shall be severed clean with a hand or chainsaw and immediately covered with adequate amounts of soil or wood chips. Driveway 11. The proposed driveway expansion shall remain outside from beneath tree #4's canopy. Drainage and Utilities 12. All roof drains must be installed so water drains away from rather than towazds trees' trunks. 13. The swale proposed beneath canopies of trees #3, 4 and 6 must be hand excavated only, and not exceed four inches below existing grade at any given point. If this is not feasible, I recommend redesigning it outside from beneath their canopies. 14. Under ound i es, utilities and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of protected trees ~' P p shall be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. If their removal is absolutely required, all digging must be performed by hand. 15. All future utilities, shall be installed outside from beneath canopies of protected trees. Tree Pruning and Removal 16. Tree pruning, removals and -stump grinding must occur .prior to installing, tree protection fencing, All pruning must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and in accordance to the standazds established by the ISA Western Chapter. All stumps shall be ground rather than pulled from the ground. Landscaping 17. The Dog Run must be constructed without causing soil cuts. The same applies to installation of the proposed walkway beneath canopies of trees #10 and 12. 18. No heavy equipment (including small tractors, such as a Bobcat) must travel beneath canopies of protected trees or within 20 feet from the trunks of trees #13 and 14. Where within these distances, the work shall be performed by hand. 19. Irrigation heads must be directed away from all tree trunks. Cilker Residence, 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga Page 4 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~,~®~~~ M 9, 2003 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ~' 20. Plant material installed beneath canopies of trees #3 through 6, 9 and 19, -shall be drought tolerant and comprise no more than 15-percent of the total ground area. 21. Plant material installed beneath canopies of other protected trees must be irrigated using a drip or laser line system. 22. Irrigation trenches installed within the protection fenced areas and parallel to the trunk, should be placed no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter. Irrigation trenches installed radial to the trunk must be placed no closer than five times the trunk diameter and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. 23. Installing edging material or rototilling beneath tree canopies must be avoided. Tree Replacements 24. Replacement trees are recommended to mitigate the loss of trees #l, 7, and 18. Their combined value is $8,870, an amount which should be replaced with new native trees having an equivalent cumulative value. For example, the $8,870 value could be replaced with six trees of 36-inch box size and two trees of 24-inch box size. The replacement tree values for various sizes are as follows: a 48-inch box sized tree equals $5,000; a 36-inch box sized tree equal $1,320; a 24-inch box sized tree equals $420; and a 15-gallon sized tree equals $120. 25. Acceptable native tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californicq). TREE PROTECTION BOND The appraised tree values are presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached at the end of this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for .Plant Appraisal; 9''' Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. The combined appraised value of trees expected to be preserved and protected is $82,360. I suggest a 15-percent bond or $12.354 to ensure their protection. • Cilker Residence, 15143 Alondra Lane, Saratoga t'age ~ o~ ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division 00~02~0 ..:. _ ~ 7 ~-- toy ._ ~ ~ ... ~ I I _ _,,, OI ro ~I •10 I zl I/ ~~I; ~x ,FP ~ ( . * TREE PROTECTION FENCING "naiiuxE - '-"~~ ~ ( i \ (N) G~ RACE \ o.. / % ~ ~ ~ \ a•e. z 0.2 6g . \r ~aiwin\ _ ~w1 cnmxcu~i, CC s~ ~ ~ 1 sxao '. . a (~ . ! i 1 ~~~ \ e• C- z~i~u~ ~ \ MODIFY ~ ~ ~ `i\ I 9E xExo\en -. ~ . . /~ j ~ \` ~' ~w. (~~l"z s (N)- HOUSE i ~~~ ~ (e)TO alvEw~r _'• `~ /V ~ Lc "\.1 i i a z f . \ ( 1\ ~ _ -ono lD xwsc • max' ~ l 3"'~ ~ / ,-~'i _, .` ~ 3 ~^;~ \\~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ... 1 l /. . / ~ • .',. 1\ Fo rdnirxrtx~ e~ -~ I ~ p: -' ° ~ TREC PROTECTION FENCTNG ~~ t ~ '~ I zo~oo', ~~ . I ~~ -~ ~ \\_ r 2\ ef'xD.ovm ~ \ ' 07: ~ ~ ~ \~ a~ (N) HASETfENT ~ ^^\ x. E ' \\ / ` l 14; ("~~"nan~ `~/ ~ ~ .'.. 15it - 5 P 935 \ .~b ~ ~ ~m/~ \ (N) POOL \. ~ ~ ~ (^~:..-, ( - Pa+cx _ I ! srea z \\ ~\ \~ 1 ~ ~. ~ \ HOUSE ._ s // V-( 13 (~ooo- \ l,j ~ \ \ P.o`zoii \ l ~ R~`\r. \ G: \-, _. \\ ,/ ~` \ I ~io,~ ~- l _~ \ '~o m c~ ~ o ~ \ \~. \ (N) HOUSE k~~~ ~ '' 2 ~~' (.; t, zo so _ _ -~ / P \ J E ~ POOL \ \ ~ i 1 LEGEiVD `\~! `~,, (oeiio.l \ r 1i ~~~.. ~ _ PP.OPOSED_ DESCRIPTION ~\ ~ (x1 CO\4nnFD 1 \ 'l~ ~ ~'~ \ ~ 1 ~~ SEA«. , ~- o ' ~- ~,~ ++ . V ~ ~' .. O _ n E ~ ~ ~ . -ss-_ :L t~~lf j ~ ~ ... 1 ®wl.= sam Pam - i 1~ ~ -/ i .. - .o ."E. uw~x CANOI'1' I;11(.Ii v 1 l ~ ;~ ~ 3, A ~• t •/ _ ln, ~ s''~ •/~O- 5:0. UEV.i(n. \\ ~ ` rf ( ) n.}. . \ \ \ 1 l rtow owCCUa, \ 51 IE ~ ~ _, . .,, ' 0 e_ncex.er' sc+alno _. .1.,. ~. . \ ,' ~ ,4-\` t ,• U.! IrI.\ I, ,. (c ,Y i! ~_~~ comwP` 1 i.( -. „\...,.. ,., i~,...1 ~.,, I~.o... ., P1. P,~,n u.. ~ ~ ~ (~ ' ~ . ' 1<. ..,: X TF_E ro of"n L •~ r•~ - r~Il Nl 111 l~tl til llllllly J' ~~ ~ ~ ' F Pa.~ ~an~ ~. _~ /~ .. ... ~. a..p, e.,.....,.... .,. ~ 't • Attachment 3 • ~~~~22 City 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 12`h day of November 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City 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. 03-100 (397-19-027) - Cilker, 15143 Alondra Lane; -Request Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story 5,972 square foot house with a 1,100 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 40,719 square feet and zoned R- 1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. 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 with 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 • ~'~~~~~ • • 15143 Alondra Lane ~~~~~~ f • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) 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 29th day of October, 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- 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 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. 15143 Alondra Lane; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. f _r n F. Livingstone CP Associate Planner • ~~~Q~~ ALIT & PANEA FAR LAWRENCE ING-SHENG & FRANCIS CHIEN Or Current Owner, APN 39710010 Or Current Owner, APN 39710011 Or Current Owner; APN 39710012 15230 FRUITVALE AVE 15200 FRUITVALE AVE 15160 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 •. LOUISE E SMITH Or Current Owner, APN 39710013 15130 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LUPE & BARBARA RODRIGUEZ Or Current Owner, APN 39710014 PO BOX 3563 SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT G & MARY COO Or Current Owner, APN 39711026 19480 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KARL W & THERESA ROBINSON Or Current Owner, APN 39719002 19670 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES B & NANCY PATKA Or Current Owner, APN 39719005 15360 BESTVIEW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SHUKLA Or Current Owner, APN 39719010 20210 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 REYES & GIOVANNI BRIGNOLO Or Current Owner, APN 39719014 19645 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD VICTOR E & MAXINE TINSLEY Or Current Owner, APN 39719017 19699 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KENNETH A & DOLORES ZADWICK Or Current Owner, APN 39719025 15013 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 KENNEDY Or Current Owner, APN 39719028 5925 KILLARNEY CIR SAN JOSE CA 95138 SAEED & FARHEEN KAZMI Or Current Owner, APN 39719032 15163 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 MILDRED E HOCKER Or Current Owner; APN 39719003 PO BOX 3 SARATOGA CA 95071 L R & JESSIE MCGUIRE Or Current Owner, APN 39719006 15350 BESTVIEW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 YBARRO Or Current Owner, APN 39719012 15275 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN & LILI DILLON Or Current Owner, APN 39719015 19661 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 RONALD D & PATRICIA 1NMAN Or Current Owner, APN 39719018 19711 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 WALTER & CONNIE HILLBLOM Or Current Owner, APN 39719026 15131 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 WILLIAM F & MARIANA SCHMIDT Or Current Owner, APN 39719030 15217 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ERIK D & MARIA GULDNER Or Current Owner, APN 39719033 15061 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROYCE B & LORRAINE ANDREWS Or Current Owner, APN 39719004 15351 BESTVIEW CT SARATOGA CA 95070 BRIAN & PAMELA KAISER Or Current Owner, APN 39719007 19610 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SINCLAIR Or Current Owner, APN 39719013 19615 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SIDNEY T & MARCIA ~ KAUFMANN Or Current Owner, APN 39719016 19677 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD RAYMOND T & BETTY CHU Or Current Owner, APN 39719024 19554 THREE OAKS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES H & ELIZBETH CILKER Or Current Owner, APN 39719027 15143 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070. JOHN B & PATRICIA HAMMETT Or Current Owner, APN 39719031. 15185 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 WHITFIELD Or Current Owner, APN 397190 15021 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~Q"®~'~~ ROCKY & LINDA FONG Or Current Owner, APN 39719036 PO BOX 2654 TOGA CA 95070 YANG Or Current Owner, APN 51005004 15234 BELLECOURT SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES R & MARIA NIX Or Current Owner, APN 51005030 19600 SAR.ATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • OSCAR & SORAIA BAKHTIARI Or Current Owner, APN 51003011 4781 WHITETAIL LN SAN JOSE CA 95138 CHYI-RONG & TZUU-CHYI JENG Or Current Owner, APN 51005005 15214 BELLECOURT SARATOGA CA 95070 SASAN TEYMOURI Or Current Owrier, APN 51003019 19730 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVE & JUDY HUI Or Current Owner, APN 51005029 19634 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 fl~~~~~ h • ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: #02-182/ 13089 Quito Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Salim Sagharchi Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner November 12, 2003 389-14-37 Department ;~ ,,, ,. nd ~---- 1( __ _, . ~~$ '~- --i- ~ --i--1---~ 6 ~.,. rasa ~^I r---------,I j r ~ iI ,~ I ~~. ~- ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~~ ~a~ ~ ~ i t j i t I i ~ ~ _ ~___i_ ~~ ~. ~,~~~ a~ r I ~„~. a. 13089 Quito Road 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 ~~~~~~ l{ I~ I I I I I I I I I J ~~~ ~ ~ 7 ~, ~------~,I g~~ j~ , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 8/19/02 Application complete: 8/13/03 Notice published: 8/27/03 Mailing completed: 8/27/03 Posting completed: 8/21/03 2nd notice published 10/29/03 2nd mailing complete 11/04/03 2nd posting completed 10/22/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The plan subdivides the site of the former Dorcich Orchard, a 1.97-acre parcel located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Avenue. The area is zoned R-1, 10,000 and the lot sizes range from 11,118 square feet to 13,371 square feet. The proposal depicts six lots with road frontage on a public cul-de-sac shown as Kevin Road, which accesses onto Martha Avenue. • This subdivision design represents a revision of the plan, which was reviewed by the Planning commission on September 10, 2003. At that time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the plan to reduce the number of lots to six. and eliminate the lot which fronts on McFarland Avenue. The plans have been revised accordingly and now depict only six lots which all front on the proposed cul de sac. The new cul-de-sac is designed as a 35-foot wide public road with a 19.5-foot wide travel lane and two 7.75 foot wide parking lanes. This road is narrower than Martha Avenue, which has two 20-foot wide travel lanes, which permit parking on both sides of the street. The ,parcel contains an existing historic farmhouse, the disposition of which was reviewed by the Heritage Commission. This structure is to be restored and moved from the center of the grounds to Lot 4 at the end of the cul-de-sac. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed six-lot subdivision since the design complies with the standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance. Adoption of the Resolution of Approval for application #02-182 is recommended. ATTACHMENTS 1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Santa Clara County Fire Department -Review #02-1893, 9/6/02 Revised Santa Clara County Fire Department Review, l0/23/03 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 3. PG~E Review -Application # 40127685-02-MR-104, dated 9/23/02 4. Tree Survey ~ Preservation Recommendations for 13089 Quito Road by Barrie Coate &t Associates, 9/24/02 5. Petitions- McFarland Neighborhood - Regarding Historic Structure 6. Correspondence from Neighbors - Saratoga Historical Foundation - 9/17/02 7. Exhibit "A" -Conceptual Design 1, 2 -Front Elevation 8. Exhibit "B" -Subdivision Site Plan 9. Exhibit "C" -Tentative Parcel Map - Dorcich Orchard, prepared by Guadalupe Chavarria, P.E. revision 10/3/03 C7 • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 3. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1,10,000 District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-lO -Medium Density Residential Development MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:1.97 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of the parcel is 2.06% ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of subdivision of a parcel into six lots is subject to environmental review under. CEQA. An Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. After study and evaluation, staff has determined pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the Ciry of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. • • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 4. 4Jt1'~.7~®°~ • • i~ R-1,10,000 DISTRICT LOT AREA FRONT SIDE REAR NUMBER OF LOTS CONFORMING LOT DESIGN CUL-DE-SAC LOT DEPTH LOT WIDTH PROPOSED >11,118 SF. INTERIOR LOTS >12,092 SF. CORNER LOTS 25 FEET 10 FEET 25 FEET 6 LOTS 6 LOTS PUBLIC STREET -45 FT R-O-W 115 FT. TO 127 FT. 85 FT. TO 124 FT. CODE REQUIREMENTS 10,000 SF. INTERIOR LOTS 12,000 SF. CORNER LOTS 2S FEET 10 FEET 25 FEET 6 LOTS 6 LOTS PUBLIC STREET WITH 40 FT. R-O-W ~OR PRIVATE STREET WITH P.C. APPROVAL~~ 115 FT. 85 FT. INTERIOR LOTS 100 FT. CORNER LOTS *Municipal Code Section 14-25.030 states "Where topography or special conditions make a street of less width more suitable for the purpose intended, the advisory agency shall have the power to approve such lesser width". 