Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CA-_[.: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruch1 Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: None STAFF: Planners Livingstone, Oosterhous and Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2004. (APPAROVED 5- 0-2, HUNTER AND UHL ABSTAIN) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 2, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATIONS #04-128 &~ #04-132 (LOTS 1 &z 6) SAGARCHI, 13089 Quito Road -The applicant requests Design Review approval for two single family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchard which was approved for a six lot subdivision on 11/12/03. The proposed homes are designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are one and one-half story structures with a maximum height of 24 feet 3 inches. The floor area of the homes are 3,608 square feet. The property is in the R-1,10,000 zoning district. (ANN WELSH) These two lots are continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on Novemberl0, 2005. (APPROVED 6-1, ZUTSHI OPPOSED) 2. APPLICATION #04-358 (503-69-002) - AMINI, 13815 Pierce Road, Request for Modification of Approved Plans; -The applicant is requesting a modification to the plans that were approved on October 9, 2002. The modification involves changes to the facade, which add 15 windows and alter the pitch of the roof along the rear elevation. The location of the driveway and front yard landscaping is also the subject of review. No floor area change is proposed to the approved structure, which calls fora 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement on a 1.759-acre lot located in the Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 4-3, HUNTER, NAGPAL AND RODGERS OPPOSED) APPLICATION #04-068 (503-27-074) MALLADI, 14345 Springer Avenue; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,368 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is 10,265 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (CONTINUED 7-0 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN FOR DESIGN CHANGES) 4. APPLICATION #02-281 (503-31-067) - SHENG, 21794 Heber Way; -Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JoxN LNINGSTONE) (CONTINUED 7-0 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN FOR DESIGN CHANGES) 5. APPLICATION #03-168 (397-28-028) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14010 Alta Vista Avenue; -Request Design Review Approval and a Variance for the front setback to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. The proposed floor area includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JoxN LNINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the meeting on December 22, 2004 is cancelled. COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on October 20, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certif icate of Posting o f Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on December 2, 2004 at the of Tice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 -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, DECEMBER 8, 2004 • Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-168 - BLACKWELL Item 5 14010 Alta Vista Avenue 2. Application #04-068 - MALLADI Item 2 14345 Springer Avenue 3. Application #04-281 - SHENG Item 4 21794 Heber Way 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 encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present 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. t CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2004. 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 Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 2, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. L APPLICATIONS #04-128 &t #04-132 (LOTS 1 ~ 6) SAGARCHI, 13089 Quito Road -The applicant requests Design Review approval for two single family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchard which was approved for a six lot subdivision on 11/12/03. The proposed homes are designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are one and one-half story structures with a maximum height of 24 feet 3 inches. The floor area of the homes are 3,608 square feet. The property is in the R-1, 10,000 zoning district. (ANN WELSH) These two lots are continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on November10,1005 2. APPLICATION #04-358 (503-69-002) - AMINI, 13815 Pierce Road, Request for Modification of Approved Plans; -The applicant is requesting a modification to the plans that were approved on October 9, 2002. The modification involves changes to the facade, which add 15 windows and alter the pitch of the roof along the rear elevation. The location of the driveway and front yard landscaping is also the subject of review. No floor area change is proposed to the approved structure, which calls fora 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement on a 1.759-acre lot located in the Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) APPLICATION #04-068 (503-27-074) MALLADI, 14345 Springer Avenue; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,368 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet 6 inches. The lot size is 10,265 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION #02-281 (503-31-067) - SHENG, 21794 Heber Way; -Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 5. APPLICATION #03-168 (397-28-028) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14010 Alta Vista Avenue; -Request Design Review Approval and a Variance for the front setback to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. The proposed floor area includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the meeting on December 22, 2004 is cancelled. COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - Ciry Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on October 20, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on December 2, 2004 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • 00 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Hunter and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 27, 2004. . Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 27, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 2,6,7,8,9 and 12. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Hunter and Uhl were absent and Commissioner Schallop abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Mimi Frazer Mather, 13519 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Advised that she is here to speak about the property located at 13641 Ronnie Way. • Informed that the owner's original building plans were not accepted but he has reneged on agreements with neighbors and the City and build his home to his original rejected plans. • Added that he has not cared for a Redwood tree on the property as had been required. Anew arborist's report was done recently. • Pointed out that the FAR ratio was already maxed out and that a new carport was approved at staff level, which is being called a barbecue area by this owner and is visible from the street. • Stated that this house is twice as large as any other in the neighborhood and unlike any other home in the neighborhood. • Said that staff has worked hard on this situation but that Mr. Haus has not been honorable. Additionally, staff has made some mistakes. • Said that the review process is totally ineffective. • Suggested that compliance and enforcement of this situation are under the City's jurisdiction. • Asked that Mr. Haus be held accountable and be made to do something to correct this situation. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 2 Chair Garakani cautioned that the Commission would be unable to take action on this matter this evening as it is an unagendized item. Mr. Tom Marantette, 13654 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he too is concerned about the house at 13641 Ronnie Way. • Reported that at the beginning of construction, a notice was sent to the neighbors by the City that requested in put. Subsequently, neighbors provided said input. • Said that Mr. Haus and the City agreed that certain things would be done to alleviate neighbor concerns. • Stated that later they were told that comments had no effect once occupancy had occurred. • Suggested that there has been some deceit by Mr. Haus and the City for not notifying neighbors that nothing further could be done following occupancy. • Said the he wants the City to clarify its notices regarding the impacts of neighbor comments. If not, there is no reason to send out notices. • Said that the City allowed changes to go through with this site knowing that there were complaints from the neighborhood. • Said that they want to see rectification of this situation. Mr. David Mighdoll, 13664 Ronnie Way, Sazatoga: • Said that he too has concerns about 16341 Ronnie Way. • Read portions of his memo sent to Council regadding this project. • Reminded that the carport was eliminated from the plan and occupancy occurred. Shortly thereafter a permit for the barbecue azea was issued over the counter through a different planner. This bazbecue azea is exactly like the carport that was eliminated from the original plan. • Said that it is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to deal with the existing violations for this site that include removal of the carport (now called a bazbecue patio), violations of the Tree Ordinance with encroachment onto the tree root area, FAR well over acceptable levels, notice of neighbors' agreements violations and requirements of any project approval no matter who approves it. • Stated that he understands that items brought under Oral Communications cannot result in action tonight by the Planning Commission. • Added that they have advised Council of their concerns via multiple email messages. Chair Gazakani asked staff regadding jurisdiction over this matter. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that the Planning Commission is not an investigative body. • Added that staff can provide a report back to the Commission. • Advised that he has a meeting scheduled with the City Attorney this Friday and would report back on this issue of jurisdiction. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated her agreement that legal direction is required. • Added that the Commission works at the will of the Council. • Expressed appreciation for hearing from the neighbors about this situation. • • Stated that the Commission needs to find out how best to direct these citizens on how to proceed with their concerns. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Mimi Frazer Mather: • Said that it would be confusing if Council says it is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission while the Commission says the responsibility is with Council. If that occurs, what would happen? • Stressed that they don't know where to go for help. • Agreed that Tom and his staff have worked hard. Chair Garakani said that the applicant filed an application with the City and completed his project. Now there is a complaint about the conduct of the City. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that Director Tom Sullivan would be asking the City Attorney for the scope and process on this issue. Ms. Mimi Frazer Mather said that the neighbors would appreciate direction. Mr. David Mighdoll said that the project is not yet completed and is in process now. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the house has achieved occupancy. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reported that the original house was approved through an Administrative process. • Advised that the owner obtained occupancy with the filing of a landscape bond. • Stated that after he obtained occupancy, the owner came back and spoke with another staff planner who was unfamiliar with the previous projects on this site and issued an additional building permit in error. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 4, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 • APPLICATION #04-035 (386-52-029) GALEB, 20423 Seagull Way: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 4 is 3,540 square feet. The floor area of the first floor is 2,299 squaze feet and the second floor is 1,241 squaze feet. In addition, a 1,752 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet, 10 inches. The lot size is 11,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct a new two-story single- family residence and demolish an existing two-story residence. • Stated that the total FAR would be approximately 3,500 square feet with a 1,700 squaze foot basement. The maximum height would be 25 feet, 10 inches and the lot is 11,250 square feet. The zoning is R-1-10,000. The footprint of the new home would be located predominately within the existing home's footprint. Varying rooflines and moldings would be incorporated. The azchitectural style is a Mediterranean/Contemporary style incorporating stucco, stone accents and a concrete the roof. • Reported that the neighbor to the east had requested screening landscaping to the reaz yard. Twelve 24-inch box Italian Cypress trees would be planted to meet this concern. • Stated that no trees are proposed for removal. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about other two-story homes in the neighborhood. There appeazs to be no other two-story homes within the immediate vicinity. She asked the height of other neazby two-story homes. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this is not towazd the maximum scale allowed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any discussion had occurred about having the gazage on the side. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. She added that the applicant resisted that design change. Chair Gazakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Lynn Bryan, Project Architect: • Reported that this is an existing two-story home that is over 50 yeazs old. It will be replaced with a new two-story home with an attached garage that has been designed to fit into this neighborhood. Most of the second floor is to the rear of the house. Behind this property there is a commercial property. • Advised that she used hip roof elements as much as possible to help mitigate height impacts and they worked with neighbors regarding any privacy concerns. • Stated that in lieu of the 24-inch box Italian Cypress recommended by staff, they are proposing the planting of five-gallon Italian Cypress plants as they have been told that smaller plants actually grow faster. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Lynn Bryan if having the gazage on the side had been considered. Ms. Lynn Bryan replied yes but there is not a lot of backup space for aside-facing gazage. She advised that a survey of the neighborhood shows that 50 percent of the garages face forward. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Lynn Bryan if she had surveyed how many of the homes in the neighborhood are one versus two-story homes. Ms. Lynn Bryan replied no. She said that this was not an issue since this is an existing two-story house on this site. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the existing two-story home is only about 20 feet high. Ms. Lynn Bryan said that the height proposed is needed so as to not compromise the azchitectural design. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Lynn Bryan if it is possible to lower this proposed height. Ms. Lynn Bryan replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant is open to something other than the the roof, perhaps a non-tile material. Ms. Lynn Bryan replied no. She added that there are at least two homes with similaz style the roofs very close by. Commissioner Nagpal replied that there is more common use of composition roofing materials. Ms. Lynn Bryan advised that the roofing is considered an upgraded roofing material to composition. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Lynn Bryan why the height of the house could not be reduced. Ms. Lynn Bryan said that they went to a lot of effort to design a house where the second floor would not be over the allowed height. In fact, only a small percentage of the ridge is at the maximum proposed height while most of the roofline is lower than that. It is as low as it is because they worked with the shape of the structure. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Lynn Bryan if they had talked with neighbors about atwo-story structure. Ms. Lynn Bryan replied that the only issue raised by one neighbor was the request for screening. Commissioner Zutshi asked what the next level of height was if only about asix-foot portion is at the highest point. Chair Gazakani replied that it appears to be 25 feet. Ms. Lynn Bryan reminded that they are meeting maximum height restrictions. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Sazatoga: • Thanked Planner Christy Oosterhous for contacting neighbors about this project two months ago. • Expressed support for the project. • Pointed out that many houses in the neighborhood aze in bad need of upgrade. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 6 • Stated that the setbacks are met and that the azchitectural details benefit the house and the neighborhood. • Urged approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Jeff Walker if he is concerned at all that this house is at the maximum allowed square footage. Mr. Jeff Walker replied no, not as long as it meets requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jeff Walker if he would like to see this azea become a predominately two-story neighborhood. Mr. Jeff Walker: • Replied yes. • Added that he does not want to restrict any owner's rights. • Pointed out that there is a mix of one and two-story homes in the azea. • Advised that this is the wave of the future and he does not mind at all. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jeff Walker if he thinks the garage door could be turned 90 degrees. Mr. Jeff Walker replied that there would be insufficient turnazound space. This is only a 75-foot wide lot. Suggesting that an alternative to concerns about the appeazance of the front facing gazage might be to enhance the details on the garage. Mr. Tomo Galeb, A licant and Pro ert Owner, 20423 Seagull Way, Saratoga: PP P Y • Explained that this has been a long 1.5 yeaz process for him. • Said that it is his goal to have to come before the Commission once and only once. • Said that he had wanted his neighbors' feedback and thought it was important to obtain it. • Said that his neighbor to the east wanted screening landscaping and he was willing to come to a reasonable solution to provide that screening. • Reported that he has received only positive feedback from his neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tomo Galeb for his feedback on the horticultural issue. Mr. Tomo Galeb deferred to his azchitect, saying that they had concerns with the staff recommendation. Ms. Lynne Bryan suggested that the City consult with a horticulturalist regazding staff's recommendation for 24-inch box trees. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission would be adopting a Resolution this evening. Chair Gazakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zutshi expressed her surprise that this is the first time the Commission has received positive neighbor feedback regazding a maxed out project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Rodgers asked if this is the first time aone-story neighborhood property owner said that they wanted their neighborhood to become atwo-story neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that when she toured this neighborhood, she saw aone-story neighborhood. • Said that she is concerned about a house like this one going up here. • Said that it is difficult for her to support this type of architecture at this juncture. • Suggested that she would like to see a lower pitch roof, a more understated home with a garage to the side. Perhaps more of a Craftsman architectural style rather than Mediterranean architectural style. • Expressed concern over the use of the on the roofing. • Stated her support for the staff recommendation for 24-inch box Italian Cypress to provide the neighbor privacy screening. Planner Christy Oosterhous: • Said that the Italian Cypress is evergreen and fast growing. However, it needs to be sizeable to provide the required privacy screening. • Asked that if the Planning Commission sends this project back to staff for further work with the applicant that the Commission provide staff with a size recommendation for the structure. Commissioner Schallop: • Said he was less concerned with atwo-story home replacing an existing two-story home. • Questioned if the concern is more the architectural style. • Said that there are plenty of different architectural styles and that this is an updating of a neighborhood. • Stressed the importance of the Commission in focusing on what it thinks is right. • Pointed out that although this project is at the maximum allowable, that is why the Code is there. • Backed up staff's recommendation regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said she sees a few problems and a few positives with this project. • Said that there is currently atwo-story home on this site. • Pointed out that a neighbor said that atwo-story is a positive thing. • Said that two-story homes within a predominately one-story neighborhood is a sensitive issue and that maxing out this home may be overwhelming for the neighborhood as it would not fit in the character of the neighborhood. • Stated that she is concerned about mass and would like to see the garage to the side. • Said she did not mind the the roof and agreed that there are other Mediterranean styled homes in the area so she is inclined to go with that. • Said she strongly supported staff regarding landscaping requirements as it is important to have the ability to provide the neighbor with the privacy he needs. Chair Garakani asked about the red of the tile. Commissioner Rodgers replied that it is not that red to her. Questioned staff regarding the use of aluminum windows as depicted on the sample board. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 8 Planner Christy Oosterhous said she did not believe the windows were aluminum. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that he is less concerned with setting precedent here. • Said that someone who buys atwo-story house should expect to be able to rebuild as a two-story. • Stated that later applications can be distinguished if they aze starting with an existing single-story home. Chair Gazakani pointed out that the existing home is more of a 1.5 story house. What is proposed is a maxed out project. The Commission must look at the land and what it can support. It would be nice if lazger setbacks were provided. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that this is a question for the Code. That is why the Code is there. Commissioner Nagpal advised that the Planning Commission does have discretion. Chair Gazakani: • Pointed out that this is an old neighborhood. • Stated he has a hard time supporting this application unless the house is reduced in size. • Added he is not in support of the the roofing proposed and suggested that slate might be more compatible. • Said that without a reduction in size, it is hazd to support this project. It is too bulky. Commissioner Zutshi: • Agreed with Chair Gazakani. • Said that she had problems with both the size and height of this house. • Stated that she is not in favor of such a big house on this size of lot. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the problem that could occur if all houses on the street were this same size. She added that a part of the Planning Commission's job is to look at the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that FAR varies by lot size. Chair Gazakani reminded that the issue is bulk and mass. Commissioner Schallop: • Pointed out that a neighbor has a Mediterranean style azchitecture and there are other two-story homes in this neighborhood. • Said the Commission must give a cleaz message. • Reiterated that one should expect to be able to rebuild an existing two-story with atwo-story. Chair Gazakani replied that this property does not support this bulk and mass and suggested that staff work with the applicant further. Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether this applicant wants to continue this item. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 9 Planner Christy Oosterhous suggested that the Planning Commission could require a certain percentage in reduction or amount from height and staff could work with the applicant. Chair Garakani re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani advised Mr. Tomo Galeb that the options are to continue this project to allow him to work further with staff to change his design or to have the project denied. Mr. Tomo Galeb: • Said that three houses to the east of his is another home that is of similar architecture to his proposal. • Pointed out that everyone who has rebuilt in the area has maximized their homes. • Reminded that he has complied with Code requirements and is not asking for any Variances from Code. • Stated that the only problem appears to be with members of the Planning Commission who do not even live on his street. • Stressed that his whole neighborhood is in support of his request. Commissioner Garakani reminded Mr. Tomo Galeb that his choices are to work further with staff or have his request denied by the Commission tonight and allow him to appeal to Council. Mr. Tomo Galeb said he was willing to entertain the landscaping issue for the neighbor to the east but to ask him to go back to the drawing board would require him to spend more money on his plans. . K a Galeb father of a licant, 12468 Ted Avenue, Sarato a: Mi' P PP g • Informed that he has resided in Saratoga for 47 years. • Announced that he is perturbed by what is occurring this evening. • Questioned why a property owner cannot express his own individuality when building his own home. • Pointed out that one of his own neighbors built atwo-story next door to him with windows overlooking his yard. • Said that what is happening is not morally right. This is America, where everyone has the right to be an individual. • Reminded that the neighborhood supports this application. There are no complaints. • Stressed that he does not understand. • Said that they are not prepared to go back to the drawing board but would rather face the City Council. • Stated that this project meets the expectations of the neighbors. • Declared that the Commission is going too far as they have met the City's rules. Ms. Laura Iseler, 18580 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she is not from this particular neighborhood. • Said that she once lived in a Cupertino neighborhood where a structure such as this one would have been seen as a dream. • Stated that this home offers a nice transition. • Said that she has never seen atwo-story where the second floor is so set back. • Said that she is in awe that this Planning Commission is all upset about this design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 10 Mr. David Simmons, 18580 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he too is not from this neighborhood. • Added that he had never attended a Planning Commission meeting before tonight. • Stated that deciding on the color of a roof file is not a function of the Planning Commission. That is a matter of opinion. • Said that it is outrageous to insist on Craftsman versus Mediterranean style architecture. This is this man's house. His neighbors are the ones who will have to look at it. • Added that he is flabbergasted by what he has heard here. Mr. John Yfantis, 13135 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Expressed his agreement with the previous speaker. • Said he is an engineer and understands that rules govern, such as a Code. • Stated that he has not heard of any violations of Code with this proposal but rather just the styles and preferences of the Planning Commissioners. • Suggested that it is not the jurisdiction of the Commission to impose style restrictions as long as Code is met. It should be a balance of aesthetics, Code rules and good living. • Said that since there are no violations here, a compromise should be reached. • Asked the Commission to take a good look and leave personal preferences aside. • Said that it may be easy for the Commission to say postpone a decision. For the applicant it costs time and money. • Said he would like to see a final resolution here tonight for the good of the City, the owners and the neighborhood. . Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani asked Director Tom Sullivan why this application is before the Commission if everything about it meets Code. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Code requires that the Planning Commission conduct design review per the Zoning Ordinance. The Code sets out required findings for issues such as avoiding unreasonable view impacts, minimizing the perception of bulk, compatibility with the neighborhood and compliance with the Residential Design Handbook. Chair Garakani asked Director Tom Sullivan why this application was not handled under an Administrative approval process. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Administrative approval is restricted to single-story homes less than 18 feet in height. Chair Garakani announced that it is Code that requires this project to be before the Commission. He stated his concerns being privacy impacts with the bedroom window being intrusive to the neighbor. Commissioner Schallop suggested that the Commission take a vote and make the necessary findings to support that vote. Chair Garakani reiterated his issues as being privacy impacts and excessive bulk and mass. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 11 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission DENIED Design Review approval (Application #04-035) to construct atwo-story single-Family residence on property located at 20423 Seagull Way, based upon non-compliance with required Findings A, D and E, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal and Zutshi NOES: Schallop and Rodgers ABSENT: Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Mr. Tomo Galeb, the Project Applicant, angrily accused the Commission of bias in his case, claiming it was because of nationality or religious differences, before leaving the Chambers. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-151 (386-35-069) CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, DIOCESE OF SAN JOSE, 12033 Miller Avenue: The applicant, Church of the Ascension, requests a Sign Permit to construct a seven foot high freestanding, six foot wide by four foot high, illuminated sign along Prospect Avenue. The Illuminated sign is proposed to replace the existing wooden sign at the southwest corner of Miller & Prospect Avenues. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Sign Permit to allow the replacement of a wooden sign at the corner of Prospect and Miller Avenues. • Described the site as within an R-1-10,000 zoning district, which does not permit internally illuminated signs. • Said that the proposed sign has a total sign area of 24 squaze feet. • Explained that she had conducted a windshield survey of churches and other religious buildings in the community and found no precedent for an internally illuminated sign within 25 feet of the right- of-way. Additionally, this sign would require an Exception to allow its height within a required setback. • Stated that staff believes this sign would adversely impact this residential neighborhood. • Recommended denial. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if this is zoned Quasi Public Facilities. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the Land Use designation is Quasi Public Facilities in the General Plan but that the zoning is Residential. The Sign Regulations are within the Zoning Code. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Traffic Engineer has any policy regarding pazallel versus perpendiculaz signage. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there is a required site distance triangle that must be maintained. Chair Gazakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Stated to the Commissioners that their job is not an easy one. • Said that the Commission is here to enforce the character of the City and is the protector of that character. People live here for that character. • Thanked the Commission for its work. • Said that he sent a letter signed by three people. • Explained that this sign would be more commercial in appearance and therefore out of character in their residential neighborhood and out of place. • Asked the Commission to maintain the standards of the City in this case. This is the wrong location for this sign. It should be located closer to the entrance on Prospect and should not include internal lighting. • Expressed concern about the excessive lighting of the parish hall and suggested that perhaps the Church can yield to the neighborhood concerns on this issue by reducing the wattage or putting in reflective shields. • Pointed out Jacqueline Cathcart's email in which she states that the lights around this parish make it look more like a gas station. • Restated his encouragement to have the church reduce their lighting from 100 watt to perhaps 25 to 40 watt bulbs. • Opined that the church needs to conform within the residential neighborhood in which it is located. • Chair Garakani cautioned that the issue of site lighting is not an issue for the Planning Commission this evening but perhaps better dealt with as a Code Enforcement matter; Mr. Ray Muzzy said he was simply asking the Commission to look into it. Commissioner Schallop told Mr. Ray Muzzy that the photographs of other church signs have been very helpful. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal stated that she was inclined to support the staff recommendation for denial as this is a residential neighborhood and the City must be careful as to what signs are allowed within residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Schallop said that he agreed with the staff report and said that the findings to approve this internally illuminated sign cannot be made. He added that the photographs support the fact that other religious facilities in the City have wooden signs. Commissioner Rodgers said that she agreed that the internally illuminated sign is not consistent with a residential neighborhood and that she would support the staff recommendation for denial. Commissioner Zutshi said that it does not look like a church sign and that this church should take a hint from the other churches' signs within the City. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 13 Chair Gazakani suggested that staff show the applicant the sample photographs of other church signs in the community. He added that they aze allowed to shine a light onto the sign without it having to be an internally illuminated sign. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this is a busy street and they would probably need to shine a light onto a wooden sign for it to be visible from the street. Planner Ann Welsh agreed and said that it just needs to be indirect illumination rather than internal illumination. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission DENIED a Sign Permit (Application #04-151) for an internally illuminated freestanding sign for the Church of the Ascension on property located at 12033 Miller Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYE5: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Gazakani advised that the applicant has the right to appeal this decision within 15 calendaz days. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-128, 129, 130, 131 & 132 (389-14-037) SAGARCHI, 13089 Ouito Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct five single family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchazd, which was approved for a six lot subdivision on 11/12/03. The proposed homes aze designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are two-story structures with a maximum height of 25 feet, 6 inches. The floor area of the homes range in size from 3,366 squaze feet to 3,517 squaze feet. The property is in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. The subdivision landscaping and Quito Road sound wall are also the subject of review. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct homes on five of six lots in the Dorcich subdivision (Application #04-128 through Application #04-132. • Reminded that the Commission in December 2003 approved the Tentative Subdivision Map. The Final Subdivision Map is not yet completed. • Reported that the original Dorcich farmhouse would be restored and relocated to Lot 5. • Described the azchitectural style as Craftsman with slate roofs and lap siding. The homes would be two-story and consist of between 3,330 and 3,500 squaze feet within a R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Said that the landscaping and sound wall along Quito Road is also to be considered with this review. • Said that this development represents a significant departure in chazacter from the surrounding • homes and would create a greater precedence for two-story homes in the azea, setting a new standard. • Added that it is important to pay attention to the sound wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 14 Recommending approval of the bulk and mass of the two-story homes since they result in a range of only 22 to 30 percent average impervious surfaces, less than would be the case if the homes were all single-story. Said that architectural detailing is fairly simply and staff is recommending revisions to better reflect the character of the original farmhouse. Stated that the proposed concrete sound wall is not found to be in keeping with the area. Neighbors in the area have indicated a preference for wood fencing along Quito and Martha. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff for the wall height. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the wall is allowed at a maximum eight foot height at the property line due to the busy road. The fence along Quito to Martha is proposed to be constructed of wood. However, staff is recommending heavy duty lapped siding fencing otherwise known as board on board, which is more in keeping with Craftsman architecture. The stucco with brick wall originally proposed is not in keeping with this development. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there are no solid walls along Quito on this side. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that close to the railroad tracks there is actually a solid stucco wall that is eight to nine feet tall. Commissioner Rodgers complimented staff for the incredible packet of material provided in the report. She pointed out that the houses on Lot 1 and Lot 6 are mirror images of each other as are the houses in Lot 3 and Lot 4. Asked staff if this was recommended. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there is a minimum required distance from the intersection for the driveways for these homes to allow backing out space. The road will be a standard public road width. Chair Garakani reported that this road width is 40 feet. Commissioner Rodgers stated the need for more Craftsman detailing guidelines. Planner Ann Welsh replied that standard Craftsman homes do not look like these homes. They typically have steeper pitched roofs, gables and larger front porches. The design is not of a strict Craftsman design but more inspired by Craftsman design. Added that she is trying to get more detail to add character. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the Craftsman architectural style includes more horizontal feel to them rather than vertical. They have broad and wide pitch roofs and are solid looking homes. Asked staff what additional elements should be considered. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the two-story format is acceptable even though this is a single-story neighborhood. Earlier in the process there was controversy over that issue, which may again be raised this evening. She said that the facades need work with additional detailing. However the footprint, bulk and mass are acceptable. Each lot would require four dry wells on site and sufficient green space is required on each lot to accommodate water on site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 15 Commissioner Rodgers said that she had no opinion yet on the two-story aspect although there are lots of two-story Craftsman houses out there. She asked if there is a single-story overlay for this area. Planner Ann Welsh: • Replied no. • Added that most neighbors signed letters of notification about this project while two did not. Some neighbors want the area to stay single-story. • Added that this project will impact this part of Quito Road. • Stated that she would like to see more pedestrian amenities in this area. At the present time one cannot safely push a baby stroller around in this area. Commissioner Schallop asked if there is a setback question for Lot 2. Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is about 2.5 feet closer than it should be and needs to be redesigned to meet required setbacks. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that no discussion has occurred about single-story versus two-story structures. She added that discussion also needs to occur regarding the articulation of the proposed fence line. Planner Ann Welsh said this is a good suggestion. She reiterated that she would like to see more pedestrian amenities in that area to set the tone for the future. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the decision to move the farmhouse to Lot 5 is final. Chair Garakani reminded that some had originally thought that this farmhouse should be closer to Quito Road so it is more visible from Quito Road, perhaps moved to Lot 3. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that Commissioner Hunter had proposed Lot 1 for the farmhouse. Planner Ann Welsh said that there had been comments received from neighbors who felt that the farmhouse should be visible from Quito Road. Chair Garakani asked how about Lot 3. Planner Ann Welsh advised that Lot 3 is considered a premium lot as it is larger and the applicant does not want to put this small farmhouse on that large lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff about the recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission. Did they want the farmhouse to face Quito Road or simply be visible from Quito Road. Chair Garakani said that the Heritage Preservation Commission just wanted to keep the farmhouse somewhere on the property. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Applicant and Property Owner: Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 16 • Reported that he has worked with the Planning Department for six to seven months to develop the design of this project. • Assured that he meets the City's guidelines, including setbacks and heights. • Added that they are preserving as many of the trees as possible and designed the homes around existing trees. • Said that they have respected the demands of the neighbors to protect views. • Advised that they designed homes with similaz chazacteristics to the old farmhouse, adding that some people don't want the farmhouse there while others do. He said that in his mind, the old farmhouse is just a squaze box. The houses they have designed are more acceptable with some of the chazacteristics of this old farmhouse. • Reported that most neighbors signed off on this project. • Agreed that some neighbors have problems with the originally proposed sound wall and it has been redesigned as a wooden fence as preferred by most. He added that if he needs to modify this fence more, he is willing. There aze many ways to build this fence and he is open to any ideas. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Salim Sagazchi for the proposed height. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied eight feet, six feet of solid fence with two-foot lattice. He reminded that he has to leave room at the bottom of the fence to allow water to flow down to the street. Chair Gazakani asked Mr. Salim Sagazchi if he is open to reducing or eliminating the lattice. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied yes. Chair Gazakani o fined that lattice does not look ood. P g Mr. Salim Sagarchi stated that no matter what, this fence should have a height of eight feet for privacy even if it is completely constructed of solid wood. Chair Gazakani asked Mr. Salim Sagarchi if it is feasible to relocate the farmhouse to a different lot. Mr. Salim Sagarchi reminded that this matter was discussed at two different Heritage Preservation Commission meetings. At one point it was suggested that the farmhouse be placed on Lot 3. However, the adjacent neighbor objected so it was moved to Lot 5. He added that he does not want to place this small farmhouse on a 14,000 square foot premium lot. Mr. David Simmons, 18580 McFazland Avenue, Sazatoga: • Stated that his only concern is the lazge fig tree on this property. • Asked the Commission to ensure the preservation of this heritage tree that may be over 100 yeazs old. • Advised that everyone who sees this tree is in awe of it. • Urged the Commission to save that tree. Chair Gazakani pointed out that a lot of branches touch the ground and with pruning would not leave much on top. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 17 Mr. David Simmons disagreed. He stated that the tree has not received proper care for a number of years but could likely be preserved with maintenance. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the tree in question (Fig) is on Lot 5, which is not under consideration this evening. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is open to the movement of the farmhouse. The neighbors are happy to have it right behind their home. Agreed that it is a gorgeous house. Mr. Christopher Ducote, 18569 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified himself as an adjacent neighbor. • Stated that he had a major objection to a two-story next to him and is adamant about that, as this is 90 percent singles-story neighborhood. • Pointed out that the homes in the vicinity run between 1,100 and 1,200 square feet. None are 3,500 square feet. These homes aze way out of chazacter with this neighborhood and don't match the neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Christopher Ducote if his property is adjacent to Lot 3. Mr. Christopher Ducote replied yes. Ms. Janet Lynch, 18581 McFarland Avenue, Sazatoga: • Said that her home is directly across. S • Stated that there are a wide variety of home types in the area and that she would like to see these five homes blend into the existing neighborhood. • Suggested that these homes proposed are far too lazge and will never blend in. They will dominate the skyline like the New York City skyline. • Said that Mr. Salim Sagarchi has told her that it is not feasible to do a mixture of one and two-story homes in this development but that she does not feel that this neighborhood should be changed by his financial concerns. They have a very nice neighborhood here. • Reminded that trees have been promised in certain areas of the development Commissioner Zutshi said that she hopes trees are not only planned for the side. Ms. Janet Lynch said it was important that trees were added where promised. Mr. Kelvin Kwong, 18566 Martha Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is located directly across from Lot 1. • Said that when looking at the proposed drawings for the fence across the street from him, it appears like it is six feet tall. Chair Garakani reported that the fence there is three feet tall. Mr. Kelvin Kwong said that if this fence were to be six feet tall it would have a dramatic impact on his home. Added that he is not sure why this fence is here. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 18 Planner Ann Welsh assured that any fence would have to meet fencing requirements. It would have to be set back 25 feet from the property line before it could be six feet in height. Chair Gazakani stated that this is part of Code and no Variances aze being offered here. Ms. Elizabeth Laza, 18862 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its review and hazd look at this project. • Reminded that the last time she spoke about this project was last yeaz and that she also had participated in the Heritage Preservation Commission meetings. • Stated that she saw the farmhouse as a landmazk to this azea and wanted the home to be more visible from Quito Road. • Said that Salim has promised to place trees at the proximity of each lot. • Pointed out that the homes in this area consists predominately of single-story homes with many owners who have been in the azea 40 to 50 years. Everyone needs to come together in a compromise. • Stated that the issue of the sound wall needs to be looked at more. There are no sound walls in this part of Sazatoga. Fencing tends to be redwood. • Cautioned that this new development should feel like it is part of this neighborhood. • Recommended that both fencing and landscaping be looked at further. Chair Garakani pointed out that Lots 3 and 4 would have trees added. Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that trees were promised for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Chair Gazakani said that more trees should be added to the Quito side. Ms. Elizabeth Laza replied that she loves trees and the more the better. Chair Gazakani asked Ms. Elizabeth Laza her opinion on the Fig tree. Ms. Elizabeth Laza replied that she can take or leave figs but that she hopes the Commission recommends keeping this tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Heritage Preservation Commission specified which lot was best for the farmhouse. Ms. Elizabeth Laza replied Lot 5. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Elizabeth Lara if she had looked at the landscape plan and proposed types of trees. Ms. Elizabeth Laza replied no. Mr. Po-Yung Chang, 13043 Quito Road, Sazatoga: • Said his home is located next to Lot 4. • Said he is concerned about having atwo-story next door and prefers not to. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 19 • Added that the sound wall is a concern, as he would prefer not to have aneight-foot high stone wall • next to his property. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Po-Yung Chang to take a moment to look at the drawing of the proposed wooden fence. Mr. John Yfantis, 13135 Quito Road, Sazatoga: • Thanked the Commission for its patience and said that some people get over-excited. • Asked the Commission to consider bulk, mass, height, walls and the overall identity of the Quito Road area and do some damage control. • Said that the City made a mistake in allowing a sound wall previously on Quito so it can't deny this applicant now. • Said with these new houses being built astwo-story structures, the signature of this neighborhood would change. • Cautioned that if in the future neighbors want the same entitlements as are being offered here, they should get them. One example is two-story homes. • Said he leaves it in the Planning Commission's judgment to do damage control and that bulk and mass is unavoidable as the precedent was set before. • Reiterated that he reserves the right to claim the same entitlements for atwo-story structure in the future as the picture has changed. Chair Garakani asked Mr. John Yfantis if his home is located on the Corner of Quito and Martha. Mr. John Yfantis replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. John Yfantis for his opinion on the treatment of the fencing in front of Lot 6. Mr. John Yfantis said that he is not here to object but rather leaves it to the judgment of the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Yfantis if he objects to a proposed two-story on Lot 6. Mr. John Yfantis replied no. Ms. Laura Iseler, 18580 McFazland Avenue, Sazatoga: • Stated that her home abuts Lot 2 and Lot 3. • Said that while she can understand the desire to have the farmhouse facing Quito Road, it would actually be the back of the house and located behind aneight-foot high fence. • Said that it were decided to relocate the farmhouse to Lot 2, she would be fine with her. • Advised that the proposed wooden fencing with lattice is commonly used and attractive. Mr. Salim Sagarshi, Applicant and Property Owner, 13089 Quito Road, Sazatoga: • Said that he has heazd the concerns about the tree, fencing and two-story issue. . • Reminded that the main reason for having two-story homes is to comply with the recommendations of the Best Management Practices Guidelines to keep storm water on the lot. It is important to keep the footprints smaller rather than larger. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 20 • Said that there is a two-story on site already and he has matched the other five homes to this two- story farmhouse. • Stated that there are many 3,000 square foot homes in this area and that these homes are within expected limits for their lot sizes. • Reported that he has carefully listened to the neighbors and compromised and modified his plans accordingly. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Salim Sagarshi the length of the fencing along Quito Road. Mr. Salim Sagarshi replied between 280 and 300 feet. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Salim Sagarshi if it would be possible to break this fence up, perhaps by replicating what was done on the other side of the street. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that an articulated fence with a walkway and- landscaping would be important. Chair Garakani said it would be better to break up the fencing, have in jog inward to allow a tree to be planted on the Quito side of the fence. Mr. Salim Sagarshi cautioned that this would be changing setbacks. Director Tom Sullivan said that this would result in a private property tree being located on the public side of the fence. Mr. Salim Sagarshi said he was very flexible on the fence design. Commissioner Rodgers said that she had talked to the realtor about variety of housing styles and pointed out that these five are basically the same. She asked why that was the case. Mr. Salim Sagarshi said that there are five houses with four models. Actually, there are not many duplications. Added that he can change materials to vary the elevations more. Assured that he wants to be able to sell these houses and does not want to do something that is not right. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Salim Sagarshi if he means to wait for a buyer before making the final materials selections. Mr. Salim Sagarshi replied no. However, he added that if asked by a potential buyer, he would check with the City on the feasibility of making any requested changes. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern for the potential threat of carbon monoxide vapors for the proposed bedrooms over garage spaces. Director Tom Sullivan assured that there is solid fire wall standard construction for the garage and therefore no threat of vapors into the house. 'ssioner Na al asked about the ossibilit of Navin a varlet of one and two-story homes. Comma gp P Y g Y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 21 Mr. Salim Sagarshi said this would be a problem. Chair Garakani said that some of the neighbors seem to want trees and others do not. Asked Mr. Salim Sagarshi if he knows which lots are which as far as the planting of trees is concerned. Mr. Salim Sagarshi said that he has told the neighbors that he would install trees. A separate landscape plan will depict where the trees would go. Chair Garakani again asked Mr. Salim Sagarshi if he is aware which neighbors do or do not want trees. Mr. Salim Sagarshi said he would be sure to discuss with each neighbor. Chair Garakani asked what type of landscaping was proposed along Quito Road. Mr. Robert Blach, Project Landscape Architect, replied that whatever landscaping is planted would be complimentary to whatever fencing is decided upon. Chair Garakani suggested that planting bushes would help break up the massiveness of the wall. Mr. Robert Blach said that a step effect would absolutely help break up the appearance of the wall and reminded that the planting area is somewhat limited, particularly with a pedestrian path. Chair Garakani said he recommends aseven-foot high solid wood fence with aone-foot wide lattice. Commissioner Rodgers asked if Spanish Live Oaks are proposed. Mr. Robert Blach said he does not recall but that the Common California Live Oak would be a good choice. He added that all trees that can be salvaged would be. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that the Arborist has recommended that no large boulders be placed under any trees and suggested that he consult with the Arborist before placing boulders too close to trees. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she finds the designs for all five houses to be very similar with the garages facing the street. • Stated that she has concerns about trees and privacy impacts and single versus two-story structures. • Said that in her experience Craftsman style architecture is not so boxy. The farmhouse itself has a more graceful proportion than the five new homes. • Pointed out that the houses on Lot 1 and Lot 2 have rather blank elevations on the rear and right elevation. In fact, there several elevations with rather blank walls. • Opined that this development appears to be a neighborhood onto itself and not sufficiently integrated into the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Zutshi: • Agreed that the houses look very similar. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 22 • Concurred that there are rather blank looking walls on some of the elevations but that she is not sure what can be done. • Said that it appears that the wall and screening issues have been taken caze of. Commissioner Rodgers called the blank elevations rather unadorned. Commissioner Zutshi said that the applicant might have tried too hazd to match the farmhouse. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that the applicant might have been overly constrained in design options. Commissioner Schallop: • Pointed out that the design is being driven by the existing farmhouse structure. • Questioned whether the applicant actually desired to match the farmhouse or was he driven to do so by the desires of the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Asked whether the Commission has the authority to overturn that decision. Commissioner Nagpal said that a lot of discussion occurred regarding the placement of the farmhouse on Lot 5. Planner Ann Welsh reported that the recommendation was that the homes were not to be constructed of stucco with the roofs. Commissioner Schallop: • Pointed out that a lot of new homes incorporate that style of home with stucco and the roofs. • Expressed that stucco homes with the roofs might actually have more value that what is being proposed tonight. • Suggested that the Commission take a step back as what is here tonight is not the best possible proposal. • Said he believes the applicant's hands were tied. Chair Garakani reminded that several of the neighbors wanted the houses to match the farmhouse. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the point of determining whether the farmhouse stays or not has passed. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the farmhouse would not be visible if placed on Lot 5. • Stated that not all of these homes must betwo-story. • Stressed the importance of making sure that the farmhouse is placed on the right lot. • Suggested that the project results in six two-story bulky homes visible off of Quito Road. Commissioner Rodgers said that one-story homes would help highlight the farmhouse. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her agreement that the homes have very similaz design and that she would like to see more creativity with the design of these homes. She said that the issue of landscaping and trees comes into question too. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 23 Commissioner Rodgers said that there is constraint on size and height based upon moisture on the ground and the need to incorporate dry wells on each lot to manage water. Chair Garakani pointed out that one-story homes would create more impervious surface. Commissioner Nagpal restated that this is a predominately single-story neighborhood and these homes are too large. Commissioner Schallop said that the key question seems to be whether the Commission is prepared to approve five new two-story homes in this neighborhood. Chair Garakani said that consensus seems to be that a couple of the homes should be single-story or at most 1.5 story homes. Commissioner Schallop asked why that is the case? Is it because the neighborhood cannot support this many two-story homes? Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a predominately single-story neighborhood located right off Quito Road and this project creates quite an appearance of bulk and it appears very much as if it is its own separate neighborhood. Chair Garakani asked if the Commission wants to send the project back for design modifications. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if these homes are required to be two-story. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. It would be possible to accommodate asingle-story home on the larger lots but it does limit to a certain extent. Commissioner Zutshi said that these homes look too much alike. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the Craftsman style is nice and can be made to look very different. Some are one story. Others are 1.5 or two-story. There are more differences available than are depicted here. • Stated that she is worried that this applicant has been overly restricted and suggested that the applicant work further with staff. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff is willing to continue to work with the applicant. Chair Garakani re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Sia Hashemi, Development Partner with Mr. Salim Sagarshi: • Said that he has been involved in all aspects of this development process. • Said that a lot of issues keep coming back to them. • Reported that the blank walls were specifically designed with privacy preservation of neighbors in mind so as not to look directly into neighbor's homes. • Said that the dry wells are required from the Storm Water Management District. They have been imposed upon the project to manage rainwater on site, using dry wells and French drains. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 24 • Advised that the site conditions preclude them from installing basements because they would become flooded. • Added that if the house footprint were too large, it would limit landscaping opportunities. • Suggested that if these homes look too much alike, facades can easily be modified. Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff why basements are not possible. Director Tom Sullivan said that the geotechnical people want water drained away from a house as soon as possible. Planner Ann Welsh stated that it is not impossible to have a basement if dry wells are located sufficiently far away from the house. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears the first issue to decide is the single versus two-story issue. Commissioner Schallop: • Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that some neighbors mentioned this issue but none seemed significantly concerned. • Asked what basis the Commission might impose a mixture of one and two-story homes. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that this was an issue even last November. She asked staff about the process to designate aSingle-Story Overlay District. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City does these designations based upon a petition from residents. Only one neighborhood in the City, Saratoga Woods, currently has aSingle-Story Overlay District designation. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this neighborhood has requested to become one. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. There was not enough support to support aSingle-Story Overlay District. He said that property owners have to consider protecting the character of their neighborhood versus giving up a right. Commissioner Nagpal said that land use and planning issues must be taken into consideration and not only neighbor support. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many of these lots would require dry wells. Planner Ann Welsh replied all of them. The dry wells would be located in the corners of each lot. She reminded the Commission that all of these lots are well under the allowable impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to verify that there is no engineering limitation that would prevent the inclusion of basements. Planner Ann Welsh replied that she thinks so. However, they might have to move the dry wells. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 2004 Page 25 Chair Garakani asked if a single-story home could be 26 feet tall. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that the design would have to be conducive to the lot. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that perhaps Lot 1 and Lot 6, at the entrance of the cul-de-sac might be the ones developed with smaller 1.5 story homes. Chair Garakani said that it would be nice if that could occur. Commissioner Rodgers said that it sounds like it could be a wonderful transition. Chair Garakani said that the recommendation is for three two-story homes and two 1.5-story homes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission is prepared to consider aone-story model. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the applicant work with staff to offer more variety in design. Commissioner Nagpal expressed the importance of considering the impact from Quito Road. Chair Garakani said that the architecture as seen from Quito Road should be carefully considered. He suggested placement of trees between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 5 and 6 to help break up the wall. Mr. Salim Sagarshi said that he was willing to work with staff. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether staff could work out the remaining issues. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff is more than capable of working with the applicant. However, if he were on the Planning Commission, he would want to see the revised 1.5-story designs. Commissioner Nagpal asked how quickly this could be brought back to the Commission. Planner Ann Welsh said that the plans would have to be revised and that perhaps the second meeting in January would be the meeting at which the two new 1.5-story units could be considered. She reminded that the new hearing date would need to be advertised. Commissioner Rodgers suggested approving the back lots and having Lot 1 and Lot 6 come back to the Commission. Planner Ann Welsh reported that there are five separate resolutions drafted and three could be approved while two come back with the redesign. Chair Garakani asked about bringing the two redesigned homes back on December 8`s. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is possible since the advertisement for that meeting would go out next Tuesday. • • • ITEM 1 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-128/ 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1 Applicant/Owner: Salim Sagarchi Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Date: December 8, 2004 APN: 389-14-37 Department Head. 500 ft radius _-. .................-............ DO 13089 Quito Road 0 500 ft parcels RD tT0 D ____-.I i __ ..,.. i I- - ~ Q I~O D i - - I ~ I - _ _ _.___ - - MC FARLAND AV i LEMSON A ~ __.._.... I I D ~~~ _..__ i ------ t.~-COYRtt----- - _ _ _ AV 1 ~ ~ __._.- -- 0 100 200 300 400 500 ft 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1 ~~0~01 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 5/6/04 Application complete: 10/15/04 Notice published: 10/27/04 Mailing completed: 10/26/04 Posting completed: 10/15/04 Continued until: 12/8/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission continued the Design Review Hearing for Lots 1 and 6 to this meeting. The Planning Commission gave direction that these two "entry" homes should be of a story and one half to facilitate a more gentle entry into the subdivision. The Design Review application for Lot 1 is a request to construct a story and a half structure on a 12,095 square foot lot located in the R-1,10,000 zoning district on the corner of the proposed cul-de-sac, Dorcich Court and Martha Avenue. The home is designed in a neo-craftsman style with lap siding, lightweight concrete brown the roof. The home is located within a new subdivision that was the former site of the Dorcich Orchard. The home is intended to be compatible architecturally with the historic farmhouse that is retained on lot five of the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for Application # 04-128. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report dated June 2, 2004. 3. Fire Department report dated June 16, 200 4. Affidavit of Mailing 5. Neighborhood Correspondence, Meeting Announcement 6. Plans, Exhibit "A' • ~~®~®~: # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1,10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 -Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 12,095 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is less than 10%. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading of the site is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of asingle-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be tan lap siding with brown roof tiles. • 000003 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot I 13089 Quito Road • LOT SIZE LOT COVERAGE Building Footprint Walkways, Patio &t Driveway TOTAL FLOOR AREA Main Floor Upper Floor TOTAL SETBACKS Front Rear Interior Side Exterior Side Height Residence PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS 12,095 sQ. Fr. 12,000 sQ. Fr. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 39%. 60% 3,608 sQ. FT. 1,155 SQ. Fr. 4,763 sQ. ~ r. 7,257 sQ. Fr'. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 2,465 sQ. i= r. 1,143 sQ. Fr. 3,608 sQ. F r. 3,710 sQ. Fr. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 43 FT. 25 FT. 1ST FL. -25 FT. 2ND FL. -31 FT. 1ST FL10 FT. &~ 2ND FL. 15 FT. 1ST FL-10 FT. 1ST FL -10 FT. 2ND FL-28 FT.. 2ND FL-15 FT. 1ST FL - 25 FT. 1ST FL - 25 FT. 2ND FL - 32 FT. 2ND FL - 30 FT. 24 FT. 3 IN. 26 Fr. • 4 ~+~~®0~ # 04-128 / Lksign Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review This Design Review application for Lot 1 involves review of a story and a half home with a design that is based somewhat on the Craftsman style which is typified in the Historic Mitchell house that is to be relocated from the center of the parcel onto Lot 5. The elevations depict a home with lap siding and lightweight concrete tiles that resemble slate shingles. In terms of the front facade, a low profile front entry with porch overhang is proposed The entry door has paned windows in the upper part of the door and transom windows complete the door surround The first floor front windows also have multi-pane sashes above the larger windowpane, which is typical of the Craftsman style. The plans propose lattice detailing below the upper eave, which reflects similar detail in the original Mitchell House. The design of the house has some of the detailing that is typically associated with Craftsman style dwellings but the character of the house would be enhanced with additional details that reflect the Craftsman style. The use of exposed rafter beams at the eaves and river rock facing of porch columns, which taper from the base to the top, is suggested to add additional texture and depth to the facade. The garage door also reflects the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple paned windows in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are recommended by staff in order to enhance the character of the development. The site plan proposes four drywells to minimize storm water runoff in response to the site design regulations mandated by the Santa Clara Watershed C-3 Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies and techniques. Actual Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. ~®~®~5 # 04-128 /Design Review - L.ot 1 13089 Quito Road (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed story and a half dwelling will not interfere unreasonably with views and privacy. The home is located on a corner lot and is centered on the lot such that the setbacks proposed exceed the minimum requirements. The zoning ordinance allows a 10-foot rear yard setback while the plans depict a 25-foot rear yard setback. The exterior side yard setback also exceeds the minimum allowable. The two-story design of the structure allows the impervious coverage to be minimized and furthers the mandate of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to riinimi7e storm water runoff and decrease impervious coverage. If the home were single story, the impervious coverage would be greater and the on-site water retention would be more difficult to achieve. Moreover, the immediately adjacent neighbors indicate support for the two stories dwelling adjacent their property. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The plan proposes to retain the existing topography and minimal grading is proposed Development on this lot would impact 8 trees, one of which is in conflict with the location of the house and another, which is dead. Retaining six trees on this lot reflects sensitivity to the design guideline of preserving the natural landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The design does not depict excessive bulk. Although an upper story is proposed, the area of the upper floor in relation to the first floor is proportional, the varying roofline and the use of dormers serves to minimise the perception of bulk. The added design details recommended in the project discussion would also serve to vary the facade, add texture to the front facade and minim~e the perception of bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (I) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. Qe~®~6 #04-128 / Dcsign Review -Lot I 13089 Quito Road The proposed two-story home is located in a neighborhood that is predominantly single story in character. However, the existing historic Mitchell house, which is the design inspiration for the proposed home, is a two-story structure and the Lot 1 design reflects this style. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. The proposed design retains the natural topography since changes to the grade surrounding the house are minimal, Also the plan reflects the mandate by the Regional Quality Control Board to limit impervious coverage and storm water runoff. The proposed drywells are designed to slow runoff and retain the first flush of storm water. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The above analysis supports the conclusion that the findings required for granting design review approval can be met provided the applicant carries out the conditions outlined in the resolution of approval. The City Arborist and the Santa Clara County Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. ~~~~~~ # 04-128 /Design Rcvicw -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road Neighborhood Input Resolution #03-049, which granted tentative subdivision approval of this lot, required that the applicant hold a meeting with the surrounding neighbors to obtain a consensus on the design of the homes within the subdivision. Attachment # 5, which is included in this staff report, contains the notices that were signed by the surrounding neighbors. The map below depicts those parcels that approved the design of the proposed homes. As can be seen from the map, neighbors who did not object to the proposed two-story design of the home surround Lot 1. • • • '~ ~ ®~Q8 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road r~ Community Development The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", New House- Lot 1, Salim Sagarchi, Dorcich Orchard, 13089 2uito Road, Saratoga prepared by Keith Royster, Architect, dated 2/10/03, date stamped 10/28/2004. The conditions of approval identified in this report shall be incorporated into the revised plans. 1. The design shall be revised to enhance the architectural detailing in the facade and reflect Craftsman style azchitecture. Exposed rafter beams at the eaves and river rock facing of porch columns is required to meet the design review guidelines. In order to support this design the porch columns should taper from the base to the top to add additional texture and depth to the facade. The garage door should continue the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple pane divided lights in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are required in order to enhance the character of the development. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The landscape plan shall be installed prior to granting final planning approval of the project. 4. 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 5. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any handscaped azea. 6. 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. 7. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 9. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor who verifies the accuracy of the boundaries. ~~®~09 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road 10. Prior to pouring of foundation, the setbacks identified in the approved plans shall be verified by a licensed land surveyor. This verification shall be documented by a signed and sealed statement from the Surveyor. This statement shall be submitted to the building inspector prior to pouring foundation. 11. The applicant shall install asix-foot high wooden fence at the rear and interior side property line in order to maintain the privacy of the abutting rear neighbor. 12. The plan data on sheet SP-1 shall be revised to correct the impervious coverage ratio. The impervious coverage is 30% as per the submitted data. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on May, 25, 2004 and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. Required Fire flow: the fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s), which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Public Fire Hydrant Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrants shall have a minimum single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. 3. Timing of required water supply installations: Installations of required fire service and fire hydrants shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance maybe withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 4. Garage Fire Sprinkler 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. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 5. Fire Apparatus 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. lU ~~~®10 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road City Arborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated June 2, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. 1. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised valuer of trees planned for retention (#1, 3, 5, 6, 41 and 42) is required to promote their protection. Their combined value is determined to be $34,812. 2. The September 11, 2002 arborist report identifies 36 fruit trees of Ordinance size scattered throughout the property. Many are dead while the others appear in overall poor condition. For this reason, their removal is appropriate and mitigation is not suggested. 3. The below recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with those presented in the September 11, 2002 report. 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 5. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 6. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #2, 40 and 41 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. 7. Plans showing grading and drainage, landscape (revised showing planting and imgation), and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 8. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 9. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk 11 ~~V®~1 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 10. The proposed irrigation design must be revised to ensure no trenches are designed within 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the imgation system must be adrip-type system placed on top of existing soil grade. 11. Irrigation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of adrip- type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 12. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. 13. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 14. The boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #6's canopy shall be removed from the design. 15. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. • 16. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by refemng to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/arborists/arbsearchhtml. 17. Remove tree #4. The proposed removal of tree #2 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that are equivalent to its appraised value of $1,145. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/1U02 report. Acceptable replacement species include 2uercus agrifolia, 2uercus lobata, ~uercus helloggii, ~uercus douglasii, ~uercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menzlesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The replacement species, location and size should be shown on future planting plan(s). 12 ~~U~12 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code if developed with the recommended conditions. The residence will not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape and will minimize the perception of bulk. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for Application # 04-128. • • ~~~~~3 13 • Attachment 1 • ~~®~~ # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13069 Quito Road RESOLUTION N0.04- APPLICATION N0.04-128 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sagarchi/ 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 3,517 square foot story and a half home on Lot 1, a 12,095 square foot corner lot in the recently approved Dorcich Orchard subdivision. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; 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, Minimise the perception of bulk The design uses architectural features to break up massing. The house is single story with a cross gabled roof which reduces the mass of the roofline. Fenestration along the lower front facade includes elongated windows with multiple panes in the upper transom and large panes in the lower portion of the sash. The covered, porch with simple front door with sidelights and transom is low profile in design and proportion. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design preserves the natural landscape, since the plan proposes to retain the existing topography and minimal grading is proposed. Development on this lot would impact 8 trees, one of which is in conflict with the location of the house ~©®®.~~ File No. P4-AB7 13228PicrceRo~d and another, which is dead. Retaining six protected size trees on this lot reflects sensitivity to the design guideline of preserving the natural landscape. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The orientation of the house controls view to adjacent properties. Those portions of the house, which contain outdoor living space, are oriented toward the rear of the house. The house is designed to reduce noise impacts on adjacent dwellings. The garage is located toward the front of the property with access from the cul- de-sac. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed two-story dwelling will not interfere unreasonably with views and privacy. The home is located on a corner lot and is centered on the lot such that the setbacks proposed exceed the minimum requirements. The zoning ordinance allows a 10-foot rear yard setback while the plans depict a 25-foot rear yard setback. The exterior side yard setback also exceeds the minimum allowable. A privacy fence is to be installed at the rear of the property and existing trees are to be retained and protected so that the existing mature trees will be retained and continue to provide the view of mature landscaping. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The location of the house does not block the sun of any neighbors since additional setback is provided. The mature trees to be retained provide shade and wind block therefore the design maxini,es existing landscaping and does not interfere with the solar access of neighbors. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", New House- Lot 1, Salem Saatchi, Doric Orchard, 13089 Quito Road, Saratoga prepared by Keith Roister, Architect, dated 2/10/03, date stamped 10/28/2004. The conditions of approval identified in this report shall be incorporated into the revised plans. 1. The design shall be revised to enhance the architectural detailing in the factade and reflect Craftsman style architecture. Exposed rafter beams at the eaves and river rock facing of porch columns is required to meet the design review ~~~16 Fffe No. 04-UB7 13Z2B73emRond guidelines. In order to support this design the porch columns should taper from the base to the top to add additional texture and depth to the facade. The garage door should continue the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple pane divided lights in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are required in order to enhance the character of the development. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The landscape plan shall be installed prior to granting final planning approval of the project. 4. 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 S. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 6. 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. 7. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 9. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor who verifies the accuracy of the boundaries. 10. Prior to pouring of foundation, the setbacks identified in the approved plans shall be verified by a licensed land surveyor. This verification shall be documented by a signed and sealed statement from the Surveyor. This statement shall be submitted to the building inspector prior to pouring foundation. 11. The applicant shall install asix-foot high wooden fence at the rear and interior side property line in order to maintain the privacy of the abutting rear neighbor. 12. The plan data on sheet SP-1 shall be revised to correct the impervious coverage ratio. The impervious coverage is 30% as per the submitted data. v~~~1'~ Fik No. 04-AB7 13??BPierreRa~d Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on May 25, 2004 and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. Required Fire Ilow: the fire Ilow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire Ilow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s), which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Public Fire Hydrant Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrants shall have a minimum single Ilow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. 3. Timing of required water supply installations: Installations of required fire service and fire hydrants 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. • 4. Garage Fire Sprinkler 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, Ilat, horizontal ceiling. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 5. Fire Apparatus 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. City Arborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated June 2, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. 1. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised valuez of trees planned for retention (#1, 3, 5, 6, 41 and 42) is required to promote their protection. Their combined value is determined to be $34,812. 2. The September 11, 2002 arborist report identifies 36 fruit trees of Ordinance size scattered throughout the property. Many are dead while the others appear in ~~~®~8 File No. 04-087 13118PiemRou~d overall poor condition. For this reason, their removal is appropriate and mitigation is not suggested. 5. 3. The below recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with those presented in the September 11, 2002 report. 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is include, but are not limited to, the following. trenching, storage and dumping of materials equipment/vehicle operation and parking. removed). Thes grading, surfac (including soil conducted e activities e scraping, fill), and 6. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #2, 40 and 41 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. 7. Plans showing grading and drainage, landscape (revised showing planting and irrigation), and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 8. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 9. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 10. The proposed irrigation design must be revised to ensure no trenches are designed within 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be adrip-type system placed on top of existing soil grade. 11. Irrigation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of a drip-type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. ~~~~~~ Fffe No. 04-AB7 13118PiemRo~d 12. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. 13. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one- foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 14. The boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #6's canopy should be removed from the design. 15. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 16. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http//www.isa- arbor.com/arborists/arbsearchhtml. 17. Remove tree #4. The proposed removal of tree #2 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that are equivalent to its appraised value of $1,145. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/1U02 report. Acceptable replacement species include ~ucrcus agrifolia, 2uercus lobata, ~uercus hello~ii, ~uercus douglasii, ~uercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menZiesii and Sequoia se-npervirens. The replacement species, location and size should be shown on future planting plan(s). CITY ArrOitN~r 1. 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. ~~Q~~20 File No. 04-087 13J.28PirmRoIId 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 10`h day of November 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~~4®2~. • Attachment 2 • ~; ~(~~2~ • . ARBO ESOLIRCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 13089 QUITO ROAD -LOT 1 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SAGARCHI APPLICATION #: 04-128 APN #: 389-014-037 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Cerh; fled Arborist #WE-4001A June 2, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~,''~O~i~ra3 ' id L. Bab Re ' tered Co~ ing Arborist ~ June 2, 2004 Dav bY• g~ SUMMARY • The proposed project on this lot would impact eight trees of Ordinance size (#1-6, 41 and 42). They include one Coast Live Oak (# 1), four Coast Redwoods (#4-6, 41), one Fig (#2), one Douglas Fir (#3) and one Deodar Cedar (#42). All but #2, 41 and 42 are shown on plans reviewed. Tree #2 is in conflict with the proposed home and would be removed. Its removal is appropriate for this project and replacements equivalent to its appraised value are suggested. Tree #4 is dead and should be removed regardless of the proposed project. No replacements are suggested. Measures presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report must be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention (#1, 3, 5, 6, 41 and 42) is required to promote their protection. Their combined value is determined to be $34,812. INTRODUCTION • The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with constructing asingle-family residence on a vacant lot at 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Information regarding trees on this lot is presented within the table attached to the City Arborist report dated September 11, 2002. Metal tags containing numbers corresponding to those presented within this report were found attached to each accessible trunk. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets T-1, SP-0, SP-1 and A-1.4 (by Keith Royster Architects, dated 2/10/03) and Sheet L-2 (by Creative Horticulture, dated 04/04). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are presented on an attached copy of Sheet SP-1 (Site Plan). Trees #2, 40 and 41 are not shown on plans reviewed. Their trunk locations have been added to the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. ' The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal 9`~" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Sagarchi Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~,~~®2~ ' avid L. Bab Re istered Co~ting Arborist ~ June 2, 2004 D bY• g The September 11, 2002 azborist report identifies 36 fruit trees of Ordinance size scattered throw out the property. Many are dead while the others appeaz in overall poor condition. For this reason, their removal is appropriate and mitigation is not suggested. Please note I am unable to fully determine how many of these trees would be removed from this lot due to their high number as well as the lot boundaries not being seen. RECONIlV>~NDATIONS The below recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with those presented in the September 11, 2002 report. 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 3. I recommend protective. fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created immediately before landscape construction begins to allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access only. 4. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #2, 40 and 4, 1 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans bus matted to the City. 5. Upon being available, plans showing grading and drainage, landscape (revised showing planting and irrigation), and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 6. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 7. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer- canopies. Sagarchi Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1, Saratoga Page 2 0~3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~+ ~ ~~~~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June Z. 2004 8. All existing underground pipes and irrigation lines beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. 9. The proposed irri ation desi must be revised to ensure no trenches are designed within 10 tunes a er of trees mg re ~ ere this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be adrip-type system pl on top of existing soil grade. 10. Irrigation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of adrip- type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 11. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. 12. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 13.I recommend the boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #6's canopy removed from a esign. 14. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 16. Remove tree #4. The proposed removal of tree #2 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that are equivalent to its appraised value of ~ 1.145. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/11/02 report. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The replacement species, location and size should be shown on future planting plan(s). Attachment: Site Map (Copy of Sheet SP-1) Sagarchi Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1, Saratoga City ojSaratoga Conemunity Development Deparhnent • • Page 3 oj3 Z~U~26 • • • I 41` ~•-•- - o I • I 42 I I I I I .--._~ Simaddmr: I>o~ Q°ia Itod - Iwl 1. Sr.bp ~1mdf.G Cary ~~+oP Cab ~~ jlp~,i: M.p id®tllfa.i~l Yea dQiros rse. COPY P~ ~ ~PP• - • A1.phubaaRdKedi.risdi..otbde. ~: Jfee ], 2001 I -. ~----r -- I I I I I I I I I I , I I 1 'I ;LOT t // r~o a~u ~o -~ ~,, I ( I 1 I \ 1 ~ I ~I / / ~ / I ; I I 1 L-- i ,,,K 1 ,~-~ 1/ I ' -, -~_,,i` , ~/ __ / I ~ /- -___ - ~ - N 88°00 " 1 ~• / nova unaF. T~ •2 i /,, ,' ,\ _~,~ _ 3 , .t ~... ~. - - - -~ I i I 6 I b88~ SF I .. , / ~ I I I _ I .' ~ I '~ ~7 I ,/ I I .' • ,,,.o• / "I~ I I I I eo,.w I 1 ~~ ~ I~ I~~ ~~ - -~ - ~ ~~~ ` 4 ~~ ; ~~ ~ 41.MO ~ 9AVE ~ f ~ / • 95.00' ,~ / _• ~ -.-.-.-,-.-•yf .-• - PROTECTIVE FENCING ~`. .~` ,, ` `. ~?> ~ 6 ~ 14TIPE ~ ~~ / ~ ~~ / ~ ~~~ ~\ //~ ~ ~-~~ // ~~ / / ///// Prcp~rcd Br: MARTHA AV / ARBOR RESOURCES ~// Iro/.fi/nw/ ANwrrewlrwrwl Cwws"Iffw(! Tre. Cwre ./ I.O..mi 7llf! ..r.Iwwo. CA • /MC7 .-w/y l.s:(U%iSF1711 6wwi: kwr ~~~®~ f 'LAN LOT 1 W Attachment 3 • ~~~~ ~~~ Ct,AR,,~ cob ~~ F •, FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org • 04 1080 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER lLDO PERMR NUMBER ALE Nw~R 04-128 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODEIalC. I MEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT SP-0 • trnc OAppAendix Review of a proposed 3,516 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. This review covers Lot #1. 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. I2 It is noted that the Site Plan does not appear to match the scale shown. It is noted that the proposed new street will be identified as Dorcich Court. Please reflect that street name on all future applications. Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire which are spaced at the required spacing. qty PL.ANa SPECa NEW RMDL Aa OCCUPANCY CONET. TYPE ~ DATE PAGE S'I'G ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KEITH ROYSTER ARCHIITECTS 5/25/2004 1 QP 3 aec~PLQOR AREA LOAC oESCwvrIQN sr Residential Construction Hokanson, Wayne OF PROJECT LOCATION Sl?R- SARGACHI 13089 Quito Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Q Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Loa Altos, ~' ~ ~®~G 9 Loa Altos Mlls, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan MII, and Saratoga • Attachment 4 • L~~~3~ . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 yeazs; that acting for the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission on the ~~ day of ~~~:~~~'~~ 2004, that I deposited in'the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who aze entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses aze those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Claza as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed r ~ U ~, ~~~31, • NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMIIHSSION announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 10th day of November at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, which are located in the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, on the project please direct them to Ann Welsh, Associate Planner, awelsh cQsaratoga.ca.us or 408-868-1230. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Platuung 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 notice, 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 communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. APPLICATIONS #04-128,129,130,131 & 132 (389-1437) SAGARCHI,13089 Quito Road - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct five single family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchazd which was approved for a six lot subdivision on 11/12/03. The proposed homes aze designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are two story structures with a maximum height of 25 feet 6 inches. The floor azea of the homes range in size from 3,366 squaze feet to 3,517 square feet. The property is in the R-1, 10,000 zoning district. The landscaping and Quito Road sound wall aze also the subject of review. ~~®32 ~n co r~ ao rn o '- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o rn o o co ~ a~ c~ o ~ N M et ~ co v o m ~ 00 rn o M M M M M~ ~t ~ ~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N M M «~cOr1MMMMMMMMMMMMMMd'~~~~~~`~~'~"d~~~f tt~~t~~~ r r r r r !~ r r r r r r r l"' r r r T r r r r !~ r r r r r r r r r' !~ !" r' r ~ c) M M M M C 00 M M M M M cMO M M M M c 00 M M M e 07 cMO M c 07 M M M M c07 M c 07 e) M M M CD O 00 N ~~}} r ~ OOOOOOtA000~ ~O~OO~~OtOOOOOONONNNNNNNNNN ~~~~~~ cp~ ~tO~O~OCOhcC~O~CCOtO~GtDtOtC~D ~ ~ r r .- r (~ 01 ~O ~O tC tC ~O ~ ~O t0 00ooooovooo 0000 00 ooooov 00000000 I~ 1~ I~ f~ 1~ 1~ I~ r 1~ I~ f~ 1~ 1~ M h f~ I~ 1~ 1~ f~ f~ 1~ 1~ N 1~ 1~ 1~ t~ I~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1~ No~io~irnv~irnrnrnrn~rnrnrnrnrnrn~ ~rn o~io~io~ic`~io~i~ic~ic`~i~rno`~iv~io~irn~rn m ~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa cnUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUcnUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU aaaaaaaoaaaaa~aa~aa aaaaacnaaaaaaaaaa c~c~c~c~c~c~c~?c~c~c~c~c~oc~c~ac~c~ c~c~c~c~c~oc~c~c~c~c~c~c~c~c~c~ 0000000~oooooQOO~oooooooo~ooooo00000 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~o~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~ U fA ~ fn fn fn N !n U to fn !A fn !n J fn !n (n fn N LL fn fA fn fA N J fA fn ~ ~ (A to fn fn (A fn 000000 ~ ~~g~~~~~aaaaa~aa 000000 zzzzzz~zz wwwwww~w00000]00 ¢QaQaQ~~~u~ii~u~ii~ii0°~i~u Haaaaaavc~pppppOpp ~ ~O t[1 to ~ 1~ 1~ O ti ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ 00 tND ~ 00 00 a0 CO OD 00 M O 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 OD Q ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ .- N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LCD ~ ~ Q QQQQ~QQQQQQQQQQ w pppp pppppppppp QQ~Q~~~~~~~g~~~~g~~ ~zZC~z~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ti0O WO~~.~~v~it¢i~ua..LL~~taiu¢,.~~ ~~~~ ~i U U U U a U U U U U U U U U U O apw~p~~p~~pIn_MU~~~DO CD _N C0~Op01 x ~ tND I~ ~ ~ to ~ c0 ~ ~ tp t~O tOD ~ ~ tp 10C1 ~ ~ 0 ao ao ~O ao 0o a~ a0. ao ao 0o ao ao ao ao ao ao ao 0o ao m ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ m W Z m ~ J a~ J 0 a W p a w '~ ~ U~ w w w m ~ = U ~ p W?~WU o!S otf Z~~ OQ W mQ ~u~'w~al-} ga w }~ zdxsY i- F-> w~wwmc~0 w ¢~ w ~ ~~°~~w ~v~0 ~~m~JC~na~am~~ m= a.QO'~ = cn Z~j JotSQ W~Jwa F-0o°~~d' W~etS~Jp WOO Y U~ U ~iSJatf J C~WF-QQ=U' Wotfotf~JOJ~~~~~ WOfn W Y g a Y Z m W p Z~~- wJ~O ~~~_=azw U HJa- a z Z '~w~ =mazaQOOz~~~u¢i~~pw~~~wWa~~Z=~O~¢o~m= -~ o}w~=Y~z>w-Jo ~~p~Y= zoo Ugwav~ ~oU ~'~-'°g~~~moO~Qp~~w~azO~~~~~zU~=W~a~w ~ W~ W ~ 2 Z 2 W p= Y p J~ W !A Z ~aaZWOjUS~J zZ cn~ON~cnJp>- UU~Ow~ZOZJ~z=w0 c~oW WJO~00a0~~>~~~gwW0~C9~}~aOZmwaJOOQw~ Z Y p U~ m U~ p O U W O O W LL. O~} Z m J m p~ W W J~~ 2 m O~ p ~4'~~33 C ~ M M~ M M M M M~~~ et ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O O G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 O O CA O 01 O O O Q1 O O O O 01 O O O 01 01 CA CO 0000OaoOCDCOCOOCODO CO COaOCOaDOCOCDCOCOCOCOOCOGOCOCO0000oDCO00COOD00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M e0 M M M M M M M M M M t0 O f~ N r N~~NN sTl~~'~t`R~~tInLAOtn~AtA01C~1Af~f~1~Q~NCpCpCDr00000C1CA0) ~ r LA r r r r r r r~ r r r I(1 r r N O N N r r r 1A r r O r ~- r ~C ~O I~ 1~ ~O O M (O ~D ~O ~D CD cG CC ~O ~O 1~ ~C ~O 1~ O I~ r' O O O N CD ~C N t0 CD ~O ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~M~$~~~~Q~~M~~~ I~I~Of~I~ 00000000 ~OO~OOON~00000~00~00~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S S S S ~ ~ S ~ ~ S ~ ~ S S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UUU U (.) UUU U U U U U U U U U U (.) U U U U v W W J aaaaa~aagaaaaaa aaa0aaa aaaaaa aaWaaa c~~c~oc~ c7C~ c~c7c~c~c~c~wc~c7c~?C~c~c~ c~c~c~c~oc~zc~o~c~oc~ 00000000~000000~000~000}0oooooWooWooo ~~~~~Q~~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~ ~~NV~v~3c~v~v~cn~ncncncncncnc~cnv~Ucncncnc~cncncncncncn~cncn~mcnv~ U Q W ) p p > Z Q > > > > > > Q > > > a' > > > > ~ > > > > > ~ > > > >> p p~ Q -~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q p Q Q p Q p Q p Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q aa~~pQ~ aaaaaac~aaa~~a~p~}Q}}} }}~}}} zz =wc~======o===w =o oopooorooUOOo 0000}E-az~~F-SHE-E-F-F-HYHI- LL.>>I-~HJa'--a'~p'~~~ ~~Ud'~I-- F-U~UUUNUU UUU U[ij[Jj»wQ~JQQQQQQ~~QQ~QQ~O~UWUUUxUU UUU ~ppC10 ~-~Q~~~~~~Q~~~~~~C3~ 0~~~~~U~~m~~~ tf! r O M M ~j JJ r CO ~ O 1A r 1~ ~D O ~ 00 N ~O Q1 ~O N ~A = M O~ r f~ r I~ m C~ ~ 1~ N O 00 ~~pp .~M m ~~cNO S~~S CNOtrO~S ~~~~~N O N N~-01 COO C S O COD M~ r 0~ 0~ M 0 0 0~ 0 G 0 G 0 C 0 0 0 O G 0 O ~ C 0 r 0~ 0 0 0 M S M 0 0 O C S 0 0~ 0 S O 0 O 0 C~ 0~ C O 0 0 O 0 O 00 r r r r r <O r r N r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r r r N r r r d r r r r r r ~ W ~ W W ~ ~ W W ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ J ~ ~ J - ~ O W a w W~~ O~ W d z p W~~ a Q J a w Z~ H >~ U Y J~ ~~~Wp'}'Ow ¢~a~UwQ iwUZ~~UW ~W ~i U~ ~eiS~a~oti~~V~F-Z~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ln °a~zz ~E-,~~c~a~wW~W~.~=°aa }~~Q~m=av~w~saZ~ Oaiz~w~Q~~ v~~~p wW3=w~W~J~OQpo¢Z >~ z~~~~O~~z-.~Q~~w 4Q a~~uzwa~~Ww~p~~~wUQ O~~ ~~U~O= ~C7~wY~~ Z=-Y== ~pY >p~~~~Na000O a zaa ~~ = za4~~~ _UF-~c~~U OW Z }OOp pz~}OVw ?~Oo~OWwwwpg~a~WQ~~-~OF-QZa~v~z =O =ZUZOzOHw~cnm~~~~Za pzUO~Ua ~~QY}NN- W Q ~++ g= 0 Q a H O Z p Q~ W W O~ ~ a U~ li W Q W O ~~~~~ 2 W= Q J LL=~ U p m~ cq Q O to m~>~~ a Q~~ Y}__ ~ Y~ p U to m a 4. U u.. p • ~~0®34 • • 1A~Otn~Of~0000rNC0~ lpCOf~GO to(DI~OOOOr~OI~G000r'NMd'OCO1~00 r r r r r N N N N N N N N N~~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 CO 1~ I~ I~ I~ f~ 1~ I~ i~ f~ I~ 1~ f~ I~ 1~ f~ f~ I~ t~ f~ f~ 1~ 1~ I~ f~ 1~ t~ 1~ I~ 1~ I~ 00 00 OD CO Op r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q~ O M M M M cr! l'~ M M M M M ch ch M M M M M M M ch M ch M M ch M M M ch ch M ch M M ~ ~ ~ O r r r O to 00 Q1 ~ O 01 M 1~ r f~ O 1~ I~ I~ O ~ CO ~ c0 ~ '~ O O Gp 1~ f~ f~ O O O O O O r r to r cr1N0 OO~rNr rrr-Orr-f~r OOOOOOONNMMNONNLpN t0 f~ I~ I~ f~ 1~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r f~ I~ 1~ f~ ti ~ O ~ O O O ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o O O O O O O O O O ao 0 > o 0 000 00 o z ~~~~~~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ooooUOO o > » OO 03 c0c00°oOO O ~aaaaaa~JJJJJJJ J_ p ~ a a a ~ c~~ xx``~ r c~ ` N Z Z Z Z Z Z~ m m m m= m m m ~~~ >->-~F=-~HQF-F-HCnF-H h-~ZOOOOOOW_~~~~LL~~~~ X 0 0 F- O O O~ w~ O~~~~~~ ti~ o ~~~~~~~ Z o o ~ o Z 0 o a`no ~ U~U~vv~a~aoaaacnaa~aMmwwwwwwZZ ZZ~ ~ U~ U U U~ 3 Z~ J~ 3~ ~_ ~~ ~ x~ J J J J J J O Q~ Q Q O ~O~O~gCJf~WfnOv~v~v~LLV~(gX(nOODUUUUU~»»m»x> p~~~'cOpeti~CMp~cOtOCO t~NZ~O~OmeO~mOc~.eN~OOeNtt~OCO~eNt~OOOiCO00Nm0 M M ~ cMG ~ 00 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CMO OMO O GO O O ~ CO ~ ~ a0 ~ M a0 ~ ~ oM0 GNi ~ ~ O r r r~ r r r r N r r r r r 00 r r d r d r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~. r aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ~ ~a z aaa~aaaagaaaaa as a ~aaaaaaaaaaaaaawa C9 C9C~ C9 C7 C9 C9 C9 C7 C9 C7 C9wC9C7wC7~ C7 C9 C7 C9 C9 C9 C9 C7 C9 C7 C7 C7 C7 ~C7 ooo~oooo~ooooo~oo~o ~ooooo00000000~ o ~~~~~~~~Q~~~~~~~~Q~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cnv~cnc~c~cncncncncncnv~cncncncncnv~cn~acnv~v~~nv~cncncncnv~cncncnv~cncn w ~ ww w (n U ~ Z }~ U~ W W } ~W ~~ ~~ o z~~F-W F-~~ ~ W ~ ? °~LLWJ ~W WO ~ U~W W~~ ~~ =Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~~~ ~fn~m W(AW ~~O~J H3 ~W ~~otf ~ W°~p~ (9~~m zz H~~°tSZa~a~ WJ~ ~a ~o~~,~ ~~o~~ Wa~~O~a O~~,~w~z°~ ~sW ?Q -W-c=n }p~~03wwa~ as~~?w~ }~~-~~~w~~~~U ~O -W~s ~wZ Y~mO JJ~QU}N ~OwawvWmf~ aa~°~Y~Y~au. Q,ILOZ~~ ~~d~" pw m~Q~ LLli==?~Ozm~WUO~W>}~QI- ~~-,o~a~YZ»z~~a°a ,~gzU ~~om~d~?a°z~a~=a ~za w~Q~Q¢O~o~~°°a ~~c9w>~7d' m0_~Z~oJ~-~ -~O ~ >~J~~~2~YZ~Q~OL}~L}LL~?>w~=W~wm ~~~JwJ~Z=~a OfA~n-J=C9u.Z~~U~=LL.J~~ W J~m~Jw~~°~o= JOQa WZ~~ ~~a=~pOO~~OU~~~wao~J=~aO~Na=a?U=~a~zda c9=c9cn~m~=am=~ammc7~aJc9F-x c9cnu.~3UwJCna>>cnHcn l~r~®~3~ • 01 0 ~ N lA ~D 1~ 00 0 0 N ~ N N N N N N N N M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 GO CO 00 GD 00 CO 00 00 00 f~ N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M r N O ~ ~ N N~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O O ti ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UUUUUUUUUUU aaaa aaaa W C9 C9 C9 C9 C9 C~ C~ C9 W ~oooo oooo~ ~_ ~ ~ Z M p J_ J_ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ D COmZ~~LI~~~W ~~ Q W~ W W W W ~WWfA> »» I~ Q p~ ~~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~zZZW~o~~~~ a Q J~ Z»» W x»t~a-aaaa= m~O~pOf~O MNON Oa~a~a~a~crnC~a`~a`~a`~rn ate.-~.-~~~~~~ w V ~ a Q' ~... ~ a ~ z ~ W z w _ ~ ~uw a 0 ~ w z~ ~oc~~ J ~ () 2 etS etf ZC9ZWa~J = Wppcj~s~~ii U JaiSWOJ~ F"~Z W J ~a'Ve p Z= W ~ZW~W W ~f~~U' o~~ppac~~~o~d~ awl-aQWU~ • ~~~~~~~. Attachment 5 • ~i'u~®~~ Salon Sagarchi SEI Corporation 14524 Oak Street Saratoga, CA 95070 October 4, 2004 Ms. Ann Welsh Assistant Planner, AICP City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ann, Regarding the neighborhood meeting requested by the Planning Commission, we would like to inform you that after a couple of attempts, we were able to meet with the neighbors to review the final construction plans on May 8, 2004. many attempts were made to contact the neighbors via phone and fliers. With the exception of two, all other immediate neighbors were present at the meeting. During this meeting the construction plans were presented to the neighbors and the elevation and design details were reviewed. All who were present approved these plans unanimously and signed the "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application" which was submitted to you already. They were also anxious for us to start and finish this project ASAP, as the finished project would add value to the neighborhood There were several attempts made to meet with one of the two immediate neighbors that were not present at the meeting. Several phone calls, personal meetings requests at his house, invitation to the neighborhood meetings, and visits to his residence have failed to get him to review our plans. These plans were changed due to his personal requests during the planning commission meeting and afterwards. He refused to show up in 4 pre- agreed meeting dates, never returned more than 10 voicemails, and refused to attend the last two meetings. Best Regards, Salim Sagarchi • G~®®~~ Open House Invitation Sunday, May 6, 2004 HOSt: SEI Enterprise Location: Dorcich Orchard, 13089 Quito Road, in Saratoga T1CCl8: Thursday Mat 6, from 5:00 to • 7:00 pm. Please come and review our development plans. Meet the developers, ask them questions, check out the detailed plans and give them your feedback. • ~~~~~9 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road Saratog,~CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signatuae on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opi»ion expressed below, you may reserve the right t0 amend your OplniOn Qt a later date and COmmunlCate it t0 the Ci Of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I nderstand the scope of work: aad I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed l~j~ ^ My signature below certifies the following: i have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issnes or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if n~essary):. .. -~ Neighbor Name: - Neighbor Address: ~ 8 S"5z m~~rs,~~Q ~~. ~ ~-~~ ,i i! ~~~ Neighbor Phone #: `~ ~ $ - 3 7 9- 9' yam/ Signature: Printed: • • ~~®®40 City nfRaratnva Planninv nennrtneent • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS:. 13089 Ouito Road Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ofall residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may rese a the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City atoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerna or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: i have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. Neighbor Name: ~ ~~ " ' h ~ ~ $c o ' Y L~ Neighbor Address: l ~ ~ ~f 3 ~f. ~aC. S a ro-,to qa, ~,/~ ~ Sb 7 a --~--- Neighbor Phone #: E,Jf ~~ 3 70' ~ ~~ V,1I~~ t ~ ~` - V ~~®O~~ PlanninP nenartment City n{.4aratnva Neighbor Notification Template fot Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public heari»g on the proposed project. The Planning Commissio» does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta~''ond the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the sigrratra~e on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the ~C,it//y of Saratoga. l~d"My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed l~j~ ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, wbich aDer discussion with the applicant, Lave not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. ^~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ (r ~ ~ J -~ C~ ~`~042 City ~!'.Saratr-va Plannino 1)enartment Neighbor Address: ~ ~A~ f rU , Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Quito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, fj''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed Proj~ ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns ate the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, ~- Neighbor Name: ~ ~ 1-~Z+r' ~ E JeN/1 St ~w~0 v~. s Neighbor Address: f 8~8o M~ ~-{mod A-~- ~~~wz^~vaa~'~. 9 So7D Signature: u.~c,~ .r n , mtnaa Neighbor Phone #: ~D$ - ~'SO " ~} 0~ Printed: r~,;.~- ~j,,,... ~.-v~s+r~+~~'®443 Plannino ne»artrnent Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road Saratoga, CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City f Saratoga signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the appUcant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):. Neighbor Name:li Neighbor Address: ~5~ y ~ Signature: ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: 700 ~/ / ~-'~ Printed: ~~~~ ~~ (/GZ- FEZ ~~(~®4~ ('.itv n1'Raratnva Planninv 1)enartment Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: ~ 2 ~{- Q PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Quito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planni»g Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, fJ'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ofall residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City o Saratoga y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which nerd to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed I~j~ ^ My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Name: ~~.I U V~ c ~~. r `I + L Neivghbor A/ddre~ssM: ` A D O ~ ~n In Y ~ v~~~~~ ~ v"~. ~S~~vNeighborPhone#: J70 -~5~~ SiQnaturer'1 Printed: * `~ ~` ii l(~G~'l~wl 'PAu ~A mcCa ~~o~~~ ~itv nt.Giratnva Planninv T~narlment • • ..{.. xo~ i~fa•IrL•ola I •1 ~ ~. ~ s •I r ~ •o I ,c o~s>rr •vo ~1a~vMaN ' ~ - LEO-~10-69~ ~d ---- b~ `~JO1~S « j~ `f ~i Y N o i 1 11 a G o ii 1?~ i i.r~1r I V 'il a 1 i .l O it N 1 I a )1 V Y~ O~~ VOV4r~`IO Y 1'7W<J 1'7VN~!\J '~ ~, ~ n .• ~ T~ I S1~~lIHO~Id IF~bS WI'1bS N b ~,, ~s z ~- l~31SJ10~1 Hll~~l l# 10~ ~Sf10H MAN ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ege ~~ J ~~~ u3 ~ ~ F~~ ~ 30 ~~~ <~ - 9 ~ ~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Ig ~ ~~ F ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ O Z J ~ •~~. B ~ ~~ ~9 kk'~ ~ ~~ ~J ~F ~ ~ a~~ p~ 2~ u ~ y > ~ ~~~ ~ ~ F ~~ ~ LL -~ W x ~ F~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~w w~ ~ ~ s ~~ L~ ~ z d W ~ ~ ~ ~l=~ ~~~~ 0~ ~~ - F FY~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ _ ti a ~- n o r ~ i i I~ I ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ F~~F~ 88888 ~ ~ ac o ~ t~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O U w o U ~ _ ~~~ ~rQ1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 3 3 ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ r U ~ Q - o a . ~_ n ~T~Tin ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ U ~ C~ 1-- ~ W - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ', -~ U ~ Q ~ o a 0 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ u 0 0 0 Q ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~~ o Z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 5~ ~~~~~ ~W ~ ~~ pia ~~~~~~ ~~ ``4 .~ _i n ~' VS O~ l~(t~~ .jJ II I W YOM R Q G Y S ~ z ~ - __ ~ ~ (Y VI xvr LLff'I~L'Olfi 1.1 L ~ ~ f 'I ~ ,_ 'O I f LEO-1~i0-68E fNdV 1~J `dJO1~S ~ O~ffir 1+7 '~Ii14'MiN •a n v N O f l al i~ 0 al I C~ f ~-~ ~ j J(~ _~~~ H~~ _ `~'1`r 11i1f.1011 Nlli)1 _ n NJdS YW'1bS a =. ~ , M,, °: S1O~11HO~ld z ~I~1SJl0l~ I-W~~I ~Sf10H MAN ~ i i I ~I ~ I i I Q ~ I i i I i i I ~ i ~ I i I - _.~._._._._._~_._._._.- _._._._._.I_._._._._._-._._._._._._._.J ` OYOY 011110 I ,:I ~ ~ I` I ._._._..~ ~ L J ~_ ~~, ~.(iG.'~4. ir_~ II I ~ ~ I s'I `I ~ ~ I i l Y. I I ~~ P. t --_ ~- - -~ r, \ ~^ ~\ ,\ r,'~ ~ ~? a 5 ~~,~ I I I I ~I I I I I I I I ~ K~ ! „ I I I I I I I I I I I I i-~- i I I I I I I ~~- I I I I I I I I I I .~ I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I i I J i .------ i ~ --~ s r z `c a t t xo~ r.~ff•IrL•olf __ I • i < < ~ f •I r i •o I f LEO~IO-68E flVdd ~/~ `t/~Ql~p~$ o~ffr Y7 '~1~I1IM~N u ~ t ~~ 'i /~ q' N O Q 1 11 i Q 0 11 I Q 1 f ~~ O~~ ~~ 1"1~./I~J~ ' 1ll`I 'ililfAOil Nlli~l ~~ ~ ~ •_ n-~rooes vas ~ ~~ ~ ~ S10~1.IHO~Id ~,, ~ ~~ z ~ ~l31SJlO~J Hll~~l 9101 ~Sf 10H MAN ~ 0 ~t' T I ~ ~~ ~1 ~ ~ i ' it i ~ - • ~I L ~ I ~ #i' I I ~ ~ ~~ _~ ~\ 1 ~~ I r! ~ f ~~ ~ ~ I ~~ I i 1 ., r ~~ I j ~ ~ ~I x~J LL1G'I~L'OIG I. 1 L L f G •I r L •o I G LEO-~l0-6EE fNdd ~ ~~/~ Qp/~y~~,,/u~~`~JQ~l~y~-g~ 'iA`I NOilili~0il IO7G , O ~ G f Ir Y 7 'JI it 1/ M ~7 N ~~ OJJI R! Vf,VirF-`IOY~7~/RJ 1'7VIWL/\J '~` # Y `I'I`I 'ili1GA011 Nlli~l ~ ~I~RIJbS Y~N'1t/S ~ ~~ S1~3UH~~Id 9 ~SnO ~.~ ~~ l~31SJ10~1 H.U~~I # 101 H MAN If ~~s~~~~~ ~~~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®®O®O©~ -; ry r~ ----- xoJ LLr+='I~L'OIG I • i L L r s •1 r L •o i s ' L~1~10~ fNdb b~ `HrJOldddS o~af~ ,ro ~Ia1vMaN 'any N o s e tl s a o a~ I Q 7 i Qi /~ ~ .~ * ` ., ~ ~ 1/l`~' 11a1SA011 Nlla~l ~ _~~~„' O ~ ,T ~+ S10~11HO~)d ~~es wrros ~ ~ ~ ~J31SJ10~! H.U~~I 9# 1 ~Sf10 O~ H MAN "' ~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ x x ~ x ~ x ~ x ~ ~ ooo®® ~---~ i i i i i i i L---, I i L----~ i i i i r~ i i i r_~ i i i ----~ N Q ~ z xeJ LLff'I~L'Olf i • 1 L L ~ ,c .i ~ L 'o i ,i LEO-X10-68>~ fNdb b~ `~JOl~S 'f /~ `I N O f l 11 i f 0 it 1 4 1 f ~~ O~ ~..~~H~' L1~11r1L1/V7 `II`I 11i1fA01i Nlli~l r7VIWV~J ~ ~ ~ M h Sl0 n~avovs wrro-s ~ ~~ Q ~ 3UH~~d 9# 10 ~Sf lOH ~'' ~~ z i ~131SJ10~1 Hli~~l 1 MAN --_ It r----~ r-- ~ I ~ I I ~I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~-- I ~I ~--~ ~ I I II I I L - - - 1 ~----, r-- ~ I ~ I r---- ---~ I I I II I ~ ~ ~ I I r-- I ~ I ~--~ ~ I I II I I ~ L---- --~-J ~ L--, 11 I I I L--J I I I L--J xoJ LLfi'Irl'Oli I •1 ~. ~ f ~ ~I r,. •o I a LEO-~t0-68~ fNdb b~ `t/rJQl~$ o~sfl. 'vo 'lIa11/MON t ~, 'a n v N o a 1 al a s o al I Q~ i ~~ ~~ ~+~_~~IH~ ~.~ ,~` ~ ti'IW 11iliA0il Mlli~l ~` ids ra~vs f ~ ~~ Q ~ S10311HO~Id ~,, ~,~ ~I~1SJl0~l H.U~~I 9~ 10~ ~Sf10H MAN I* .~ .~ ~----~ r-- ~ I ~ I I ~I I~ ~~ I I r-- I ~I ~--~ ~ i I II I I L _ . I I L - _ J ITEM 1 B • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-128/ 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6 Applicant/Owner: Salim Sagarchi Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Date: December 8, 2004 APN: 389-14-37 Department Head: 0 500 ftradius --_......_._._..._-.__......-.---..__........_._...-._._. AD 13089 Quito Road 0 500 ft parcels p --- C ~~ ^ 1 ~~~rl I RD D --- ---T---- .--r-.--~--~ IC C -~4G, A 0 100 200 300 400 SOOft ~----~ 13089 Quito Road -Lot 1 ~~J0001 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 5/6/04 Application complete: 10/15/04 Notice published: 10/27/04 Mailing completed: 10/26/04 Posting completed: 10/15/04 Continued until: 12/8/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission continued the Design Review Hearing for Lots 1 and 6 to this meeting. The Planning Commission gave direction that these two "entry" homes should be of a story and one half to facilitate a more gentle entry into the subdivision. The Design Review application for Lot 6 is a request to construct a story and a half structure on a 12,092 square foot lot located in the R-1,10,000 zoning district on the corner of the proposed cul-de-sac, Dorcich Court and Martha Avenue. The home is designed in a neo-craftsman style with lap siding, lightweight concrete brown the roof. The home is located within a new subdivision that was the former site of the Dorcich Orchard. The home is intended to be compatible architecturally with the historic farmhouse that is retained on lot five of the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for Application # 04-128. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report dated June 2, 2004. 3. Fire Department report dated June 16, 200 4. Affidavit of Mailing 5. Neighborhood Correspondence, Meeting Announcement 6. Plans, Exhibit 'A" • ~Ofl02 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1,10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 -Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:12,092 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is less than 10%. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading of the site is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of asingle-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be tan lap siding with brown roof tiles. • ~~b0003 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Rand PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT SIZE 12,092 sQ. FT. 12,000 sQ. FT. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 39%. 60% Building Footprint 3,608 sQ. FT. Walkways, Patio ~St Driveway 1,155 SQ. FT. TOTAL 4,763 sQ. Fr. 7,257 sQ. FT. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 2,465 sQ. FT. Upper Floor 1,143 sQ. FT. TOTAL 3,608 SQ. FT. 3,710 sQ. F'I'. SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 25 Fr. 25 ~. Rear 1ST FL. -42 FT. 9 IN. 1ST FL10 FT. 2ND FL. -47FT.9 IN. 2ND FL. 15 FT. Interior Side 1ST FL-10 FT. 2ND FL-30 FT. 1ST FL -10 FT. 2ND FL-15 FT. Exterior Side 1ST FL - 26 FT. 5 IN. 1ST FL - 25 FT. 2ND FL - 35 FT. 5 IN. 2ND FL - 30 FT. Height Residence 24 Fr. 3 IN. 26 Fr. • a ~~00~~ # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road • PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review This Design Review application for Lot 1 involves review of a story and a half home with a design that is based somewhat on the Craftsman style, which is typified in the Historic Mitchell house that is to be relocated from the center of the parcel onto Lot 5. The elevations depict a home with lap siding and lightweight concrete tiles that resemble slate shingles. In terms of the front facade, a low profile front entry with porch overhang is proposed. The entry door has paned windows in the upper part of the door and transom windows complete the door surround. The first floor front windows also have multi-pane sashes above the larger windowpane, which is typical of the Craftsman style. The plans propose lattice detailing below the upper eave, which reflects similar detail in the original Mitchell House. The design of the house has some of the detailing that is typically associated with Craftsman style dwellings but the character of the house would be enhanced with additional details that reflect the Craftsman style. The use of exposed rafter beams at the eaves and river rock facing of porch columns, which taper from the base to the top, is suggested to add additional texture and depth to the facade. The garage door also reflects the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple paned windows in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are recommended by staff in order to enhance the character of the development. The site plan proposes four drywells to minimize storm water runoff in response to the site design regulations mandated by the Santa Clara Watershed C-3 Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Necessar y Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. (c) Minimise perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods. (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies and techniques. Actual Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. ~~~~05 # 04-128 / Desi~ Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed story and a half dwelling will not interfere unreasonably with views and privacy. The home is located on a corner lot and is centered on the lot such that the setbacks proposed exceed the minimum requirements. The zoning ordinance allows a 10-foot rear yard setback while the plans depict a 25-foot rear yard setback. The exterior side yard setback also exceeds the minimum allowable. The two-story design of the structure allows the impervious coverage to be minim~ed and furthers the mandate of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to minimize storm water runoff and decrease impervious coverage. If the home were single story, the impervious coverage would be greater and the on-site water retention would be more difficult to achieve. Moreover, the immediately adjacent neighbors indicate support for the two stories dwelling adjacent their property. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizjng tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The plan proposes to retain the existing topography and minimal grading is proposed. Development on this lot would impact 11 trees of Ordinance size (#9-18 and 28). They include one Coast Live Oak (#9), seven Coast Redwoods (#10-16), two Canary Island Pines (#17, 18) and one Evergreen Ash (#28). Retaining eight trees on this lot reflects sensitivity to the design guideline of preserving the natural landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulb and will be integrated into the environment. The design does not depict excessive bulk. Although an upper story is proposed, the area of the upper floor in relation to the first floor is proportional, the varying roofline and the use of dormers serves to minimize the perception of bulk. The added design details recommended in the project discussion would also serve to vary the facade, add texture to the front facade and minimize the perception of bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (I) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ~~0006 # 04-126 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road The proposed two-story home is located in a neighborhood that is predominantly single story in character. However, the existing historic Mitchell house, which is the design inspiration for the proposed home, is a two-story structure and the Lot 1 design reflects this style. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed design retains the natural topography since changes to the grade surrounding the house are minimal. Also the plan reflects the mandate by the Regional Quality Control Board to limit impervious coverage and storm water runoff. The proposed drywells are designed to slow runoff and retain the first flush of storm water. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable designpolicies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The above analysis supports the conclusion that the findings required for granting design review approval can be met provided the applicant carries out the conditions outlined in the resolution of approval. The City Arborist and the Santa Clara County Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. Neighborhood Input Resolution #03-049, which granted tentative subdivision approval of this lot, required that the applicant hold a meeting with the surrounding neighbors to obtain a consensus on the design of the homes within the subdivision. Attachment # 5, which is included in this staff report, contains the notices that were signed by the surrounding neighbors. The map below depicts those parcels that approved the design of the proposed homes. As can be seen from the map, neighbors who did not object to the proposed two-story design of the home surround Lot 1. • ~~ # 04-128 /Design Review - IAt 1 13089 Quito Road continue the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple pane divided lights in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are required in order to enhance the character of the development. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The landscape plan shall be installed prior to granting final planning approval of the project. 4. 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 S. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 6. 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. 7. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 9. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor who verifies the accuracy of the boundaries. 10. Prior to pouring of foundation, the setbacks identified in the approved plans shall be verified by a licensed land surveyor. This verification shall be documented by a signed and sealed statement from the Surveyor. This statement shall be submitted to the building inspector prior to pouring foundation. 11. The applicant shall install asix-foot high wooden fence at the rear and interior side property line in order to maintain the privacy of the abutting rear neighbor. 12. The plan data on sheet SP-1 shall be revised to correct the impervious coverage ratio. The impervious coverage is 30% as per the submitted data. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on May, 25, 2004 and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: ~~~0~8 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road 1. Required Fire Ilow: the fire Ilow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire Ilow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s), which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Public Fire Hydrant Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrants shall have a minimum single Ilow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. 3. Timing of required water supply installations: Installations of required fire service and fire hydrants shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance maybe withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 4. Garage Fire Sprinkler 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, Ilat, horizontal ceiling. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 5. Fire Apparatus 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. CityArborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated June 2, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but aze not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 0~?0009 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road 3. I recommend protective fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created at that time (i.e. only immediately before landscape construction begins) to only allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access. 4. Item #1 from the 9/11/02 report should be followed and the plans revised accordingly. An option to doing so involves designing the portion of curb, gutter and roadway within 20 feet of tree #9's trunk entirely on top of existing grade (i.e. a no dig design). 5. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #14-16 and 28 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. Upon being available, plans showing grading and drainage, irrigation, and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 6. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 7. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 8. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 9. Irrigation trenches should be designed no closer than 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be a drip-type system placed on top of existing soil grade. 10. Imgation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of a drip- type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 11. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the azea beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. 12. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the neazest trunk. 13. I recommend the boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #9's canopy be removed from the design. 14. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use neaz trees. to ~ ~QO10 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road 15. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standazds. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.html. 16. The removal of trees #16 and 28 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that aze equivalent to their combined value of $2,700. The replacement values aze shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/11/02 report. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The replacement species should be shown on future planting plan(s). Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code if developed with the recommended conditions. The residence will not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape and will minimize the perception of bulk. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application #04-132. ~ 1 ~~~011 Attachment 1 • ~~0012 # 04-128 /Design Review -Lot 1 13089 Quito Road RESOLUTION N0.04- APPLICATION N0.04-132 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sagarchi/ 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 3,517 square foot story and a half home on Lot 1, a 12,092 square foot corner lot in the recently approved Dorcich Orchard subdivision. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; 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 the perception of bulk The design uses architectural features to break up massing. The house is single story with a cross gabled roof which reduces the mass of the roofline. Fenestration along the lower front facade includes elongated windows with multiple panes in the upper transom and large panes in the lower portion of the sash. The covered, porch with simple front door with sidelights and transom is low profile in design and proportion. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design preserves the natural landscape, since the plan proposes to retain the existing topography and minimal grading is proposed. Development on this lot would impact 8 trees, one of which is in conflict with the location of the house ~~DO~®13 File No. Of-OB7 13Z28PietreRo~ed and another, which is dead Retaining six protected size trees on this lot reflects sensitivity to the design guideline of preserving the natural landscape. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The orientation of the house controls view to adjacent properties. Those portions of the house, which contain outdoor living space, are oriented toward the reaz of the house. The house is designed to reduce noise impacts on adjacent dwellings. The garage is located toward the front of the property with access from the cul- de-sac. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed two-story dwelling will not interfere unreasonably with views and privacy. The home is located on a corner lot and is centered on the lot such that the setbacks proposed exceed the minimum requirements. The zoning ordinance allows a 10-foot rear yard setback while the plans depict a 25-foot reaz yazd setback. The exterior side yard setback also exceeds the m;nimum allowable. A privacy fence is to be installed at the rear of the property and existing trees aze to be retained and protected so that the existing mature trees will be retained and continue to provide the view of mature landscaping. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The location of the house does not block the sun of any neighbors since additional setback is provided The mature trees to be retained provide shade and wind block therefore the design maximizes existing landscaping and does not interfere with the solaz access of neighbors. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", Ncw House- Lot 1, Salem Saatchi, Doric Orchard, 13089 2uito Road, Saratoga prepared by Keith Roister, Architect, dated 2/10/03, date stamped 10/28/2004. The conditions of approval identified in this report shall be incorporated into the revised plans. 1. The design shall be revised to enhance the architectural detailing in the facade and reflect Craftsman style architecture. Exposed rafter beams at the eaves and river rock facing of porch columns is required to meet the design review ~~~®1~ Fffe No. 04-AB7 13228PiureRoad guidelines. In order to support this design the porch columns should taper from the base to the top to add additional texture and depth to the facade. The garage door should continue the Craftsman theme of the subdivision with multiple pane divided lights in the upper panel of the door. These details in the design of the house are required in order to enhance the character of the development. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and this Resolution on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The landscape plan shall be installed prior to granting final planning approval of the project. 4. 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 5. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 6. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, clunate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 7. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 9. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor who verifies the accuracy of the boundaries. 10. Prior to pouring of foundation, the setbacks identified in the approved plans shall be verified by a licensed land surveyor. This verification shall be documented by a signed and sealed statement from the Surveyor. This statement shall be submitted to the building inspector prior to pouring foundation. 11. The applicant shall install asix-foot high wooden fence at the rear and interior side property line in order to maintain the privacy of the abutting rear neighbor. 12. The plan data on sheet SP-1 shall be revised to correct the impervious coverage ratio. The impervious coverage is 39% as per the submitted data. ~~00015 File No. 04-6187 13128PiemRo~d Fire Protection District The Santa Clara Coun Fire District reviewed this a lication on Ma 25 2004 tY PP Y and their requirements are included as conditions of approval: 1. Required Fire flow: the fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants(s), which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Public Fire Hydrant Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the fire department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrants shall have a minimum single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. Timing of required water supply installations: Installations of required fire service and fire hydrants shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of naming or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 4. Garage Fire Sprinkler 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. A state of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three sets of plans, calculations, a complete permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 5. Fire Apparatus Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vemcal 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. City Arborist Report The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared a report dated June 2, 2004. The recommendations of this report are included as conditions of approval. 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process. ~r~0®36 File No. 04-UB7 13128PiemRoAd 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scrapmg, trenchmg, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. I recommend protective fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created at that time (i.e. only immediately before landscape construction begins) to only allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access. 4. Item #1 from the 9/1U02 report should be followed and the plans revised accordingly. An option to doing so involves designing the portion of curb, gutter and roadway within 20 feet of tree #9's trunk entirely on top of existing grade (i.e. a no dig design). 5. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #14-16 and 28 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. Upon being available, plans showing grading and drainage, irrigation, and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 6. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. 7. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 8. All underground pipes and imgation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 9. Irrigation trenches should be designed no closer than 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be a drip-type system placed on top of existing soil grade. 10. Irrigation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of a drip-type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 11. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. • ~~0~~~ File No. 0~%UB7 I3228PierreRowd 12. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 13. I recommend the boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #9's canopy be removed from the design. 14. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa- arborcom/arborists/arbsearchhtml. 16. The removal of trees #16 and 28 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value of $2,700. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/1U02 report. Acceptable replacement species include ~uercus agrifolia, ~uercus lobata, ~uercus helloggii, ~uercus douglasii, ~uercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga men~esii and Sequoia sempervirens. The replacement species should be shown on future planting plan(s). CrrY ArrORNEY 1. 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. c~®~~~8. File No. 04-AB7 13128PiemRond PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8`h day of December 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission u on the a ress terms and conditions hereof This permit is hereby accepted p xp , 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 • ~~®0~,9 Attachment 2 • ~~~®®20 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 13089 QUITO ROAD -LOT 6 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SAGARCHI APPLICATION #: 04-132 APN #: 389-014-037 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A May 28, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 `~~0®21 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 28, 2004 SUMMARY . The proposed project on this lot would impact 11 trees of Ordinance size (#9-18 and 28). They include one Coast Live Oak (#9), seven Coast Redwoods (#10-16), two Canary Island Pines (# 17, 18) and one Evergreen Ash (#28). All but # 14-16 and 28 are shown on plans reviewed. Two trees, # 16 and 28, are in conflict with the proposed design and would be removed. Given the condition ratings assigned to these trees within the 9/11/02 report, their removal appears appropriate and replacements are recommended. The new roadway is proposed approximately six-and-a-half feet from tree #9's trunk. Unless the portion of curb, gutter and road within 15 feet of tree #9's trunk can be designed entirely on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no dig design), I recommend the road be redesigned to be no closer than 10 feet from the tree's trunk (as per item #1, page 4 of the 9/11/02 City report). Tree # 10, a Coast Redwood located beneath high-voltage electrical lines, is declining. An estimated 50-percent of its canopy has died and further decline is expected. I suggest its removal regardless of the proposed project and no replacements are suggested. Measures presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report must be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised valuer of trees planned for retention is required to promote their protection. They include #9-15, 17 and 18, and have a combined value of ~ 16,467. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with constructing asingle-family residence on a vacant lot at 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Information regarding each tree is presented within the table attached to the City Arborist report dated September 11, 2002. Metal tags containing numbers corresponding to those presented within this report were found attached to each accessible tree trunk. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets T-1, SP-0, SP-6 and A-6.4 (by Keith Royster Architects, dated 2/10/03) and Sheet L-7 (by Creative Horticulture, dated 04/04). The t The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'~" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Sagarclti Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6, Saratoga Page 1 of City of Saratoga Community Development Deparhnent `~ ~®®~r2 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 28, 2004 trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are presented on an attached copy of Sheet SP-6 (Site Plan). Trees #14, 15, 16 and 28 are not shown on plans reviewed. Their trunk locations have been added to the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. The September 11, 2002 arborist report identifies 36 fiuit trees of Ordinance size scattered throughout the property. Many are dead while the others appear in overall poor condition. For this reason, their removal is appropriate and mitigation is not suggested. Please note I am unable to fully determine how many of these trees would be removed from this lot due to their high number as well as the lot boundaries not being seen. RECOlYII1~NDATIONS The below recommendations are intended to be used in conjunction with those presented in the September 11, 2002 report. 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. I recommend protective fencing remain installed throughout the landscape installation phase. Small openings can be created at that time (i.e. only immediately before landscape construction begins) to only allow for foot traffic and wheelbarrow access. 4. Item #1 from the 9/11/02 report should be followed and the plans revised accordingly. An option to doing so involves designing the portion of curb, gutter and roadway within 20 feet of tree #9's trunk entirely on top of existing grade (i.e. a no dig design). 5. The surveyed locations of tree trunks #14-16 and 28 must be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. Upon being available, plans showing grading and drainage, irrigation, and underground utilities shall be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. 6. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) and drainage features (such as drain lines, swales and dissipaters) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees; I should be consulted if this is not feasible. Sagarchi Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6, Saratoga Page 2 p 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ 0023 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 28, 2004 7. Supplemental water shall be supplied every two weeks to each retained tree during the months of April thru November. This should begin at the start of grading and continue through construction. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. 8. All underground pipes and imgation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 9. Irrigation trenches should be designed no closer than 10 times the trunk diameter of trees being retained. Where this is not feasible, the irrigation system must be adrip- type system placed on top of existing soil grade. 10. Irrigation spray should reach no closer than three feet from a tree's trunk (including those of newly installed trees). All forms of irrigation for new trees must be of adrip- type system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 11. Lawn or other plant material requiring frequent watering must comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. All other plant material should be drought tolerant. 12. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than one-foot from the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur within 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk. 13.I recommend the boulders proposed for placement beneath tree #9's canopy be removed from the design. 14. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 16. The removal of trees # 16 and 28 should be mitigated by installing new trees on site that are equivalent to their combined value of $2,700. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the table attached to the 9/11/02 report. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsugo menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The replacement species should be shown on future planting plan(s). Attachment: Site Map (Copy of Sheet SP-6) Sagarchi Property, 13089 Quito Road -Lot 6, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ ~Q~2L} n ~J i I I cly d Srroy ~«~-~-tn ~~t Ie}~~,p'epApp ~~.,, - ~ . ~ ' I ~ dp)p: Mp idaMifia I t tan dOrdiaras da. I LOT AIEIv ~ ' I 1 Crwq pw~ndna art app1oa~Aale. I I ' 1 A4V Yu bnn ~edaoed r aiae atlr tl b aak. I ~ I I ~. ~, ~ ~aa I mrAL ALLAW sea I ~ n,_~, - ~ ; - J 1 ~ _ 1 ,eo..f ( ~ `~ O ` BLOrE AT I ~'-0' ~-T \ b ~\ F- - - - - - - - - \ - 588°OI'IS'.W - - - - - `\ - - -f - - ...~ . 1 - ~ S 115.02' ~~\ 1 t I ~ b ~ 18 t- - , ' I '" ~' -t- --------- '~.,( 9 ' 620 5F ~ it I I ~ ~' I ' I t I t I ~ I ~ I ~ '~ I ~ ~ i ; ~ I l '~,, 17 X ~ LOT 6 I ~,-0• 1 °,. ~ ~, t•AO 1 I ~ 1 ,' I ~oaa LOT ar<. \ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~' ~ 15 ~'~14 ~'. ~o I i t 1 ~~ ~_~ I __ I, ~ i ____ i `~~, i T' ~ ~'~ I 1 I '',~,~~ L _ _ -PROTECTIVE FENCING _ - _ - - - _ - J `' ~~~\!\ I - - 10 -. ._ _11 - -~-4.-.~.--- t~• t~ ~ -- --- ___ , N °~0~25 ARBOR RESOURCES LOT ~6 r..~ .n...i ~.A..a..i,...i r.a..i~~.R n r... roe -.O. !aa iris . Sw aww CA . auo2 lYaac Ia7n1 ~.4-73.c1 • fall: ~ Attachment 3 • goo®zs ~~PC~ °°o '~~ `° FIRE "~ ~~....~ •. FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org • 04 1084 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BLDG PERMtr NUMBER coKlnoLNUMBER ~ ~,~„~ 04-132 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS COOE/SEC. I SNEET I NO.I REOUIREMENr SP-0 p~ II-A~"ivc Review of a proposed 3,516 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. This review covers Lot #6. I2 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. It is noted that the Site Plan does not appear to match the scale shown. It is noted that the proposed new street will be identified as Dorcich Court. Please reflect that street name on all future applications. Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire which are spaced at the required spacing. Clty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppUarMlin» DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KEITH ROYSTER ARCHITECTS 5/25/2004 1 3 DF SECJFLOOR A/EA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 6 Residential Construction Holcanson, Wayne OF PROJECT SFR- SARGACHI LOCATION 13089 Quito Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ry Serving Santa Gloria County and the communities o/ Campbell, Cupertino, Los Alton, ~ ~©®~ Los Altos Hills, Las Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~~PC~ eoG ~ I ~~ ~,o...~. CODE/EEC. I SHEET No. LJFC I 5 903.2 tJFc 901.3 SMC 16-15.070 vFc 902.2.2 .J • FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w~uw.sccfd.org • ~,x,~,B~ 04 1084 BLDG PERMR NUMBER ooNrrwL NUMBER ALE NUMBER 04-132 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ~~ Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department and the 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. Prior to applying for building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants serving the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company ASAP. Timing of Required Water Supply 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. Garage Fire Sprinkler SXstem 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. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three (3) sets of plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 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. STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KEITH ROYSTER ARCHITECTS 5/25/2004 2 OF 3 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION dY LOT 6 Residential Construction Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- SARGACHI 13089 Quito Rd rganlze as a an a ara oun en ra Ire ro ec ion Is rlc Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Loa Altos, ;n,~~®2$ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sen;no, Morgan Htll, and Saratoga v ~PC~ °°b ~~ a~ •, FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org • ,,,, 04 1084 SLDG PERMIT NUMBER coNrraL NUMSER FILE NUMBER 04-132 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. trnc 902.2.2.4 uFc 902.2.4.1 t1FC 901.4.2 • :1Fc 901.3 :.rrc X01.4.4 SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT 9 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. Note the fire lane marking requirement in item #il below specific to the cul de sac bulb. 1 o Parkin Ag~l ag R ways: 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. 11 Fire-Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. 12 Timin,g_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. 13 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. CSy PLANE SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppNgMlMnr DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KEITH ROYSTER ARCHITECTS 5/25/2004 3 3 OF SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION sy Residential Construction Hokanson, Wayne 1ww1E OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- SARGACHI 13089 Quito Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 29 Senring Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ~ ~ Los Altos Hllls, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan HlII, and Saratoga • Attachment 4 • ~~0®30 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) bein dul swo de oses and sa s: that I am a I, ~ g y ~ P Y citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 yyyears; that acting for the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission on the o? ~ day of (S~'.~~~~ 2004, that. I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said rsons are the owners of said ro erty who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pe P P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sazatoga in that said persons and their addresses aze those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within S00 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~Q~O®31 • NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the' following public hearing on Wednesday, the 10th day of November at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, which are located iII the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, CA 95070. Project details and plans are available at the Sazatoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, on the project please direct them to Ann Welsh, Associate Planner, awelsh@saratoga.ca.us or 408-868-1230. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and p ce. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission Pursuant to a public hearing in court, you be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) descri in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or pri r to, the public hearing. In order 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. APPLICATIONS #04-128,129,130,131 & 132 (389-14-37) SAGARCHI,13089 Quito Road - The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct five single family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchazd which was approved for a six lot subdivision on 11/12/03. The proposed homes aze designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are two story structures with a maximum height of 25 feet 6 inches. The floor azea of the homes range in size from 3,366 square feet to 3,517 square feet. The property is in the R-1, 10,000 zoning district. The landscaping and Quito Road sound wall are also the subject of review. -t~~0~32 • O~Of~ o000rNM~~f1tCf~C0000tO1~o~00rNM~1A~D~O~DI~o000r MMM MM '~t '~t 00000 rr'rrrr'rNNNNNNMM ooooo~~~~~~o~o~ooooo$ooooo0000000000 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'sT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ '~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Z00000p 00 OD 00 CO Op 00000000 CO 0p 000000 OD CO OD 00 CO 00 OD 00 COOD000GO~O0pp~pOppp~pOppp~pOopp~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M c'0 M co O 00 N CACA0000~} I~Lt~1A~prrODrr~~p~pM~C000MMMMNNNNNN ~y '~ rrrrrr 1t~000 00M000 CA tp~CtONONNNNNNNNNN rrrrrr f~ O~O~yyG~~O(OrtO~C ~~ ~OOtOODtOI~~OCO<OetO~tD~D~O~00.Dq~OD ~~~~o~~vodo~od~~ o~ ~~~~~v~~~d~~~~d~ o~~~oo~roooC~oo~~ o~ o~~~~o~~~~o~~~~~ 'nlvic~iv~iC`~io~iC~i~~rno~ic`~io`~ic~io~i~v~i v~i~rn o~i~C~i~rn~~io~i~rnO~iv`~ic~i~c~i~~~ m ~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa v~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUcnUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU aaaaaaapaaaaa~aa-'aa aaaaacnaaaaaaaaaa c~c~c~c~c~c~c~?c~c~c~c~c~oc~~~~c~ c~c~c~c~c~oc~c~c~c~c~c~c~ ~c~ 00oooooWooooo~ooXoo~oooooaooooooo~oo ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~o~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~ UUN f!1(~Uyf~Uf~fnfnfnfAJNfnfnfnfnlLfnfnfAUfnJUI~fANfnf~Uf~fnfn ~ Q QQQQ3QQQQaQQQQQ 000000 ~ w Om00 ODO~D~~Omm °g~°g~~~~~aaaaa~aa aa~a~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~ z z z z z z} z z r z z~ z~~ OOOOOOOwO0000~00vOO~O~~~ua„„~LLUa.~~LL~LL~~w v,na.~~~aaC='1JC~7oo~oo~o~c°.i~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~N~c~ppp a0N0MMO rf~~O~~OtOeeft00_cO~rp~rpOM_ eO~r~Ctpp 00 N_ ~Op~Op) ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 cN0 cC X c0 cNO I~ ~ ~A ~A ~ cD ~ cC ~ c~0 t0 ~ tNC c0 0 1C~ ~! 00 CO 00 00 00 00 MOO aD 00 00 00 ~ 00 00 0 00 a0 t0 00 00 Op 00 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO OD 00 00 r r r r r r r N r r r r r r r m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m _W Z a ~ J a~ J 0 aW~ Qw 'J ~UF-W Ww m~ 2 ~ w? WU ~ ~ f-'~ U0~ ~ t/)Q ~}W~ ~} Qotf as z~~ zd w ~ a Wwmv~O W w ., Q~ w ~ Q ~~w 3aC9 ~ Wc~nJC~i~a~amH«; m= g ~ ~~ a ~N ~zm U Asa Y ~V°~ -+- ~ JZ~~0~Q WwWQ ~U~~~~W~~'JOWWO ~ U orf otf J C7 W~~QSU' Wotfosf JF-J~~ ~~JF-~ m~~~wxg a ~w~~z~~2YZm mJJ~ pZQ~- W J~~ ~ ~~} 2 2 Q Z W~ U 0 ~ J Q- Q~ Z> Z Vi m= ~WWQU -~wo~Va Qm ~ rii ~3a QO ~ S D a W~~ Y z Z>~~ ~ p~ O~~~ Y= z Z O O ~ U g W Q v~ m~ O U ~~J°_~~~mo~~a°~~WQQ~Z~~-=~aJzU~2W~a~~ S W~ W ~ 2 Z Q S W w p S Y p H W cn Z yQQZW~U2oJZZ v~~p~n~cnJp>- UU~OW~zO~~~2w0 2m m !nH> W QY~} N~NZ> >~ O> C~WOZJJZ('JU cEoww~O~00002QQ>~~~ wwO~c9 ~JaOzmwa-000w~ ZY~U~mC9~~C9UW WOU' W~u.C7~}ZmJm~~W WJ~~2mF-~~ ~~~~~33 NM ~~Oti 000rNM rNM ~~DI~GOO~~O~pp~~rppNM ~O~pp~~~pCp1~~~pp00~0~pp10rr'NM M M~ M M M M M~~~~~ O O~~~ O O O O p 0 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0~~ YV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef.~.~~~~~et~stsr~~st~~t•el~d'~~~~ef~et~ef~~ sf~tt oD r r r r r r r TrT r r r r r TrT r r r r r r r r !~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~" ~~p~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p~~p ~c~pp ci eo c°i M ii M i~ M M M M~ c00 M t) M M c~ M M M M~~ M M M i7 M e~ M M c~ M~ M M ti N r N ~C ~ N N ~ 1~ 1n ~ ~ e} ~ 1n to ~ lA 1C~ lA ~ In 1!~ (~ I~ f~ N OO CD OO r 00 CO Q» O~ O~ Q~ r In r r r r r r r~ r r r 1C~ r r N 1A N N r r r lC~ r r r r r cC t0 f~ I~ ~D O M t0 ~O ~O t0 tC ~C ~C t0 ~C 1~ cC tG f~ O ~y r t0 <O t0 N ~O tC N ~O ~~~~~ od.r}ooo~o~ ~oovoo~dd ~~~~4~~d~ fQp~ 1Qp~ IQp~ 1Qp~ IQp~ 1~ Ipp~ 1A tip 1pp~ 1Q~ 1Q~ 1Q~ Ipp~ ~ ti 1p~ ppr IQp~ fQp~ fppm QNp QP 1pp~ 1Qp~ fQp~ 1Qp~ IQp~ O I~ 1~ M f~ f~ 1~ 1n to 1t7 Ln 1n LL~ tt1 1~ 1n tf~ ~ In 1n l~ LOCH LL~ ~ ltd In In 1~ l!') In tC~ LA lC~ lA LC) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~O~p~00 010)00101010100 OOO~Q100~0~010)O~G10~OC~ QQQQaQQQQQQQQQQQQQQaQQQQQaQQQaQaQaQaQ W Z QQQQaJQagQaQQQQ QQQQQaa QQQaaa QQWQaQ ooooo~oo~oooooo~ooo~oo~}o~o~~~w~oW~~~ ~~~~~Q~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~W~~o~~~ cnv~cnu~v~3v~cnv~v~v~cncncnv~cn~nv~cnc~cnv~u~c~cn cnv~cncn~cnv~~v~v~v~ U Q W O O >ZQ»»»Q»>~» > >~»> » »> ~»OO~QJ~QQQQQQQQQQOQQpQOQOQQQ QQ QQQ ~ Z Z ~ ~ O = W C7 = _ = 2 2 2 p = _ = W = 2 ~ O ~ } Q } } } } } } } } Q 00}F-aZHH~-~~-HF-F-HF-YF-~O~OO~OOOrO0U000 LLppH~~a'ZJ~~~~~ ~~~U~~~Qf-U~UUUNUV UVU v~i~i55 Q~JQaQQQ~d~aQQQ~QQ~35~W~~~x~~~~~~ ~~oUO>w~-~Q~~~~~~Q~~~~~~UOO~~~~~O~~m~~~ 1f1 r O M M [j J prp 00 ~ O~ teeo~t r f~ ~O O ~pp 00 N ~D O~ ~~~pDp N O = M W r 1~~~pp Gr~pp f~ m O In 1~ ~ O CO ~j~j~p~mO~~cNOCOCOOC~DC~OCOOtACNOCrD ~COp1AtOCl~p~tNAN~ljtfj~QcNO~~fDr~p10A OOCOOOMMrC0~MC00D00 00 00 00 0 00OCprODODM M0004000C0 ppdpl~OpODCO r r r r r tp r r N r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r r r N r r r d r r r r r r Zv ~ W ~ W W ~ {~~ ? y F- ~ ~ f„W OZW ~ Z ~ ~ W W~ O ~ w O N J~ ~ J J H O Q ~ Z H~ O~ W O W~~ Q W Q W- O= >~ U Y WZ WV)OyF-t~ n-Z ~F-~ Q J=F..Z~tj Qg °tSW ZzZ w» ~OQtn>--g z wc~cnOQ J pa H~~pOJaw can~Q~~3a Ow~?p~~s~s~ ~~W_Ov_ Q~ d'~}Q°~U~OU-~}pZ~otS atf otfU~=Q~'W~otf~yQJ~-~ F- 3 U~ H°~~ O°~~~W~~ }~U~ U~U°~ ~WotiYO dais ~~d'c9~v~i°~>zo`nw~wa~~=tea w~~Q~m=a~Ww~~z~ ~a0»~zo~aQwz~O~Ww3=~~w~Ou~~Qwo~~ ~Zd zWW_1}O~~WQ~g ~~4a~~ZQ}~=¢a~~J~LLLL~?3~~m~ ~ ~O c~ ~0~~-~ Z=_w=2~NOY >>J ~ ~C7 QozQa=~~Z=WY~Z~~H~YVF-=u_~~U¢OwJ~ZZa}OOp ~Z J}OUw ~OOwOwwwWO~~QI-wQ=--~VQZ~ J~}? 