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 ~r~, 5. ~~~~®~ PROJECT DISCUSSION • Numerous Revisions This subdivision design has been through twelve revisions since the initial application in August 2002. This version of the subdivision contains six lots and unlike the previous designs conforms to zoning and subdivision requirements. Conforming Dimensions The subdivision regulations require that "so far as practical, the side lot lines- of all lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lot faces or radial if the street is curved" (Section 14-25.040). The October 3, 2003 revised design conforms to this requirement with symmetrical lots at right angles to the street. S treet Design The revised plan depicts a 45-foot R-O-W with a 35.5 foot paved road. The subdivision regulations require a 40-foot R-O-W with a 30 foot paved road. Thus the plans comply with minimum road design standards. The applicant has requested a minor deviation from the subdivision regulations. This exception involves the City agreeing to allow 4.75-foot future right of way area from the face of curb to the edge of the right of .way. The subdivision regulations require 5 feet from the face of curb to the right of way. This three-inch deviation from the design standards was accepted by the Public Works department as a minor variation that they • could agree to in light of the fact that the applicant was providing greater future right of way than the minimum requirement of 40 feet. In terms of traffic impact, the proposed project would generate approximately 10.5 trips per day per household. This equates to 63 trips per day generated by the development. (Source: San Francisco Bay Area 1990 Regional Travel Characteristics: Working Paper #4). Heritage Commission Numerous revisions to this plan have resulted in the Heritage Commission reviewing this subdivision on three occasions. A third review was necessary due to modification of the plan, which eliminated the end of cul de sac lot, which was to contain the historic house. The Heritage Commission recommends that the historic farmhouse be located on Lot 5, with the front of the house facing the cul de sac. Conclusion The revised plan for Dorcich Orchard complies with the zoning and subdivision regulations for the R-1,10,000 Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the plans as depicted in the October 3, 2003 version of the plans. 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 6. c ®®~~~~2 • Subdivision Regulations The specific sections of the subdivision regulations that are at issue are identified below: Street Rights-of--Way Section 14-25.030(b) of the Subdivision Regulations requires that "Street rights of way and improvements thereof shall conform with the minimums as set forth in Table 1 of this Chapter except where topography or special conditions make a street of less width more suitable for the purpose intended, the advisory agency shall have the power to approve streets of lesser width". The street design guidelines call fora 40-foot right of way-and a 30 foot paved road for lots which front on a cul de sac serving 12 or fewer lots. The plans depict a 35.5 foot paved road. This wider road width will comply with the Santa Clara Fire Department guidelines for allowing parking on both sides of the street. Lot and Blocks Section 14-25.040 of the Subdivision Regulations states that "so far as practical, the side lot lines of all lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lot faces or radial if the street is curved". The revised plans comply with this design requirement. All lot lines are at right angles or radial to the bulb of the cul de sac. . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff recommends that the submitted plan, Exhibit "C", a six-lot subdivision of parcel # 389-14-037 be approved with the following revisions. A revised tentative parcel map must address the following items: 1. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The storm water management plan shall comply with all design requirements mandated by the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the Community Development Department. 3. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted which identifies the proposed landscaping within the 10-foot right of way along Quito Road. This plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 ~~~~~~ 5. A statement of covenant, conditions and restrictions (CC6~zR's) shall be provided which addresses the long term maintenance of the on site storm water retention .. structures and landscaping along Martha Avenue and Quito Road. 6. The applicant shall identify whether they intend to participate in the landscape and lighting district for maintenance of the right of way along Quito- Road and Martha Avenue. Comments on the proposed plan from various departments are provided below. COMMUNITY INPUT This subdivision is very controversial in the surrounding community. Staff has received many calls and a petition over past year regarding this plan. The revised plan has eliminated many of the objections that were voiced by neighbors. Neighborhood Meetings The applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings on September 29, 2003 at morning and evening hours in the Community Room of the Saratoga Library. There were no attendants at the morning meeting and the evening meeting had approximately 12 participants. The revised six-lot site plan was shown to the attendees and there appeared to be acceptance of this revised design. A revious nei hborhood meetin was held on Februa 23, 2003 and the neighbors p g g D' concerns were sentvia e-mail. The primary issues were as follows: 1. The development should to feel like part of the neighborhood and not like an exclusive cul-de-sac. 2. The design should to be architecturally compatible with the farmhouse 3. The majority preferred one-story dwellings 4. Many wanted the size of the home to be similar to the -size of the surrounding homes. 5. Many wanted the historic farmhouse to be placed on the lot fronting on Martha and Quito Road. 6. There was concern that the school district would change for this subdivision. 7. Preference against the roofs 8. Preference against a masonry sound wall on Quito Road 9. Preferred the homes abutting Martha Avenue to front on Martha Avenue 10. Preferred the fencing along Martha Avenue to not exceed three feet so that it doesn't cut off the rest of the neighborhood. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 8. ~~®~~~ or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) -shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map,' document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. • 3. The owner a licant shall a a Ma Checkin fee, as determined by the .Public (Pp ) Py p g Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be-set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements andlor rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the .appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 9. QQ ~~~~~J a . Martha Drive along the frontage of the subdivision shall be overlaid with 2" of Asphalt Concrete; existing storm swales on both sides of the street shall be replaced with standard vertical curb and gutter per City specifications. b . Right of way along Quito Road and Martha Drive shall be landscaped. Landscape maintenance agreement shall be approved by the City and recorded prior to Final Map approval. c . Existing bus stop at Quito Road shall be improved per VTA recommendatioris. d . Driveway approach at Quito Road shall be replaced with standard vertical curb and gutter. e . Encroachment Permit from the City shall be obtained for all work in the public right of way on Quito Road, Martha Drive and McFarland Avenue. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director; at the time Improvement-Plans are submitted for review. 8. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 9. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 11. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utiliry improvements to serve the subdivision. 12. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by .the Ciry shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 14. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02.182 10. • FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed -this application on September 6, 2002 and October 23, 2003. These reports are attached to this review and comments most pertinent to this subdivision are as follows: 1. The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet in width, parking shall be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face of curb to face of - curb. 2. Parking is not allowed in turnarounds. The entire area of the required turnaround shall remain unobstructed at all times.. No portion of the turnaround shall be part of a driveway. 3. Public Fire Hydrants -Provide at least 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and San Jose Water Company. 4. The Fire Department has agreed to accept a roadway width of 35 feet 6 inches and allow parking on both sides of the street. The minor deviation of this standard was made with the recommendation that street be .designed with rolled curb to allow the greatest possible parking width on each side of the road. CITY I~RBORIST The City Arborist inspected this property on September ll, 2002 and the attached report addresses tree protection measures required in the course of development of this property. The arborist indicates that there are approximately 150 trees on this site, of these, 77 trees are large enough to be regulated by the city ordinance.. The arborist values the trees on this property at $80,495. The arborist values tree #1, a coast live oak at $18,083 and tree #9 a coast live oak at $4,635. He recommends a bond of 50% of the value of these two trees or $11,359 plus 25% of the remaining trees to be retained. The city will require a bond to ensure protection of the trees that are on the property. Also replacement trees will be required at a value, which equals the value of trees that have been removed. The arborist makes a number of recommendations, compliance with shall be made a condition to development of this parcel among them are the following. 1. The new roadway, curb and gutter should be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree # 9. 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 11. gga~yy Q~~~3~~ 2. Pavement within the vicinity of tree #9 must be demolished in accordance with very specific guidelines as outlined in the report.. 3. If the coast redwood tree #12 would be retained, the storm drain proposed on the north side of the trunk must be relocated a minimum distance of 12 feet from the trunk. 4. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must .remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as-shown on the attached map. 5. The grading, drainage and landscape plans must be reviewed by the Ciry Arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. CONCLUSION The tentative subdivision map for APN # 389-14-037 should be approved since it complies with all zoning and subdivision regulations and is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this plan with revisions and adoption of the Resolution of Approval for application number 02-182. • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 12. ((}}~~ ~~77 ®~~..l~~s~s • RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL N0.03 - APPLICATION NO.02-I82 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAGHARCHI - 13089 QUITO ROAD WHEREAS; an application has been .made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 1.97-acre, R1-10, 000 zoned parcel located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Avenue into six lots, or as more particularly set forth in File No. 02-182 of this City, WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design -and improvement is consistent with the General Plan. WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency 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 City of Saratoga has prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the .Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated October 3, 2003 is marked Exhibit "C" in the hereinafter file, be and the same is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. 1. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The storm water management plan shall comply with all design requirements mandated by the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant should submit a soil.and erosion control plan, which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 13. ~~~'~~ 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted which identifies the proposed landscaping within the 10-foot right of way along Quito Road. This plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. S. A statement of covenant, conditions and restrictions (CC~R's) shall be provided which addresses the long term maintenance of the on site storm water retention structures and landscaping along Martha Avenue and Quito Road. 6. The applicant shall identify whether they intend to participate in the landscape and lighting district for maintenance of the right of way along Quito Road and Martha Avenue. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee; as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 14. ~~.3'~~~~~~ . to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for. all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance -with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other. public agencies having. jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: . a. Martha Drive along the frontage of the subdivision shall be overlaid with 2" of Asphalt Concrete; existing storm swales on both sides of the street shall be replaced with standard vertical curb and gutter per Ciry specifications. b. Right-of-way along Quito Road and Martha Drive shall be landscaped. Landscape maintenance agreement shall be approved by the Ciry and recorded prior to Final Map approval. c. Existing bus stop at Quito Road shall be improved per VTA recommendations. d. Drivewa a roach at uito Road shall be re laced with standard vertical curb and y pP Q P gutter. e. Encroachment Permit from the Ciry shall be obtained for all work in the public right of way on Quito Road, Martha Drive and McFarland Avenue. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director; at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 8. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 9. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 11. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 15. ..qp~ ®~~ ~.i~~ providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 12. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 14. All building and .construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1. The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet in width, parking shall be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face of curb to face of curb. 2. Parking is not allowed in turnarounds. The entire area of the required turnaround shall • remain unobstructed at all times. No portion of the turnaround shall be part of a driveway. 3. Public Fire Hydrants -Provide at least 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and San Jose Water Company. 4. The Fire Department has agreed to accept. a roadway width of 35 feet 6 inches and allow parking on both sides of the street. The minor deviation of this standard was made with the recommendation that street be designed with rolled curb to allow the greatest possible parking width on each side of the road. CITY ARBORIST The City Arborist inspected this property on September 11, 2002 and the attached report addresses tree protection measures required in the course of development of this property. The arborist indicates that there are approximately 150 trees on this site, of these; 77 trees are large enough to be regulated by the city ordinance. The arborist values the trees on this property at $80,495. The arborist values tree #l, a coast live oak at $18,083 and tree #9 a coast live oak at $4,635. He recommends a bond of 50% of the value of these two trees or $11,359 plus 25% of the remaining trees to be retained. The city will require 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 16. [['~~, ~.J®~~~~ • a bond to ensure protection of the trees that are on the property. Also replacement trees will be required at a value, which equals the value of trees that have been removed. The arborist makes a number of recommendations in the September 11, 2002 review and compliance with these recommendations shall be made a condition to development of this parcel among them are the following. 1. The new roadway, curb and gutter should be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree # 9. 2. Pavement within the vicinity of tree #9 must be demolished in accordance with very specific guidelines as outlined in the report. 3. If the coast redwood tree #12 would be retained, the storm drain proposed on the north side of the trunk must be relocated a minimum distance of 12 feet from the trunk. 4. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 5. The grading, drainage and landscape plans must be reviewed by the Ciry Arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Tentative Parcel Map as identified as "Exhibit C" titled Tentative Parcel Map- Dorcich Orchard dated October 3, 2003 prepared by Guadalupe Chavarria, P.E. is approved subject to the conditions outlined in this report. Section 1. 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. • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02.182 17. ~'`r9'ii' ~, 0 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State • of California, this 12th day of November by the followingxoll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This ermit is hereb acce ted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall • p y p 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 • 13089 Quito Road - 6 Lot Subdivision Application # 02-182 18. ~-p QQ ti.J~~~~V r~ ~_~ Attachment 1 ~~~~~9 Environmental Initial Study City of Saratoga 1. Project Title: Application No. 02-182, Tentative Parcel Map - Dorcich Orchard - Subdivision of 1.97 acre parcel into 6 lots. 2. Project Location: The project is located at 13089 Quito Road, the corner of Quito Road and Martha Avenue. 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 4. Contact Person ~ Phone Number: Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner (408) 868-1230 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Salim S agarchi President SEI Development & Investment Company 44120 Hunter Terrace Fremont, CA 94539 6. General Plan Designation: M-10 -Medium Density Residential Development 7. Zoning: R-1,10,000 Zoning District 8. Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide, into six lots, a 1.97 acre.parcel located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The project contains an existing historic home, which is to be moved from the center of the parcel to Lot S at the end of the cul-de-sac. The property is proposed to be subdivided around a cul-de sac, which takes access from Martha Road. The proposal is for six lots to front along the cul-de-sac • Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~2~ 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is the site of a historic orchard and contains a number of fruit trees as well as a historic farmhouse. The surrounding area is single family residential in character. The orchard property is surrounded by single family homes which directly abut the parcel to the north and west. Along the east lies Quito Road, a major arterial across which are single family homes which have their rear yards facing Quito Road. To the south lies Martha Drive a local road across which are single family homes that front on Martha Drive. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire District Santa Clara Valley Water District Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist below: ^ Aesthetics ^ . Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards ~ Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services o Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared: ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~~s1 ^ I find that the proposed project MAY .have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared By: Ann Welsh, AICP Assistant Planrier Ciry of Saratoga Sources: Date: August 14, 2003 Tentative Parcel Map - Dorcich Orchard, prepared by Guadalupe Chavarria, P.E. revision 10/3/03 Ciry of Saratoga General Plan Ciry of Saratoga Municipal Code Ciry of Saratoga Zoning District Map and General P1an.Map Santa Clara County Fire Department -Review #02-1893, dated 9/6/02 PG~E Review -Application # 40127685-02-MR-104, dated 9/23/02 Historical ~ Architectural Evaluation of 13089 Quito Rd by Dill Design. Group, 5/2/02 Tree Survey &z Preservation Recommendations for 13089 Quito Road by Barrie Coate ~sz Associates, 9/24/02 Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With .Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Discussion: The proposed subdivision would eliminate and allow development of an existing orchard, which although not maintained does provide scenic amenity to the surrounding neighborhood. Although the area of the orchard is not designated a scenic vista the orchard does provide visual amenity. B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and Historic buildings within a scenic highway? X Initial Study Application 02-182 • • ~~~~~~ • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Discussion: The development of a six-lot subdivision would require elimination of a substantial number of trees.. However, a number of the trees are to be retained and replacement trees will be required. The existing historic farmhouse is to be moved into a visually prominent lot and restored in a manner that retains the historic character of the structure. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X Discussion: The development of this property into asix-lot subdivision will alter the visual quality of the site. The subdivision if developed in a sensitive manner will not substantially degrade the visual character of the site since neither the home nor the orchard have been maintained in recent history. D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or night time views in the area? X 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X B) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? X C) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversation of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X Discussion: The proposed subdivision is the site of an orchard that was in production for . many years. The orchard has fallen out of production but development of the site as single-family homes will preclude use of the site for agricultural purposes. 4 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~2~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? X Discussion: The generation of emissions, which could substantially diminish ambient air quality, is not typically associated with aseven- lot subdivision. B) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X • C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X D) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Discussion: Upon completion of construction, the proposed subdivision would not have a measurable impact on air quality. However, during the construction process, the air quality of the immediate neighborhood maybe impacted slightly with ground disturbance. The city will require that appropriate measure be taken, such a watering down disturbed areas, if necessary, to minimize the impact on local air quality. 3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: • Initial Study Application 02-182 R.~~~~~~ • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X Discussion: The California Natural Diversity Database, 2003 does not indicate the presence of any sensitive, or special status biological resources in the vicinity of the subject parcel. B) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish-and Wildlife Service? X Discussion: The subject parcel does not contain any riparian habitats. C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X Discussion: The subject parcel does not contain any wetlands. D) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X Discussion: Development of this site will require removal of numerous trees and disturbance of large quantities of earth. This process will no doubt interfere with existing wildlife in the area. However, since the parcel does not appear to attract any migratory wildlife species, the impact is not determined to be significant. E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Discussion: The arborist indicates that there are approximately 150 trees on this site, of these, 68 trees are large enough to be regulated by the city .ordinance. The city will require a bond to ensure protection of the trees that are outside of the development envelope. Also replacement trees will be required at a value, which equals the value of 6 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated trees that have. been removed. If the applicant complies with all of these conditions of development then the city's tree preservation policy will be upheld. F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 415064.5? X • Discussion: The application has been reviewed by the Saratoga Heritage Commission who recommended that the existing historic farmhouse be retained, restored and moved onto Lot 5, a visually prominent parcel at the end of the cul-de-sac. With these mitigation measures the impact on historic resources will be minimized. Also since the . farmhouse is presently in a state of neglect, restoring the structure will enhance this historic resource. B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in 415064.5? X C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X D) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X 5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Initial Study Application 02-182 ~'~~/bs~ • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? x (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X (iv) Landslides? X . B) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Discussion: The City will require soil and erosion control measures during the construction process. C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X D) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? X Discussion: The soils within the parcel are depicted as SBR soils on the General Plan - Ground Movement Potential Map. These soils are described as areas of relatively stable ground, which are underlain with bedrock within several feet of the ground surface. The site is located on the valley floor which is described as a surface that can support urban residential development. The General Plan states that geotechnical investigation is not necessary but the soil analysis should be required. • 6. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: g Initial Study Application 02-182 '~~~~~. Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X B) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X D) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X E) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X F) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Discussion: This site is not located within the area designated in the General Plan as one of extreme fire hazard. There are no known hazardous materials on the site. 7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: A) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X • B) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with • groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 9 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~ ~~U • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? x Discussion: Development of this parcel will interfere with groundwater recharge. However, the applicant will be required to retain all stormwater on the site through a system of bioswales that are to be graded on the site. Requiring stormwater retention on the site will offset the impact of development on the site in terms of impact on groundwater recharge. C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X Discussion: To some extent the existing drainage pattern on this site will be altered. However, the applicant will be required to grade the site in such a manner that all stormwater on the site will be retained within the property limits. D) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding On- or off-site? X E) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X Discussion: The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the sizing of the. stormwater retention system for the subdivision will be sufficient to handle the runoff water and will therefore filter the runoff through the natural filtration process. F) Otherwise substantially degrade water? X G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X 10 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Discussion: The subject parcel is not located within the 100 year flood zone. The area is designated as zone B which is within the 100 to 500 year flood zone as depicted on the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. H) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? X I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X • Discussion: This parcel is not located in the vicinity of any water bodies and is not • subject to mud flows. No portion of the parcel is located within the 100-year flood zone as defined by FEMA in the Flood Hazard Boundary Map. 7. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: A) Physically divide an established community? X Discussion: The proposed plan calls for development of single family detached structures which are consistent with the surrounding zoning. The plans depict a subdivision which is to be integrated into the surrounding community via a cul-de-sac access road. These lots must be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the character of the surrounding community in order to mitigate the impact on the character of the existing single family neighborhood. B) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X • 11 Initial Study Application 02-182 `~~~~~® • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Discussion: The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan designation of M-10, medium density residential development. The subdivision design is consistent with minimum standards for the R-1,10,000 zoning district C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X Discussion: Mineral resources within Saratoga and surrounding areas include sandstone and shale. There are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its sphere of influence. (Source: General Plan: Conservation Element) B) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Discussion: No impact. Refer to section 8 a. (Source: General Plan: Conservation Element) 9. NOISE. Would the project result in: A) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X Discussion: The proposed development upon completion is not anticipated to generate noise in excess of the decibel limits detailed in the General Plan, which are 45 to 60 dBa for residential land uses. B) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels (i.e. noise created inside a building, vibration transmitted through the ground, freight train line within 50-100 feet, adjacent to Army base)? X 12 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X D) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X Discussion: The noise levels during the construction process will be regulated by the implementation of limited construction hours. The developer may be required to limit the noise level by restrictions on the allowable hours of operation; requiring the use of new, quieter equipment and restricting operations to only one piece of power equipment at a time. The proposed project should have no substantial impact on the ambient noise level once the construction phase is complete. 10. POPULATIONS AND HOUSING. Would the project: A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Discussion: The proposed project will increase the number of dwelling units in the neighborhood by five dwellings plus the restoration of the historic structure. This is not considered to be a substantial amount of population growth. Given the average household size of 2.8 persons per household, the population increase to the city would be approximately 17 persons. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically 13 Initial Study Application 02-182 ~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection X Police Protection Schools Parks Other public facilities 12. RECREATION. X X X X A) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? . X B) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Discussion: The project does not involve significant impacts on recreation facilities. The city will require Park Development Fees to be assessed for this project in the amount of $20,700 per new lot created. These fees should offset any impact that the development will have on recreation facilities. 13. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: A) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X Discussion: The proposed project would generate approximately 10.5 trips per day per household. This equates to 63 trips per day along Martha Drive, since six lots would take access via Martha Avenue. This traffic impact is not considered to be a substantial increase to the existing traffic load along Martha Drive. (Source: San Francisco Bay Area 1990 Regional Travel Characteristics: Working Paper #4) 14 Initial study Application 02-182 Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated B) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X Discussion: C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? X D) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X E) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Discussion: In order to provide emergency access, the fire department requires 20 feet of flow lane. This design if providing 20 feet of flow lane would not allow on street parking. F) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Discussion: The Santa Clara Fire District also reviewed this project and they recommend parking on both sides of the street which would be adequate. G) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g:, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 14. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: A) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board X B) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Discussion: The West Valley Sanitation District commented on the tentative subdivision plan in a letter dated August 26, 2002 concluding that the development will not have any significant impact on the district's treatment plant capacity or the line capacity. 15 ..Initial study Application 02-182 ~~~~~ • Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation '~ Incorporated C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X Discussion: The project will be required to comply with the storm water retention requirements of the C-3 Permit of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. These requirements mandate that storm. water be retained on site and not drain into the storm water system for projects with over one acre of disturbance. The project will be required to create bioswales, which retard and retain water in order to maximize filtration and minimize flow rate of storm water. These site design measures will minimize the impact on the storm water system so that no expansion of existing facilities will be required. D) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X Discussion: Ciry households consume on the average 393-gallon per day of water from the San Jose Water Company. This consumption rate equals 2,751 gallons per day for the entire development. The San Jose Water Company in their Annual Report, 2002 indicates that they have water availability sufficient to serve the needs of the service area. However, the applicants will be encouraged to install water efficient irrigation and appliances throughout the subdivision in order to conserve the use of water. E) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that. it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's .existing commitments? X Discussion: See 14(b) above for discussion. F) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X G) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X 15. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16 Initial S[udy Application 02.182 ~~~~~~ Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Discussion: The project will have an impact on an historic structure and property that is an important example of local orchard farming life in Saratoga. Although the project will eliminate this remnant of orchard farming, the historic structure will be restored and moved to a visually prominent location. With this restoration of the historic farmhouse, an important example of local Saratoga history will be retained and the impact is estimated to be less than significant. • B) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects. of probable future projects.) X C) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X ATTACHMENTS: Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Clara County Fire Department -Review #02-1893, dated 9/6/02 PG~stE Review -Application # 40127685-02-MR-104, dated 9/23/02 Historical &r Architectural Evaluation of 13089 Quito Rd by Dill Design Group, 5/2/02 Tree Survey ~ Preservation Recommendations for 13089 Quito Road by Barrie Coate &t Associates, 9/24/02 17 Initial Study Application 02-182 •. ~~?~~~ ~~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SARATOGA Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Is Not required .For Application #02-182 . Subdivision of a 1.93 acre parcel (APN #389-14-37) into six lots and construction of a private cul-de-sac The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, .has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and. Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.93-acre parcel located at the corner of Quito and Martha Avenues into six lots. The project contains an existing historic home, which is to be moved from the center of the parcel to Lot 5 at the end of the cul-de-sac. The property is proposed to be subdivided around a cul-de sac, which takes access from Martha Road. The proposal is for six lots to front along the cul-de-sac. Mitigation measures, required to minimize the environmental impact are as follows: 1. Restore the existing historic farmhouse and move the structure onto a visually prominent site within the development. 2. Ensure that tree protection measures are implemented and that replacement trees are planted in order to minimize the impact of development on the surrounding properties. 3. Require that construction hours be limited per the city ordinance and low noise equipment be used. High-powered equipment should be limited to use of one piece of equipment at a time in order to minimize noise impact.. 4. During the construction process, the air quality of the immediate neighborhood may be impacted slightly with ground disturbance. The city will require that appropriate measure be taken, such a watering down disturbed areas, if necessary,. to minimize the impact on local air quality. These mitigation measures would minimize the impact to a less .than significant category. By implementing the recommended mitigation measures the development of this parcel should involve a less than significant impact on the stream quality and the surrounding environment. . Project Location: The property is located on the west side of Quito Road, north of Martha Drive. This parcel is surrounded by single-family dwellings, which are in the R-l, 10,000 Zoning District. Applicant: Salim Sagarchi President SEI Development & Investment Company 44120 Hunter Terrace Fremont, CA 94539 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planner: Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner . Reason for Mitigated Negative Declaration: The proposed development will not create a significant impact on the environment if the mitigation measures of historic restoration of the existing farmhouse are implemented as well as various tree protection and replacement conditions outlined in the arborist report. Other mitigation .measures regarding noise mitigation and dust abatement will also be instituted in order to render a less than significant impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of November 5, 2003. THOMAS SULLIVAN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~ ~AGLARA c~O 'V °~ FIRE a~ COURTESY 8 SERVICE FI~ DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org REVIEW NUMBER OL y 893 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROLNUMBER _ FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT UFC Appendix III-A UFC 903.2 UFC 901.3 Review of a proposed 7 lot residential subdivision. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project has yet to be determined. Fire flow is a function of building size and construction type. All area including garages and basements are to be accounted for in future submittals which will aid in assessing the fire flow requirement. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide at least 1* public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Hydrant(s) shall have a minimum single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual, with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. (*)-Additional hydrants other than what is shown on the plans may be necessary based upon projected building size and fire flow requirements. 'Timing o~ f Required Water SuRply Installations: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. Ciiy .PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ SALIM SAGARCHI 9/6/2002 1 3 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION ~ BY Residential Development. Hokanson, Wayne . NAME OF PROJECT SFR-SAGARCHI LOCATION 13089 Quito Rd • Organised as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino. Los Altos, l `' 1'~®_ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ' Pcv~xaco FI~ DEPARTMENT REVIEW NUMBER ~' ~~a SANTA CLARA COUNTY BLDGPERMRNUMBER ~ FIRE "` 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 CONTROL NUMBER ~o~a~S~,sEA~,~E (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. 02,1893 SHEET I N0.1 REQUIREMENT 5 Fire Hydrant Location Identifier: Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that an approved ("Blue Dot") fire hydrant location identifier has been placed in the roadway, as directed by the fire department. ~JFC 902.2.2 UFC 902.2.2.4 • UFC 902.2.4.1 UFC 901.4.2 Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. Fire Department (Engine) Roadway Turn-around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less ,than 72 feet. Parking_Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner and, parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking may be permitted along one side of roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured curb face to curb face, with parking space based on an 8 ft width. Fire Lane Marking Required: Roadways deemed necessary to facilitate emergency vehicle access, shall be identified in accordance with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification A-6 and Local- Government Standards. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantNarne DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ SALIM SAGARCHI 9/6/2002 3 2 QF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson,. Wayne OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR-SAGARCHI 13089 Quito Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ~~~~ Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos; Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~ Pc~xa °~o ~~ ~ FIRE "~ COURTESY 8 SERVICE FI~ DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org REVIEW NUMBER 02 1893 BLDG PERMR NUMBER CONTROLNUMBER FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I UFC 901.3 I UFC 901.4.4 I SMC 16-15.110 SMC 14-25.110 SHEET ~ NO. ~ REQUIREMENT to Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installation is complete. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. 11 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses- shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 12 Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage- shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 13 Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: IF any of the homes are in excess of 5,000 square feet, provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. 