20 =ZUZZ?Of-wJCnm~`n~~ U ZOZUOZUO~OJ~~ w~~~vom3v~i~ou=img>3a4a~a3~~i ii~Y~ot~.~~maav~~ J • ~~~®34 • • Otp~~Gl~ppp~O~Ne'~a OcCI~ 00 OtOf~000~O~cC1~GOG~O~NCO~1C~cOt~00 ~r-~~~NNNNNNNNN~tA~1A01A~D00000C000C) OO~r'~~~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O OD Op 1~ 1~ 1~ i~ 1~ f~ f~ 1~ f~ f~ 1~ f~ I~ 1~ f~ f~ 1~ 1~ f~ 1~ f~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ f~ f~ CO GO 00 00 ~ p~~ c N+ ~ M M c N cN9 M c N M M~ M cN9 M c N~ M c NO c~ i c ~ M c N~ M M M c~ C N c N cN~ M M M M M e~ CN9 ~p CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~ ~~ r _ r tnOOp~ C1O ~~ ~ ti~ ~M~m~O'~~OOO~ti ti W OOOO ~•-O~ c'7NO~OO~r-NT- ~•-~O~~ti~00000000N_Ne'OMN NN1nN Otis ti~~q~~q~Mq~q~~ ~e~e~~~ yy~~~~ ~~~~~~0~~~~ ~~0~ ~~~ ~~c~oc~d ~do d~r~o o~o 0 ., N Z aaa~aaaa~aaaaa as a ~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaWa C7 C9 C7 C9 C~ C9 C7 C9 C~ w C~ C7 W C9 Z C9 C9 C~ (7 C9 (9 C9 C9 C9 ~o~~o~oo~ooooomoo~o~aooooooooo~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~Q~~~~~Q~~Q~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v~cnv~v~cncncncncncncncnv~cncnv~cnv~u~~av~v~v~cnv~v~u~cncnv~cncnv~v~v~v~ u N ~ ~ 000 OD ~ Z ~~~~~~~ ~ Q W W W W W W W W O D D ~ O Q 0 0 ~ O O 000$00 O Zaaaaaa>-JJ_JJJJJ J ooQ aao~m~3~~~--~~ ~Nvzzzzzz3mmmmLLm- m F- F-aHF-HfAHH Hu~Z~N~~~(n-W W W W H W W ~W X 0 0 F- O O O~ w~ O~~ m~~~ ;: ~~ ~~~~~~~ Z m m m m Z o 0~ G U~UmUU~aNaoaaav~aava ;mwwwwwwzZZZZZZ,7.~ ~7.~ o U~ U W U U~ 3 Z 3 J~ 3 3 ~~ 3 O~ ~ J J J J J J O Q Q Q Q O Q~ Q ~ Q ~ O ~ ~ (~ fA w ~ O lA fn N LL ~ ~ X fn ~ ~ U U U U U U 0-' > > > > imp p>~ > O > O~~d~.cp~~pMp~tp~epf 0 MNZ pOjcOpmeOtmOeDNO.cO~NC*~cO~eN~~O~C~OaNtmM M eNO ~ cMD 00 ~ e ~ ~ ~ a~ c~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CMO GMO O op O O ~ ~ ~ CO ~ ~ M GO ~ ~ OMO ~ ~ aD O W W = W W ~ ~ H ? ~ } ~ ~ W W W ~ W W ~ ~~~~ ~W WO ?otfW~W ~~~ N FW- W ~ o~WNw aH~m "'H Z~"'~~a ~~Q HW -~ ~ - ~ fA w ~ D ~ 3 W ~ ~ _ ~oDO~ U' ~~Q W~JLLQ~S_JF-~ a WoIS Q etS p~ U' a'~m Ha'~°iSZa~a~ W ~ a' ~~' ~ W} ~ WQ ~~ OfnF--~wOH~Q~J ZQ W H ~ ~ ~ J otf -~ d V0~003wwaJ ~tf~~?w~ Z~C7~~~w~aN~V Op ~~ }O ~Z mo J_JaQU} ~~owawv~mm as ~~ aLL a'LLZZQ~m~J~~w2m Q= LLu-2=~0Zm~ WUp W ~>~[~0~ a~°o~a Zzz~>z~~~oa ,~gzUZW~oma~?a~ a~=a =Ua~m~~¢~~~~w00°'Z~-~'c9wj~amO~Z_7~JLLfn7d' ~O w p w Q p w a~ Y w w~~ a }~} ~?> w c=i~ = w~ w w s O~~~ LL a ~ii ~_ >~- J~Q.'Q'=LL.-ZNa-Oi1.J-~ Z Jm~N J W J~Z WFZz-~ ~~Q=~O~O~~OV~~~WQ~?J2~aO~Na=Q?V=ja~aQ C7=C9cn~m~=am=~ammc9~aJc~F--YC~cnLL~3UwJCna->>cn~cn Lr 1~~®a35 C rnOr-N1ncDt~00a~ON ~ N N N N N N N N M~ N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N ~O ~ tiNN~~~~~.M~--~~ O M p~ p~ pti pti pti p~ ~p ~ O ~ O ~ ~ to ~ to O~OO~O~Q~ 000~0~ UUUUUUUUUUU W~~QQ ~aU' Ca9QU' W 00~~ U o~~~~0~~000 7d'Q~aQ~QQ~~7d cgv~v~cncnmv~c~c~cnv~ H ~~ Z M O ooQ~a~~~~o mmzoooooow m~Ow~wwww vwwcn> »» ~00~030000 Zzw~o~~~~ Z Q J~ Z>>>> W X»Ua aaaa2 00f~~0~3 NOaoF" mcpopC~cCO M NON Oo~a~o~~rn a`~o~a~cNi a~~~~~~~~~.- w V ~ Q ~ ~ Q Z ~ W Z W N W W Q p ~ W O Q J ~ U = o!S otf N 2UZWZJJ = }~pOpcJlJ~~w U .~~SWOJ~~~~z J N~~~ O Q Z= W W -~LLIWJf~W-f%j3Q~ >~aQ=z=w~zz ~~ ~~a~ozda~ a~3v~ic~n~zd~u~~ v~'~?!4~36 • Attachment S Q~~®3'~ Salim Sagarchi SEI Corporation 14524 Oak Street Saratoga, CA 95070 October 4, 2004 Ms. Ann Welsh Assistant Planner, AICP City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ann, Regarding the neighborhood meeting requested by the Planning Commission, we would like to inform you that after a couple of attempts, we were able to meet with the neighbors to review the final construction plans on May 8, 2004. many attempts were made to contact the neighbors via phone and fliers. With the exception of two, all other immediate neighbors were present at the meeting. During this meeting the construction plans were presented to the neighbors and the elevation and design details were reviewed. All who were present approved these plans unanimously and signed the "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application" which was submitted to you already. They were also anxious for us to start and finish this project ASAP, as the finished project would add value to the neighborhood There were several attempts made to meet with one of the two immediate neighbors that were not present at the meeting. Several phone calls, personal meetings requests at his house, invitation to the neighborhood meetings, and visits to his residence have failed to get him to review our plans. These plans were changed due to his personal requests during the planning commission meeting and afterwards. He refused to show up in 4 pre- agreed meeting dates, never returned more than 10 voicemails, and refused to attend the last two meetings. Best Regards, Salim Sagarchi • ~~ t~+0®38 Open House Invitation Sunday, May 6, 2004 1 I30St: SEI Enterprise Location: Dorcich Orchard, 13089 Quito Road, in Saratoga Time: Thursday Mat 6, from 5:00 to • 7:00 pm. i Please come and review our development plans. Meet the developers, ask them questions, check out the detailed plans and give them your feedback. • ~~O®39 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opi»ion expressed below. you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the Ci of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I nderstand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed proj~ ^ My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work: and I I have isanes or concerns, which after disenasion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ 8 S'sz mv~,Qn,~... d r-~. n.~ Signature: Neighbor Phone #: `C d $ -- 3 7 9- 9' t!O/ Printed: (.'itv ~f.Saratnva ~~O®40 Planninv 1~»artment • • Neighbor Notification Template, for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road. Saratoga, CA Applicant Name: _ SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stcr,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns. or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ofall residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may rese a the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City atoga My signature below certifies the following: I have revie the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any conce or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public 'ng on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: i have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Name: ~ r~ ` ' h L+~ ~ $t o ' Y L~ Neighbor Address: ~'j° ~3 l~uif• 1~aC.. S a r0.to qa, C/~ `~ Sb 7 a Neighbor Phone #: _~ ~~ 3 7a ' ~ ~ ~ • Printed: Ci~~t.-' t K. ~~ vl. ~~~0041 Planning nenart»rent <.'itv nl,Saratnva Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road Saratoga, CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening. of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not Ioo~E favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signahae on this document is representative ofall residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the ,C,,,,ity~~ of Saratoga l~d"My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed Proj~ ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Address: ~ ~A~ f f (~ ~ 1^ Neighbor Phone #: Z~~ -,7 ~ J J ~ob~rfi ~/~~ • .~'~O®42 !'itv ~f~Saratnva Planninv nerxlrtmPrtt • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Quito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of oll residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, ymr may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga ~ My signature below certifies the following: I have revie tbe project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concer or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public h 'ng on the proposed Proj~- ^ My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which at'Ier discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~--~fi+r ~ 1 JeN/1 St ~^'~-~ K S Neighbor Address: lS~~o M~ ~.~(a~d ~- z~u~v4 ~9 So'~o Signature: .r n ratnva Neighbor Phone #: ~i D~ - ~'~d ' ~}~/ Printed: Planninv TMrxirtmpr`t~? 043 Neighbor Notification Template for M Development Application Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Ouito Road. Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the eveni>;g of the public heari»g on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who foil to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City f Saratoga signature below certifies the followin : I have reviewed the o'ed lans• I 8 Pr J P . _ understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed ProJ~- ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pleas; ~ understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):: Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: `T u CA 1.Sf~ Signature: ~ ~ • ,/ 9 7 c Neighbor Phone #: 7~0 ~// -~~ Printed: ,~, ~~ (/GZ FEZ ®044 city nfRriratnva Planninv nenartment Neighbor Notification Template fot Development Application PROJECT ADDRESS: 13089 Quito Road Saratoga. CA Applicant Name: SEI Enterprise Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative ofa11 residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, yetr may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City o Saratoga y signature below certifies the following: I have revie the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I do NOT have any conce or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public h 'ng on the proposed projeck ^ My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; j understand the scope of work: and I I have issues or concerns, which after d~cusaion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):, Neighbor Name: ~Q~ I U ~~ C ~(,~ I" ~~}l. y Neighbor Address: S~~vNeighbor Phone #: 378 - ~Sz~ Sistnaturez'1 Printed: • ('itv ~f,4aratnva Planninv nenart»ttent • d.-,_._ . ~~ ` ' ~ ~ ~; -~`' ~ xo~ tLfz ola l~~ I~1 LLfi'IrL'OIG "'a 09Gflr '`d ^J '~Ii1VM7N ~'7/~'I N091iliGOi1 IQ'G YIV '11~1i~10~1 Nlli~l S1~~lIH~~ld ~J31SJl0~l H.U~~I LEO-tit0-68E fNd11 b0 ``dJOl`dd`dS dbOd O~J(10 680E1-~HO~IO HOI~10a iH~~ds vends 9# 101 ~Sf10H MAN lJ~ L~ ~ U ~ O # ~ U F O ~] ~ ~ o O p ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ Sege ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~a ~ J ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~z~ ~~~~ ~_ ri Z ~ F } ~~ ~~~~ ~~ oo~ a~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ p ~~ <~ OJ ~~ ~ ~~ p~F p ~~ }~ ~0~ ~> ZO ~o~ ~ ~ V ri ~o r ~ ~~ ~ } _ ~- a ~ ~ ~~ ~~` ~~r ~~ 0 W F - ~ ~. n ~ y ~~_ ~ o~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ o ~ z~ w ~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~9Q ~ ~Q9 l1 T f~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ F- F ~ >~ H 88888 g~g~~ ~~~ gg ~ w - - ~~~~ ~; ««< ~ ~ 0 z_ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ >_~ ~ Z ~ ~a ~~~~~~ ~~ w ~~ = n 4 ~ na~+n ~ nn ~ ~ Sv ~~ <iii<t JJJ C~ a -- - * _ ~~ ~j t ~i 1 $~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ',~ " ~ ~ o ~" ~! f, ~~ Z s+ # - r W N I Xo~ L~fc•IrL•oIa I • 1 ~. ~ f~ •I r ~ •o I i ovafr •vo '~alvMaN L00-ti'L0-68f, fNdb b~ `~drJOlH~1dS a ---------- Q •anv No~lyaaoti IQ7G _ `IIV 11a1~A0i1 Nlla)1 ~~ OLD ~H~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ _ ~ q S1O~11H0~1`d i~a~es wrro-s N '. v ., ~ ~ ~~ ~31S~10~1 H.U~~I ~Sf10H MAN Z ~ ~ I I I i i i i i i -.-.L.-._.-.-.-(-.- - - I .. i ~ i i . T i ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ avoY oiino ~ ~ _~~ ~ ~ ,,;~ ~ ,~ ~ i ~/ l . I ~ I~rlw ~i I !i I '` ~ i I ~ ~' I -I ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I < ~ ~~ ~ I _ ~ __ hl` I I ~ I ~\~~ -_ I I I ~ . ~: -~ ~ ~ I _ ~ I I / ,_-:.:._ it i ~) i~ I 9 ~'~''! aq - ~~ I / ~/ ,L L .GQ ~" \\ / .. I 'S ~ 1Y1100 M.7CW0 ~~ I _~ _ I wia - -------- ------------------ -- j ax~a.icw 1Y110 K~JIgO ; 1Y000 N011p0 1 V . I i ~ a ~~ h~ ~~ ~~ / ,,~___~ t I I Y I I \ 4Y~ ~~ .14 ~ I ~6: \ I t FY _ ))~~ ply I `+ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:. ~ ~ ~:-. 1,'`i~;,~- j I I _ ~--__ I I ~ - >~ ~ I I ~ ~'I ~ I ~ ~I W I „I I I I ~ I ~~--1--~ ~l i I ~,~ • ~ "' 31 ` I `•~.~ I I ~'~ ~ I ~ I --, ~ ---~--- --- -~-----i--- ~ ~ ~. j ~, I ~ I I I `~~ . ~ ~ ' __ -___-:~`~ ~ I ~ n`'w ~I I ~ I '~ ~. k i i ~,* k I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ----- --~---~ ~~::, ~ _ r N I I OF ~~~ I I I I ~j ;~ I I I • • • x u J L ~ 1~ G' I ~ L 'o I G ~d'J `dr~oldadS I • 1 ~. ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ i 'o I s LEO-~I0-68f: ~Ndd --- -- a _ ~ g 094fir 'I7 '~111VMiN / t 'i N `I N 0 4111 i Q O i1 I V 14 up~/p O~ VOVVF ~~~'~ ~ `f~,. - r ~' V I4/ 11719AOil M117)1 I ~ S1~~11H0~1`d ~ 10~ ~S(lOH MAN - ~ ~ l~31S~lO~J I-W~~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ < I i Q ~~~ ~~~ lanoo ~aoa I ~ g~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ C =;I ~ ~ _ -~-~- ~~~~~ ~ `~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ I ~_, _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ , J < . i ,~.. .-- I ~ ~; '~~~ i n n / :a w I ~. 4 ~ '' ~a I ` ;, ,, ~~ - ~ ------=''~ l' ~,~ I I ~ ~ o ~' I ~ ~. ~ ~ :, I ~~, I ~~ i I ~. ;~ I~ - ~; I I r~ I :: ~. , ,~_,, I I~, I ~ I ' `,' I I n~-0~ I ~ I ~,_I. ~' - ,-- \ „ . I ~~+;__ _ ~ =~ I I ~4 ~ I~: ~ - is ~~' I I I ---- ``'`, s ~ ~ I I I , 1. - -_._----=~~:~ ~ ~, , ,; I I I 6p~ 6~ - - -~ / - - - J I , ~ I ____ C~ J I L----- - f ~ ~<~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~/ ~ <~I ~~ 4 f' ~ I ~\ I ~ ~ ~ I 1 I ~ ,; o ~ i ,,/;; ~, ~ ; ,' ..:...,» _~.~. • ~I I~ 'I ~ i - - ~I .~I. ~~ ~ ~ rl I II '~ ~i y _ ~<~ _ ~ \ ~, 1 `~ ~ W Z W Q G r Y O J ~ _ ~~ .~ pl ~[ ~~ i x~j LLff'IrL'Oli 1. 1 L L f f •1 r L •0 1 f LEO-t~10-68E iNdb~ ~d'J `b~JOl~d~S 01ifr Y9'lIi1VMON ~, r~. 'i N V N O f l 11 i o 0 it I Q I i ~~ O~~ _~ LI~y~LV'1n vlv yatf~orl Nlla~ n,,/v1lVwa^V~,/V~1 ~'``~~ S10~lIHO~Ib '~ Y ~J Y ~7 I ~1 t Y ~7 ~r N ~! !~ ~,~ ~~~ Z Q ~131S~10~1 H.U~~I ~# 101 ~Sf10H MAN ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ ( ~~ ~ ' i ~ O ?90Q ' ;' ~ _. '~' ~~~~ ~ _ _, ~ W ffi ~ s ~ a ~ ~ X ~ K v X ` • 000~0®O 0 J r Ir r~ xoJ LLfi'IVL'014 I •1 L L f +s •I ~ L •o l i LEO-ti1~68E fNd`d bJ `HrJOl~IdS ~ o~sf~ 'ro '~lal`rMiN • •a n v Nos 1 11 s ~ o ~ I O ~ i ~Od OlJf10 680E1-~IVHOHO F~OQ ~' `' N VI`I'ililSAOiI N11i~1 ~ a ~ - S103LIHO~Id L# 101 ~"' ~! - z ~131SJ10~! H.U~~i ~Sf10H MAN W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x K x x x ~~~~~~ ooo®® d • • xoJ LLfi'IrL'Oli I. 1 L L f i •I ~ L •o l i LEO-ibl4-68E fNd~d bJ `V~JOlVH~s O~ff~ Y9'~Ii1VMaN • - •a n v N o s i ti a~ o sl I o n s db0~l Ollf 10 680E1-~i-HaF~O FOQ ~4 ~' 1/Ir 'tIa1~A011 Nlla)1 ~ X ~ M ~I~ds r~-s ~ ~~ Q ~ S103UHO~Id ~f> ~~ z ~I~1SJl0~l I-W~~i L# 10~ ~Sf10H MAN - ~ 1 I r-- I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I- I I ~-- I ~I ~--~ ~ I I II I I L - - I I L-_J • ~----~ r-- I I I ~I I ~ _~ ~ I I r- I ~I ~--~ ~ II I I L - _ I I L--J • • zoJ LLt4'Ir1.Oli 1• i L L~ +s •1 r ~ •o i s LE0~0-68E #Ndd 11J `~JOldl~s 04i1.r 1/O ~Ii11/MiN ~ ~~ _ 'i A r N 0 4 1 it 4. O >r 1 4 4 1 ~~ O~~ ~ LW~1LY1~'1 `I I r 11 i t 4.l O 11 N l l i )I 1'7VIWVV ~ y ~~ds wne-s N ~ Q ~ S1p3UHp~d ~S ~., , ~~~ ~ _ z ~13LS~10~i ~~~ l# 101 f lOH MAN ~ • • 1 Item 2 Revised ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Modification of Approved Plans, 13815 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Associate Planner Date: December 8, 2004 APN: 503-69-02 Department Head: • 13815 Pierce Road 00®®®1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • CASE HISTORY Application filed: 11/08/04 Application complete: 11/18/04 Notice published: 11/24/04 Mailing completed: 11/24/04 Posting completed: 11/17/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to modify the design of a project that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2002. The original approval for this project was unusual in that the Planning Commission approved the design of the house and deferred approval of the driveway until further review by the City Arborist. Thus the applicant is returning to the Planning Commission with a modification to the fagade of the approved house design as well as a revised driveway location and design. The proposed modifications to the design do not impact the square footage or footprint of the originally approved house. The original application called for construction of a new 5,993 square • foot, two-story residence with a 2,379 squaze foot basement and three caz attached garage on a 1.759-acre lot, which presently contains a single story residence. The proposed changes to the approved plans include the addition of 14 windows, 8 columns, elimination and relocation of 3 doors and addition of styrofoam/ stucco trim to all windows, archways and doors. The other element of review is the location and design of the circulaz driveway. The applicant proposes a 14-foot wide, 120-foot long circulaz drive, which runs across the front of the house. Minimizing the impact of this driveway on the tree canopy along Pierce Road is an issue, which the applicant has addressed through revised on-grade driveway design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the plans follow the original design in terms of front (south) elevation. The added windows and columns should be removed. Additional windows can be justified along the left (west) elevation, which previously contained a lazge expanse of windowless wall. The changes to the reaz elevation do not conflict with design guidelines since due to the 220-foot reaz setback the added windows and doors do not impact privacy and while they do serve to break up the massing of the structure. The driveway design follows the arborist recommendation for on-grade construction to minimize the impact on existing tree canopy. ~®U®02 A'T'TACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 04-358 3. Arborist Reports dated 7/22/04, 11/19/04, 1/20/03 and 10/31/02 4. Fire Department Report dated 7/19/04 5. Resolution # 02-048 dated 10/9/02 6. Approved Plans -Exhibit "A" 7. Proposed Plans dated July 29, 2004 • • ~®Q~~®~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.759 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25.6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 640 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single- family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. ~~~~~~ • PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 13,912 SQ. FT. 25% OR 15,000 SQ. F'T. WHICHEVER IS LESS Building Footprint 4,032 SQ. Fr'. Walkways, patios 6,265 SQ. FT. Driveway 3,615 SQ. FI'. TOTAL 13,912 sQ. t' r. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 3,379 sQ. F-r. Upper Floor 1,961 sQ. Fr. Garage 653 sQ. FI'. (Basement) (2,379 sQ. I-r.) TOTAL 5,993 sQ. i'r. 6,000 SQ. F-r.~ SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 38+FT. 30 FT. Rear 220 F-r. 60 I-r. Side 60+ FT. 20 is i'. Height Residence 26 FI'. 26 FT. ~ Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15- 45.030(c)(d)). • • s PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to modify the design of a project that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2002. The changes to the approved plans include the addition of 14 windows, 8 columns, elimination and relocation of 3 doors and addition of styrofoam/ stucco trim to all windows, archways and doors. The location and design of the driveway is also the subject for review. The addition of windows is consistent with the design review guideline to avoid large expanses of a single material along portions of the facade, which did not contain windows. Thus the left (west) elevation could be revised to add some windows since due to the setback there is no impact on privacy. The addition of windows and columns to the front (south) facade may be considered excessive. The addition of windows to the rear facade has no impact on privacy since there are no neighbors within view of the rear property line. The addition of Styrofoam trim around all windows, doors and azches changes the design of the house to a more ornate style. Although these architectural features do serve to break up massing they do not help the large structure to blend into the surroundings. The original less embellished design may integrate better into the Pierce Road streetscape. The applicants propose to create a 120-foot long circulaz driveway that runs in front of the house parallel with Pierce Road. More specifically, the azborist recommends that the driveway be constructed on-grade, which the plans do depict. In the previous review of this driveway, concern was expressed for the impact of the added impervious azea on the tree canopy that currently exists along Pierce Road Since this canopy contributes to the character of the Pierce Road streetscape and the privacy among existing neighbors, the construction of the driveway was considered an important element of this project. Given the sensitive nature of this element of the project, staff recommends that the applicant have the construction of the driveway be observed by a certified azborist in order to ensure that the recommendations for constructing the driveway aze carried out by the applicant. The azborist shall submit progress reports documenting that the azborist recommendations aze carried out. The specific items to be addressed in the plan are identified in the azborist reports. Staff recommends that the plans be approved provided the following conditions aze addresses in the final construction documents. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date dated July 29, 2004 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: ~~~"~~ Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating the attached Resolution and the Arborist Reports dated 7/22/04, 11/19/04 and 10/31/02 with arborist map, as a separate plan page. These plans shall include the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." c. Revise the front elevation to reIlect the front elevation as approved in the original approval dated October 9, 2002. d. Revise sheet A-3 to depict the fence along the front property line to be pier and beam design. The plans shall provide a detail that depicts the construction of the perimeter fence with cross sections and pier and beam design to minimize the impact on abutting trees. e. The trees which are missing on the site plan should be included in the revised site plan. These are trees # 25 and #26, which are to remain along Pierce Road. f. The tree protection fencing as depicted on sheet A-2 shall be revised to reflect the fencing requirements identified in the arborist report dated 10/3U04. Specifically, trees # 24, 25 and 26 shall be protected along the front of the property. Only tree #24 is shown as protected. Tree #27 shall also be protected with greater fencing area, which reflects the expansive canopy of this tree. Trees #31 and #33 shall have greater fence areas, which reflect the existing tree canopies. Trees #1, #2, #3, #4 and #34 shall also have larger tree protection fencing areas as reIlected in the Arborist report map dated 10/31/02. g. The plans shall include a note regarding the trenching for existing sanitary sewer lines. The note shall state that for the first 30 feet from the road the existing sanitary sewer line shall be utilized. This note is required to ensure that trenching for this line does not occur in the area of the existing trees. h. Sheet L-1 in the construction documents shall be revised to eliminate lawn area under the canopies of trees #31 and #3 along Pierce Road. Lawn area shall also be omitted under trees #24, #25 and #26, which are along Pierce Road. Trees # 1, #2, #3, #4 and #34 as well as tree #27 shall not have lawn area under the canopies of the existing trees. i. Progress reports shall be submitted by a certified arborist who shall observe the construction of the proposed driveway and perimeter fence. These progress reports shall document the applicant's compliance with the required tree protection requirements specifically trenching for sewer connections, driveway and perimeter fence construction. ~~~~~8 CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property and the applicant shall address the recommendations in the following reports. Arborist reports dated 7/22/04, 11/19/04, 10/31/02 and 1/31/03 shall be followed and the recommendations identified in these reports shall be added as conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. • C~ ~~~~~~ Attachment 2 • :~~~~~.~ RESOLUTION NO.04- APPLICATION NO.04-358 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMINI - 13815 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of the Design Review to construct a 5,993 squaze foot two story dwelling with 2,379 square foot basement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification of Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed revisions minimize the perception of bulk through use of architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan with the proposed revisions conforms with the policy to integrate structures into the environment Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The plan will retain most of the existing tree canopy and therefore avoid interference with privacy. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The house is designed such that living areas are oriented toward the high quality view to the rear of the property. If the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected. • • Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Mike Amini for modification of Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date dated July 29, 2004 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating the attached Resolution and the Arborist Reports dated 7/22/04, 11/19/04, 1/20/03 and 10/31/02 with azborist map, as a separate plan page. These plans shall include the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." c. Revise the front elevation to reflect the front elevation as approved in the original approval dated October 9, 2002. d Revise sheet A-3 to depict the fence along the front property line to be pier and beam design. The plans shall provide a detail that depicts the construction of the perimeter fence with cross sections and pier and beam design to mininuze the impact on abutting trees. e. The trees which are missing on the site plan should be included in the revised site plan. These are trees # 25 and #26, which are to remain along Pierce Road f. The tree protection fencing as depicted on sheet A-2 shall be revised to reflect the fencing requirements identified in the arborist report dated 10/3U04. Specifically, trees # 24, 25 and 26 shall be protected along the front of the property. Only tree #24 is shown as protected. Tree #27 shall also be protected with greater fencing azea, which reflects the expansive canopy of this tree. Trees #31 and #33 shall have greater fence areas, which reflect the existing tree canopies. Trees #1, #2, #3, #4 and #34 shall also have larger tree protection fencing areas as reflected in the Arborist report map dated 10/31/02. io ~~~~~~ g. The plans shall include a note regarding the trenching for existing sanitary sewer lines. The note shall state that for the first 30 feet from the road the existing sanitary sewer line shall be utilized. This note is required to ensure that trenching for this line does not occur in the area of the existing trees. h. Sheet L-1 in the construction documents shall be revised to eliminate lawn area under the canopies of trees #31 and #3 along Pierce Road. Lawn area shall also be omitted under trees #24, #25 and #26, which are along Pierce Road Trees # 1, #2, #3, #4 and #34 as well as tree #27 shall not have lawn area under the canopies of the existing trees. i. Progress reports shall be submitted by a certified arborist who shall observe the construction of the proposed driveway and perimeter fence. These progress reports shall document the applicant's compliance with the required tree protection requirements specifically trenching for sewer connections, driveway and perimeter fence construction. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property and the applicant shall address the recommendations in the following reports. Arborist reports dated 7/22/04, 11/19/04, 10/31/02 and 1/31/03 shall be followed and the recommendations identified in these reports shall be added as conditions of approval. These reports aze included as attachments. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and July 19, 2004 and their recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retazdant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepazed or built up roofing. 4. Eazly Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16- 60-E) 5. Eazly warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attachedldetached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The ii ~~~D®®13 designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. c. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. d. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. SECTION 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. SECTION 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. SECTION 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 12 ~~~~~~ i PASSEn ANn ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8"' day of December by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • 13 Date • Attachment 3 • ~~~~~~ ' ARBOR RESOURCES ,• Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 22, 2004 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW for the Amini Property, 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga Dear Ann: I have received and reviewed the following documents associated with the development of the above-referenced site: City Arborist report (dated 10/31/02); Topographic Map (by Lee Engineers, dated 3/26/01); Sheets C-1 thru C-3 Ny SMP Company, dated 6/24/04); and Sheets L-1 and A-3 (by Craftsman's Guild, not dated). I also visited the site on July 21, 2004 and my comments and recommendations are presented below. Please note, unless specifically addressed below, those recommendations presented in the City Arborist report must still be followed. - and A-3 should be dated. Sheet L-1 should show a scale of 1"=20' and the 1. Sheets L 1 north arrow. 2. All trees and their assigned numbers should be shown on Sheet L-1 (see map attached to the City report). 3. A plan showing the irrigation design should be submitted to the City. The design should conform to recommendations #23 and 24 of the City report (page 8). 4. The proposed lawn (or other plant material) on Sheet L-1 must be revised to conform to recommendations #25 and 26 of the City report (page 8). Please note the driplines shown on the plans do not accurately depict the canopies true siu. Reference to driplines should be derived from the map and/or table attached to the City report. 5. New trees equivalent in value to those planned for. removal (#3, S, 6, 15-17, 28-30 and 34), which is $30,830, shall be installed on site prior to final inspection. Tree replacement sizes and values are listed on the bottom of the table attached to the City report. Acceptable replacement species are listed on page 9 of the City report. The proposed sizes, species and amounts of replacement trees must be shown on the landscape/planting plan. They should be established no further than 20 feet apart. • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresourcesQa earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351- • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #70~'"' ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care November 19, 2004 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 12E: PLAN REVIEW for the Amini Property, 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga Dear Ann: I have reviewed Sheets A-2 and A-3 (by the Craftsman's Guild Inc., not dated) in relation to the proposed new residence at the above-referenced site. My comments are presented below and most are derived from my previous letter dated 7/22/04. 1. Each tree inventoried for the proposed project should be shown on Sheet A-2 (the trees' locations and numbers are shown on the map attached to the initial arborist report dated 10/31/02). ks of all inventoried t th fr run e om ed lawn must be revised so it is awa 2. The propos Y Oaks by at least seven times their trunk diameter (including those not shown on Sheet A-2). One result of doing so involves removing from the design the lawn area proposed beneath the actual canopies of trees #31-33. Please note the driplines shown on the plans do not accurately depict the actual canopy sizes; all references to driplines should be derived from the map and/or table attached to the initial report. 3. The tree protection fencing shown on Sheet A-2 should be revised to resemble fencing shown on the map attached to the City report. 4. The `Sheet Index' on Sheet A-2 does not show the City Arborist report. I suggest the entire report is shown on its own plan sheet. 5. The landscape (planting and irrigation) and grading plans should be submitted for the review of tree impacts. Recommendations from my previous letter as well as this letter should be incorporated into the plans. 6. The plans do not show whether the perimeter fence will be installed using a pier and beam system. Ultimately, the installation of the wall should adhere to item #6 from my previous letter. O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net P '" . Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796" v ~~~~i.~ BARRIE D. CO~ and ASSOCIATES .., Horticuturel Consultants 23535 Surnrnit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408135 3-1052 FIELD NOTES AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist January 20, 2003 ~ ~~~IV~ JAN 312003 CITY OF SARKfOGA rnn~MVr+rnt nEVr:IAPI~' ~~~~~~ FIELD NOTESAT TNEAMIM PROPERT~IS PIERCE ROAD SAR.A7I~GA • Assignment Mr. Amini has asked for removal of tree #31, offering reason for this removal via two reports from tree cutters, namely Ed's Tree Care in San Jose and Independent Tree Surgeons of San Jose. I note that some severe and inappropriate pruning has been done on tree #23 as well, which will be addressed in this report. In addition, a request for removal of tree #32 a black oak, which was incorrectly identified as a maple tree, is one of these included reports. Summary Based on a root collar inspection of tree #31 and a inspection of the crown structure and the canopy color and annual shoot growth, I suggest that tree #31 is an extremely healthy tree which has been abused by stub-cutting of three major limbs but which remains in good health and with the potential for many more years of life if it is not abused by soil compaction during construction of the new entry road. Ed's Tree Care report cites "several broken branches." There is no evidence of broken branches but there is certainly evidence of stub-cutting by incompetent arborists at a previous time. It cites "diseases, shows signs of fungus" but does not signify what kind of fungus and whether the fungus is on the trunk or on the foliage. In either case, I found no symptoms of fungi in either location. It cites the condition in the soil of "saturated with water." The micro site in which this tree appears is 3 feet above the level of the adjacent Pierce Road and above the level of the adjacent landscape and so it would be the last portion of the property to suffer a saturated condition. It is noted that the tree is leaning. It does indeed lean at a 30° angle toward the east or parallel to Pierce Road Cavities are noted with "an advanced state of decay." There is evidence of old limb cuts, but from the ground it is impossible to tell the extent of decay but since the branch cuts retain a solid surface it is doubtful that decay would be extensive. ~~ "Cracks are noted on several parts of the stem but the only cracks which are visible are growth expansion cracks which are quite normal and desirable, demonstrating the vigor of the tree. • PREPARED BY: BARR/E D. COATS CONSUL77NG ARBORIST JANUARY 20, 2003 ~.. ai {f ~IrI F/ELD NOTESAT THE AMINI PROPERT~15 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA • 2 Conclusion When all factors are considered I see no reason why this tree could not be retained if the root zone is adequately protected during installation of the new entryway road. I would recommend the removal of the two lower stub-cut limbs back to branch bark collars which would remove considerable weight from the west side of the tree which is the direction of lean. Since a careful inspection of the root collar did not divulge any root collar infections such as watermold or oak root fungus I see no reason to predict that this tree would fall since no symptoms are present that would suggest such a likelihood. Tree #32 which is listed in the report by Ed's Tree Care as a maple tree is a small diameter black oak tree of little importance and of little value. 1f the owner wishes to remove that tree, I suggest he be allowed to. Tree #23 Tree #23 currently has a structure which lends itself to limb drop. The removal of a 12 inch diameter limb at 20 feet above grade from the main trunk of that tree suggests that whoever removed the two adjacent trees (which was permitted) was sloppy and broke a main limb on this tree (#23) which was to be retained The remaining structure in the south facing main trunk is composed totally of two long poorly tapered limbs. Those two limbs must have endweight reduction to reduce the relationship between length, endweight, and stem diameter to prevent breakage of those limbs eventually. Whoever did the limb removal on this tree caused serious damage by removal of this main l2-inch limb at 20 feet above grade and should be held responsible for the value of this tree, in my opinion. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ f' Barrie D. Coate BDC/sl Enclosures: • Glossary of Terms Pictures Report from Ed's Tree Care in San Jose Report from Independent Tree Surgeons of San Jose PREPARED Br: BARR/E D. C0.4TE. CONSULTING ARI30RIST /ANUARr 20, loos ~v~~~r21. BARRIE D. COA~ AND ASSOCIATES • Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GL06SARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crowe -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurre~t - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resuhing in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped innarrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root Dollar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". header _ The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSaitioa of Woody Part Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Breach - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlett - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plarrts. • • • Field Notes a~e Amini Property, 1381 S Pierce Roa~atoga • • T Photo 2 -Healthy canopy. Dots show stub-cut limbs. prepared By: Brnrie D. Coate, ConsultingArborist Jrnruary 20, 2003 ~~~~~~ T Photo 1-Tree #31 as seen from the south Field Notes ~ Amini Property, 1381 S Pierce Roa~aratoga • • Prepared By: Bcnrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist Januc~y 20, 2003 ~~: 'u ~ T Photo 3 -Stub-cut limbs should be removed T Photo 4 -Stub-cut limbs should be removed. Do Not remove limb with arrow. Field Notes the Amini Property, 1381 S Pierce Roal~Saratoga • • T Tree #23 arrow shows where large limb was removed which spoiled form of tree. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coale, Consulting Arborist Jamurry 20, 2003 rn rf'+F ~ ~~ li ~;y~ i~~c. ~~ Trimming • Ting • Removal + Stumps using • Firewood INDEPEt~6DENT TREE ~ SURl~EONS How is the tithe for you to, take care of aii Your tree care needs. We're working itt !h¢ area and have the men and equipment. a vai.la ble. Ftae F~~r D 1 ~ n ~,;;. /; ~:~ • R-~ c ws~u.uv..cZ K~ « <~~ ~~ . ~7: 3 ._ ~l ~7~ o,.. Cl1F~V1' ;~ i ~y ~_--~ ~iorne-Commercial-Environrn¢ntally Cons~ous Trimrt~ing Topping ~t¢tt~ova~ adorrJS: fl ~h `• 1 Z J a S o Yc~r : • ~. M11CE DiAZ~ Pgr: X408) 820-9014 Home; (408) 739-9195 License #~00039~7't ~~ . - "_ 1 • ED S TREE CARE COMMERCIAL 6 RESIDENTIAL - SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA TRIMMING TOPPING REMOVALS CLEANING • THINNING • STUMP GRINDING ATTN; DEC. 1 1 2002 CITY Or' SARATOGA t3UCLDING DEPT CZE, Propci~y l~~cntcd at 13815 PIERCE R.D. 5ARt1'1'OGA CA. 95070 Property owner Mlh'E AM1NI SUBJECT Tree Inspection of one large UAK TAG. # 3 t & one MAPLE TAG 32 After insppection we noted the followintl; STRUCTURE; Weak and unbalanced WRAKNRS; Has several broken branches .., pise>a.Se;shows siggns of "fungus Soil ; Saturatrrl with ws,te~r ".end further rains will only make it mare hifth Risk of falling down Lr:aning ;heavily towards a high volume of cars that travel that roadway and high pow~ar linEe Gravity; due to the fact that all the weight is on one sidt Cavities; th>:it show advance state of decay Crakes; on several puma of otem This the things that we noted on tree TAG.EU t~31 We l~igl~lY cecoii~n~cnd the removal•ofthis oalt tree due to the high risk Of PROPERTY DA1~IAGE AND BODILY INJtJRIl/S that it could Cause in a severe thunderstorm or high winds or.by GRAVITY IAC.i #SL MAPLE TREE STRUCTURE; weak Weal:nes; shoves signs of "root tlarc" and leaning heavily to one stile Soil; saturated with water We recommend the removal of this tree due to th.e risk of falling in case ot~ Thunderstorms or heavy rrlins or hish winds ARIEt_ 6 DIEH~. C~ 0101765 p epared by 5016 Gazania D~. • San Joss, CA 95111 • Mobiler (409) 591.5254 fully Insured - B. Lk:. i-149032 CI.iC 0101706 '1 wry ;-~ ,+ ~ i Y O V 0 W r c~ ~I ~~ r m 0 4~ J ~ a ~ ~ ~~ d a ~ ~' ~ V •. ~ ~ a N rQ V Q a ~ ~ ~ . Y ~ ~ y b ~~ v a ~ '~ ~ v,~~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Cr o ... .~r c "~ ~~ Y x, a ~ ~ ~ oQ M r / ~\ N Q a Z ~~ ~j~ i ~~ z y~ A ~~ a ~~ A • r • ~ ~ a s a ? M 1 r A ~ 3 i ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~~ ~ss ~f T A K H O ~~ ~"W1 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$ 3 ~ ~ a f 6 „ ~'s~~ 0 " a a ~ .~~ ~ ° ~~ ~ ~=~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~a a ~ ~~$~t f ~~ a~ a ~ ~~+ 6 f~ y) N g~ N E V n ;~ ~ w ;f V l.y~~l~. '. V • BARRIE D. COk~ and ASSOCIATES Fiorpcutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 X08/353-1052 UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13 815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ~-- Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist 10-31-02 Job # 04-02-071 C ,J) ~~~IY~ ~f~l UU DEC 1 2 2002 U CITY OF SARATOGA ,~~uAIIN-TV n~ n°""'~ • lrJ' "'i.!' Y ~1~ UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTEC770N RE~-fENDATIONSAT THE AMIM PROPERTY, 13815 PIE~ROAD, SARATI~GA Assignment At the request of Ann Welsh, Planner, the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report updates the report by this office dated May 14, 2002. This report also provides greater detail about the trees at this property than is typical of a survey of this type. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The revised plan reviewed for this report has been prepared by the Craftmen's Guild, Cupertino, Sheet A1.0, undated. Summary There are 30 trees that may be exposed to some level of risk by construction. Trees #6, 28, 29, and 30 have been removed. Trees #3, 5, 15, and 34 should be removed. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Trees #8 and 19 have died apparernly of natural causes. No replacemerrts for these trees are recommended. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 15% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations Currently there are 30 trees on this site. They are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 33 -Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree # 3 -California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree # 4 -Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees # 5, 18, 32 -California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees # 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26, 27, 31, 34 -Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 8, 11-Monterey pine (Pinus radials) Tree # 17 - Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # 25 -Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. 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 thfs text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 30 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Fine Fair Marginal Poor Dead S imens S ecimens S imens S ecimens S cimens 2, 9, 10, l 1, ] 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 27 5, 15, 18, 34 8, 19 22, 23, 24, 25, 14, 16, 17, 20, 2b 31 32 33 21 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, COIVSUL77NG ARBOR/ST OC7iDBER 31, 200? ~~~ ~~! • UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTTON RE~TIONS AT THE AM/N/ PROPERTl /3815 P/E~ROAD. SARA7l~GA 2 one specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The same numbers used for the existing trees that were used for the report dated May 14, 2002 are used for this report. Trees #6, 28, 29, and 30 have been removed since May 2002. Trees #8 and 19 have died and their remnants should be removed Tree #8, a Monterey pine, has suffered an infestation of Red Turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens), an insect that commonly attacks weak or stressed conifers. Tree # 19, a Coast live oak, has suffered an infestation of a borer that has left exit holes consistent with the Pacific flathead borer (Chrysobothris mali), an insect that commonly attacks oak trees in severe stress. It appears that these two trees have died from natural causes. e root collars of Trees #1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 are covered completely or at least on one side, as in the case of Tree # 10. Because of this, it is not possible to evaluate the buttress root structures. Trees are subject to serious diseases at the root collar level when covered by soil or debris. Disease of the root collar in advanced stages compromise a tree's stability. I presently presume that Trees #1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 are stable. Howev&r, I recommend that the root collars of these trees be excavated and inspected by a certified arborist. Excavation even by hand usually results in at least a few bark injures, which have the potential of developing root collar diseases. For this reason, I recommend the use of an air spade or a hydro jet tool. These devices remove the soil without injuring the bark. In my opinion, these root collar excavations do not need to be done prior to construction, but must be done prior to the completion of construction. Tree #3 is a young California bay laurel tree (Umbellularia californica) that is adversely affecting both Trees #2, a large mature Valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Tree #4, a large Coast redwood (Sequoia se»tpervirens). The California bay laurel species is a very fast grower and often overtakes slower growing species such as Valley oak Tree #14 is being shaded out by the vigorous California bay laurel (Tree #3). I expect Trees #2 and 4 to continue to decline if Tree #3 is allowed to thrive. I recommend that Tree #3 be removed. Tree #3 provides a rather dense screen between this property and a portion of Pierce Road, however, this will change fairly rapidly if Tree #3 is allowed to mature. Tree #S, a California black oak, stands at an acute angle from vertical toward the north. Ordinarily a lean, by itself does not represent instability unless the root system becomes compromised. There is a concrete wall on the south side of the trunk and within a few feet of the trunk. if this concrete wall serves to create a root barrier, ~~ I suspect, the root plate of Tree #5 on the south side is very small. Also, Tree #5 exists in what appears to ~fiave been a kennel. The soil inside this enclosure appears to be severely compacted. In my opinion, the root PREPARED BY: M/CHAFE 4 BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 3I, 200? ~~~~~ 1. UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RE~ENDATIONSAT THE AMIM PROPERT3; 1381.5 P1E~ROAD, SAR4TOGA 3 system of Tree #5 is compromised. I recommend removal. This is unfortunate, because there are relatively few California black oak trees (Quercus kelloggii) in this area Tree #7, a valley oak, has an electrical insulator attached to the main leader at about 15 feet above grade. This could weaken this leader if not removed. There has been a failure of a 6-inch limb at about 20 feet above grade. Tree #7 has an overall structure resembling a lion's tail. This structure has a higher risk of up rooting than a tree that has well distributed branches and limbs. Tree #9 is a large multi-stem coast live oak. Four of the main leaders are co-dominant stems with included bark at the attachment point. This means that these are at risk of splitting apart from the cluster. Should phis occur, a large wound would exist, which would in all likelihood develop into a cavity. A system of cables could prevent that damage. On Tree #9, a 14-inch diameter limb, facing west has a cavity at about 6 feet above grade. This limb would probably break except for the fact that it is resting on another tree toward the west. I recommend that this limb be removed. Also, on Tree #9 the main leader facing north has a large pruning wound at about 10 feet above grade. There is Hypoxylon fungus growing on the face of this wound. This fungus may indicate that this leader could break at the location of this wound. However, it would not be feasible to remove this leader without leaving a very large wound that would no doubt develop into a cavity at the base of the tree. I recommend that this leader be cabled in combination with end weight removal pruning. Tree #10, a coast live oak, has a cavity at about 8 feet above grade. I estimate that this cavity makes up approximately 10-1 S% of the total wood mass. This structural loss is not sufficient to warrant removal of this tree on the basis of structural weakness. Tree #I1, a Monterey pine, has at least 3 dead branch ends caused by western rust galls observed at about 30-40 feet above grade. If this tree is retained, this tree must undergo eradicative pruning to remove the western rust galls. Tree #12 is multi-stem a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 84 inches at 2 feet above grade. This tree has an 8-inch diameter cavity at the center of the trunk. The cavity does not appear to be large enough to be of major concern. However, because of the angle of at least 3 of the leaders and because of the possibility of a pocket of internal decay near the base of the tree, I recommend that this tree be cabled, and be pruned to reduce the end weight by a method called drop-crotch pruning. Tree #l2 has an 8-inch diameter stub on asouth-facing limb. Stubs are invitations for disease and insect infestation. I recommend that this stub be removed. On the south side of Tree # 12 is seen a small California bay laurel, which in time can become highly detrimental to Tree # 12. I recommend that this small California bay laurel be removed Tree #13, a coast live oak is in excellent health, but it has a poor structure. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL 4 BENCH. CONSUL77NG ARBORIST OC7t~BER 31, 200? 4 ~~'~~2 . UPDA~'ED TREE SURVEY AND PROTE1C170N RE~ENDA770NSAT 7NEAA~N1 PROPERTY. 13815 PIAD, SARA?r)CiA t~ reel #14 and 16, coast live oaks, are in only fair health with a poor structure. For this reason, I have rated two as only Fair, but they could be considered to be Marginal specimens. Tree #15, a coast live oak, has suffered the loss of the single central leader at about 10.12 feet above grade. The resulting epicormic growth is minimal. This is a very poor specimen that will not improve significantly. I recommend removal. Tree #17, a Deodar cedar, is in only fair condition as a result of intense competition with other trees. Tree #18, a California black oak, has a one sided canopy with a cavity at the root collar, and its structural integrity is questionable as a resuh. Tree #20, a 20-inch diameter a coast live oak, leans toward the south, and its root collar stands adjacent to a concrete footing. Once this concrete footing is removed, the stability of this tree may unstable. It is advisable to clear the soil from the root collar with an air spade once the footing is removed to examine the buttress root zone on the north side of the trunk. Tree #23, a 28 inch diameter coast live oak, has had most of its root zone covered by gravel, which is used as a parking area. This condition compacts the soil beneath the gravel. If soil compaction has occurred or if the soil is in the process of becoming compacted, especially during the periods of rainfall, this tree will decline from root die back. This sometimes takes 8-12 years to develop. Presently the health of Tree #23 is quite good, but this may change. The degree of damage at this point is unknown. ~ree #27 has been recently pruned. The main leader facing north east has been removed, which leaves only a 10 inch diameter side branch that is highly contorted. It appears that perhaps over 30% of the total canopy has been removed. The other main leader, which faces west, has broken out at about 40 feet above grade a few years ago. The primary side branch on this west facing broken leader has a very poor attachment structure. The health of this tree is presently good, but its structure is quite poor. Tree #31 has suffered several broken branches in the canopy. Two of these face south and are located about 40 feet above grade. Tree #31 has all of the characteristics of good health (dense canopy, good branch tip growth, dark green leaf color, no significant insect infestation). It has co-dominant branches that form acute angles. These are prone to branch breakage, but this is considered a structural weakness, not an indication of poor health. Tree #31 has a limb facing west that has been pruned very badly, it has been stub cut at four locations ranging from 3 inches to 6 inches in diameter. The trunk is covered by ivy to about 20 feet above grade. Because of this, a thorough inspection of the trunk is not possible. Whether or not other defects in the trunk exist is unknown at this time. Tree #33, a 28-inch diameter valley oak, which leans toward Pierce Road and its entire canopy extends over the road This tree has no apparent severe structural flaws, but it is conceivable that it could drop a branch into the roadway. For this reason, I recommend that this tree be pruned for end weight removal. This is a thinning rocedure that reduces the risk of a branch failure. PREPARED BY: MIiCHAEL L BENCH, CONSUL77NG ARBORIST OC11~BF.R 31.2002 ~~~~~3 UPDATED TREESURYEYAND PROTECTIONRE~NDATIONSAT THEAMIM PROPERTY. 13815 PI~ROAD. SARATr)GA 5 Tree #34 is a twin trunk coast live oak. This tree was not included in the previous survey because it is located far enough from construction that it probably would not be affected by construction. However, I noticed that this tree has a cavity near the base on the west side. The entire canopy structure extends over Pierce Road. An inspection of this cavity reveals that at least 50% or more of the interior structural wood has been destroyed by fungal decay. It appears that there is still an active infection in this cavity. Because of these conditions, I consider this tree a hazard and recommend its removal. Risks to Trces by Proposed Construction Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 are in conflict with construction of the proposed residence. The plan does not show whether that portion of the driveway between Pierce Road and the proposed new entry gates would be demolished and reconstructed The plan does show that the new entrances would be relocated. Thus, it is presumed that portion of the driveway between the new entry gates and Fierce Road would also be reconstructed. The demolition and construction of the entry driveway may be highly detrimental to Tree # 1, depending on how much of the root system is actually under the existing driveway and depending on whether or not the soil beneath the new driveway must be stabilized On the south side of the existing driveway, the soil elevation rises approximately 12-15 inches above the existing driveway surface toward Tree #33. The new driveway entrance (between the new gate and fierce Road) would be located much closer to Tree #33 than the existing driveway at approximately 10 feet from the trunk. Thus, a soil cut would be required into the soil bank on the south side of the existing driveway within the dripline of Tree #33, a 28-inch diameter valley oak. In my opinion, the cut for the driveway must be a minim of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree #33 to prevent removing an excessive quantity of the tree's root system. Even if the cut were made at 15 feet from the trunk, the root loss to this tree would be significant, but not destructive provided that it be given supplemental irrigation throughout construction and provided that the remaining root system is mulched with 4 inches of coarse wood chips. It would also be essential that no other grading or excavation be done within 20 feet of the trunk on the other sides of the tree. The plan proposes to construct. the driveway 10 feet from the west side of the trunk of Tree #31, a 38 inch diameter coast live oak If the soil beneath this new driveway must be stabilized, it is likely that the entire root system in the area of the proposed driveway of Tree #31 would be removed This would result in severe root loss. In my opinion, the minimum distance that a soil cut or excavation can be made is 16 feet from the trunk (20 feet preferred) in order to expect that this tree to survive over the long term. To achieve this the driveway would have to be constructed on top of the existing grade. A terrace is proposed within 13 feet of the trunk of Tree #9, and another terrace is proposed within approximately 7 feet of the trunk of Tree # 12. If this construction requires a footing, both of these tees would be put at risk Either these terraces must be constructed completely on top of the existing grade without a footing or the footing must be constructed by a pier and beam design, which would have to be engineered and included with the final plans. In this event, it would be essential that the spans between the piers must be completely on or above existing grade. It appears that the existing gravel that covers the root system of Tree #23 would be removed If this were done by a tractor, the risk to the root system may be severe. If the soil beneath the existing gravel is not severely PREPARED BY: MICHAEL G BE11~N. CONSULTIN!i ARBORIST OC7i~BER 31. ?00? "~~~~~ UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTEC770N RELUTIONSAT THEAM/N! PROPERTY, 13815 P1E~ROAD, Sr1RA?CXui mpacted, it would be essential to prevent any additional compaction within 20 feet of the trunk Within this ~0-foot radius from the trunk, it would be essential to remove the gravel by hand It would also be essential that the proposed driveway within a 20-foot radius of both Trees #23 and 24 be constricted completely on top of the existing grade. Tree #27 is a 30-inch diameter coast live oak. It has good health but its structure is very poor. The plan proposes to wrap the driveway around the trunk within 10 feet on two sides (south and east sides) of this tree. A front entry terrace is proposed within 7 feet of the trunk on the third side (west side). Because such a large quantity of the root system of this tree would be at risk by construction, it would be essential that the terrace and the driveway within 20 feet of the trunk of this tree be constnacted completely on top of the existing grade. However, the structure of this tree is so poor and uncorrectable I do not fyelieve the mitigation required to retain this tree would be worth the cost or effort. It appears that all of the trees would be at some risk of damage by conshtiction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. recommendations 1. I recommend that the final approved plans be dated by the design group. My plans are undated. 2. I recommend that Trees #3, S, 8, l 5,19, and 34 be removed. 3. If the subsoil below the proposed new driveway must be stabilized, it appears that Trees #1, 27 and 31 would suffer such severe losses to their root systems that they would not survive the long term. However, if it is feasible to construct the new driveway on top of the existing grade without stabilization, these trees could be expected to survive. In this everrt, I recommend constructing tbe new driveway on grade as described 4. There is an additional threat to Tree # 1. If the existing driveway were to be removed by a tractor, the risk to the root system of this tree may be severe. If the stabilization issue described in Recommendation # 1 is resolved favorable to Tree # 1, I recommend-that the portion of the driveway within 1 S-feet of the trunk be removed by hand I further recommend that this portion of the existing driveway (within 15 feet of the trunk) be retained during construction of the residence and that this portion of the driveway be demolished only immediately before construction of the new driveway. S. I recommend that the gravel within a 20-foot radius of Tree #23 be removed by hand. However, if the existing gravel driveway is to be used during construction, it would be essential to retain the e~cisting gravel until the residence is completed, and that the existing gravel be removed only immediately before the new driveway is constructed PREPARED Br: MICHAEL L. BE1NC'H, CONSULr7NG ARBORIST OC7t~BER 31.200? UPDATED TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RE~ENDATIONSAT THE AMIM PROPERTY, 13815 PIE~ROAD, SARA7I~GA 7 6. if Tree #27 is retained, I recommend that the new driveway and the new terrace within 20 feet of the trunk be constructed completely on top of the existing grade. 7. I recommend that the buttress roots of Tree #20 be inspected for stability by the city arborist after the existing adjacent footing is removed 8_ For the preservation of Tree #33, I recommend that the driveway must be located or designed so that there would not be a soil cut within 15 feet of the trunk. 9. I recommend that the area between the proposed entry gate and Pierce Road be included on the plans in terms of the demolition and constnuction that would occur to the driveway in these areas.` If a grading cut would be required on the south side of the existing driveway, I recommend that this must be included on the Grading and Drainage Plan. 10. I recommend that the root collars of Trees #1, 2, 3 (if retained), 7, and 10 be excavated with an air spade or water jet. This is the safest method of excavating the root collar without resulting in bark injuries. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 11. I recommend that the English ivy be removed from the trunk of Tree #31 if it is desirable to inspect this tree for any wealrnesses in the trunk's structure. 12. I recommend that Trees #9 and 12 be cabled by an ISA certified arborist in order to reduce the risk or prevent a leader splitting apart from the multi-stem cluster. 13. I recommend that Trees #1, 9, 12, 31 (if retained), and 33 be pruned to reduce the endweight by a method called drop-crotch pruning. I also recommend that any pnuiing must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 14. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of airy other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner most be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenaece of these fences. t 5. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. Soil excavated for the basement must removed from the site as it is excavated 16. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees. 17. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted PREPARED BY: MACHAEL L BENCN, CONSUZ77MG ARBORIST OC7t~BER 31, 2001 L iy'~®a~"71~ UPDATED TREESURVEYAND PROTECT/ONR'EtCDATIONSAT 1NEAblIMPROPERTY,13813 PIE~ROAD, S,lRA7C)GA 8 ~. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut offat grade and left in the ground l9. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #1, 9, 12, 23, 24, 27 (if retained), 31 and 33 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 20. A fu114 inch layer of coarse ('/r'/. inch) wood chips must be spread over the entire mot zones of Tree #1, 9, 12, 23, 24, 27 (if retained), 31 and 33. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand 21. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 22. Landscape pathways and other hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. 23. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than I S times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than S times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 25. Lawn or other plants that require fiequerit watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 26. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plarrts Fompatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 27. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection 28. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Trees #8 and 19 have died. For these two trees, no replacements are recommended ~rees #6, 28, 29, and 30 have already been removed. These trees had a total value of 521,643. This value is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and five 36 inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL 4 BEIVCN, CONSUL77NGARBORIST OCIi~BER 31, 2002 ~~~~~ J• UPDATED TREESURVE3'ANDPROTEL^T/ONREC~ENDATIONSATTHEAMIMPROPERTY,1381SPIERCEROAD,SARA7i')GA 9 Trees #3, 5, 15, and 34 should be removed. They have a total value of $5,543. This is equivalent to one 48 inch boxed and one 24 inch boxed native specimen. These replacemers are recommended. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifol is Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leafmaple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus califorrtica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of all of the retained trees is $180,800. I suggest a bond equal to 1 S% (=$27,120) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection Respectfully subm' , .-~.~'~^'q0- N-- Michael L. Bench, Associ~a~te ~g ~. ~.~"~- Ba a D. Coate, Principal Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map MLB/sl.. • PREPARED BY.• MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OC7l7BER 3l, 2002 ~',~~'~''~8 • • • BARRIE D. CO~ AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 • GLOSSARY Co-dominaat (stems, branches) equal in siu and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Cimve -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. CaNivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurreet - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking s central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Ezcnrreot - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Indoded bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-anglod attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of wale, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root eo8ar -The flared, lows portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". header -The main stem or tnmk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporauy branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of woody Parts Trrnk -The main stem of a troe between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decun~ent trees, the branches that farm the main structure of the crown limb - A major structwxl part Brame - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branet~let - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Lest-The main photosynthdic organ of most plarKs. ~~~~~i~ .~ O ~-, b A O a a~ f~ !'I '~ Q O --~ H 0 ~~ • • lrLl ulaolad ~vnowaa ~ ~ lV/1CtW3a ON3WW0~3a _ a°~ e > ~ ~ > o ~ > ~ ~ > = > o o ~~ a3ZilLLa3d So33N ___ ,~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N $ „ N $ ~ N $ N (S•L) a31VM S033N r r r r r r (S•L) 3SV3SI4 aYllO~lOOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S' l) a3a3/~09 aV1lOJ loon x x x x x x ~L)~1VJ30 HNnal (s L) aoOM av3a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ N N N N (S-L) 3SV3S10 NMOa~ 33x1 N N N N _ N ~L) S1~3SNI r r r r r r (S'L) ulaolad ~JNINnad ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ w ! a3a33N S3181/9 ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1HJI3M~N3 3AOW3a x x x x x Z x ~ °JNISIVa NM02YJ ~ Nouvaols3a NMOao ~, o ,, 'JNINNIHl NMOa'J N m N N N N N JWINV3l~ NMOa'J r r r r r ^ c6-E) JNU1/a aavzvH ~ ~ ~ '~ ~OL-Z)'JNLL1/a NOLLIONO~ n ~ ~ ~ v '~ '~ ~ '~ u cs L) 3aruonius N a x ~ x ~ x N x x x ~`r L) H1lV3H ~ N ~ ~' OV3adS ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ ~i m 1HJ13H N ~{ V N Y W_ N p C N N •+ <_ N h N N m N ~ 133d ZO a313WV10 r r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ro N r ~ r r H9C] C C ~ '' C ,Cj ~ ,Cj ~ H~ h M C ~ n N G p n M A M N N n N x x x x x x w3is~su~nw x x rpu6 MOQ~ .iJLi ®H8O 0 ~ ~ o ~ ao 1~ o ~ N o ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ o N n m ~ ~ s .~ s W iA Ov < ~ ~ :E ~ .$ ~ G~ ~~3 a ~ f ~ Y Y oo N > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~` ~ N l'7 f V7 m Y H ~ a r W PG M r+ • ~ ~ II r p~i ~ a° a° ar+e~u~i ~~~ a~ooa ~~w'} ~ ~ pip ~~V M ~ k ~ V O r-, b 0 a d r~ ~J b Q O ~--, 0 i ~V/10W3a ON3WW003a °~ ~ ' x ~ -~' ' ~ ~ ' c ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ '~ ' 3d S433N u n N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ a3Zll a ,,, ~ M .,, w M (S•L) a31VM S`033N r r r r r r (S-t) 3SV3S10 aVIIOO lOOa ~ ~ ~ (S` t) a3a3A0o aVllOO lOOa x x x x x x (~l)AWJ30 HNflal (s ~) OOOM aV3O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N IV l ~ h h (~~) 3SV3SIO fJAA0a0 33x1 M ,~ N r, .~ r- (~~) S103SN1 • r r r r r r (S-l) A1RIOlad JNINf1ad n n n ~ • * 03Q33N S318V9 1HJI3M-ON3 3/10W3a x x x x x x a oNlslva wino Nouvaols3a NMOao ~ ~ ~ ONINNIFLL NMOao N ~ ~ N M (p ~ M JNINV3l0 wuloaa r r r ^ r r, (8f~ °JNUVa Qa1fl11H (0~-ZJ JPILLVa NOLLIONOO Y ~ ~ ~ ' `r ~ `~ ~ ~ . (S•t) 3afLLOflalS ^ x x ~"~ x ''~ x N x `'' x (s•l) H1lY3H ~ ~ ov3ads ~ ~ Xi ~ S ~ ~ ~ R S ~ 1M`J13H ~ N ~ w g ~ g w ~ w ~ ~ ~ 133d Z® a313WV10 r r r r ;e E r n r ~ ^ ~ • f .£ ;e ~ ~ ~ ~ H80 ~ ~ • Mgp is M n N n N n N n M o n n » x x x x x N x w31s~s-uinw x x ~<JQ MOQrI ,jf~i ~ FIBa o N ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 f po ~ ~ ~ o, ~ g N po ~ on F ~cp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ W vj ~ r 3~ l V 4 e 1 ~ J ~ v n m W ~ r F `o ~ w a 0 a 3 A a: W PO w rr C a~~~ii ~ A r A x x ~~~N rl pN 8 N8 O11 M N r 1 1 Q A x x x ~a.~~~ ,~ . a~N~~ ~~~~~~ N O ~-, .d 0 a d rd W M w~.1 V Q ~+ w 0 • • ti It`-) JLLIbOIad lV/10w3a M ldnOW3a ON3WWOO3a a°ND ~ v > N ~ o v > ~ ~ ~ > " ` ' ~ > `" ~ a3Zl'1LLa3d SO33N N~ ____ N ~ M ~ N N $ r w r N ~ (S~t) a31VM SO33N r r r r r r (s ~) 3sv3sla a~nloo loos ~ ~ (s~) o3a3noo avlloo loos ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ x x x x x x ~ (S-l)JlWJ34 ~Nf1a1 .~ (S~) OOQM OV3O 3 S n ~ 7S 2i (s~) 3sv3sla Nnnoao 33x1 m N f Q N Vf (S`l) S1O3SNI r r _ r r ^ ^ (s~) ulaolad oN~nad ~ ~; ~ ~ • ~ 03O33N S3lB1/'J 1HJI3M-ON3 3AOW3a ~ $ ~__ x ___ x x x x x a oNlslva NMOao Nouvaols3a Nnnoao N JNINNIFLL NMOaO ~ ~ g Q Q N JNINV3lO NMOaO r a r ^ ^ ^ cs-~ oNUVa aavzvH 8 8 ~ ~ ~ _~ (0~-Za JNLLda NOLLIONOO Q ,~ '~ ~ `° `~ r ~ a ~ a _ ~~) 3aruonal$ ~ a N R N N N X X X X X X (S•l) H1lY3H -- ~ N N to pf ov3ads ~ ~ ~ ~ R g q ~ ~ ~ ~ 1H°J13H g M g N '~ w g n N $ N g n M ..p -_+ 133d GYI a313wV1o N M N N ~ M ~ r m ^ ° ^ C _ C _ C ~ C 7 HBO 1~ h ~ H~ N N 1 N P N h N A N X X X X X X w31s~s-ulnw p ~lJ6 N10Q• ,jJ~-y Y/ HBO o Ol ~ N o OI ~ N o ~ ~ ~ o m ~ gj o ~ r ~ ~ o m N W to O V ~ ~~ E Q ~ ~ ~ ~ <c~~~ a Y ~ Y ~ Y a Y a ~ S ~ m A t i „ a (J U ~ ~ ~ ~ V ,~ ~ ~ _ Q ~ m Y N w ~ o W 1 r. • ~~~~ ~W 1 1 N W ~~~ ~,",~~ ~~~ a~ 1 X X K ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ x~°~:R~ :1 'U~1.7~~r 0 ~~ 'b 0 A4 d A~~ 1~ ~'~JJ ~~1 O ~1 ~~ • IrL) ulaaad wnawa a M~ lV/10W3a ON3WW0~3a x N~ n p N W `~ ~ m o ~ > > _____ - > , , > ~ > - ? ~ a3ZIlLLa3d S033N N ~ < N ~ ~ N _ ~ ------ ~ N _ ~ --- _ - N ~ -- m N _ __ ~~ (S`L) a31VM S033N ~ ~ M u N M (S~ L) 3S1/3SI0 av-I~ 1004 ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ (L` L) 03a3/1OJ avroo 10021 ~ ~ ~ ~ x x x x x x (S-L)AV030 HNflal (s L) OOQM 41/30 ~`+ b6 g $~' bi (S•L) 3SV3SI0 NMO2YJ 33x1 N N _ N N ~ N ~ N m N (~L) S103SNI ~ ~ M n p ~ (SL> ulaolad JNINnad e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w / 03033N S3l8YD < ' ~++ ~ ~ ~ ~ tS 1HJI3M ON3 3nOW3a x x x x x x ~Nlsrva NMOaa o Nouv21ols3a NMOa~ _ N 1~ N pp ~ IA N f0 JNINNIFLL NM0219 ~ ~ ~°., ~ m N N N N °JNM~V3l0 PYV1OaJ ^ ~~ / ~ N (6'Fa `JNLL1/a 02iVZVH ? 25 R $ g ~ g g (OL-Z) JPILLVa NOLLION00 ~ Y ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ti co (L`L) 3arLLOrIa1S N N H N n N n N x x x x x x (S`r L) H1lv3H N _ N OV321d8 ~ ~ ~ p tQi p Pj N ~ ~ O ! er N v b N ~ ~ 1H°J13H » ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N p g N 1334 Z® a313WV10 ~ N , e~i , N , ~ ~ r ~ ,£ ,~ C C C H80 ~_ N N H9(] x x N x M x N x M x w31s~s-u-Inw oP~ Mo4~ ~Z/Li ~ H80 O ~ ~ ~ O ~ 'r ~ O ~ -~ $ O N N v O N m m O N 1ff f V! t o~~~~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a ~ A U (~ M R W N N N ~ N a 0 3 r a W 1 r+ N ~, r 1 I W o O ~W~~N ~, ~~ V tl! 1 1 1 Q r x x x ~ q 1i ~ .C pps pcp c • • O ~--~ b 0 a d !"I M Q O ~-, rl N l><L) uroolad ldnowaa ~ ~ IVAOW3a ON3WW003a ~ W > ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ > ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~~ a3ZIlLLa3~ S`433N N 111ppp+ N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N a ~ ~ - -- ~ -- - N ~ (~ L) a31dM S033N ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (~L) 3Sd3S10 a`dllOOlOOa ~ o v ~ i ~ ~ y t b ~- -M ^ (S-L) a3a3A00 adll00lO0a ~ ~ Y s W ~ W Y Y W y .Y X X X X X X CS~L)Jl1/'J34 ~Nflal = Z Z _.___ - r~ N $ (S- L) OOOM ad3a ~ ~ ~ O ~ O o O w - - ~ n m ~. N (~ L) 3Sd3Sld NMOaO 33x1 N N N O N O N O N (S•L)AllaOladJNWflad $ ~ $ ~ ~ w ! 03033N S319d0 ~ S $ ~ 1HJI3MbN3 3AOW3a 'r ~ x x x x x x ~wlslda NMOa~ Nouvaois3a NMOa~ ~ ~ JNINNIHl NMOaO ' ° ~ ~ a i N N N N N ii JNINd3l~ NMOa~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ oadzdH ( -~ NUd ~ g a ~ a _ (OL-Z) rJNLLda NOLLIONOO ___ ~- m ~"~ ~ ~ ' a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V-L) 3a~.~a.L.S` N N N N ~t N • P! N X X X X )C X (S'L) H1ld3H -- ~ -~ ~ ~ ~' ~ od3ads N ~ ~ g o ~ ~ !R ~ ~ - 1HJI3H N N N N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ 133d l~ a313WVia ~ u ° M ^ ~ r N r ~ ^ ~ ^ ----~--- - --- e - c c .E ,!c 5 ~ H90 • ---_- -- ° w i H N M + H8O fO X ~ x X ~C ~C ~ X w3ts~s-ulnw X oP~ MogQ ~ZJL-V ~ H80 ° ~ Y f0 ° w 07 ~~+Oj p° ~ ~ ~°j ~ ~ N ~ ~ t0 1+f N W iA ~ ~~ E ~ V ^ ~^ ~ w ~ ~ Y Y Y Y Y _ ~¢ } ~ S F'{ Cg7 d ~ ~ .~ C ~ J Q V N N N N N l7 Y H ~ a 3 I y~ W GB r rr ~_ J a~~~ ~> r r r W ~ .a .~G ~~~~ ~~ a r x x x ~a~~,~ a~°~~~ 0 'd b 0 a a+ ~~ ~~ b Q O -~, ~~-, • • N (rL) uraolad lvnawa a M ~p IVAOW3a ON3WW003a ~ N ~ ~ ~ t O a K ~ ; ~ ~~ a3ZIlLLa3~ SQ33N „, ~ N ~ N ~ N (fil) a31VM S033N r r r r (S'L) 3SV3S10 aVIIOO lOOa ~ ~ r~~ i ~ (~L) 03a3/10J aYIIOO lOOa ~ ~ .~ x x x x _ (rL)~vo3o ~+Nnal (sL) aoau- av3a ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ < n (S L) 3SV3S10 NM02i0 33211 _ N N N N (S•l) S103SNI r r r ^ (S~L) JLLR~ORid °JNINnad n 1H~JI3M'!]N3 3AOW3 x x x x _ oNlSlva NMOa~ Nouvaols3a NMOao ~ ~ m ~ •JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ N m N N N JNINV3l0 NMOaO r r r r (8'fa ONLLVa Oa1r1VH ~ g (OL-Z)'JNLLVa NOLLIONOO `r ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ '~ h (S`l) 3anlOn2iLS ~ N n N n x x x x (~L) H1lH3H 4d3adS .~ ~ iQ c° ~ s ~ ',~ ~ ~ N tp N 1HJ13H ~ N tai N '•~ N '~ N ~ 133 ZO a313Wd1Q g r `" r c9i ~ r r ,£ c c ,jc H8O H9Q ~- .s N ~ » x X X ~ X w31s~s-ulnw x pa~6 MoQ~ ,UL-V ~ H8Q ~' ~ o m ~ ~ tO ° m N ~ n N t ~ ~ ~ ~~ E o~~~~ Z W W V! r+ ~ Y a Y Y _ _ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y a ~ ~ q ~ ~ ° q c > w Y ~ _ ~ a e O 3 in ti ~O 0 ~o a ^W~4~ I ~ ~ L"~ ~ ~ s~ ~~QQ ~QA^I {{ff~~ ~Cy.1 f/! Yl 111 r ~ ~ ~ r x x x '~ a° a° .o p4 ~ ~ °.~ ~ ~./ ~~~~~ i ~ ~*~~ s ~ , •/ / / \ \ \ ~ ~~ \'~ 1 ~ ' y. // \ i- e~j op~ ~ ~ .o a ~~ , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~a"~ o <4i / ~' ~ l~ x E ~~ ~ ~,- ~ ; ~.... ,` !~"1. .S • PP ~ ~~. ~~ n \~ ~~ \ ~. __~~ ~ r .~ w ~~ O ~~ ~ ~ ,\ . ~ i ~ \ ~ ,\ n - ---r -~ ~T.~ a. -- t- ~T .~ . SITE PL~~1 -~ ~-- .y •i PROs sua ----- PRO ~ \\ vv ---1_ o SuOt ~, / v v ` \ O Y., ~ ~ - - v~-- -- ouG :..' ~ 1,a~ p ~ ~r ~ ~~, ~ ~ ` r , ~ r ~'~~ 7~ ' ~ ~ \~ ~~' ~i~I I~a~• Haavr~ ~ ~ . -~. 1 ___ ~ r~1~~~ . . ~~` __ ' v _ l.__..~~. ~ J - N 59'Om'30• E 10ID0 -J `` • ~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the BARRIE D. COATE d ASSOCIATES Amini p~m,~ 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga an (40813531052 prepared for: T9595 fuwwi Rwd lo~Gala,G 95090 City of Saratoga, Planning Department RTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: November 2002 HO CONSULTING ARBORIST - Job # 04-02-071C Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations 9rr arx-l"AXtT~Wrt. ~~~~- #~ ' BARRIE D. COTE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit R~. l.~s G~t~s, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded-by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable T'V and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipmenrt travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this documarrt. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies, Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction nd around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water par 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequeirtly irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. ®~~~~~ 31 O O C O O h U ~ C a~ v ~ y o a~ E >. a~.a~, o a ~ oa ~ ~ L L e ~ O ~ O C V O O O ~ N ~ ~ C y ~ ~ U `~ ~ cp C bl G'. O ~'' •U J ~y v ~ m ~ v ,~ •~ G' ~, U y U m ~ 0 E- ~ a o c^ W C a J U V E ~° O CA ~ a~ ~n U~ ~ (, -~ (n aQ f•7 pp ~° A z ~ '~' Q N ~ U Q 7 Q O O ~~+~'" ~~ z V ~ ` ~ •i P _- ~ N ~ / o•: G u v •~+ w, ~ ~ ~ I - m c ~' pct ~ g ~ E `~ o ~ ~ - 0~.5~ 2 '~ ~ a ~ ., o ~~~cga O ~ .~ ~ ,Q~ O! Q :, •C N 'ti~~o er-~ $~~~ ~ . ~ ~ V1 • ~- 00 - I'i ~`i _~ o ~ ' •rl L OG LJ ro H •G ~ 7 G ••~ u •v H v 3 aGi 7 ai '° ww o c v o -. o u w o oc u `~° H sr v v a al v) > L+ T c0 .C ~ ~ aL O ~ ++ A 3 cu G cp u cv Cl .~ ~ N U v CO N •'+ F ~ u u g ~ v N v l'J N v N r: v 3 a~i v ~ Q Fs F . N ~ V v •ri N rl ,G O +~ •v •v o +-+ a 3 G v a •~• •nl ',3 N v H ~ H Of, Ol; .--I '!7 ~ ~ GJ a~ o o c a+ `~ s .c rl t0 t0 -+ W LJ ,SL IJ I W N u u avi •~ o f o•°i a •~ d~ w •~ O' O ~ H N w u 0 C v r. C', t•+ O O N U~ w •0. Cu ~ O O rl 7 ~ 41 ~ H Z1 -+ fd H w ti ~o E oo c~ ~~ o u ~. ~ , ,~ -~ -- - ~ t ~~~~~~ ~. • ~h ~-, ~ ~ r i~ lr ~ h ~ c 1 ' iyl ~~ ~ Jl , ~ R .!. ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v l::, j '~ ~ ~ ~ ~, rj~ f ~i ~ T '~ ,;~ m ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `,'~ •'' ~~ d ,~ 3 ~ QQ _ ~ ~ c °' N a oLi i 'c. o~ ~ o C ~ 'C3 sc +' eo = o~i ,Y clv O ~ O s ~ ~' a ..cam ~~a ~ t ~ ° A ~ N ~ o ~ ~ N O M ~ U ~ ~' ~ ~ a Q'u~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M 3 ~ O = m ~ ~ ~ ~ "N.s p~ ~ ~~ J ~ ~f v O s {.+ d v .~ C yam„ O +' d +~ _ ~ ~-+ 0 d +s+ ~ .~ i ^ = s iv ~ L o- O .