14 It is noted that the new cul de sac references the name of "Kevin". As an existing Kevin street is located nearby, City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantNama DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ SALIM SAGARCHI 9/6/2002 3 3 QF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR-SAGARCHI 13089 Quito Rd • • Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell; Cupertino; Los Altos, ~~~0~2 Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos; Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • 1 t STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS Spec. No. ~-1 Rev. Date 07/03/00 ,SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Department Access Roadways, Eff. Date Ol /97 Turnarounds, and Cul-de-sacs Approved By Page 1 of 3 SCOPE Applicable to commercial buildings or for three or more single family dwellings where any portion of the building(s) is greater than 150 feet from the center line of a public roadway, as measured along a route specified by the Fire Department. Note that the specifications contained in this Standard apply only to properties located within the service area of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. DEFINITIONS ~~ ~J Roa_~_ A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width. Driveway A vehicular access roadway less than 20 feet in width and serving no more than two single family dwellings. ROADWAY WIDTH: REQUIREMENTS 20 feet minimum curb to curb paved width. Greater widths may be required where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required. PARKING ALONG ACCESS ROADWAYS: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet in width, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 ft wide space. NOTE: These width specifications are based on roadways where Ladder Truck access/setup is not required. Parking is not allowed in turnarounds. The entire area of required turnarounds shall remain unobstructed at all times. No portion of the turnaround may not be part of a driveway. VERTICAL CLEARANCE: The vertical clearance shall be in accordance with the Fire Code, 13 feet, 6 inches. c~+ c ,~'``~ ~ ~°~,~ FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY • • F1~tE ~ 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95032-1818 • (408) 378-4010 ~~~~~3 `~,:. ~. •~, Pa e 2 of • GRADE: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). TURNING RADIUS (CIRCULATINGI The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends. TURNING RADIUS (CUL DE SACSI The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet. Use of cul-de-sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is provided. TURNAROUNDS: Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways with a length in excess of 150 feet. The turnaround details shown in this document are intended to .provide a general design concept only. Modifications or variations of these designs may be approved by the Fire Department on a case by case basis. All turnaround designs submitted for Fire Department review shall meet all previously stated requirements. These details are applicable when a 36 foot minimum turning radius for dead ends is specified.. These details are not applicable where turning radius greater than 36 feet is specified or when a circulating radius is specified. PAVEMENT SURFACE• Roadways shall be surfaced roads of either asphalt, concrete or an other engineered surface acceptable to the Fire Department. BRIDGES AND ULVERTS• All bridges and culverts shall be designed to support 75,000 pounds. MARKING OF ROADWAYS AND TURNAROUNDS The Fire Department access roadways including turnarounds shall be marked in accordance with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6 -Fire Lane Marking. • ~~~~~~- .` .S ,• i 60 40 60 i• 80 . 20 . C'UL-DE-SAC TURNAROUND DIMENSIONS RADIUS OF 36 FT.OUTSIDE AND 23 FT.INSIDE ENTIRE AREA OF TURNAROUND SHALL BE PROVIDED SD&SA-1/DIM/Ikc/970123 50 20 20 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADWAY TURNAROUND DETAILS MARCH 1997 SCALE: 1 IN. = 20. FT. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET ~~~~~~ Quito Rd subdivision From: Wayne.HOkanson@cnt.co.santa-clara.ca.us Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 3:59 PM To: Ann welsh cc: Sia@Prevido.com subject: Quito Rd subdivision Good afternoon Ann. z have met with Sia Hashemi this afternoon wherein he relayed the DPw rollback of three inches per side of the street. This leaves me with 35'6" of roadway width. In this case only, this department will allow the diminshed width of 6 If at all possible, our department would suggest a drivable (rolled or valley) curb to allow the most possible parking width to be used. I am aware of a future submittal which will reflect the change. z will await that routing for our formal response. Thank you very much for your assistance. Wayne Hokanson, Santa Clara County Fire Department Page 1 ~~~~ ~i • r~ • Attachment 3 Pacific Gas and E/ecfiic Company L-a~i~~v~2r~`tE~s- Land Services September 23, 2002 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga; CA 95070 Attn: Community Development Department Re: Site Plan Review for 7 units Subdivision 13089 Quto Rd., Saratoga, plan dated August 19, 2002 City's Application No. 02-182 PG&E File No. 40127685-02-MR-104 Dear Community Development Department 111 Almaden Boulevard San Jose, CA 95115 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject Plan. PG&E has no objection to the plan. PG&E owns and operates a variety of gas and electric facilities which may be located within the proposed project boundaries. Project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans to promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of existing utility facilities. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with PG&E easements. Activities which may impact our facilities include, but are not limited to, permanent/temporary changes in grade over or under our facilities, construction of structures within or adjacent to PG&E's easements, and planting of certain types of vegetation over, under, or adjacent to our facilities. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. Please contact me at (408)282-7401 if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely,. Alfred Poon Land Agent South Coast Area, San Jose. •i • • ~'~~®~8. Attachment 4 fqy ~ ~'~"~`~ r 09/23102 09:44am P. 001 • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SAGARCHI PROPERTY 13089 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Rec{uest o£ Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 1.3777 Fruitvale A.ve. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael I;. Bench Consulting Arborist September 11, 2002 lob # 08-02-1.66 Plan Received: 8.22.02 Plan Due: 9.24.02 • ~~~ ~~ 09/23/02 09:44am P. 002 TREE SCJRVF..Y ANb PRESERVATION RECOMMb'NDATIONS AT T3 TF; SAGARCHI PROPERTY, 13089 Q1JIT0 ROATJ SARATQGA • • Assignment At the request of Kristen Borel, Colninunity Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to subdivide a single large lot into seven individual lots, and to construct a new cul-de-sac street through the center of this property in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of th.e trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plan. reviewed for this report is the Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Guadalupe S. Chavarria, Engineer, Sheet 1, dated August 1.9, 2002. Summary This proposal may expose 77 trees to some level of risk by construction. Trees #7, 8, 28, and 29 would be removed, by the construction of the new roadway. Additional trees may be removed depending on the design features and construction practices employed. These are described and mitigation procedures are recommended. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. A combination bond equal to 50% of the value of two of the Exceptional specimens is combined with a bond of 25% of the value of a!i of the other trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection.. Observations There are approximately 150 trees on this site, but the majority of these trees are fruit trees, in which trunk diameters are smaller than the size protected by the city ordinance. There are 68 trees on this property that are large enough to be regulated by the city ordinance. There are also 9 trees located on neighboring properties adjacent to the property boundaries that may be a.t risk of same level of damage by construction. There are; therefore, a total of 77 trees that are large enough to be protected by city ordinance and may be affected. by construction. It appears essential to identify all of the trees that may be affected by this development rather than. only those that would be at risk by construction of the roadway alone. The attached map shows the location of 42 of the 77 total trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The other 36 trees are fruit. trees, which are represented by tree #22, a cherry tree in very poor condition. Recognizing this fact, it did not appear worthwhile to survey each of these 36 trees individually. Tree #22 was selected randomly, and could have been represented by any of the other 35 trees. All of these trees, including tree #22, have been tagged with a metallic label. indicating their assigned numbers. I counted l5 Iarge fruit trees on the east side of the existing residence and. 2l large fruit trees on the west side of the existing residence to reach the total of 36 mature fruit trees. T did not note the locations of each of these 36 trees on the Tentative .Parcel Map, but have labeled and noted only the location of tree #22, in case it would be useful to inspect this representative. PRFPAREl) BY: MICIIAEL L. T3ENCH, CQNSIJi.TIN(', ARF3C>R.IST SEPTEMBER 11, 20b2 . ~~~ r 09/23/02 03:44am P. 003 TREE SURVEY LAND PRESFRVATJON RT;COMNiENJ~ATIONS AT 'IHG SAGARCI-II PROPL•RTY, 13089 QUITO ROAD 2 SARATOCiA Many of them have died. I have included a photo of tree #22 and a few other trees that this tree represents, which is included in Attachments. The primary reasons for this decline is root or trunk damage by diseing to control the weeds and lack of irrigation. The 17 coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) are all in decline as a result of discing and lack of irrigation. Trees #18, 19, 21., 30, and 35-42 are not shown. on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations are approximate. The 77 trees are classifled as follows: Trees # l , 7 - Coast live oak (Quercus agr j`olia) Trees # 2, 24 - Edible fig (Picus carica) Tree # 3 - Douglas fir (Pseudorsuga nten~iesii) Trees # 4, 5, 6, 10- 16, 20, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 41 -Coast redwood (,Sequoia .sempervirens) Trees # 7, 8, 42 - Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 17, 18 -- Canary (.stand pine (Pinus canariensis} Tree # l9 - Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robzesta) Trees # 21, 36 - Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina glabra) Trees # 22 - Cherry (Prunus species): represents 36 trees Tree # 23 - Trees # 28, 29 - Trees # 30, 31, 32 - Trees # 33, 34 - Tree # 35 - Trees # 39, 40 - Plum (Prunus cerasifera) Evergreen ash (Fraxinus ulzdei) Fruitless mulberry (Morns alba `Fruitless') American persimmon (1.7iospyros virginiana) California black walnut (Ju~lans hindsii) Italian cypress {Ctipressus sempervirens) 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 77 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S .ecimens M:~rginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 1, 9, 3 8 2, 3, 17, 1.8, 19, 4, 7, 8, l 2, 13, 5, 6, 27, 29 1.0, 11, 14, 15, 23, 24, 26, 31, 16, 20, 21, 25, 22, 35 32, 33, 34, 37, 28, 30, 36 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 Exceptional specimens Jnust be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them i.n their current condition must be used. PREPARF.,D BY: MICIJAI'sI. L. F3F,NCJ3, CONS~:JI.TINCi ARB()RIST SI PTEM}3FR ~ 1, 2002 • C] ~~~~~~ .. 09/23102 09:44am P. 004 TREE SiTRVEX ANr) PR1,iSERVATION RFCOMMEiNDAT10NS AT TH)~ SAGARCHI YRQPFRTY, 13089 QT.lITO ROAll 3 SAR.ATCKiA Fine specimens must be retained i.f 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 cgnsidered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation rrlay not be typically requested. Trees #21 and 35-42 are located on. adjacent properties. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional. regardless of their condition. The reason for this should be obvious. Because of discing to control weeds, virtually all of the trees on this property (trees #1-20 and 22-34) are sufl~'ering from seasonal drought stress due to loss of absorbing roots. This is severe for most of the trees, especially the coast redwood specimens. With. the exception of tree #l, it is essential that all of those trees that are to be retained must receive voluminous supplemental irrigation immediately. Supplemental irrigation means in addition to the annual. rainfall.. • The root collar of tree #9 is partially covered by rubble and fill soil. This condition may expose this tree to disease, such as oak root fungus (Armilla~•ia mellea), which can kill. this tree over a period of time. This risk can usually be eliminated for all practical purposes by removing the rubble and the soil, which. fosters the conditions that favor the disease. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Trees #7, 8, 28, and 29 are in conflict with the proposed new roadway construction. Trees #12, 18, 19, 20, anal 21 are in conflict with a proposed new storm. drain. These trees would not survive the root loss from this trenching. Trees #1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, and 20 are in conflict with a new sound wall proposed between Quito Road and Lots 5, 6, and 7. The Mexican fan palm, tree #19, would likely survive. It must he noted that should a sound wall be constructed as shown across the tops of the rootballs of the coast redwood trees #12, i3, and 20, this wall. would no doubt be lifted by the root structure of these trees in time. The driveways to the individual lots are not presented. on the plan provided. However, given the proposed lot layout, it would be unlikely to expect that the following trees would survive construction of .the driveways to the new residences on these lots as noted: Lot i -Tree #6 Lot 2 -Trees #30, 31, 32 Lot 6 -Trees #24, 25, 26, 27 • F'RGPART~:1~ BY: MICHAEI. L. BFdVCH, CONSili.'riNli ARRORTST SIP'I'EMF3ER. il, 2002 09/23/02 O9:44am P. 005 TREE. ST.JRVP..Y AN(~ PRESERVATION RECOMMFNDA'rIONS AT THE SAC}ARCH[ PROPERTY, 13089 Qi]ITO ROAD 4 SARA'1'OCiA The following trees are located in the building envelops and would appear to be at risk of survival by construction of the new residences: Lot 1-Tree #2 Lot 2 -Trees #33, 34 Lots 2-7 -Most of the 3b trees represented by Tree #22 Lot 6 -~ Tree #4 (in the event that this tree would not be in conflict the driveway) Lot 7 -Trees # 15, 16 A curb and gutter is proposed within 7-8 feet of the trunk of coast live oak tree #9. It would be essential that there be no trenching or excavation within a. minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree #9. This presumes that there would be no other root loss to the tree on any of the other sides of the root zone. The demolition and removal of the existing driveway may be highly damaging to the root system of tree #9 if the soil directly beneath the driveway is disturbed. Some demolition equipment takes bites of soil as they remove paving. This soil may contain. significant quantities of roots just under the surface. It would be essential that these roots not be torn out. A secondary risk is that roots, must not be crushed by heavy equipment driving over the top of the area once the paving is removed. A. waterline is shown to cross the root zones of trees #9, 10, and 11..lf this waterline currently exists and must be replaced, it must be relocated if these trees are to survive. If this is a proposed waterline, it must be relocated. Because the south and east sides of the root system of tree #9 would be at least moderately damaged by the construction of roadway under the best of circumstances and with recommended mitigation.. The waterline must be a minimum of 25 feet from the trunk of tree #9 and a minimum of l5 . feet from the trunks of trees #3, 10, and l 1. A .minimum of 30 feet from the trunk of tree #l. would be required for this purpose. The construction of any underground utilities may put some additional trees at risk of survival..-For this reason, it is essential that location of any underground utilities must be planned as part of the construction package. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations l . I recommend that the new roadway, curb, and gutter be relocated a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree.#9. This would require relocating the roadway about 2 feet toward the west. 2. I recommend that the pavement within 20 feet of the trunk of tree #9 must be demolished in the following manner: a. If a tractor or skid steer loader is used, it must stay on the undisturbed pavement at all times. b. :Break the pavement into small manageable pieces while keeping the tractor on the undisturbed pavement at all times. Load into the bucket by hand. The soil directly beneath the pavement must not be disturbed. Again the loader must stay on the undisturbed pavement at all times. c. .Immediately (within an hour) cover the exposed soil with 3 inches of coarse wood chips. It is preferred to cover the new exposed soil with the wood chips as each. small section of the pavement is removed. d. Wet down the area covered by wood chips thoroughly. Keep wet for a minimum of 2 weeks. PRLPARF..D BY: MICHAEL L. RiiNCt-I, CQNSULTIN(r ARAORiS'f SEPTFMIiER 11., 2002 ~~~~~~ ' , 09/23102 09:44am P. 006 ~. TREE Si3RVEY ANT) PRESERVATION RF,COMMEI~IDATiONS A.T 7'HR SACARCHI PROPERTY, 13089 Q131T0 ROAD 5 SARATCK7A sl.and ine trees # 17 or l 8 would be retained, the same procedure must be applied e. If the Canary 1 p , for the area within 15 feet of their trunks. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map: Fencing must be of chainlin.k, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven. 2 feet (minimum) info the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment anal must remain in place until all construction is completed and given fnal approval. The protective fencing must not be terrlporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 4. If coast redwood tree #12 would be retained, the storm drain proposed on the north. side of the trunk must be relocated a minimum distance of 12 feet from the trunk. 5. If the trees adjacent. to the proposed sound wall would be retained, the sound wall would require pier and beam construction that is completely on top of the existing grade (except for the digging of piers). This means there must not be a footing. If a footing is required, trees #12, 13, l7, 18, and 20 would suffer too great a loss of roots to expect them to survive. The lifting of this sound wall by these trees could probably be prevented if the wall were to be notched so that the bottom of the wall would be elevated about 1 foot above existing grade for the area about. 5 foot radius from the trunks. . 6. I recommend that a new waterline, if required, must be a minimum of 25 feet from the trunk. of tree #9 and a minimum of l 5 feet from the trunks of trees #3, 10 and 11. The minimum requirement for tree # 1 would be 30 feet from its trunk. 7. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. Please note that no Grading Plan is provided, but a Grading Plan, if required, must also meet is requirement for trees that would be expected to survive. 8. If trees # 18 and 20 would be retained, the proposed storm drain must be relocated a minimum of 15 feet from the trunks of these trees. If this drain is redesigned, a 15-foot clearance would be required of other trees as well. 9. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone; TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the dniplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 10. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc:, under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused; must be cut aff at grade and left in the ground. 1 l .Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all of the retained, especially to the coast redwood trees. This irrigation must be initiated immediately and must be applied during the dry months (any month • receiving less than ]inch of rainfall). Irrigate with IO gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 PR1;:PART'D BX: MiCIdAF.,L L. BENCH, CONSUL'rINC ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 1I, 20(12 c`~~~~5 09t29t02 09:44am P. 007 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMhfiNDATION3 AT THE SAGARC~ti PROPERTY, 13 R9 QUITO ROAD 6 SARATCKiA weeks throughout the construction period. This may be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. Presently tree #1 is the only tree on this site that does not require supplemental imgation. 12. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even. temporarily} under the canopies of trees. 13. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certi .fled arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. If the sound wall is constructed. as proposed, any adjacent retained trees wiJ.l require pruning. Pruning must not he done by construction workers or contractors. 14. I suggest that the root collar of tree # 9 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an ISA certified arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with this procedure. The use of an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil is preferred. A space of approximately 15-20 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 anal Urban Tree Management 650/321- 0202. 15. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, or dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, cnnerete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to LSA standards, Seventh Edition. The total value of trees #7, 8, 28, 29 is only $2,572. This value is equivalent to six 24-inch boxed specimens. Replacements are suggested. . I recommend a bond equal to 50% of the value of the Exceptional trees #1 and 9: In addition, recommend a bond of 25% of the value of all of the other retained trees to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak -Quercus agrifolia Valley oak -Quercus lobata -.Big leaf maple - Acer macrnphyllum California buckeye - Aesculus califorrcica Coast Redwood -Sequoia .sempervirens MLB/sl.. PRF,PARF~ BY: MICFIAiii.1.. RENCi-I, CONSUi.,'ITNG AR13ORTST Respectfully sub fitted, a.~--- Michael L. Bench, Associate • • Barn .Coate, Principa SEPTEMBER 11, 2(102 lLr~~~~~ 09/23/02 09:44am P.. 008 TREE SiJRVEY AND PRESERVA'I'CON REC()l1dMENDATIONS AT THE SAdAi2CHI PROPERTY, T 3(?$9 QUITO ROAD 7 SARATOfiA • Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map • PREPARED AY: MICHAEL L. T3I'NCFT, CONSTJLTTNG ARBORIST SEPTBMI3ER I t, zooz ~~~~~~ Job Title: Sagarclli Job Address: 13089 Quito Rd. Job #08-02-116 911/02 Mes s he rrts Con dition Pru ningl Cablin q Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro ble R e om mend . t 1 uj BARRIE D. COATS ~, s ' ~ ~ I ~ ~ r W ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ° E ~ ~ ~, ~ { ~ a ~ W ,; caoej~~los2 g w u. I ,n ? ~ ~ ~ c~ Z - ~ z - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S o ~ ~, ~ o: { ~ Q ui _ ~ 8 o ;~ -- N m ~ a O ~5355amnlAaad 'O f ~ ~ ~ ~ ,o ~ W ~ ~ Z F Z W z O y ~ m z w ~ ~ ~ D O U ~ K 0: ~ J ~ z ng Las Gitos.CA 95l>30 ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ z z O ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ w z ~ ~ O wo ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ J J ° ~ ~ ~ m ~ W W ° ~ o o ~ ot c 0 o ~ = x m a a a ~ ~ ~ z = O O O o ~ ~ ( ~ n u , ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ W u ~ Key # Piant Name ~ o j o O = ~ 2 u i 8 ~ U U I U ~ ~ U ~ ? r o ~ z 1 Coast Live Oak 32.0 x ~ 15.0 34 , 45 80 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 + Quercus riiolla ~ ~ s . in 693 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 24,111 Xsp. class 100°h = $24,111 X cond. 100°~ _ $ 24,t 1'1 X ioc. 75°k = $ 18 083 Total Value 2 Edible Fi 20.0 j 27 30 25 1 3 t 4 ~ 1 + I ~ i 2 i F~us carica !t ~ i . In 314 X $27lsc} in. _ $ 8,478 Xsp. class 30% - $2,543 X cond. 75°~ _ $ .1,908 X loc. 60% $ 1 145 Total Value 3 Dou as Fir 14.0 ~ 16 30 i 25 1 3 4 I ~ ~ E 2 Pseudotsu a menZiesii ~ in 154 X$27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 Xsp. class 50°i6 - $2.077 X cond. 7596 - $ 1,558 X bc. 70% _ $ } 090 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 15.0 ~ 17 50 25 3 1 4 ~ ~ 5 S uoia sem rvirens ~ ~ In 177 X $27Jsq. in. _ $ 4,769 Xsp. class 90% _ $4,292 X cond. 75% _ $ __3,219 X bc. 60% _ $ 1 931 Total Value 5 Coast Redwood 13.0 14 45 25 4 1 5 5 . to 133 X S27/sq. in. = 5 3,582 Xsp. class 90% = $3y224 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,934 X Icc. 60°~ ~ $ 1 161 Total Value 6 Coast Redwood 33.0 35 i 75 60 3 3 6 5 . in 855: X $27/sq: in. _ $ 23,081 Xsp. class 90% _ $2D,773 X cond. 45% $ 9,348 X loc. 60% ~ S 609 Total Value 7 DeodarCedar 13.0 15 30 ~ 30 1 4 5 ~ 2 Cedn~ deodara . in 133 X $27Isq. in. _ ~° 3,582 Xsp. class 70°.6 = $2,507 X cond. BO% - $ 1,504 X ioc. 70% = $ 1053 . Total Value RBPLACBMENT TREB VALUES 5-gal °536 15-aal = $120 24"box °5420 36"box ° $1,320 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box a 55,000 52"box °57,000 ~~15,000 ~ Page C`. ~0 U7 w B N B U7 N 3 0 B U] ~. Job Title: Sagarchi Job Address: 13089 Quito Rd. Job #08-02-116 9/11/02 Meas urem erNS Cond ition Pru nlnalC abli ca ds Pest/D iseas e Prob lems R ecom end . ` ~ ~ ~ ~ r . COATE BARRIE D i s i W < ~ . m ( f ~ ~; W ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ l _ i ~ ~ ~ W ~, ~ ~_ ~ W ~ ~ (~35~1052 ~ LL "' I a z z 7 ~ o ~ ~ uu I 5 ~ o ° ~ ~ > ~ ° ~ =' o C aS i m ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~1 w~ ~ ~~ p ~ a ~ d' U ZI ~ ~ P ~ ~ z w w~ r~ ~ a ~ ... I l ~ j ° caJ w g i r a ~ lW11 _ ~ ~ -+ 99D3U l Calae,G ... ' ( ~ ~ t ~ U' J ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ([ ~ Q Q ~ °z° ~ ! m ~ a ~ u'7 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ v a z i ~ O ~ VFY Q ¢ Iy Z Z Key # PIaM Name ° ~ I ° o z i rn y U k- 8 ar 13.0 13 30 30 1 4~ 5 ~ I 2 t . in 133 X $27/sq.'in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 70% _ $2,507 Xcond. 60% _ $ 1,504 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 053 Total Value 9 Coast live Oak 18.0 ` 19 30 45 2 1 3 l l ~ 1 ~ 2 I ' s . in 254 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp, class 100°h = $6,867 Xcond. 90°k $ 6,180 X loc. 759'° _ $ 4 635 Total Value 10 Coast Redwood 14.0 ~ 16 20 20 3 I 4 j 7 I ~ ~ { { ~ 5 , t ~ 1 ttt ,122 Xloc. 70% _ $ 785 X$27lsc~ in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 90% _ $3,739 Xcorid. 3D% _ $ . in 154 Total Value 11 Coast Redwood 20.0 ~ 22 20 25 3 j . 4 E 7 ~ ~ ~ ! { j ~ ! 5 I i j t j . in 314 X $277sq. 1n. _ $ 8,478 X sp. class 9096 = $7,630 Xcond. 30°~ _ $ 2,289 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,602 Totai Value 12 Coast Redwood 16.0 18 60 25 3 1 4 ~ I 5 s . in 201 X $27/sq. in. = S .5,426 X sp: class 90°~ _ $4,863 Xcond. 75% $ 3,662_ X loc. 75% _ $ 2 747 Total Value 13 Coast Redwood 12.0 x 110.0 13111 45 20 3 2 j 5 b . In 153 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,131 X sp. class 90% _ $3,718- Xcond. 60% _ $ 2,231 X lac. 7$% ~ $ 1 73 Tota! Value 14 Coast Redwood 14.0 15 40 25 4 3 7 5 . in 154 X S27/aq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 90% _ $3,739 Xcond. 30% - $ 1,122 X loo 70% _ $ 765 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-ga1= $36 15-gal = ~r120 24"box m 5420 36"box m $1,320 ~~ S5A00 52"bax =5"1,000 `~gny~' r /~ 1 '12°bp7(e y1Ji~ 1= $EST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 6 • ti N w ~~ B N t~0 W 3 'U A N 0 job Title: Sagarchi Job Address: 13089 Quito Rd. Job # 0&02-116 9/11/02 Mea surem erns Con ditio Pru ninal Ceblin a Nee ds P isaas e Prob lems R m d BARRIE D COATE ~ O , v ~ ~ u1 W Q w and ASSOCIATES ~ ! ~ Z ~ ~ ~ o ~ N ;~ ~; g ~ '? ~ a (408)3531052 Lf33S5 n3R d B f ~ u. c~ r ~ Z a ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 W~ W ~ ,P o ~ Y ~ ~ o: w _ .~ ~ o O um oa G f CA 95039 L ~ ~ ! ~ a w p v ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL a ~ as, ~ ~ I ~ w ~ x ~ ~ _ t o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ O ~ ~ I I ~ _ C7 '~ ~ Z ~ O ~ ~ J ~ W W u9~ ' z F ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U & ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ a Key # Plana Name O 15 Coast edwood 13.0 14 40 20 4 2 6 6 , ` ~ X hfo, 85°~ _ $ 843 X cond. 45% _ $ _1.451 class 90°70 _ $3,224 in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,882 X sp. Total Value 16 Coast Redwood 18.0 20 50 30 3 2 5 I 6 = i s . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 90% _ $6,180 X cond. 60% _ $ 3,706 X bc. 65% _ $ 2 410 Total Value 17 Cana Island Plne 14.0 ` 16 25 30 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ , Pinus cartarfensis ` ~ ' i ~ . in 154 X 327ls . in. _ $ 4 154 X sp. class 90% _ $3 739 X cond. 90% $ 3,365 X foc. 75% _ $ 2 524 18 Cana Island Pine 11.0 13 ~ 15 25 1 2 3 ' ~ I E . in 95 X 527lsq. in. _ $. 2,565 X sp. class 90°h = $2,308 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,077 X loc. 75% = $ 1 558 Total Value 19 Mexican Fan Palm 20.0 ~ 25 15 10 1 1 2 Washin onla robusia . in 314 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 8,478_ X sp. class 50% _ $4,239 X cond. 100°~ _ $ 4,239 X bc. 65% _ $ 2 755 $BO er trunk foot 10' trunk hei ht Total Value 20 Ccest Redwood 14.0 18 40 25 3 1 ~ 4 ~ 5 . In 154 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 4.154 X sp_ class 90% _ $3,739 X cond. 75% _ $ .2,804 X loc. '~5°% _ $ 2103 Total Value 21 Modesto Ash 16.0 x 13.0 ~ 23 45 55 1 4 5 Fraxinus velutina labs . In 268 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 7,236 X sp..daes 10°A, _ $724 X cond. 60% _ $ 434 X loc. 75% _ $ 326 Total Value REpLACEML~iT TREE VALUES p~ 5-gal = $~ - IS-gal = $120 fed 24"box ° ~~ ~"bOX ° 51,320 . 48"box ° 55A~ 52"box ° $7,000 72*b ° 515,000 , ~. 1 ° BEST, 5 =WORST Pa6e 3 of 6 iD 0 N 0 tD 01 3 ~ . 0 r r ti 7 Job Title: Sagarchi job Address: 13089 Quito Rd. Job # 08-02-116 9n1/02 Mea surem ents Com lition Pru ntt~l Cablirs Mee ds PestfD ls~s e Pr le R ecom mend . s I ~ BARRIE D COATE + '~ . and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 4D8 A531052 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~. -- w ~ ( ) 2353SSunndRwd g ~ ~ LL ~ ~ w ~ z Z a ~ ~ C7 z ~ w ~ ' v ~ ~ x g o! ~ _, ~ ~ Q gg a tas(3tae,CA 95Q30 ~ } ~ ~ -- ~ Z O ¢ o: J U H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L ~ q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ 0. ~ ~ F ~ O p Q- ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ W Z ~ W ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~ (p~ o ~ m ~ ~ x Q ~ ~ Z N O O O I a ~ m ~ W ~ g g ~ W Cl Pl t N K O ! ~ i i ~ a ~ p 8 4Q x ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ fr z ~ an ame ey # C ~ p to i 22 Che - trees 7.0 x 6t8 BM 13 15 20 4 4 l B 1 Prunus s ies i s . in 87 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,349 X sp. class 70% _ $1.644 X Cond. 15% - $ 247 X loc. 50% _ $ 123 total wdlue x 36 = $4 428 23 Plum 8.0 x ?.0 5.0 ! 13 12 20 2 1 3 ~ l 2 Prunus ceras'rfera 1! t f s . in 79 X $27/sq. in. = S 2,133 X sp. days 70% _ $1,493 X cond. 90% - $ 1,344 X loc. 60% _ $ 806 Total Value 24 Edible F' '18.0 x ~ 17.0 t 25 30 50 3 t 4 1 1 ~ 1 ' t ~ 0 ~ 30% $2,981 X cond. 75°!° - $ 2,236 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 565 X sp. class . in 368 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 9,936 TotaF Value 25 Coast Redwood 11.0 12 45 25 3 2 5 y !! , ~ 5 I I X cond. 609'0 = $ 1,385 X toc. 60% _ $ 831 s . fn 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,5_65 X sp. class 90°~b = $2,308 Total Value 26 Coast Redwood 17.0 18 55 35 2 2 4 ~ 5 1 . in 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp. class 90% _ $5,613 X cond. 75% _ $ 4,135 X loc. 60°!0 - $ 2 481 Total Value 27 Coast Redwood 12.0 13 40 25 2 4 6 5 . In 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp. Gass 90% $2,747 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,648 X loc. 50% _ $ 824 Total Value 28 Eve reen Ash 13.0 14 35 40 3 3 6 4 Fraxinus uhdei e . to 133 X $27/sq. fn. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 3D% = 51,075 X cond ..459'0 = $ 484 X toc. 60% = S 290 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gai = $36 is-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = ~i1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72~ $!5,000 1= BBST, 5 =WORST Page~p ~~ ~:? • C7 Job Title: Sagarchi Job Address: 13089 Quito Rd. • job # 08-02116 9/11/02 Meas urem ents Cond itlon Pru ninalC ablin a N s PesUD iseas a Pro trtems R ecom mend . BARRIE D GOATS ~ 7 ~ -- . d ASSOCIATES @ j ! ° ~ ~ a7 w ~ a ; °? an (408) 3531052 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z ,. ~ ^ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ o v ~ o ,~ =- ~ ul ~ ~ ~ fO ~ ~ o ~ O ~ ~ wp ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ p Y1535SusadAord w ~ w ~ I- Z ~ ni a Z W w tY 'R ~ pp ~ ~ ~ ~ s LaGrim,U 95030 ~ ~ o: ~ ~ z ~ = w w ~ ~ Q o J 3 ~ ~' ~ ~I ^ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ x m m a w a U ~ ° ~ i a o: ~ ~ o: ~ ~ W ~ Key# Plant Name ~ ^ ~ ^ O x i rn ~ ~ U x U U c 5 U ~ U d ? ti ^ ~- ~ ~ a 29 reen A h 120 I 13 25 25 . 3 4 7 4 I , ~ X $27/sq: in. _ $ 3,052 Xsp. class 3D% _ $916 X cond. 3D% _ $ 275 X loc. 60% _ $ 165 s . in 113 Total Value 30 Fruitless Muiber 9.0 x 8.0 12 25 40 3 ~ 2 5 ~ 3 Mores alba ~ I ~ in 89 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 2,403 Xsp. class 50°h 1$ 202 X cond. 60% _ $ 721 X loc. 50% _ $ 360 Total Vatue 31 Fruitless Mulbe 13 30 45 12.01 x 7.0 2 ~ 2 4 I 3 ~ ~ ~ . in 132 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,564 Xsp. class 50% _ $1,782 X cond. 759'0 - $ 1,337 X loc. 50% _ $ 668 Total Value 32 Frufvess Mulbe 9.0 x i 817 7.0 13 25 45 2 2 4 3 . in 128 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,456 Xsp. class 50% _ $1,728 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,296 X lac. 50% _ $ 648 Total Value 33 American Persimmon 9.0 x 8\7 6.0 12 20 35 2 1 3 4 Dios ros vir iniarra . in 123 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,321 Xsp. class 70% _ $2,325 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,092 X loc. 70% _ $ 1465 Total Value 34 American Persimmon 10.0 x 9.0 8.0 12 20 35 2 1 3 4 . In 136 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,672 Xsp. class 70% _ $2,570 X cond. 90% $ 2,313 X loc. 7D% _ ~ 1 619 Total Value 35 Catifomia Blactc Walnut 15.0 ~ 16 25 35 4 3 7 Ju lans hlndsii 769 Xsp. class 10% _ $477 X cond. 30% _ $ 143 X [oc. 60% _ $ 86 _ $ 4 in in 177 X $27lsq , . . . REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES y.gal m $~ 15-gal = $120 24"box = $4?A 36"box = $1,320 48"box =$5,000 52"box = $7.000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 5 of 6 G~ ~q ~./ ~~ :7 job Title: Sagarchi Job Address: 23089 Quito Rd. Job #08-02-116 901.1 f02 Nieas uram errts Cond ition Pru nin f Cabiin a Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pmb lams R ecom nd . 1 BARRIE D COATE o W , ,~ W ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ W z ~ Z ~ ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ o '~ W R a (4 0 81 353 1 0 52 g ~ LL 'q F ¢ c1 ? z Z z ~ ~L ~ w n ~ o o ~ r a o: `" ~ ^~ °~ 933355uanRRoad `0 ~ `~~ ,D ~ w ~ a w ? r4 ~ z w a `? ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. Las('aias,CA !9030 ~ ~ W ~ j ~ ~ J U _ w ~ w ~ U V) ~ ~ o 8 ~ LL ~ ~I W ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~j o ~ z W ~ ~ ~ ~ U oE o ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ zp ~ f ~ o o ~ ff m U ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Z Z ~ ~ P o ~ ~ a ~ o = v i r n U x U U ~ ~ ? ~ a lant Name Key # 36 odesto As 16.0 17 25 ~ 40 3 3 6 ! ` 1 3 1 , , X cond. 45% - $ 244 X loc. 70°h = $ 171 X sp. class 1D% _ $543 s . in 201 X $27ISq_ in. _ $ 5 426 Totat Value 37 . CoaBtRedwood 14.D 1 15 ! 8D 30 2 1 3 E I I i E t in 154 X $271sq. In. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 90`Y° _ $3,739 X cond. 90% _ $ 3 365 X loc. 75% _ $ 2 524 s . Total Value 38 Coast Redwood 13.0 . 14 65 25 1 1 2 ~ 1 ! ~ 111 ~ i I ' ' I X loc. 75% _ $ 2 418 X cond. 100% _ $ 3,224 in 133 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 90% _ $3,224 Tate) Valus 39 Italian ress 6.0 1 10 40 8 1 1 2 ! Cu ressus sem tens ~ 1 356 X sp. class 50% _ $676 X cond. 1 OD% _ $ 678 X loc. 75% _ $ 509 _ $ 1 in 2 X $27lsq s In 50 , . . . . Total Value ual to a 52 inch twx 40 Malian ress 8.0 8 10 40 1 1 2 ~ i ~ 4 2 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 1,356 X sp. class 50°h = $678 X cond. 100% _ $ 678 X loc. 75% _ $ 509 in 50 . . Total Vaius uai to a 52 Inch twx 41 Coast Redwood 17.0 I 118 85 3D 2 2 4 in. _ $ 6,'125 X sp. class 90°h = $5,513 X cond. 75% _ $ 4 135 X loc. 75% _ $ 3101 in 227 X $27/sq s . . Total Value 42 Qeodar Cedar 24.D 26 70 50 1 2 3 I I I 1 208 X sp• olass 70% = 58,546 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,691 X loc. 75% _ $ 5 768 _ $ 12 in 452 X $27lsq i , . . . n Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ry.~ _ $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1=BEST, 5 m WORST 1. 4g~~ $5,000 52"box = $7,000 • P~of 6 72 $15.000 • 09/29/02 09:44am P. 015 (~ Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. ~ All dimensions and tree locations ; ;' are approximate. EX. SNGE $7Y ~ - - J i pE4DEN- 1 ~ , ' : ~ i ; ~ I I EX. 6 DE 1' 7189-01 s-036 10 I {' T i '11 : Ex. ONE $TY. I., I / ~ 7- 389-DL-031 1 135 MED I L4 '1------- 'I / I 1 ~' ~' N88'00'30"W.'`!.-_ ----' ~~ ---X253.55' ! I ~I ~' •~ 20. ' ~cx. s xoaD, fFjJDE ~ 184.99 '. ~ ..... 7.89' -' 21 ` j.`.:. ~ : ~I ,761 til 8 / ~ 3 - ~ , v377 i4 I ~~~+~~ ~ / ~ \ ~ ` / ~ Relocate Swale : ~; ' " - `•_Protective Fence ~23 LET ~ `;' And Catch Basin i , ~ ; ~ N E059 X1511NC ••- 11, 9. SF / ~ ~ I 11 NCE X \ \ PAD 376.0 ~'3 ~ I I ~ ~ \ ~~. ^ `' ~ T-IT' ~ TY/ \ ~ / ?' O~'~'/ / TJU CF+ ~C'.~i ~ I I ~! 1 o I X ~. ~ FR'.~` ~JJlUU1 ` ~ / / 22 g . ~ I 3 ~ E 7~ II. YY 1 ~', 38 I~.,S~ I / ---- ---'1 \ Q0.052.1 Sf 20 ~"il g; I ~~~3nD n].~i / I I \ \PAO 3]75.0 I u 39 - F~aci ~ \;~ ~„.l/ y,' ~ «3 1 1;f~ ,~i~. ~rX I I; ~I ~. .> - y 1. .. ,~ ~ ., - o < ~ I ,~;~, ~ ;>! 32.,E-~ ~~ /25 t 24 k .~ ;:~ I Q . +.. / ~- ~ -- 26 l 1..' lo.zsz sF I y :. p ... . I~1 F ~ ~,~ I `° E 2! f 1`~ ~~~1j I .. _ -. i2 .1 l c '~~ ~ PAR :76. I x _ I I . ~ .. ~ .. ._ - -~ - ~ .; ,. c~ 1r • 3011 _ ... ~ ~ 34 _.. _ ! ~ ., I ~ _.. - -- ~- __ 41 ~ 34 33 -. ~ ~ - .-. - - _ - -/ i -~ ~ Protective Fence -~I/ ~ 18 ~ ~+Protective Fence _ _ ~ - E.. nE D,~/I z5 Dw. z -' "' " - ai ,; ~'° 29 c - ~281~. _ I y ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 1_ ~ i - ~ _:~ , ` c-- LL -yM,r ~ 12,086 '~•`• I ~ I .10,084.2 SF -." 7.: nV) p /. 2r~' I PAD 3'15.5 .:: L, ~:,f ~4 .~ ~ .~: _ ~ a I ~~ PAO 37].3 .J,~`'1~~ ° .~: TYR. ~ l6 ~.~'~ ~~~?`7 13 ~.7 ..f. c '~r%'I::. 40RW I 15~ 14-. 1 .";~ y ~ - ....: ; .~" ,. ~ i", ~ x 17369 69 OU1 Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Sagarclu Property, 13089 Quito Road 140H1353105Y 79535 fwnd Road Prepared for: Iq Ggm,U 9503D City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: S tember ] 1 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job i! 08-02-166 A {-1 MARTHA DRIVE (60') i Ex Lrti1/ V "..155.]' 20~ [z a' $AN 5[wER 11-F ,i, 1 ~ \ C2 - ..off...,.... -'~_ i ~: - ~; •i • ~~ ~ ~ moo~64 • Attachment 5 • ~~~~ Sep 03 03 03:26p Janet Lynch 408-866-1609 p.l ~~`~~~~~Jxl .. j°~'~f ~"~`aeee~ v~~e-e..~ }869 a~~ ~ 8r.-~ ~N~e~~-~v~j ~ .. . g be~ot~- indiea~es-.~= c~~-~~ ~~e-De~e~a . a€. Pte= ~roFe-a~ 13889•{~t~r &d- ~eorner.o~Q~ir~:~~~:t~~l~e-a-~~e~-Mme-~ifi~r-drntevva~~ess-~o~r~~~d~~~e~ . ~r~rr~ 1:8~8Ek ~Pda~e-. sg ~-~ ~ 3 4 :~ ~ c ~ ~~Z. ~} !' r ~ ~ O ~ ~ 0 Y\ W _ I $ ~~ bad oU (~ b~7 ~ ~~ ~n~ ~ ' - . N v-C. ~4 n ~7D~ Y~c 11 ~ ~ S S ND L. ~UL ES .~, ~!~ N ~Q 1I S 28 c~.4 L D YE S ,~ 1~ ~ - t5 k . ~~ 1-~ : _ -- ~4 I • • ~~~~ a e • d~~~ ~~ st~rta~;be~o~-, ~~a~e i~iea~~t~ ~~~ ~-f.Q}~e~.~`~e~ea~ and dQ ne# wtslr ~a hare-a~ra~a}-~~g~- ~a~--~~e-~dri~~e~-ae~~ ~tt~~e heee~- ~~564 and.. ~~- ~~-~~ ~~~~~'7 - 'si~x~ ivv- ~ndiea~es- ~I~~ ~ da-~a~- ~~-e-Deg;~ ~~~e= - ge~s. ~~Pe~ at 13Q89:,Qui~o- . Ind- learner a~Qttit-~a~~~~~i=~-~n~ ~er~e-~i~-dri~eu~a~a~ess=arril~arlanc~ i~v~. Sep 03 03 03:27p Janet Lynch 408-866-1609 p.2 s a c~~~a~~.ar~c~c~'a~~a~c~ .~:ve. ~e-~~f~Ie-s~a~eflae~-~ dfr~net-~ris~~E~ hat~8~~ mn~.~r ~~=._p};~_~e~}~-.awe-€d~iveway ace~ss~~~~~:v~e~ 18~~auci- ~8~&~A~eF~}a$~-fie}: R+i~s~.~ be~~ in~ie~es :~~e~ ~a~t die-De~vel~~~x€~I2e-~~~..~~Q~~. R~ ~coi~ter•v~f~.a~'~~t~~~~-new=~~e-~i~1~u-~~:aA-~~rt~x~~.~4v~e:.. befl-. ~ $~~~ 18~8U: I~~e--._ ~~dd~ ~ ~^ J y~ ~l _L________~ _ 7 ~ ~ '1 1 • It a_:__G=~ u{,,e..f: S ~ . ~: ~ - `~ i av';J;1 '~; ~ ,~ . 7.. _.. 9 13 . '__ ---- F 1 I~ _._. ~ ~ : w ~6~ . ~ .~~ _ .~., 1~ ~._ ._.~ - -..-__. _. 12 ~ . ~- .~ • ~~~~ ' --,-- ~; ~ ~~~~~/G~ ~ lt.cc~~~ ss a~~~o ~c ~.~vlc~:v,~c~ ~~yp~uc~ '~ ~ ,- n Ann Welsh m: elizabeth@lara.net nt: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:21 PM To: Ann Welsh Cc: elizabeth@lara.net Subject: Dorcich/Mitchell Hi Ann results of survey questionaire completed at a neighborhood sponsored meeting on February 23, 2003. 90% Agree to Strongly Agree Want this development to feel like part of the neighborhood rather tyhan an exclusive cul-de-sac 95% Agree to Strongly Agree Architectural compatibility with farmhouse & neighborhood is important 82% Agree to Strongly Agree Prefer the homes to be one story 60% Agree to Strongly Agree Would like to see the size of the homes built in this range 70% Agree to Strongly Agree ~eally, the old farmhouse should be placed t facing Martha, Lot facing Quito, Corner Lot Martha & Quito 95% Agree to Strongly Agree New Development have same school .districts as El Quito Park also other issues brought up -no the roofs -no cement wall on Quito. -No separate neighborhood suggested homes on Martha -Request low fencing of 3 cut off rest of neighborh~ Sunland Park uses redwood fence. feel (ie: no large cement fencing, also face or are turned toward Martha) feet or less on Martha so that it doesn't god. • ~~~~~ 1 ~~ V / ~ /'1 /1 i n f f~'~ '~ n'~ f/ ~ e 1 (? ~1 IJG~ r' G i L . ~ ~ ~17~ L/" ~ ~ /1..sL !~/~ ~~''~ J i~~ I have been living in this neighborhood for 51 years. My wife and I have been living at the present address next to the Dorcich for 20 years. We chose this property because of the privacy on that side of the house with no neighbor. l~lawthatne~er..oonsfruction_is,_planned:for.this.~r-operty it raises_exception in our mind the type of construction to be performed. The exception we have are noted below: • The access proposed on to McFarland Ave for this property would create an excess amount of increased traffic and would create undo hazard due _ ta_ihe~U~ue-~ _ As.~ ~ubnDte: 1. My vehicles have been struck five times and twice cars have run up on the property by not negotiating the curve. ~. B~r__actdinf}=an~ccess_on_11llcFarland_drivers_traVeling_east_o.n McFarland will be unaware that a curve exists and will eventually cause these drivers to think the road continues straight. klaving IivPCi...hers`.2p,_~cears.writh.no_.ne~ghbor on that side;. building..a-finro- storywould be an invasion of our privacy. Besides the privacy issue the houses built should conform to the existing ranch style, single story homes ~. ~ in the neighborhood: • Having been a landmark in this ne~hborhood since its conception the old farm house should be placed on Quito Road to continue serving as a landmark of this neighborhood. • When built the houses should not be surrounded by an exclusive, high stone wall, fence. • The destructian.:of trees.on_the.property should be kept at a minimum to retain its orchard appearance. • The creation of 7 properties will prevent the formation of rectangular . properties conforming to the existing neighborhood. Jeannie Ducote ~ ~~~~ Dated / "- ~ _ ~ ~ Dated ~ ~ ' ~ 3 ~~~~ ~ ~ ` SEp U 2 2003 CITY OF SAkpT~GA ~ ~.(1MM~~ DF~g~OPM • • • ~~'~~ • • City of Saratoga Plannin and Building Dept. To whom it may concern • Robert « Tina Block 18595 McFarland Av. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 408 378-2b25 D SEP 0 2 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA ~nnAMl iNlTY 11F,VF:~ -OPMFn~- I was born and raised in this once verdent Santa Clara Valley on a farm that my now deceased fat'r-er refused to sell to developers of the first subdivision to start paving over this fertile soil. My lovely 1~~ife, Tina, has resided :zere for thirty years and we both feel blessed that our parents had the foresight to choose this haven as our home. The valley has since transformed from a bloosom andfruit- filled garden to urban asphalt jungle s-,~o1,Len with people,cars,and the ever present noise. We chose Saratoga as our nesting place for it obviously possesses the most beauty that once prevailed throughout this region and we truely appreciate our nehgbors concern and diligence to maintain the restive and caring envirornment here. It is for these reasons that. we demand that this inevitable development of the Dorcich Property must be planned and divided with the utmost concern end 'benefit to all the surrounding neighbors. It has been brought to our attention that the previous ot,mer @ 18580 McFarland Avenue refused to sell to the developer of the Dorcich property for fear that he might change the flavor and ambiance of our surroundings. Tiiat developer then,u~_'~~&~s~3~~ to the seller, had an associate make the purchase in order to advance his scheme to over-ride our neighborhoods concerns. It is our understanding that his proposed lot size is not in keeping with all the other lots on McFarland Avenue and that more traffic and parking problems may ensue on an already tight corner. We have come to expect a certain character of our neighborhood and in our opinion we believe this proposed home is substandard and subsequently changing the character of our subdivision. We have resided on McFarland Avenue for 21 years.- Sincerely and respectfully Yours, • Robert Block ~ _ ~;~,~~ `~~ ~ --- Tina Louise Block ~~~~~ SENT BY: NUASIS CORPORATION; 408 350 4999; • ..~.-.-~ August 12, 2003 . RE: 13089 Quito Road -- Dorcich /Mitchell Residence G4 HP-91- 13089 Quito Mitchell R O1 Road (1909) Doan City of Saratoga, Planning & Heritage AUG-28-03 4:03PM; Craftsxnau As residents of 5unland Park and El Quito Park neighborhq~ods of Saratoga, we have historic Dorcich/Mitchell Farmhouse and orchard property #<SS part of our comu~nunity since 1909_ We value this property as a gateway to this area of Saratoga and vve cons this as historical property to t}le City of Saratoga. , 'lhank~'ully, the City of Saratoga recognizes this valuable property by entering the Dorcich Residence as a Heritage Preservation as tl~e Mitchell Residence noted above the below categories of historical significance: a) a) The. property exemplif:es or reflects special elements of the cultural; social, ecvnvntic, pului aecthelic., engineerfng or architecuural history ofthe City, the County, the Stare or the Holton; or e) c) The property e-nbodles distinctive characteristics of a styl¢, ty~e, period ur method of construction, or is a valuable example of the rise of Indigenous mat~rlals ur cra}7smartshlp; or ~ The property represents a sfgn~cant coneentradon or cantinuGly of site, buildings. structtv~s~ or objects, uHlf Ied by past events or aesthetically by plan ar physical dr natural development; or 1 g) gJ The property embodies or contributes to a unique natural setti~e~g or environment cottslltuting distinct area or district within the City having special character or ~tpecial ltistoric:al, urchitectur or aesthetic interest ar value, ~, _ , The specific findings show that the property is regarded as a1 tuuque natural setting. understand that the entire property is a Heritage property, Hat just the house. As not above in item #G. If the. Dorcich orchard property- is to be developed. then as local residents of Saratoga r~ve are. asking the City of Saratoga, Planning & Heritage Connnrt~ssions to continue to allo Saratoga residence to promote this valued example of distinctive craftsman home as a~ LANDMARK to the El Quito Park & Sunland Park areas ofd Saratoga. ; We value Ibis property and home ns an essential GATEWAY to Saratoga and our neighborhoods from San Jose, Los Gatos & Campbell rnuni~ipalities. This home mus continue to be showcase and admired by all who travel dowtp the Quito Road area and enter Saratoga from our neighborhoods. This is the only significant Landmark we hav to this part of town. We are requesting thaf this Dorcich (Mitchell) residence conllir-ue to be a SHOWCAS to the history of our town and a monument to what this Area of Saratoga portrays. We PAGE 2 • t ~~~~~~. SENT BY: NIJASIS CORPORATION; 408 350 4999; Al1G-28-03 4:04PM; PAGE 3 ~; requesting that the Dorcich/MitcheII craftsman farmhouse i{s NOT moved to position at McFarland Avenue.nor anywhere near the back of any development. We are reques ' the City of Saratoga, that IF this home muss be moved for development, it would re air at Quito Road or Quito Road @ Martha Avenue so that wild continue to be visible & i admired from Quito Road, as it bas been for many nnany deicades, as a gateway to ou~ community. We are also requesting that any development around this home keep in architectural conformity to the surrounding neighborhood and the Dorci~h/Mitchell Craftsman he {as noted. in Heritage Resource Inventory as Item #C) , Please note sigrAatures attached • SENT BY: NUASIS CORPORATION; . •f ,~~ , r,:~ ~' 409 350 4999; • ., liE: Dorcich/Mitchell Residence Aug 12, 2Q03 AUG-29-03 4:04PM; • PAGE 4/7 n ~~ • • I ~~~~ SENT BY: NUASIS CORPORATION; . ~~ 408 350 4999; AUG-28-03 4:04PM; PAGE 5/7 mad' ~+ i.J • ' RE: Dorcich/Mitchcll Residence Aug 12, 2/O 1103 ~/\j///~~ __ _._.. a rr~r~LYC / ~~! 4 / I!_J. SENT BY: NUASIS CORPORATION; ' • 408 350 4999; AUG-28-03 4:O4PM; PAGE 6/7 1 RE: Dorcich/Mitchell Residence Aag 12, 2003 NA ADDRE y~ 1 ~ ,~;~~._-,- ~~tt~~r~ _-~ -~ ~ ~ Vic;, , `l ~~`~- ~~-,,:e .I F.1 & Pi~ozae I ~.~' L _~ _ . •i ~~ SENT BY: NUASIS CORPORATION; 408 350 4999; • RE: DorcichlMitchell Residence Aug l2, 2003 iz:: ~:r~ ter? - -- - _. -i /~Slvi~-: i• AUG-28-03 4:O4PM; E ..~..~ y~ PAGE 7/7 ~~~~~9: • Attachment 6 • ~~~~® • • 408-867-~31 Y The Saratoga Historica Foundation Saratoga Historical ~~useum Post Office Box 172, Saratoga, California 95070 September 17, 2002. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: SAGACHI Property, 13089 Quito Road Application NBo. 02-18 Dear Sir/Madam, At the Board of Directors meeting last night I was requested to respond to the subject application for the subdividing of this property. The Saratoga Historical Foundation was organized to assist the citizens of the City of Saratoga to preserve the history of this community, including our building. The residence on this property was constructed in the early part of the 20t'' Century and is of an elegant two-story Craftsman style of architecture. The original owner, Frank Mitchell, was a very prominent citizeri~,of Santa Clara County, including serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors. The Board has unanimously voted to .request that this residence be preserved as it exists and not be remodeled. If it must be moved, it should be located at a prominent location at the front of the property rather than be placed in a rear corner as shown. on the accompanying Plot Plan with your request for comments. Saratoga is=losing too many of its historical buildings and residences, therefore it is in serious jeopardy of losing its historical integrity. We urge that you deny this application if the residence is to be destroyed and/or remodeled. Thank you for your assistance to preserve this historic residence. Very, truly yours, j~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~CC , 4~~ Willys Peck, Vice President. Saratoga Historical Foundation rl ~. ';i ~~P ~ ~~ 2002 ~~' ~. ~~ ~~' `'~~~~8~ t M w W a' (~ -Qa ~ Z~_ X ~U ~o~~ o WN VH li OW ~r°'nn ~' N~Qnn 1 rW Vad T ~m ~N T y" ~~Y~~ .iL.v ~~mm f~fr = ann LL. ~ W Q _300 W~W~~ Y~ Zu1 N 1` M O i Z Q FRONT ELEVATION-LOT #2 ~~ i ` FRONT ELEVAl10N-LOT #1 0 0 t d °~ 0 c~ 0 ~ U 2 Q Q (7 0 Q = a U c n 0 3 ~ U Q o~ a S ~ Z u i ~~ ~-24215 '. i I ' ~ - ~ o-R- ~o~'.,, ~ ,.,a~ ~ otaou - u~aa ?ho;o.3 u6?E~ ~~ i ~~~ ~ o ~~ ~ n „7.78' \. `~ 05ry~ ~~ i 0 1 r` ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ > ~ c t~ ~`''•'j 1. _!_-_ m ~... ~ ~~ fi ~, Z Q -~ ~ 0 ~ ~ lzaoo' ~ A ea7i'4e• w j ~- o , 'c. m N .J m N .A.,..,~...s.~ -...m,...~.,.e.,~- LF i ~, ?o o, ~.. '~ o o n `' ~ ,~ :' ~ ! ~ i i .... _.. _-.. 4 °n ~ 3 0 f s Z ~ __._.. J ___._. III O ~__ __I 1 <. f A=24.5 74.81' ~ N BBVO'00' W !00.19' I ~- ~~ ~- ~" w ~_ ~U YQ w a~ ao a zf0-' ~o~mo WNdHW ~'~~°'nn ~~ann } w U d d Om NN SOY.=.: ~ K W 01 ~~Qnn -t03OO wiD W~~ Y Rl Z 1(1 IA 0 I C~ Z Q D Q 0 t C1 i 0 r ti i N~Ia Q Q V ~ oa INUO ~~~a J' ~ ~ ,Z ~ ~ ~ ~• ~,,. ~' ~.'' r,a~ ~,, .>~ ,~~, t ~..~~ ~ f• !y~ L!`i:(v: ^' i .SHEET N0. D • ~_ ~u fl ~~~~ t -~~^-'''''-~'^^- i - ~_r.....~_ .~ .-.._..........-..._- ! 1 I t I I -tl~- O S7MY qM .ter. l1lN~ ptMN I! / '• II I I I i I ~ _r-prn7lu[ )J-a7AlH ~l d i 1 1 .. I ~ aruN,pulli = a[N'1WAN7 1rr+~ II/ !! ! 1 I i i F I I II , 1 u I r ,r I ! ~ a ..,a r.N ~ N .A~a wxr< psAMOA7°w ~sAraww JJ ~~~ I7 j, ' ~ a. sN1, m r--~ ~ N'9GtIMl i ~ ,;F , ~ rl~ I I ~ ~ wiut ..~_. 4W7 ~"` ~-.. ~ ;'/ C ;+ f 1 i ,;~ ~ o. w+ua ~ ~;~ I ~•_, _u _oK_srt _ 1 ' 1 ~ I I Inc ~ ~N .~ I I I I ~ ~~ ,Q i1 Ci ~tx~N __ __~'' =---^J~:55' ~.._~-` ~{ {. !~ ; _._ nrNUnu7 ~, >rcrnrv __ ,ii'/, S~ !' i/ ~ ~CARV J '~r ~` \139:50• ~v I '' 1 I ti ~ _,,. ' I - '' ~ r7 1 "~'~---• ~~ 1 . I 1 ~±~ INUI 1R! :OiMdl:tY. N1~11pOQ I id I /? N? 1 / •y+~. {1I1 ~ Vj 1r l~.i~~~~~ (,lnp_..- rY 1 s~ fr°' • I ~ J ~~ ' rJ ,.J~ i i~~CC" ~~~.~ ,\\ t.ll ! i ( cos-, ' ^i n~' 'S,3' Nmrw 7wax uxm wK rrrn I / ~. ~~i Q~ r ~~ . ~.- :.. _ -• l , A F- 1 ~"- "" ~ _..~. ~ i 1 11 i ~ rwt wr ~ ro R wraa 3~~~rj N~~j ~D~D'~I r :J i ,' ~ i/ !I~ ~~~ ~l.'~l ~ ~{ ~ ~ ~ - •~ij i ~I~ ~ I ~ a _ f: , ~~ta d :.': ~`/Gy f ~ 0~'}' ~ /~ I ~~ i3,3~16~ ~ I C .i ~I ' j ~ °t. nl . I---sCr- ! ~ a` li I - 1y1 '~ rw. ~ .ri ~. I I I. lit 3 ,~ 0 I / ~~ i .A 1 1 ~L----',105' I \ E•° I. A v ~i ..) _ / .~ /~. ~ `~~~ ,`i ~ ~ - - p 1 I ~ I __.J I I '~;; I . ,G128~~~,4 """si / . 3•~ ~ 1~ ~~ '~~ I ~ - i_ i r ; I _ i I .J rJC1~ ti i,,I III ' 1 I III ~ I I - 4! An r, I ~ 1'// / ~~ ~ PoJ ~ ti `~. 11 j 7S I ~`~X ~' / _. y-y- ~ 7~ J .pr --- ~ 1. _. ~ ~' ~ .i ~ I ~-I ~°S~ k Z" r° 77 I C ~I i ~ \ /~W J~-.._~~ \ v f I a ~ . t ~ --^_ ti ~~ - ~ I it 1 li PMSF: ~t PApfrq I ,t_..t. _ '.. - '. ~ . ICs ~-- O I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~+ I"'~ ~..~r ~', ~ - -~ ~ i ~~I .11 I ~ I ` ~~. ti!. d' ~ * - ° atiq '.' __ J~ ~ I i \ iJ. \ ,~.~ .,: / 1 loavw# h~ 1 jl , I I I ClEb1 O!d ~ rr gnu aer. ~e n R I I ~ ~ .1 A 7 l~r J ' ~ r~ ai 11111 °• -~ 1 u 1 1; F--\`~E-- In I m 1 ~ ~ ~ I~j' I ~ +Nlrv+r. I115t03' ~ .. ~;7~ i i ~ ~'.;~ ~:r1_ ,zn' ~ ~' Pnr, tae i _. j ~ i ~ ~ ~ 7-.'orx ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~yj-...r --' -1-r -r1- r ~ `axrasrn~ . I I7 r t 2rh0~ .~T- ~ q ! I.(I, ,~ i t ~ ~ ~j ~~y, RN 10.7 M1r011 - I 1} 11 - `• ~ ! rI n ~ I.F1: i _ ~ the -t:. I IS I 1 ~ I 6+ `jq 1iW:7~t~ t ..~. 1.(I ~I ~ N7g 1I 61 `ln 1 I.a B3:P.1' L -* J I i ~ r I F d d fn IFj_ JI ^I ~ OINfPS LGNL IFANNA AN° ICI' NOP701 i i ~ - --- ~ ~,~ L 1 /% I y `^ ~ ~X I - l.,I ~ T ~ 1 1'i ~ ~ 7[Na+c. naron a ue7c l - ~ ~ L,II , ,S17-eSN-oH° Ili' ; 7 ! ' ~ I 7EVJ1 4NAICl; lyrist r~!.n sw+uapN.N,min I - I Q t 'R a:7r -u i SAN A7k ,aS s IA4a1,at 1 'b1,lAllf ra . /Jf~ o : f ~I„- - .- -. -.-. -) ~ abn. I -. ~1 ~r ~ I C P ufw >orta+siN nY M J fi I ~W. ; ~ _,. ' ~ ~ I I I' ~ ~ :114 p7RiN l1NrA I7M411K °C>'A9eRNr.H7°° RMCR77IN~RK. 1:3 GL4 G l7M1`] / i T I ~ axo.71 i ~ 2;0J3 ~ ~ 12.042 SF NE'[) `~'. ~ ~ I 1 i ~ i r+norr ux;1i4ioc+wu i f '~ I ~~ G#`3JS73 I Q I PAO4SC1 l~ SAL n 1!D V. ~. i I I 4115 iG M[ 0~+~111UfJ4 li[~IC 9°: tifp'IOrc . -------~ I 1 r+a.aN°'wtuux iaamcsn I ~ 1 . 1 1 US.. I 1 I I w7Aro0u7 wAEllAis wm ~7t<aluat: °S!4 AIIL ND - C . ~ ~ ~ I ~ i I %.-_ 1 ~11 ~ I . x1Nrx YMt tLN0YM1, ar[A~tAMtONA 6A6t 7~~JFCINQIN . ~ ~ J I ' i / ~ ~' I I z l i li 7 ~ I ~ ~~+Sat~n. ~. xxe v~nlc~Nam~'t eti~a~.e, ~o~ C-APF[[.^. SCAIE " I/~ 1 4 ~ +: ~ - ~ 1 1 ~ { I 70° aAOAa¢ n uarirA+roair u Ieu • . rte-! O; _ ..: -~ -- ~ 7 I , I ~ .. li. , 7\ IJ Ium (PAICI - I • , ' ~, n J ~ ~ ~ ~,teN-~NIS, 7 b .ai ~ ..' n ' ,... ... ~ J. , 7J \ \'~ i OLAwYIIK. r° AID ll4K: S ~ s {7 ~ 7fM •7. . ' ~ 1 ' :5.00' 8 ;43'. r .. ~ ± -rti'° aNC ~ ~ unu7u}~~ ~ . :, r - ,,... r T ~ ;aj - -'--------- '~ ~ " ~ Ley IntN ~' \ I Aarcti it°w avrc ~ wurxt u N7An ,, l.I a. -..- - ...-_..- ~- 7ret.I:A7 -- ~'-~'~t ear i ~ ~I TENTATI.VE,. PARCEL MAP -^_.~._.~__.._ ~__~ .~---- t31.~N,~ ~ ~ ~ DORCICH ORCNAR~ MA, A CR,'JE rfiC') '' a~ RC ~.I t OESIU A.7!1°NCIRiCI THE IAr~AIDE~IAeI°'AWNOCI .~ ~ - - ~ isA°•t pP0O1, . ~ I ` ~. N/1AM1/ IANP.Uq'-AMC - '`~ , ~ "' .°GTl°I, I4WN)S.:CQ/117 6 SIrTA QA1A - -c= __ -.==T= _ -° __ - -------- ~~: ~ ~_ I I :Aim a,NC A PUa>: u a mAC7li+v ab wl wl+: ao;ws _ =°.T =_ Ic= -------=_cc ; ===i=== -, -=- 1--- -- .'` ~ ' { AEA iN 300R~I70 G PAS 1 TWS SNM 4Mk(9JNP. 4i7Nfi ' I `Iti -` I s~: f=27 irtx~ cct x tool ~xN.pU.E07 ~ i' . ~ ' ; ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ xf-J4a5N. _ i I ,~}c14-°w ~ .1 ~1~t j - sNUiau ~ cKrwu . 1 I ` ~ I ~~ I 'j I ~ 11 wr PIFP1,1m eri clwuwt s.ou+'~ rt ~' ' ~' ITEM 6 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #03-233 Location: CN Zone Bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue Type of Application: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create an Overlay Zone for Drive-Through Services Applicant/Owner: CITY OF SARATOGA Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director ~ Date: November 12, 2003 APN: N/A Department Head: - ____~ ' ~. ..,, -- ~ ~ • ~, ~Z~,e ~r~~s sv~~ ~~ `hydro .~ W f !~ ' ~ S ` l\\ ;2 ~~ ,; ~,;,, ~., ~i,~~,, '^\ U~, 1I00 j 200 _300 400 ~5pO ft p I _ 1~ a~~~~~ ""'.......'r ~ _ ._... .__... - ~ ~ i ~ A / ,Q~, - _____~~ ,; ~~~: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Saratoga City Code in section 15-19.020(c) (3) prohibits drive-through services. .The creation of an Overlay Zone for this Commercial-Neighborhood area will allow drive-through services in this single area. On October 1, 2003 the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent directing the Planning .Commission to consider an Overlay Zone, which would allow such drive- through services in this area only. In doing so the City Council made the following two findings: ^ The proposed amendments to the zoning regulations are needed so that this particular area is commercially competitive with the contiguous area with the City of San Jose. ^ That the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that having drive through facilities in this area will not lead to cut through traffic. Typically, cities disallow drive-through services based on traffic and air duality issues. Fast food restaurants with drive-through services normally generate 40 to 60% more sales. As such, the argument is that there will be 40 to 60% more traffic and air pollution. In this particular commercial area there is already fast food restaurants with drive-through services. There is also a car wash facility in this area, which is "drive-through" in nature. Drive-through services could include other uses in addition to food service such as banks, pharmacies and the like. commend that such an Overla Zone be established it If the Plannmg Commission is going to re y should also include the recommendation that it be so done that a Use Permit be reduired in all cases to establish a business with drive-through services. This will allow the City to reduire traffic and circulation studies for all such applications. It will also allow each application to be evaluated on its own individual merits. Hours of peak operations need to be compared to hours of peak traffic in the general area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council establish an Overlay Zone, which would conditionally allow drive- through services in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution J ®~~®~ • RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received direction from the City Council to consider creating an Overlay Zone which would allow drive-through services in the CN Zone bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue; 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 burden of proof required to support the creation of an Overlay Zone to allow drive-through services, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The proposed amendments to the zoning regulations are needed so that this particular area is commercially competitive with the contiguous area with the City of San Jose. ^ That the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that having drive through facilities in this area will not lead to cut through traffic. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: That after close consideration of all of the relevant facts, that subject to obtaining a Use Permit in each case, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopt an Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing an Overlay Zone to allow drive-through services for the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoned area bounded by Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Avenue which is depicted on the attached map labeled Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, November 12, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Chair, Planning Commission Secretary to the Planning Commission ~~~~~~