~, '~ L- ~ U d N N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ d ds ~'L ~ O ~ N U ~ ll1 ~ ~° ~ O o0 ~ N ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~, -f"i v Ou ~ c~a ~ ~ +S+ ~i Attachment 4 ~~'~JD SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone:408-867-9001 Fax:408-867-2780 www.saratogafire.com PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FII,E #: 02-013 DATE: July 19, 2004 # OF LOTS: One APPLICANT: Amini/Moazini LOCATION: 13815 Pierce Road PROJECT: New 8,435 sq ft dwelling, revised driveway location for previously approved house plans. In addition to previous Fire Department conditions dated Apri126, 2002 the following conditions shall apply: 1: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from Saratoga Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. (CFC 902.4) 2: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) APPROVED: HAL NETTER ~AN CHECKER: HAL NETTER • pierce rd 13815-2 ~~~~~~ SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFO1tNIA 95070 Telephone:408-867-9001 Fax:408-867-2780 www.saratog~fire.com PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE#: 02-013 DATE: July 19, 2004 TYPE: new SFD APPLICANT: Amini/Moazeni LOCATION: 13815 Pierce Road SHEET ITEM REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Project is for a new 8,435 sq ft dwelling. Approved conditions shown on sheet E-1. EARLY WARNING ALARM SYSTEM (EWAS) An Early Warning Alarm System (EWAS) shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72 and the City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. The alarm contractor shall submit three (3) copies of working drawings to the fire district for review and approval. The alarm system must be installed by a licensed contractor. The fire district must issue a permit prior to the installation of the EWAS system. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM Automatic sprinklers shall be installed for the entire 8,435 sq. ft. dwelling including garage, workshop, storage areas and basement. An NFPA 13R sprinkler system with 4 head calculation is required. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. The suppression contractor shall submit three (3) copies of working drawings and calculations to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-20.150,16-20.160 for fire flow >2,000 gpm; City of Saratoga Code 16-20.165 for designated Hazardous Fire Area, all new buildings except accessory structures X500 sq ft) The fire district must issue a permit urior to the installation of the sprinkler system. Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from Saratoga Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. (CFC 902.4) Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) Roof covering shall be Tire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) Revised: AQproved• Plan checker: Directed to: City Building Dept 7~:XXX Cit~Planning Dept ~'~®®$ti Oth pierce rd 13815-3 BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST A means NOT APPLICABLE #: 02-013 DATE: April 26, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE :LONGANECKER LOCATION: 13815 PIERCE ROAD 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. NOTE: FIRE FLOW REQUIRED N EXCEEDS HYDRANT CAPACITY.I3RSPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. Y ~ 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire azea. Y ~ 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. Y~ 4:Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepazed or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Sazatoga Code 16-20:210.) S:Eazly Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16- 60-E.) Y J 6:Eazly Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which aze not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the gazage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect i to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) N/A 8:A11 fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) 9: Automatic sprinklers aze required for the new 8669 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. NOTE: NFPA 13R WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, NO FDC. pierce rd 13815 ~~®®~~ 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-013 N/A l0:Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Y ~ 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to 11 % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. B: Slopes from 11 % to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C:Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 12: Turn-arounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. Y J 13:paz~ng; provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A~ 15:Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. VED: Chief Ernest Kraule pierce rd 13815 ~ ~~®~D.}~ • Attachment 5 • ~~~~~~ .~~ ~` • i ~ RESOLUTION N0.02 - 048 APPLICATION NO.02-013 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM117ISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANU1vUMonziNl -13815 P~RCE ROAD W~x~as, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,993 square foot two story dwelling with a 2,379 square foot basement; and, Wx~x~as, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of u to three sin le-famil residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHERE,a-s, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed project minimizes the perception of bulls through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco fagade and concrete file roof. With attached garage, all structures Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy Privacy impacts to homes across Pierce Road will be minimized by retaining the existing tree canopy as much as possible and locating the driveway to avoid root damage to the existing trees. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views • ~~~~ a~ .~ M • • The house is designed such that living areas are oriented toward the high quality view to the rear of the property. Retaining the tree canopy will protect the neighbor's privacy. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the southeastern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the minimal west window openings limit exposure to the elements. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Now, Tx~xEFOxE, 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 Amini/Moazini application for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This approval applies to the proposed 5,993 square foot dwelling only and requires that the applicant return to the Planning Commission in order to obtain approval for the driveway location, landscaping and irrigation plan. The driveway location and landscaping issues are postpon to a ater ate ecause o a revis eterrYUnation o e o a c us er o 0 trees that were a major factor in locating of the house and the driveway. The Planning Commission has postponed a decision on the driveway and landscaping until receipt of a revised Arborist Report, which addresses the location of the driveway and the removal of the Oak trees. 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. . 2. The height of the entry way shall be lowered to a maximum height of 16 feet from the existing natural grade in order to reduce the bulk and mass of the proposed entrance. 3. The depth of all lightwell areas shall not exceed 4 feet. The depth of the rear lightwell with a staircase shall be reduced to four feet in order to comply with this provision. 4. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4, se+~ ~f mm~lete construction plans incorporatini; this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." ~u~~~ a~ ~f ,y • • • 5. A complete revised Arborist Report shall be prepared to reflect the change in the Arborist's recommendation as a result of the October 7, 2002 site visit by Barre Coate. 6. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 7. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry wells. 8. A gracling and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 9. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for muumizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 10. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on Apri126, 2002 and their comments are as e fire flow re aired exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required 1. Th q 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkles' systems, 16-60-E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), wor s ops, or storage areas, w c are no cons c as r e ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are requu-ed for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. ~Q~ a8 •~~ ~: • • 8. Drivewa :All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Ys Secondary access is not required. • Slopes from 0% to 11 % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist's staff inspected this property three times at the request of the applicant. The first two reports dated May 14, 2002 and July 18, 2002 were prepared by Michael Bench. The third draft report dated October 7, 2002 was prepared by Barrie Coate. The recommendation by Barrie Coate reversed the recommendation of the two previous reports and indicated that the cluster of three Oak trees in front of the property should be removed because they arE diseased. The Planning Commission voted to wait until the completed report by Barrie Coate was available before making a decision on the issue of the driveway and the front yard landscaping. These features of the development directly influenced the location of the driveway and the extent of landscaping that is acceptable. Therefore the Arborist issues will be addressed before the Planning Commission after the revised Arborist report is available and the plans are revised in accordance with these recommendations. GEOT'ECHNICAL REVISIONS Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on Apri130, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri129, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. ~;~~~ a~ .•~ ..'• ' • 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and .grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CrrY Ai-roRr~t 1. Applicant agrees to-hold City harmless from all costs-and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurre y e ity or to e a ty o ity ui connection vvi ity s ease o f actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the pernut. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~' ~:. • Chair, Pl ommission ATTEST: • • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9~' day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BARRY, GARAKANI~ $UNTER, JACKMAN, RouPE, AND Zu'rsffi NAYS: KURASCH ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE • Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. r property Owner or Authorized Agent lz //a/~oov ~~~~~~ • r] L • ITEM 2 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Modification of Approved P1ans,13815 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Associate Planner Date: December 8, 2004 APN: 503-69-02 Department Head: • • Amini Property Q Buffer zones around amini ~~ /; P VIA R GASP C ,--.' VIS\ ~~i ./ 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 km PIE RD 13815 Pierce Road OHO®01 Application filed: 11/08/04 Application complete: 11/18/04 Notice published: 11/24/04 Mailing completed: 11/24/04 Posting completed: 11/17/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to modify the approved plans. The original application called for construction of a new 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage on a 1.759-acre lot, which presently contains a single story residence. The changes to the approved plans include the addition of 14 windows, 8 columns, elimination and relocation of 3 doors and addition of Styrofoam/ stucco trim to all windows, archways and doors. The location and design of the driveway is also the subject for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the plans follow the original design in terms of front elevation. The added windows and columns should be removed. Additional windows can be justified along the left elevation, which previously contained a large expanse of windowless wall. The changes to the rear elevation in terms of windows does not conflict with design guidelines since due to the rear setback there is no impact to privacy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 04-358 3. Arborist Reports dated 7/22/04 and 11/19/04 4. Approved Plans -Exhibit "A" 5. Proposed Plans dated July 29, 2004 • 13815 Pierce Road ~~OQ®O~ • Attachment 1 • ~~0~03 • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.759 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25.6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 640 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single- family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. 13815 Pierce Road ~'~~®~~ • PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 13,912 SQ. FT. 25% OR 15,000 SQ. FT. WHICHEVER IS LESS Building Footprint 4,032 SQ. FI'. Walkways, patios 6,265 SQ. F-I'. Driveway 3,615 SQ. F-r. TOTAL 13,912 sQ. F'r. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 3,379 SQ. F'I'. Upper Floor 1,961 sQ. i+ r. Garage 653 sQ. i~I'. (Basement) (2,379 sQ. F-r.) TOTAL 5,993 sQ. i+ r. 6,000 SQ. FT.~ SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 38+F'I'. 30 FT. Rear 220 I; I'. 60 FI'. Side 60+ ~. 20 FI'. Height Residence 26 Ft. 26 F'I'. ' Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15- 45.030(c)(d)). • 13815 Pierce Road ~~0~~5 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes revise the approved front side and rear elevations for the 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage. The changes to the approved plans include the addition of 14 windows, 8 columns, elimination and relocation of 3 doors and addition of Styrofoam/ stucco trim to all windows, archways and doors. The location and design of the driveway is also the subject for review. The addition of windows is consistent with the design review guideline to avoid large expanses of a single material along portions of the facade, which did not contain windows. Thus the left elevation could be revised to add some windows since due to the setback there is no impact on privacy. The addition of windows and columns to the front facade maybe considered excessive. The addition of windows to the rear facade has no impact on privacy since there are no neighbors within view of the rear property line. • The addition of Styrofoam trim around all windows, doors and arches changes the design of the house to a more ornate style. Although these architectural features do serve to break up massing they do not help the large structure to blend into the surroundings. The original less embellished design may integrate better into the Pierce Road streetscape. The applicants propose to create a 120-foot long circular driveway that runs in front of the house parallel with Pierce Road. The arborist has reviewed this driveway location and his recommendations are included as an attachment. FINDINGS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map reflecting the as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 13815 Pierce Road ~~'UQ~Q6 • CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved on the condition that revisions eliminating the driveway and the location of the house be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. • • 13815 Pierce Road ~~®~~~ • Attachment 2 ~~r®~V~7 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-013 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMINI - 13815 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,993 squaze foot two story dwelling with 2,379 squaze foot basement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized azea and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed project minimizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete the roof. With attached gazage, all structures aze integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to eliminate portions of the driveway and maintain the necessary setback from the protected trees in the front yazd, the plan will retain the tree canopy and therefore avoid interference with privacy. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The house is designed such that living areas are oriented toward the high quality view to the rear of the property. If the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected. 13815 Pierce Road ~'~O®09 Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the south-eastern orientation of the main living azeas of the home. Also the minimal west window openings limit exposure to the elements. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Mike Amini for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Cleazance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map of July 18, 2002 as a sepazate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks aze per the approved plans." 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as far as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. 5. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry wells. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans - The a licant should submit a soil and erosion control plan PP 13815 Pierce Road ~~~®10 which identifies the techniques for minimising the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Sazatoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retazdant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Eazly Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Sazatoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16- 60-E) 5. Eazly warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas, which aze not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/azchitect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers aze required for the new 8,669 squaze foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Pazking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 13815 Pierce Road ~~®011 CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If the location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations among them are the following. 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a 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 13815 Pierce Road `'~~®~12 materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city azborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified azborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standazds. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees aze recommended for trees that aze to be removed. The following trees aze expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Cleazance with conditions was granted on April 30, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri129, 2002 are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design pazameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 13815 Pierce Road ~~~~13 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 13815 Pierce Road ~:~0®1~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9~' day of October 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 13815 Pierce Road ~QQ®15 ~J Attachment 3 • ~~®®16 '. ARBOR RESOURCES 1 Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 22, 2004 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Frtutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW for the Amini Property, 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga Dear Ann: I have received and reviewed the following documents associated with the development of the above-referenced site: City Arborist report (dated 10/31/02); Topographic Map (by Lee Engineers, dated 3/26/01); Sheets C-1 thru C-3 (by SMP Company, dated 6/24/04); and Sheets L-1 and A-3 (by Craftsman's Guild, not dated). I also visited the site on July 21, 2004 and my comments and recommendations are presented below. Please note, unless specifically addressed below, those recommendations presented in the City Arborist report must still be followed. 1. Sheets L-1 and A-3 should be dated. Sheet L-1 should show a scale of 1"=20' and the north arrow. 2. All trees and their assigned numbers should be shown on Sheet L-1 (see map attached to the City report). 3. A plan showing the irrigation design should be submitted to the City. The design should conform to recommendations #23 and 24 of the City report (page 8). 4. The proposed lawn (or other plant material) on Sheet L-1 must be revised to conform to recommendations #25 and 26 of the City report (page 8). Please note the driplines shown on the plans do not accurately depict the canopies true size. Reference to driplines should be derived from the map and/or table attached to the City report. S. New trees equivalent in value to those planned for removal (#3, 5, 6, 15-17, 28-30 and 34), which is $30,830, shall be installed on site prior to final inspection. Tree replacement sizes and values are listed on the bottom of the table attached to the City report. Acceptable replacement species are listed on page 9 of the City report. The proposed sizes, species and amounts of replacement trees must be shown on the landscape/planting plan. They should be established no further than 20 feet apart. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796Z6~®~g~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care , July 22, 2004 13815 Pierce Road page 2 6. The proposed perimeter fence must be designed using a pier and beam system. The beams shall be designed above grade so no soil excavation or scarping is required. The piers must be minimized in size and established no closer than three times the diameter of the nearest trunk. Equipment shall not operate or park on unpaved soil at any time; this would require manually drilling the piers in most instances. 7. The tree protection fence shown on Sheet L-1 will either not allow feasible access for construction of the home and landscape features, or adequately protect the root zones of retained trees. As such, I recommend the fencing be revised to closely resemble fencing shown on the map attached to the City report. 8. As proposed, the sanitary sewer line would need to be installed by drilling a horizontal tunnel approximately four feet below grade where within 10 times the trunk diameters of retained trees. Soil above the tunnel should remain undisturbed. The access pits for the drilling equipment should be no closer than 25 feet from the trees' trunks. To lay the line in an open trench, the line should be rerouted between trees #1 and 33 (approximately 25 feet from either trunk). 9. The proposed driveway grade should be shown on Sheet C-2. In addition, recommendations #3, 6, 8 and 9 of the City report (pages 6 and 7) should be followed and Sheets C-2, L-1 and A-3 revised accordingly. Please note the diagram on Sheet A- 3 titled "Paver Detail" indicates the proposed driveway and curb will require soil cuts and should also be revised accordingly. To accomplish establishing the driveway on top of existing soil grade, a concrete, impervious surface could be used but trenches shall not be dug for drainage nor shall water drain towards the trees' trunks. 10. The drain lines proposed on Sheet C-2 beneath tree #12's canopy should be redesigned to be no closer than 20 feet from the tree's trunk. 11. Trenches for the proposed drain lines within 15 feet of trees #9 and 27 shall be excavated using a pneumatic air device named an "Airspade." The work must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. Moistened burlap must be placed immediately over exposed roots and remain moist until the trench is backfilled. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763~~~~18 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care November 19, 2004 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 RE: PLAN REVIEW for the Amini Property, 13815 Pierce Road, Sazatoga Dear Ann: I have reviewed Sheets A-2 and A-3 (by the Craftsman's Guild Inc., not dated) in relation to the proposed new residence at the above-referenced site. My comments aze presented below and most are derived from my previous letter dated 7/22/04. 1. Each tree inventoried for the proposed project should be shown on Sheet A-2 (the trees' locations and numbers aze shown on the map attached to the initial azborist report dated 10/31/02). 2. The ro osed lawn must be revised so it is awa from the trunks of all inventoried P P Y Oaks by at least seven times their trunk diameter (including those not shown on Sheet A-2). One result of doing so involves removing from the design the lawn azea proposed beneath the actual canopies of trees #31-33. Please note the driplines shown on the plans do not accurately depict the actual canopy sizes; all references to driplines should be derived from the map and/or table attached to the initial report. 3. The tree protection fencing shown on Sheet A-2 should be revised to resemble fencing shown on the map attached to the City report. 4. The `Sheet Index' on Sheet A-2 does not show the City Arborist report. I suggest the entire report is shown on its own plan sheet. 5. The landscape (planting and irrigation) and grading plans should be submitted for the review of tree impacts. Recommendations from my previous letter as well as this letter should be incorporated into the plans. 6. The plans do not show whether the perimeter fence will be installed using a pier and beam system. Ultimately, the installation of the wall should adhere to item #6 from my previous letter. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #79676~1~~~19 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care November 19, 2004 13815 Pierce Road page 2 7. The plans identify that the first 30 feet (approximate) of the existing sanitary sewer line from the road will be utilized. As such, I do not anticipate the line will adversely impact the trees, provided no digging occurs to access the existing line. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #7967630~r®!{~2i~ s av ~ 'LltJ! J C ~ . c~ N C~ s . ~ ~ n ~ C9 Q :.~ . i f a ~e z w N Q ~~~ __------ ~ --~ 1 ~~ ., ~. !Y. ff--t: 1 ~• N ji ~ t" 1• • • • ~~ w ~ ~ ~iw~ NifK ~I~/IS~J~1~R ~O w~..4. ~...... WIMiCO~J ~11K0 ~1 z ~ ~~... ocose tro 'voolvavs ..~.~•~..o,-•^.~b..«~ ~ • p ~= ~= ' ~ OVOa 3~a31d S l 8£ l ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ f --- -- Pik ~ ~ ~3 ~ fSr '--=--==== n s uam 8.~ 1 ~~w~a • • M • • • --.~., = .~~,,.,~-,.t..~,,....,,,,~ ~y C =-=_-'~- OLOS6 tr'J 'v9olvavs 0D1~°~00°'+K+a~ • q •Z-'-~~ ~ Ot/0a 3~a31d SIB~t p~n~ s~uau[s`~gi~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ Q • ~ ~ ^ ~~~"~~" NflaC ~I~11~!14~J A~ x1114 M i ~~ ~;+ OL066 `d'J 'VJOl`d21V5 ao~~~-~marcyo.~ nwr~~ut.+wn~vawww~ ~ c ~ ~~ .,r_r_ ovoa 3~a3id sia~~ ~ I~~i ~ i ~~ Q =-== =-= PPn~ s~uams~gl~ -.~..._ • • • Q .. ...~ ~~ m W dII~I2I03I'ld~ ~d'Y QdS 6f!/Ati +~9~N ~!"I ~~~~J ~M!S+!a+~JN~J _ -_ ~ ! wN+ww~'wwwr.n+w± 001 I-99£-89-~A.~0001.99E'HOY ~~oqd «:. «. ~""":. ~ Qd02I ~~?I3Id s'fi8 £ [ aM r!osa v~ w!v.~~'w••~!~e • ur =a was 9sso! ~ I ~ ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ..: w.w.w......ww,., ~' in s ugu~s~~~.~ Q ~w~i.e ~In~r iw1eN w~iw~.r.~~ ..,~,..,_,ww........,.....~. iul~~ ~ iu~z~vW PI. ~ a I_ __ . _. -. I ~~TMM~ ~ p~+~ a ~a i < ~ r ~ ~~SR~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as z ~~~ $8w ~8 ~ ~ S p~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~_~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ u, ~~ z-~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~z~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ Z ~~~~~~~ ~ ~" ~~~ ~~~~~~~$ ~ ~ F JJ ~ ~ ~ ~~, 1. ~ ~n' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL~~ ~ b ~ J ~~71 ~T77 ~ ~ ypa(>a~(p}~~z ~ ~~ ~mry$^ ~ SJia ~ • ~ 3 Z ~ ~ ~i J m ~ Y~ ~z ~F~E ~~~ [((~ W J I Jq ~ '~ ~ nm nmaNmrm ~~N ,-rvm n m a ul n "'aN ~p r 4 nm o ZZ µ<{~ay1 ..~ 0 ~ p~ra~;(~^ n~~i ~j ~ ~ U X15, ~ kiikiki~ik~ uV.~ wu,u, ~ .h .A ~ S/ J~ ~ u~ ~i~~ ~ ~ ~isfi '!~ ~ Y ~I~ I~m ~fi~ Z ~ ~~' ~ ~ b~g w LL~I u-1 m ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~_ ~~~ ~~3R ~~ Z ~ ~. z 3 ~~ ~vv-v~ ~ v ~ ` ~ ~ q~~ $ ~D~ s ~ ~~ 2 ~ ~ ~ R ~~ ~~~~ o ~ ~~ o~~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~ r P ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~a ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ o~ _ ~~~~ ~ o ~Q{ < y L n0 J Ind ~ < ~ Z ~/ I ~ ~ ~' XX ' ~~. F ~ , v i K 3 ~ I W !.~ i ~Z n~ l~d ~ ~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ .rr _ ~ {i /-, ~~i!~.i -~ nil ~„~l ~ V 3 LC ~~ ~r1 C~~ iC ~~~~ Z is Jo u~: ~~~~ l m ~ ~.r!~~ ,,~, ._ ` I ~ky _~. .~P ~%1.~ . ' ~ ~~ ~~ /~ '~ H \ I I ~G ~-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ I ~ I R 1a ~ G~ ~h ~ I i ~,» ! ~I \^~ r 1 I II ~,r ~ ,~~SyJ I .. , Xr \ \ c ~ ~ ~ .d i { r + ~ I ~ ~ , / ~ A , V' J 1 ~~~ _. ~/ f -p7 t ' , a ~ ~ - s1o~~~ i'~b ~, it b _- _--- _ ~ FD W ,{ / ,.~.. ~ ~ ~ , ~• i ~ N ~:~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'-1 y _ ~ ,,~ ;. .~ ~ r ri 'I ~~ ~~ ,~ `l- ~, ~ ! I; - ~ ~ .~ ~~. , _m_.., j ~ . I ,.~~ ~' -- _ _ ter- ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~~ 1 ooti~ . _ ro _ ~~ ~C Z \ ~ _ yy y"' ' ~ ~ _ I " J~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o o ~ , i ,-~ ., ~ ~ ~ . ~~ 1.~,; . ~ ~ ~~ ' ~~ _ "/ I I ' ~ 1 ~ 1 r/~ / `~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ / / 11 r ~ ~ ~ ~l= Q~ I ~ ~ ~. ~ .:. " C ~ ~ ~ 1 ~t ° ~' ~ ~ ~:~ ,. ei= ~ s; Z ~ ~z_ ~ _ ~ ,,,' ~ t, iil 1 ri ~ , ~ ~ ,~ ,i ' , '~'ii~i _r . , it _ ~ as Po -~ ; _ I r r i ~ ~ - :~A* t o, - _ ~ ~y: - (~I ~ ` s ,~ ' ,~ I .~ ," ~ ~ -- ..f..., ..~.,, _ ~Y III t '.~ , '~, ,., . - 4. ~ ~ ~' fr.~~ n~ 4.. z N W • • • m ~11~I2IOdI'It~'~ `~JO,L6~IdS es~~os ~~r+•.•~•~~%•~•~,~•, - - -~ w•+w.r.~~w....w..r«r..M ° OOiivr~f•80r'xvd WOl-99E-Y0-~woWl ~ ~.:.._. --~-p ado~r ~~2i~la sl8£[ ~NI nose v~~n+aen~•wo~i~e••~v~aw~svssoi ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ p ~' ~ ~ ` j «wrr...~~w........»r+..+ I M Y ~ ~~....~.~...~,~.....~.. IhII~ ~ IAI~Z~'0~1I Pi. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~_~~w~~ ...w.,....~,....,....,.....,. _ .. _._.J u. ~ x Q w a ii ~; :%~ _- ~ ~ftiE :f, I t W k t. ;; 1~ ~ ' \ ~ ~ a ~ tai r s r. W ~,~~a '~ t . a,a $~g~g~S3~R ~ A~Ap~~~ H 0 9 § UI - Q i ~R A Q~ i - ~~~ ~ F~ ~ F~ ~ b ~ ~~ - ~~ ~~ ~~ 4 ~ .o-. l0 ~ ~' ~ V'! ~l ~ YI~ - ---- h ~. XIS Stg ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' ~R~ ~ N ~` € _ r 9 z ~.w- ^r.. ; - ~: ~ I § j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s w ~ d ~t__- . I .w~-" =- j 1 - V ~I~'" ~ ~-__ ii ~ ' z o ~ ~ ~, ~ p _ 1~=~~~ ~:=.~-- ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ O a J - ~ _ ___ W ~ .. u ^Ill I4~1 h -_ zzV W ~ Z~ d 'Q ~ W V ~ 4 W V ~ Q V Z t~ ~Ll = ~Ll IAQ Q ~ p ~. A C b ~ $ ^ u I p~l '~ • • • b dII~I2I03I'Ifd~ `~'JO,L~'21NS 6,;1000 ~n ~~•~a ~s n~!r~ -- - . ~..rr.rw.wr~i.w 001199F'A01 ~*'i 0001-9Y£'BOt ~~~Wd :_ ~-.,~.~~.. r rn~ox ~~x~Ia sis£1 ~~ .IO>:R,~~~..oI~R~~~~~ol n wM,w~vr~~r~MrW ..a.~....i...,.,.a_.w.... w.w. w.~_,...~,~_.~.,,m~ ixua~ ~ iu~z~or~ Ptjn~ s~u~tus~~~a~ _ .;~ ~.~~ m ~ _ .._J ~a ~: ~~ ~ Q _-.._-__~__._- .a-14 -____ .OL-.4C ~__._ _________._ ~~~ ~~ .o-,el z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~E 4 ~~ ~ ~o 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ -- f e a~ ~~ i- -r--- i --- - - 4a ~' 1 --~--=-' ---~ x m g '- y -- i n _ , ~ ~ N -$j ~ ~.... ~ _t_ +~K }~ S o ' ~ m ------_ _ ~ n - - --- ~ 'a ~~ ~~ ,~~ ~ _~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~~ ~~ e a w I -- Ei ~ ' °~ ~ p ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ A ~ 1 ~ ° ~ }~ i x ~ n ,~/': ~ ff ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - -- -I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i ~ -_.._.--_ -...__.__._____.___ .L-.ab __-- - -__ ._ ~~ ~~o ~h ~~ ~a~ ~~ in ~ J ~ R ~~ C7 ~ ~~ RA Ri ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ yp S~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ Y .ot-.> ~~ ~R g ! ¢ '" ~Q o ~ ___ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ti ~ ~~ ~ yy //,, Y~C [A X~ .l'o \ n~ji < ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~~ ~ i ~ F ~ ~ ~~ @ k ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ h ~ ~n P ( $ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 9 b EA g S~° ~i~ ~ ~5~ ~~~! E W ~ ~ i ~ x q6 a a~ a ~ Q w dv Jf J J~iK ~ ~J ~1 V~~ U) t~- m N II ~~ ° 111 m Q` J i w a b~~ ~~~ ~o~ • • • _ r • • m Yll`lQO7i lV~ P/IJ.LY QYS 6EILOE ~9W^N ~!I ~Jw~nabJ ~S~~J!1~'J (..___.. _._.I ~ ~ ~~ ~~M ~ Q`d02i 3~2i3Id S I8£ i ~I I'9'1E-801 '~! 0001"19f'W/ ra4d ~ N ; ~ , ++y %~ ~f1[ 111~E6 V~ ~!UOd^J'prnolmg ~euV o4 9~^oS Y9EOI + 4 ,...,__~.~;...,.~ II~iINi~ ~' Ix~z~'OL1i Piing s~U~ius ~L'.~a ~__- -- i ~ ~ ~ ~:w....__,......~.~ OTO Y liRg01I 1 V ~ ~ Y JOiL Y Q Y S 6SICUf ~W~N ~!'1 ~I~A~InJ a1gV ~lwot!p~ - ~ ••~"'"•M~~wM'~""~ UOI I-Y9C'806 .*~d 0001~9Yf1101 ~~oqd ~ Iy (~ ~\/~~ .. "~;,:.:.I.r,~. ~- Qb'02I d~2I3Id Si8£I ~H- btOSfi YJ °o!~^~'M~1~9 ~~YOU W^o59YS01 f ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ' ~~.. ~ `~,,,, ~ u ~ ~ Piing s, u~ius~ ~.~ ~ ! ~ ~ k . u ~ ~ Q .M..:.~..._,..~.~ i ire iu~z o~ ~ a . __ - --- - .~~ FYI M M~ 4 MsYr ~Yw~ M~ 1W17IIUMW •N W ]]11W .9-,% b .O-,lC .9-, „O-,El b 4 h f ~ ~ a A~.~I ~ m P ~ ~- - - - - ----- ---- I i ~j J I~~ ~m a ~ ~ ~j ~ ° ti h v ~ '--- - ---'---_._ _._ - - - --'---' ~ I I -. i . ` I I ; I ~, ~ to ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ox ~ 11 I ----------- I ~ I I ~~ tl ;~ SS 3 r ~ ~- - - ---------- ----= I I 8 !y - --------- - -------- • --- ---- --- --- -' ~ 4- ~' ~~~ ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~ N ~ __ t- _ - -. Q~ 0~ _ ~ „ -._. _-_~b-~Ll . a I I r ~ 4 g 8 ~ ~ 111 i11 1 ~ q ~ ~ ~ fi ~( C I i I ------- ~D Y ~9t0E~ G y ~ r ~nV ~ ~ { x C II f ~ ~ 5 ~ a ~ I y ~ ~ I I ~ 6 7~ E V t0 ~ Oy ~ ~ ~ 2 s I I I '- --- ~ - ~ ^~ ~~ m _ LLLL ~ FFF d J § ~ ,p i I I I I L~~ LJ ~ Q e .~ 111 O 1 y I I O ry [~1 ~ 1\~ Itl ~j mmry ~1 I i I I ~ ~ ~ ~ p (fp{~ o ~ S yy :b .'.__~'_ ;___y. qr~o dxlil ~ F IL I Y p Y :~ O 11. >~ ----. . ~ ~ ~I I ~ 1I~L. __ -- ~ -- ~ A R k~ yg ~ N ~~ ~~ lL y ~ q ~~ ~ ~ - - - -_ -- - ~ _ .------ --- -- .. _ -- - - - F I --py a S I J ~uF ~ „ I a ~ \ 7 d ~ lS 6 i I ~ - - ~ J 9. - c - 1 I m .e-.z ------------ h i I i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I i ~ ~ l FI ~ tv ~ m I ~ ~ yy A W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ S 'n T tr I . , ' _ _ _~ , n z~zE~ ~ ~ I `~ K I~~` ~l I I i_ `_J ~I i I I ~ ; i I~ I I i__ ~ I 1 I ~ %~ W ~ ~ N xF I ~~~ ~ --- .qs __ ~-9 I tl1 -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I ~ ~ a ~ r~ n ~ 4 'n --- ~---~~----~----.-_.. 6 gbh ~ I ~ ___ _ __ I I o ~ ~.. "~F---I `~~ § i I ~ I a .o- I S ~~ ~~ ---- ------ ---- I ~. V •--- x .w ao 7~ ~_ _ _ rao. rnw Y _ ~v.~cxc 61 Q 9 ~ 0 n~ r ~ ~ ~ Q 4 __ - O -_____ ~ _ ~ ______ _ _ i7G rqw __.__ 1 ~~ ' F I 1`` ~_ I I .. r a ~ Q1 I I .b'~L I Y 4 f F ~, ~~.i.r ~ '~r- ' i I I ~ ~ ~ I A '. ~ : i ~ ~ f ~ ~ i~~ -I ~ i i tr O F ~ _ F F • _ _ gl x ~- ~ I I I~ia Ir~.__.rQ_ __ • T ??} - ( f i ` 1 $j LL ..{.. _. i._.. . ~, y I I _ I ~ ____. 4 T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ J I -f k= ' ~ ~ _ ._ ~ ._ ! ~ m va~1 aaa Hsw ac Inw __- S 4 ~ Y '7N'7 %L ~" /7 xqC ^ .l-.t ..l-.EL O-.Q .____ .. .t __ --._..___--__._____..._ .6-.41 _ ~p I _ t~ F o n .___ ..o-.~ r _ • _ • m Y I1RaQa1 1 Y ~ ~ Y /V.L Y ~ Y J of ILOS ~+oq~^N ~!'f 4or+uluo'J aMlS muoJ!PJ -, .+,...~.:.:.: ~ uol!v9r:-~o- Wdooorv9c-w- ~w ..,~: ,...:.,..:rte...... Q~'02I ~~2I~Id S 18 £ t ~Nl r tus6 v~ «m+~o'a•ul~a ~v ~a ass rxol ~ ~ ? ~ ~ •4iwr+~r~ww~w1r~~ ~~T4~r MIINI ~ IIC~+~O ~ ~ ~ 3j ~~ ~f ~ ~ Q ~.: ~ ;~.~,~, II~III~1I~''B II~i~Z~'OI^I Piing s,u~u~s~~~.~~ ~ waaYUw nranuw ~ 1~ g V~ ~~~ 8 n ~~~ ry a I I I ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~. r-~ i y ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~tt ~~4~ 4 ~ mm, mm_ I R K 0 n ~~ a d. S • • • m dII~I210d1"I~'~ `~'JO:Ld~S a~«:~~H~•.~.n~,~s~,~,,., ---; gyn. r~~.~~~.+..~rYrT OOI I'99E-Mr'pd 0001'9YE10-:°m4d I -._._. L . r,_,..... Qt+'02I ~~2I~Id S 18 £ I All -~ose v~ o~w~e~~ ro~•~~a aw ~a wbs v9soi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ 1 i ~' ...__~~,~...~ I1~tII~1i~' a8 II~I~Z~'OL1I Piing s,uetus~~~.~~ j Q wwa~uwiwas~w • .• • ~ .rr. dll`1Q0."I11Y~ t~~IOJ.,Y (1dS bfllAlS:+~9WnN xmJi~spiaA.~'J ~NI$r~wopRJ .... _.. .. ~w.~...~w.wr~ ~::.....,e:.,w :_... Qd02I ~~2iflld S[8£l o~oo~,-~E-~:p~ooo~-~E-~o.: ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ....~...,,,.,,,,.,...,~,~, ~NI n osc v~ w~dro •w•~a~a ~v ~a vas vaso, ~ I d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .;w.,..._.~._..........,, wo~wwoonva.nuw .o,a ry ~Y n r= z 0 4 w w u~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~o-.~ i ---- -- ~. Ifl h m ~~ ~~ ~~~ Q • ~ • dII~12IOdI'Id~ `dJO.Ld21dS 6s~cos ~•a~w~n•r~~•w+s•!•+•mro --- Q ,••,~•~•~••••••~~•• aoirv~x-eo-:•,aoooi~s•eos ova ~ -- - ~•~•~=,•;~++;•••~ ~ ~NI 410S6V~~!uodn~~P+^~I^~B~V•OW'p5!MC01 Y. p ~~ ~ ~ ~.,,..,. y,. Qd02I 3~2I~Id S [ 8 £ I ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ := ~.-=~ ~~ II~III~ ?8 II~i~Z~OL1t PI. ~ ~ ~~ ~ _~ Q ,~d~ ry1 ~ $ o `t lfl N O 1 ! tr ~ 2 ~! ~! :! :T o! 4! 9 ~~ vY v4 ---------„o-,u------- 2! is n1 (`I p 1Y D .«-,Q m r n ® _ ~ 1~ 2 - - ~ .o-bi r ~ ~ ~ ® _ ~ ~ --------- ------ ------------ ----------- ~ 9 --- ---------- -- ~ Z ,.o-.sz O ® ~ $ ~ - - ----- l~~ ------o=ti_m _._ W ~ - - -:o-.o~-------- ~ ~ Z ~ g ~ ~ ~ - m sr J ry $ ~~ J "' ry ~ ~ ry m N '^ _ ~z ---- .o-,e--- ------o-.oi ---- .o-:x - in N .O-b ~- ry ry m ~~ m m _ ~~ _(NV .o-b rya ~ ff1 ~~ m«<~ ~ IIi p w J~Q~7 ~ l~ x (NV ~ m N ----- :o-.oi - ~ ~. • m dII~RIOdI'Id~ `t~'1J01.d2IdS esccus pv~H~m~,a~mp~ansn~~r~ , --- - , x ~ ~ .r..+.~,.,...,.~.. airnc-eoe.*+eiwul-s9c-xo. ~w Y .:^. ='" ~~. w Qd02i ~~Zi~Id S 18 £ [ ~x1 , ioc~~ v:~ ~ ~w~~~u R~~ ~a v~s+gw i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 4 p : ..~~.~ __m:,~ in s u~tus e~ -- d ~ y ~ ~ ~ ;""...,..........`."...`. II~iIL1id a8 I1~I~Z~OL11 pt. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_-- --~ ~ Q ~~ ~ ~~ :: zs :! Y4 04 ~uY ® b SAP J'Y Z! 7 w W z Q v ry N ~ z ~ ~ g ~ ~ m LL .L-,6l o a Z O ~~ i ~ a }~~ .o-.6 V ~ Z .o-.E V j N m ~v-~ X 9 - ---------------------- .O-.6l .o-,41 ~ .o-zl i m n ryp --- .o-b Q ~ a o W N z -------------- ------- 9 ~---------,9=.=~-------~ _ ~ _. ___..____.6-,41._-.~-_._._ O • ~ . ~. ITEM 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner/Applicant: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 04-068/ 14345 Springer Avenue Design Review Srinivasa Malladi, Property Owner Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner~~ December 8, 2004 503-27-074 Department Head: . ,.:._ ., ___ _.', f (~ 4~ ~'~/F~ J ~ i ' _, ••.~ ~~ \ ~~ r ~ r !_. l ~. {(~_ ~, .` \'. 1 SUW~AN.M~ ~ ~LM.,`I~y~y DR y I L _ ~ /l\~~ ~ ~F ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,; .' I ~ i~ ~ _ ~J (( _ -' 0. ~ ~` ~ cnavdir/~Ewbrt ~ ~ _ , l ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~``~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ • ~bcio wr j ~ • ~ _. - _~ ~ \ cANVONNEw DR1. , J/'\ y ~ YW 1 ` ~<,\, V ~ SPf2fIfGER AY ~D4M~% ~, / /1 ~~ (' 'C `~'~ 500 ft Buffer Zore ~ ~ ~, ~/ ; • v, ,~~ __ ~ gyn., "~ ~ y C._'1 FOrcels witltin 500fee1 iH na . l . ~~ ~ ;~ . ~~. ~ ~ Streeb ~ soo ~aoo ~ ~50o ir,~ ', ^ FArcels ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ F ~ - ~ - /, , ~, ~?D, ~~ _.W. ~..~ I Y1 RM.NV.I~ FFN WV\ ~ r ~ ~ 1~.. -~ ,1 t,. \~`~. \~'\~ RD • ~~~\'SARA~4.~O~GIC M ~l~~ 1 ~ 'w a ~~, '8 \\~ ^\~~ 14345 Springer Avenue 0®0001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 03/30/04 10/08/04 11 /24/04 11/16/04 12/02/04 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and gazage is 3,368 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is 10,265 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission refer the item back to the applicant to give them more time to analyze and evaluate modifications to the design to minimize the impacts to the views of the hillside from the Ryan residence, specifically the kitchen and family room azeas. In addition, the location of the transplanted redwood should be discussed with the Ryans to minimize impacts to their view and light. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Neighbor notification templates. 2. Arborist report, dated Apri16, 2004. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices and mailing labels for project notification. 4. Reduced plans, exhibit "A." • • Application No. 04-068; 1434SSpringerAvenve • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10,000 (Residential Medium Density) 4.35 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,265 square feet SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the 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. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include agrey/brown stucco exterior with flat monier concrete lifetile in "Chestnut Brown." Wainscot cultured stone buckeye limestone is proposed along the base of the facade of the residence. Off-white trim is proposed for the windows. • ®®0002 Application No. 04-068; 14345SprmgerAvenue PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 42% Maximum Allowable 60% Residence 2,272 sq. ft. Driveway 1,097 sq. ft. Patios and porches 524 sq ft. Walkways 414 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,307 sq. ft. 6,159 sq. ft. Floor Area: First floor 1,852 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Garage 420 sq. ft. Total First Floor 2,272 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,096 sq. ft. (basement) (1,380 sq. ft.) TOTAL 3,368 sq. ft. 3,370 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement Setbacks: Front 27 ft. 25 ft. Reaz 1 S` story 31 ft. 25 ft. 2nd story 37 ft. 35 ft. Left Side (South) 1 S` story 15 ft. 7 inches 10 ft. 2nd story 24 ft. 9 inches 15 ft. Right Side (North) 1 S` story 10 ft. 10 ft. 2nd story 21 ft. 7 inches 15 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable 24 ft. 26 ft. Average grade in feet 100.5 ft. At the topmost point of 124.5 ft. the structure • • • ~®0003 Application No. 04-068; 14345SpringerAvenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor azea of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,368 square feet. The floor azea of the first floor is 2,272 square feet and the second floor is 1,096 square feet. In addition, a 1,380 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is 10,265 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. The building line pazallel to the front property line of the proposed residence staggers back or steps away from the street. The result is a soft facade that is not bulky or massive. The front entry is appropriately scaled and proportional. It does not include contrived lazge- scale roof elements, columns, or porticos. The second story is stepped back from the first story building lines at every elevation. Rooflines from the first floor effectively break up the mass and bulls of the second story. Hipped rooflines also minimize mass and bulk. No two-story windows are proposed along the right side elevation. The second story setback on the left (south) side property line is 25 feet. The second story is 48% of the first floor area or 1,096 squaze feet compazed to the first floor which is 2,272 square feet. A reaz balcony has been removed to avoid interference with privacy of the adjacent neighbors. The two-car garage does not dominate the front facade; instead, it has been well designed to minimize visual impacts to the streetscape. The garage is attached to the main residence; however, it is recessed greatly from the building line of the front entry. The two garage bays are staggered and a sectional divides the two garage bays. A trellis is also proposed above the bays which further softens the visual impacts of the proposed garage. Unique and distinct architectural features include round or curved building lines across the front facade. The windows are also trimmed out to create depth and shadowing. Decorative beams or braces are proposed in a couple of locations on the front facade. The home is articulated with varying rooflines and moldings. The home is well- proportioned. The homes in the general azea of Springer, Paul, and Elva, despite the narrow lots, aze a mixture of one and two-story structures in various architectural styles. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the neighbor notification templates for the adjacent residential properties (sides, rear, across the street) with the exception of one of the two properties that shaze the reaz property line. This one property is currently rented which impeded the applicants efforts to obtain their comments. Two neighbors have provided comments. One neighbor, to the reaz, Mr. Mehaffey, expressed concerns with the proposed balcony and the lack of a landscape planting and screening plan. In response, the applicant removed the balcony and provided a detailed ~~~0~~ Application No. 04-068; 14345SpringerAvenue landscape planting and screening plan. The adjacent neighbor to the north, the Ryans, expressed interest in story poles to illustrate the scope of work and impact the project may have on their residence. When the story poles were constructed it became appazent to the adjacent neighbors (the Ryans) that the proposed Malladi residence will interfere with their views of the hillside from the kitchen and family room azeas. At the time the staff report was written a compromise between both parties was not reached; however, both parties have not had a lot of time to work towazd that end. As a result, the staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission refer the item back to the applicant to give them more time to analyze, evaluate, and explore modifications to the design which will minimize the impacts to the views of the hillside from the Ryan kitchen and family room azeas. Perhaps between the date this report was written and the date of the public hearing the applicant will be able to present modifications that might lessen the impact on the views of the hillside from the kitchen and family rooms of the Ryan residence. Generally speaking staff can support the proposed project because the language of the finding for approval is to avoid unreasonable interference combined with items #1-8 listed below. However, staff finds it appropriate to require the applicant to consider what modifications might be made to the proposed project given the obvious detriment to the Ryan's quality of life. Important points staff would like the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Any improvements, including aone-story residence, at the project site will substantially affect views from the kitchen and family room areas of the adjacent residence. 2) Most of the floor azea of the Ryan residence is not affected by the proposed project. 3) The elevations aze very well designed to minimize privacy issues. Absolutely no windows are proposed on the second floor right elevation. 4) The overall height of the Malladi residence is 24 feet, which is two feet under the maximum allowable. 5) Project meets findings for mass, bulk, and privacy. 6) The measure for viewshed protection is to "avoid unreasonable interference." 7) The proposed second-story is setback 21 feet 7 inches from the right side property line. The proposed one-story setback is 10 feet from the right side setback. 8) The Ryan's one-story setback is 6 feet from their left side property line and the second story is 11 feet from the left side setback. 9) It can be assumed that the Ryans spend most of their time in the affected kitchen and family room azeas which will undoubtly have a significant impact on their qualify of life. The neighbor notification templates and comments aze attachment 1 of this report. • ~~0~~5 Application No. 04-068; 14345Spr7ngerAvenue Trees No trees are proposed for removal; however, tree #1 is proposed for relocation which was an option provided by the City Arborist. The tree proposed for relocation is a young redwood (9.5 inch diameter) located in the front yard. The relocated redwood has been shown on the proposed landscape plans. The arborist has prescribed conditions associated with the relocation of tree #1 that the applicant shall comply with. Three additional ordinance protected trees were inventoried. They are all located on adjacent properties. As a project condition, the location of the transplanted redwood should be discussed with the Ryans to avoid any impacts to their view and light. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission refer the item back to the applicant to give them more time to analyze and evaluate modifications to the design to minimize the impacts to the views of the hillside from the Ryan kitchen and family room areas. In addition, the location of the transplanted redwood should be discussed with the Ryans to minimize impacts to their view and light. • • ~~0~~6 • Attachment 1 C~ ~~0~~~ Neighbor Notif cation Template for .. Development Applications Date: 3 ~~ ~~ PROJECT AD RESS: - 4 3 S" ~ ~ ~ f~e ~ .~ ff ~~ ~~~~J /, ~ Applicant Name: SY ~~wiV' G~So`..~G~1G~~ `t - n ~` ~ -+a' 0~ Application Number. ~}- "' ~ g ~~ ~~"~`~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does~not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. . ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; j understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any coneeras or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach ad/ditional sheets if necessary): 1 11 ~ )) ~ r,A,o-~ P,t~ U Ol~~,~s ~[ ~u~ ~cr~Otsl~ S~~e~~., d .~a-^ise UIL- Neighbor Name: ~"v ~ ~ ~ J t ~ ~~ Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ Sid ~~ ~ il"~ . Neighbor Phone #: ~6 ~- ~2 ~ Signature: ~ Printed: ~ ,. D /~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~z~~ ~~ v ~~o~as Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications - nate• 3 3~ u~ ~- S ~,~ e. PROJECT AD 12ESS: ~ 4'. 3 ~ ~ • ,__ _1~f Applicant Name: SY t~V~ V' Gt SO` :~C~tG~~ Application Number: ~- _ ~o g ~~ The Saratoga Planning .Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of atl residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and I~ do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to.the City's public hearing on the proposed project. . ~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): .~ ~i4~~ oles. w~ u~a.l.~ ~jw~J"' I.~~ -~'e ,:,u~~ .-~ ~~ 11~ s< ~ as f see / l-~~ e sc ~~ P 1~~ t di ,SGe ~s~//~~~, a ~ Std y --~ /~ ~/ • Neighbor Name: ~1rJ/S ~COOI'''1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~C~ r /~4r1 a F--lf h S Neighbor Address. a ~S .~3oZS S r/rs ar ~vc ~ ~ / 1` ~~• ~S ~ 7~ Neighbor Phone #: ~Z`"~ ~ " 7`1fl ~ ~D `~~ r~i. Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: Planning Department ~~O®09 .~ • December 1, 2004 Christy Oosterhous City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ~~~uu~ ~Fc i U 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA .. „T.. ,,.-, ,... Re: PROPOSED PROJECT AT 14345 SPRINGER AVENUE, SARATOGA Dear Christy: As a follow up to our meeting with the City of Saratoga attid the Owner of the above referenced project, please accept this letter as a formal request for review of the proposed building based on the following issue. The City of Saratoga findings for approval regarding loss of view: 15-45.080 Design review findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (Please see attached) After a thorough review of the story poles installed on the existing house, we find it unacceptable for construction to be approved as designed. The story poles show at least a 95°r6 elimination of the current view from our kitchen and family room of the mountains to the southwest. These rooms are the most utilized rooms in our house, which include the most dramatic views from our property. The construction of the proposed structure will change our view from a mountain view to a view of a brown, flat concrete Monier the roof system. Our view of the mountains has been transferred to the southwest elevation of the proposed Malladi residence. It is our belief that the Owner has a right to build a house on his property. We would respectfully request that they build a house that doesn't dramatically destroy the most beautiful design feature of our home. The current design will also affect the amount of light, the quality of life and the overall value of our house. Fortunately the City of Saratoga has codes and restrictions in place to help eliminate the burden of unfair construction that will adversely affect neighboring properties. • ~4~0410 It is our understanding that the Owner is currently reviewing modifications to accommodate our concerns. Please feel free to contact us to visit our property. This will allow a first hand look at the story poles from our kitchen and family room. Thank you for your attention regarding this issue. Sincerely, Dennis & Mary Anne Ryan 14325 Springer Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 408-741-9055 • • ~~0011 ... d co -+ co mod' 0 0 ~~ ~~ gab a° ~ ~A'~a ~8,~,0 ...~ r~,~'~b ~*~ ~ ~•° NFP o OtiQ ~n f~'p+S~~'Zti~C'O~p C7' p `r1.~ ,dp~p d r l cgs A ~ A. ~ .. ago eC w ~ ~ ~ S. ao ~ pp -c~~ ~ ~ ~ n,p• c~f~~p•5'~a.~•v~ ~ ~ A a'~ Adei o C7 ;G a~ o C D 8 ~ ~• v ~7 Cf p ~. ~' .~- ~ CL'U ~ ~ G ~' d ~3 dam„ ~ ~ G , O A, D• ..r A d+ OQ O eP w 6 O C w ~• p ~. ~ A ~ ~. o ~• ,ob ~ ~ ~ A vpr' O' ~• C d p„ ~ 1'* ~ e~ A ~ p eon ~ ~,~- S! y ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~• S. n r' ~ c ~ •a ~ ~, ~ a a ~ ~d~~~~ ~ ~~' ~~ ~,grN aoo ~ v~aS. W ~ ~ w r. O ' a: ~ ~ ~9 ~ R A "~' ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~ g ~.~ C' O .... v G ~~ y~o p ~~~ A ~p ,b o Vy "'. A N • ~ ~ ~ pq• ~ p~ -+~ ;~ of ~i ~ p' p ER'y A ~ ~. V~ < ~ ~ p a~ ~<o~ o~p r. ~ o' ~. cr ~.. 0 0 ~ ,...g... ~ o~v •,... ~ A a ~ cn (~' w ~ 5' ~ a ~~ ~~ ~ b ~~ ~~~~ p A' A ~ ~ R. ~' a o R• ~ E3 ~ coo p '-' w A Cry r- N ~ . ~ Q~ .~ ~' w N lp P~ w iIo®Z~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date• 3 ~~ ?~~G L~ 5 ,n'v. ~. PROJECT AD RLSS: ~ 4 3 ~ ~ ' Applicant Name: Sr ~'v~v~ 61So~ .~~~~~ Application Number ~{- ` ~o g The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below. you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; ~ and d the scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed F~mject. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans;~t understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional shcets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: k p Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~` Signature: City of Saratoga printed: • • ~ ~ C~~~~~ OCT 5 2004 Planning Deparh~~~A ~ w.r Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ PROJECT AD RESS: - 4 3 s- ri h ~e ~ ~ ~-T~ Applicant Name: SY ~~wiV' GtSo` .~A.~~` d ~) ~3 ~ ~ ~l ~C M ) Application Number: ~-- _ ~0 g The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they nary have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed pmject. ' ~ ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): c , Neighbor Name: ~~ ~ ~~' r~ _ Neighbor Address p trite. r2 r4~3 ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: C ~ g ~ i - b~~-, Signature: Printed: ~ ~ ~"- ash: ofa City of Saratoga Planning Department ~®14 Neighbor Notification Template for t~ Development Applications - Date: ~ .3© ~~ T PROJECT AD 1tESS: - 4 3 4 S Sri ~`~"~ ~e. Applicant Name: SY' ~'~v~ Gtso...:~t'~~~ Application Number: ~ '- ~ g The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work. with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. Tfie Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they »uzy have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below. you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~j'"~' '" " Neighbor Address: /~3SL2 S`' ~n per ~ye Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~' . ~ ~-- ~ ~ . ~. City of Saratoga 8-~ J v z3a Planning Department ~u0~15 • • p rov ~ c~e~ h~ -~ c~pl~ c~ Neighbor hood details LOT Details Lot [28] - 73 14325 Springer Ave. Lot [33] - 75 14351 Springer Ave. 14352 Springer Ave. Neighbor Details Mr. Dennis Ryan 408 741 9055 Mr. Jim Lo 408 867 0230 Talked on 4/11/2004 and personally given a copy of plans, left two messages. Talked on 4/24/2004. Dennis talked to his real estate agent, and found that city will contact him to act on this further. He does not see any issues at this point. Dennis will check with Real estate agent to get back to us. E-mail response after several attempts. His comments aze addressed. Dropped plans on 4/11/2004 in their mail box. Dropped a follow-up letter on 4/25/2004. Tried to visit personally, never got answered to the door bell. Tried during the weekends as well as Talked on 4/11/2004 and personally given a copy of plans, Comments Asked whether study poles be used. Answered Yes, 4 weeks before planning commission date. CONSENT RECEIVED IN E- MAIL CONSENT RECEIVED IN US MAIL '~®16 several trials, could not connect. Talked on 4/24/2004, they do not have objections, but they do not know that they need to sign this paper. They said that they are okay with plans. Lot - 53 Gary Nishimoto, Dropped plans on CONSENT 14330 Paul Ave. 408-761-0761 4/11/2004 in their RECEIVED IN US mail box. Dropped MAIL follow-up letter on 4/18/2004. Personally met on 4/25/2004. Lot - 52 Mr. John G. Dropped plans on Wanted to see lazger 14340 Paul Ave. 408 867 3215 4/11/2004 in their drawings. mailbox. John called CONSENT us on 4/20/2004, RECEIVED in personally meet and WRITTEN FORM provide a larger drawin s. Lot - 51 Presently rented Submitted plans on 14350 Paul Ave. 4/11/2004 to tenant and requested to send to owner. Dropped a afollow- up letter 4/25/2004. No res onse. Lot 31 & 32 Renter My place 14345 Springer Lu Ann Ave. 408 872 0167 505 699 6793 • ~~J041'~ • Attachment 2 • ~~~418 ARB~ RESOURCES Professional Arborieultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14345 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORI~TIA OWNER'S NAME: MALLADI APPLICATION #: 04068 Submitted to: r~ U Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Apri16, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources(a3earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~0019 David L. 2004 .lTbOI'ist • SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and build a new one at 14345 Springer Avenue, Saratoga • The proposed project exposes four trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. They include three Coast Redwoods (#1-3) and one London Plane (#4). All trees are shown to be retained. Tree #1 is a relatively young and small Coast Redwood. By implementing the proposed driveway/walkway design, the vast majority of the canopy's north and west sides will require removal to achieve adequate driveway and walkway clearance. As a result, the canopy will become severely distorted. To avoid this from occurring, the driveway and walkway should be designed no closer than 10 feet from the tree's trunk or the tree should be relocated elsewhere on site. All other trees will be impacted at tolerable levels provided the recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The combined value of the inventoried trees is 56,800. Per City Ordinance, a 100% bond is required to promote their protection. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Al thru A9 (by Glush Design Associates, dated March 2004) and Sheet 1 (by Advanced Development, dated 3/27/04). A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1) is attached and shows each tree's location, number and canopy perimeter, as well as the recommended location for protection fencing. Trees #2 thru 4 are not shown on plans reviewed. Though their trunks are located on neighboring properties, they were inventoried for this report as they are vulnerable to root damage. Please note their locations have been plotted on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. As the trunks of trees #2, 3 and 4 are located on neighboring properties, I was unable to measure their diameters at the time of my inspection. Malladi Residence, 14345 Springer Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~o®2O David L. Babby, Registered CorZ~ulting Arborist • A l 6, 2004 RECONIII~NDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any demolition, excavation, surface scraping, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts (galvanized), driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. It shall be established precisely as shown on the attached map and placed no further than four feet from the proposed basement wall. Fencing for tree #1 is not shown on the map but must be established as per recommendation #4 below. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Where within 15 feet of tree #4's trunk, great care must be taken to avoid digging beyond two feet from the proposed basement wall. 4. One of the following options should be implemented for protecting tree #1: a. Redesign the proposed driveway and walkway to be no closer than 10 feet from the tree's trunk. Tree protection fencing throughout demolition, excavation and construction must be established no further than 9 to 10 feet in all directions. --or b. Relocate the tree to another location on site and show the new location on future landscape plans. The transplant work must be performed under the guidelines and direct supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified arbotist. A drip-type watering system shall be installed with the amount and frequency determined by the retained arborist. The work should be performed prior to commencing any development activities; otherwise, protective fencing shall be established 10 feet from the trunk in all directions until the work does occur. After the tree is relocated, fencing shall be established outside its entire canopy. 5. Any new underground utilities should be designed outside from beneath the trees' canopies and reviewed for tree impacts prior to approval. Existing underground pipes or lines beneath the canopies should remain buried and cut off at existing soil grade. 6. During the months of March thru October, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #1 and 4 throughout the entire construction process. The suggested rate is 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter applied every two to three weeks. The water should be supplied using soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at approximate mid-canopy. 7. The location of each inventoried tree shall be shown on all site and landscape plans. • Malladi Residence, 14345 Springer Avemre, Saratoga Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 00021 David L Babby, Registered Co~lting Arborist • April 6, 2004 8. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides/pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 9. I recommend the Swale proposed beneath tree #4's canopy be no deeper than three to four inches beneath existing soil grade. 10. The proposed irrigation design should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to approval. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 12 times the diameter of the closest trunk.. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Where this is not applicable, adrip-type system shall be placed on top of existing soil grade. 11. Irrigation should spray away from and no closer than three feet from the trees' trunks. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from trunks. 12. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch hhnl. TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of inventoried trees planned for retention equals X6.800. In accordance with the newly adopted Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is requirod to promote their protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`"' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1) • Malladi Residency 14345 Springer Avemre, Saratoga Page 3 °j~~®®22 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department ARBO~ RESOURCES ~ - Professional Arboricultural Consulting do Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE i ,., .~ .. ~ ~ .. a ~ .. a ~ ~ 1xF.~ ' ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s $ ~ xo. TREE xa-~ ~ coesc Redwood 1 ~r ;,~ 9.5 25 20 100'K 100% Good - - 1 - 61,780 coesc Redwood 2 '~cr 11 40 20 100% 100% Good X X 3 - 51,920 Coest Redwood 3 ~ 'rrns 11 40 20 100% l00% Good X X 3 - 51,920 Imdm Place Tree 4 Plataniv ~ri olia 18 40 35 75% SO% Fair X X 2 - Sl 180 •i silk la~us}~.~.~..., s.~+ P-~rli~: Dwt/L Diw, s(il ~~'0023 ~~~ • C7 ,~ N ~ ~ ~a0~: 14315 Spriye Ara~r, l~W~ ~ ,~ hm~oifiG ~' d8r~lor Codly n..dq.rY D4r1..1 O . ~ ~: Mop idnd6r kv tie dddia~M rs. . ~ M~Mr beeai~doo~d~ i ~~e~d Y rt r gale. ~~~ M \/ ~ ~~ /g ~ ~~ N'°=I "' 3 ~~ ~'~ •.~`` ~+ ~ ~ 1~ ` ~ d °' o- '~~ 2 ~ ~---TREE PROTECTION FENCII~iG F MN co ti O ~ 32 AS S-K1NN UPpI CCKTAN ' TM YA1tY Sry1NGQ TRACT C N.E. SAQ', MHCII MN pAf IER ~ TIL COUNTY Of SANTA Oi N N]q(K CF. YAPS, AT t wAN.arNs i ---• carNa~r » a ~ I I' I • ~w ~. ~ r ~q ~ ~ ~~~ _~ ~ ~ rw ~,' ~~ ~ f ~y ~ ~`JcA \ ~ „/ ,~., -~ ./ J y /~ ~ / ,~ 8 ~ ~ ~~ ~`, ~ S ~, i ~ • n ~ ~") ~ ~ ors ~ ,-'~r' ~ ~ a ,'/ LANN 1 ~' , / /~~: O ~ p~ Prepared B~. ~ / ARBOR RESOURCES ~ ~, MJ~u1Md ArNrlnMw! G~sdMy 1 Tn~ Gre p.0.4 b7lS • !r YYIr~ CA • M/OQ !Mc 1dd1 WJ7S1 i~t rM~wwr~+M ~~O®24 Attach ~®O®25 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) 1, ~ ~ , S ~ ~ s ~ ~/ ,being duly sworn, deposcs and sa s: that I am a --~ y citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ ~ day of ~D 2004, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who aze entitled to a Noti~ of Hearing t pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sazatoga in that said persons and their addresses aze those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within S00 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regulaz communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~ Signed • k ~~U0~26 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 8`~ day of December 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details aze available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted at the bottom of the page. • APPLICATION #04-068 (503-27-074) MALLADI,14345 Springer Avenue; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and gazage is 3,368 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is 10,265 square feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. No second story balcony is proposed and a landscape plan is on file for your review along with the building elevations. 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. In order 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. Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner Coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us (408) 868-1286 ~~O®2'7 JOHNSTON, MICHAEL R ETAL 20611 BROOKWOOD LN S TOGA CA 95070-5831 DEIMLER, LOGAN S & CAROLE E 14320 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 SARNA, GRANDER & ANUPAMA 14224 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 KESSLER, LARRY W & NANCY E TRUSTEE 20626 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS INC 20820 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 ~D, DAVID R 20750 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5877 FORD, CLAUDETTE L TRUSTEE 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 FORD, CLAUDETTE R TRUSTEE 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 OHEARN, MICHAEL J TRUSTEE 734 CHESTNUT ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 SIMON S 0 WII,DWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 RANGACHARI, SARANGAN & VIDYA N TRUSTEE 20613 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 SCOTT, JON M & DEMETRIA R 14256 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 BELSHAW, DAVID A & JANINE P TRUSTEE 14240 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 BROCKETT, PATRICK J 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 KRAULE, ERNEST O TRUSTEE 14433 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5827 HEERWAGEN, TYLER D & BELINDA B 14346 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5875 BAGNAS, EMMANUEL S SR & MARILYN V 14005 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5830 RUANO, RODOLFO SR & GLORIA 14370 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5826 SARATOGA CITY OF WII,DWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 NEE, JANE-MIN & JIM CHING- KUANG 14352 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5826 JOHNSTON, EVELYN A TRUSTEE PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071-0053 KETTMANN, JOHN R & MARIA A TRUSTEE 14250 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5824 MAULDIN, CAROL & MICHAEL 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6356 TREHARNE, M C & CHAETH J 20840 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5839 MOSHTAGHI, HAMID 20758 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5877 FORD, CLAUDETTE L TRUSTEE 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 KII,LIAN, EVERET D & LUCIE M 14395 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5830 KEMP, CYNTHENY A 14362 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5826 BEAUDOIN, HAROLD A TRUSTEE PO BOX 55 SARATOGA CA 95071-0055 WRIGHT, BONNIE J & CLINTON M 14433 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 ~~~®28 GARCIA, MARIA E TRUSTEE 20845 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5838 STEPHENS, LLOYD G 14350 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 STANARO, CHESTER J TRUSTEE 14320 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 VAN DEN HOEK, WILBERT & RIEKO 15470 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6306 POOLE, PRISCILLA F & DONALD E 14340 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 HESTER, JAMES L 14310 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 PENUEN, MICHAEL G & SHEILA K 14380 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 QUON, SHUN W & JANE E JUE 14330 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 YEAMANS, ROBIN TRUSTEE 1340 S DE ANZA BL 201 SAN JOSE CA 95129 WU, YIT-SUN A & MEI-LEE L MCCABE, JAMES M & BERNICE OH, DAL S 14270 ELVA AV TRUSTEE 14261 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5812 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131-1213 RIOS, AURELIO & JING CHOI, TAT C & TINA K GHAFOURI, AMIN R & NARJES 14271 PAUL AV TRUSTEE 14291 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 14281 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 SARATOGA CA 95070-5818 KAZARNOVSKY, ARIC J & CLAIRE J 14301 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 CANCELLIERI, ROBERT & SHIRLEY TRUSTEE 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 MARSHALL, BRUCE & ROBERTA TRUSTEE 14341 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 MA, ZHAOQING & MUZHI 14360 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 NISHIMOTO, GARY M 14330 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 NOLA, MARYANNE 14300 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 POLCYN, JAMES J 14365 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 CARTMELL, SAM 14350 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 SZALAY, TIBOR & MARGARET 14328 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 SZALAY, TIBOR ETAL 14290 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 HANNIBAL, ROSS & SUSAN 14375 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 MEHAFFEY, JOHN F & ANNE W 14340 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 CHIEN, EDWARD Y & TEHCHI H 14314 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5821 KOVACS, JOSEPH L & h~ 14280 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 ~~~~~~ HUANG, DAVID & EMILY PO BOX 895 HERFORD NJ 07070-0895 QIAN, HAO & BUYING 14261 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 SPARACINO, MICHAEL G & CHARLOTTE J TRUSTEE 14325 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5889 SCHNEIDER, SCOTT K & NOLA A ETAL 14510 BIG BASIN WY 226 TOGA CA 95070 ARENA, JAMES R & KATHLEEN L TRUSTEE 14294 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5812 POUTRE, JUDITH E TRUSTEE ETAL 14360 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 CHEN, JIE & QING 14230 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 TOOYSERKANI, PIROOZ & NAZANIN TRUSTEE 14315 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 • LU, MEI-SHIO 14260 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 CLARK, ANTHONY L & LINDA R POBOX81 SARATOGA CA 95071-0081 SCHWARTZ, DONALD M & RUTH TRUSTEE 14271 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 MARKHOVSKY, FELIX & ISABELLA 14250 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 MARTIN, RONALD P & YOLANDA I 14251 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 SPARACINO, MICHAEL G & CHARLOTTE J TRUSTEE 14325 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5889 SCOTT, SAMUEL T III & AIDA A WEDVMANN, ROBERT L 922 BICKNELL RD 14371 SPRINGER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030-2112 SARATOGA CA 95070-5889 DEIGNAN, RICHAD & SUZAN KRAFT, BARBARA L TRUSTEE TRUSTEE 14299 SPRINGER AV 14291 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 SARATOGA CA 95070-5823 BAUER, BENNETT J & CYNTHIA L TRUSTEE 14288 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5812 KIM, SAMUEL U & SUSAN S 14370 ELVA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5814 AMIRKIAI, YOUSSEF & MALIHEH D 14399 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 FRIEDRICH, FRANK J 14220 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5819 TENNYSON, JAMES F & ELAINE W 14315 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5889 SLAVIN, BEVERLY A ETAL 14305 PAUL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5820 Q~0430 ~~ ~~ ~., q ~ ~ u. ~ somMwa as~u Ae wMOHS sNOUwr~ anv -- - - axar.aamoN:aaisoa~~ueboH:w snown~+oaurauaeraunwnu~vioa~uoH \ \ I I _- 3B lSf1P13Jlii0 SFLLdNY B01'3H1 NO9ig1gNOJ O OLLM'rJ ~MOf NB Wq bPW41 LL9Y aw.~ s Ewa scare ~~ •r~u anv sNasn~na rn 1a~ a~aenoasau ae arv'A~roan _ rni+s suuianuea~ aaisrora v~w~s u3no ~aa~ud i " ~ ~ i I S31dI~OSSd N~JIS3a HS(1lJ 3A"'T""~~""""10~~1N0N01BN~''01~"""" i `~ ~ ~ v aM3 sv~ia3o~io ia3N0rauir~v waw n ~ la+ a AYW H31FNC30 3HL iD Alk13d0lW 3HL 3W SONIMYIIO 3S3H1 V~ 'dOO1tl~IMS '3AV l~i3JNiHd8 S'.~Sb L IdVITIW '8lJW ~' EIW ~l:l3NM0 ~woH woisno >: O~ pd y O ~ Y~ ~O O~ ~ <~ a 1• T ~ W ^ 0 r ~ ¢¢~ J j ~ ~ 2f 2Y~'~ ~ ~ _°~~~~ ~ ~ '77~~~ N ~ ~~ Z I ~ ~ ~. ~ 4X N W ~ `r fZ~F ~ j 2 X w U ~ W Fa- a ~ae o ~ ~° ~~ ww<~ ~ ~~ a~ Z U Z ~ ¢ ~ T ~ ; ~ Z ~ ~ - Q g~ a g~ J _ 0 > ~ U ~ ? 8 s ~- .~~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~~~~ g (t ~~ W 8J Z ZN Q~LLZ~"aa~ UZ Q Z W ~ ~ iJ ~ o ~: '. iw~ 9 ~ w R s~~ 9 m' ~~ ~ i m ~¢W¢ a~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ` ~ < SgT ~ I ~ ~R i i ~ uJaF-ppwpwp»F. O C ¢ w < O ~ ~ w ~ ~ a . ~;~~ i~ ~ q •w ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ° w a w 3 ~ ~ wc~w}> ~ w a < _ 8 y m w ~ t5 UfAlLfnmQ W WU ~ i ddadddadd i ~ I ~ ~ ~yy ~ I t YG ~ ~g w ~I~$~.~ i~ i9 ~ i F ~ 8 '~ ~ ' F ~ ~ (n o x Y ( al « 9 s & ~~ ~ , W y (7 a E 'Otl R ~ ~.i '~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ 0 ~~^~, ~ gg • ~ ~~ ~ pp ,~pp ~p2~ ~ ~ K ~' ~ (n "~ ~ ~~y o ~ ~ ~ W w ~ N ~ q p o ~ ~ ~ rsk3 x ~ ~ ~ u5 ~ ~ ~ r ~+ y .~11~~~ ~I ~. I ~81 ~ ~.. ~~ 8 ~ 9 F ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ p¢ W W¢ w 7i p3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a cxi '~ o U ~ LL o < ~ ¢ LL Z O ~ w ~ ¢ n o z . ~ n ~~ I I~ e~ I~ Y ~ ~ ~ oo~ol~l'oo~ ~ J~JO ~ ~c~~ ~ o ~~ ~, I~~~ ~, ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ `~ O LL ¢ O Q ~ W W~p¢ ~ 8 U FF 1y 7 W ¢m 0~ ~ Z~ `p ~ ~I11 p mmLL H O U O > WW < (~ W ¢a ~X~ O S < W m ~LL p ~LL Z <¢~¢~~ }q~e~ ~gm~ ~8~_~¢ ¢pZ¢ ¢F W8 ~ z~~~s~ ¢F I~ m 2¢NmFpr>33 ¢3t7 ~ J 3~ o ~a ~ u~ Q p~ z LLa 3 3m J m ~ =tioa°Q~pp~ rmc~ Q°ati ~~¢ ~¢~m~o~>333¢3C7i ~~c7i 00c~a Wa O ~ c7~~7F p~ <w99a X93 s¢N aadu: ~iiomp ~m x3 ~ W U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- .. v~ a ~/~ 0 f J I Z V1 ~ ~ Z ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~1W ~ '~ ,^ ~1V I V ~ ~ ~ Z U ~ F- I W ~~ I ' • b-- O (~ U J ~ ~ a W Z 4~ '~ ~ z ! W ~i ~ V~ d ~' ~ ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ ~ W ' •• W ~ w I ~ J ~ ~ U ~ a ~~ • • r^ V 1 ~ ~ l fd y ~ _ ~ e, ~ ~~ ~ ~ .}~ ~. 1 ~ L jj E f ,k , ~ ~ ~ . . § A a 5 i~. ~ ~~ ' ...t( ~ ~'~' ~ ~: , Z ~ ~ <y P4 ~'~ ~ ti - . `9Ut ~ Rl~ ~ 1 ~ u g E !' 1, ' • • m ~ i~ x ~, ®I °C7~ i n~ ~ .,aa Sa a9 d3 d3 ~j~\ ~ 6 .\ m~ ~iP~ X^ ` •~ J6\ ,\ ~ ,~O H d• ., ~~ ~~ n~8 i ~°na uw a~ \ na; \ ~Q ~ \ 3 d ti~ N/ ~\~ ,\ o~ d N ~ \ ~ °~ ~! .\ ,~ \ .~'L x~~ .3 a ~ ~•~ yo o Ng m~ +°~ g, ~ 2 ~~ e~ _m Ra~.\ ~ 4~ o ~\ y , a e°4 ` ~\ .\ '°° ~ , JA/ ~\ °R m ~~ / Y ~ 3 H Imo `~• v/~ 'S9NIMVM4 35311 A8 NMOFS SNOIlIdNOJ alv ~ ~ - N ZZOZ~ 892N90i) ~rd ~ 9991-B9Z (90-) 'Vd - SNOIST8~14 3LL W02l3 SNOLLVITh'n .WV 30 4313110N I ~ W OZ 19E ~ of a.g • uQ afPF+9'1~°N ZL99 - 3a 151W 3JI~0 51H1 dNV 9of 31.1 No SNOIlIQ10) °~d N=J~~~dd~ a I .. b ~ '°'J i ~P•0 -~1PII~0 t~!°~~mm°~ •I.pa~plwa a ~ ~_ @!Y 6N015N3WIO 1T' ~?JOd 3'ii<315NOd53Ll ~ 4NY ~Ad12H/~ O e ~ .. I o °~rnl rc°?° CIG"rl =F=J~1 10 ~ke'~ . wo ~~ „ x '~ pp 6!,d~ M/~~1 ~~CCII~[-, ~I//''pp ~p ~+,y N5 5?l017V21W0~'N015N3WI4 43TI~5 ?J3h0 37N3CB73ild 4am c~ 0 < cdi II m ~~1LMBWSS~ tlE~i'V~~41 RI~' yf 1~ 3/~VH ll'dN5 59NMV7~Ci 35311 ND NOISTBJIa N3ILIMA o ~ v Q ~ .n m ~ m '213N953a 3LL J.8 N3/~19 51 NOI551HL3d 553~M1 N03M3N ~ F~ n nOn n ~0~~ ^ ~ I ~ I ~ ^• ,1 0 O31V714/11 GY id7'JX31'J~1'OaY JNV 21aJ ~.l1 76 lON w w w I ~~I I' aaaslsaa ili .a uatadoad 3u aav ssNU.wao xaNi 69 ~ ~ (~ ~o 6 ~ \ ~ 1~ ~~~ °~ :~ 2 \~ GP ~~ ag8 O _gb' ~ + m+x \ ~S !l °s ~o~ "~\ V ~\ . ~o\~ d~ \ ~/ ti ~ V s ~ ~ ~ . . s x ~ , eal< ~. o~ ~. ,$ o~ a~ ~ =~ ~` s~ ~ ~;.~' ~ °' ~ ~~ 8 m :~ ' n Q ~ ,y, C9 64j J °~ ~ ~ c a~ V Q'~ '~ ~'~ m ' O 1b~ 8ff ~ ~ , ~6 'y~~'R ^~ 1 8~ ~ 0 3 F 2 F u Jog° W i .J ¢ f J J Q ~ 100.52 vino x (n O ~ ~ Z W Zp0 U ~gm ~ ~ W Wm 8 Q ~ z ~ ~ Z ~' X `l ~~,'i Z f l~~~ l 1 I / I •~y,\~ \ `~\~ ,\ \ .~ ,\ \~ ~ a~ ~'\ .\ _ ry~ ~•$•~ a°w a+~ + 89 o ,~ ~ a8g 6 00 OS ;s~ ~+S 9 ~ `y 3N/1 ~1 d3dob ~~~ 3" 00, b 1. b l .00 . `3~N3~ pooh H~/H d ~ N Os .s 6~ ~O, ~ ~_~~ 3jN3~ _~- } 3N11,~1~3dobd 3Nn ~~33,pp,v OOO,N HJW .9 ~M., 0 .00 ~ ~~ dOad 1. b l N 0 ZZ OWN ~~ 69 , W , 0~ yl 69 , ~0~ Z ~ ~ ~0~ `° "' o 3 0 _`~ 6g ~" W ~~ ~ ~ o J~~ U W 0 3~ U S ~ ^7 = 4~ QO / 3~ ci -t ~o ti 8 m`" ~g~ a~ ~, °~~~~ ~ ~~ • • • r Q. n -`0--~-!!-~ _ ssNlMVaa Flu .~e NMONS sNOwa~o~ oNv d.l ~ 12202-BYZ :gOt~:x•,~ •e 99BT-282 (f10Y) ~9d = SNOISrF7YJl0 3Nl WOLd SNOIlVRNn .WV •i0 471dIlON C 0 0219E -•~ • f 6 1+0 •BVF+97toN 2448 7a 15f-"I 771dd0 SINl ONV flq' 7H1 NO SNOLLIONOJ x \ I \ i I 1 11••••J 7r ~BP•0 >~IPI}~9 rw~•mma~ •rl7e•vP•a _ oHr SNOI+R13910 'IT•"NO~ 7~GI910d577i 7o aNV 'A~M7n tJ~ S~lOl' LN07 M015N3dIG 03Td75 b7h0 3~N3®~3Md ~°, ~ ~ ~ S31dI~OSSt/ N~JIS34 HSf1l~J ~ 3^rN „vN~ ~+I~ 7s~ No Nols~+la N7ulz~a ~ ~,f! o 'tl3N91530 3NL A0 N3h19 SI N05SIW217d 553"INlI N03M3H ~ i 031VOIONI SV ~d37%3 17~'OEId .W4' ~ ~ 381ON e ,CI i a3Hels3a Flu do uaaaaad au 7av eeNn.+vaa ~s~lu V~ 'VE~O1VaVs •3nv aaoNiads Qv~ ~ irnn~vw •saw ~• aw =aaNnno ~woH woisno Z nQ 1_1_ W ~~ ~~ ,J ~ V / ` ~~ q O ~ O ~ ~~' n~ / ~ ~ 'il Ilia II __. J LPL ~ I _/ \ / /\• ~~• _~ _: / ~ ~~ ~d ~~~ ~,~~,~ ~3 .~ .~ v ~ .~ ` / •\, ~, _\ ~ ~~ ~~,IJA \ ~~Q~ ~. i / ~ ~, s ~, ~ 'v oa3 '~ ~'~ d ~ •`~l aw , . •~ ~ ~` ~ ~` p,, ~. l \~ \~~ i ,. ,~ ~ '~ \ \ 0 ~~ /~~ o s I- m ~ +~ raw Aa0 _~w Z a d3 \' d3 y j ~~~~ mR •~ ;ir~ \ J6~ ~\ `~~ haw `~ n$w AP/ \ ^~; ~' ~ ~ EQ ti~ ~ l~. ry ~ d3 N \ O \ 0 R~~ o > a ^~ ~ o ~ + = aE g^_ ~i. d a~ U ~2 4 O 3~ US ~ i ~, z ~~ w m 4O ~ \ ` \ . v/ C~~e =m ~~ Ue ~ ~ ~~J ~b~ ~'~~ O . • P~ p qo S ~+ ~' '. ' m~U ~~V / °-8 O \ YWf i + O ~ O ~ m8~ '~, 1~ J ~g~J'! 6y ~~ ~. ~~ W . t ~ ~o 8z ~ 3 a . • N ~~ ~ O ~ ~~~=~I ., ~ ~ a~ . ~~ ~~a3 .~ ~ \ ~, ., ~ ~, .\ .\ ~ oo ~Q~ ~d ~~~ 'os L. x' 00 O ,-.~ ~ + , - _ -~ _ _ ~+ ' {~ , ~ ~, , ~ ~~ w _~_~ ~~ ' ~ 3 D ~ $ ~ Q ~ . ~ •c o~ ss 6y \ _r '. 3N/7 ~lb3d~2ld ~~ ~.O~L ~ .00 / 3JN3~ OOpM H~ ~ ~ c 6Z ~f 3N~~ ps • ~l 1 ~ ~ 3~N3 ~ ~ 213d~~d 3N11 ,~~ 3,.00, ti 1. b ~ QooM H~~H .9 `'~, 0 O ~3do21d LN ' p.ZZ p~N 6y W , 0~ ~f ~0~ 6y \ W , Z~ ~ ~O~ ~3 ~~ 6y ~~ W , ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ i i (~ ~, F O ~~,.77 W I ~ °z ~< UQ F~,~~M ~ W A~ ~~ Q N~!~ ~N ° 0 'ii ~`' 0 ahe ti~ a~ d ~O • • • y mid-j- I Z ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ i VJ rVOO1Va1rS i ~ ~ ssNlN+vaa 3S7N1 Ae NNIOF1r sNOUIaNO~ aNV ZZOZ-o 9L ~60t) ..nj / 5991-gg9Z (Pot) ~4d = OLIS! ~ roZ uog r NO •OP4VYON ZCS9 = p~µnrue~ ; uElrrp Ou1P0~B lolaurwwo~ yollurolutl - SN015N3JI4 3HL W021d SNOLLVIavn ANV d0 431dIlON ~ 1511W 771JJ0 SIhLL 4NV 60f 3FI1 NO SNOI114N0~ @IV SNOISN3rl4 TIV '2104 71919NOd5aa ~G @1V ~J.d1213h •3AH a3~JNiads QtiEb ~ ~avllvw •SL•IW ~• aW ~a3wu-o ~ o ~ w ' W I I ~ ~, ~. y=j Z ~~ Y ';' iz u ~ ' ___ _.. _ a = SaOlOVa1N00 ?IOISN$-~1003T'OS a3h03~N3m03ad Im •. `< ~ o < < u I S31b'I~OSSd NJIS3a HSf1lJ 3^`+~I ~rNS s9N1NIVaQ 353N1 No Nolsr>~la N3ulaM ~ : I° ~ om = ~ ° < a~9lsaa 311 A9 N3A19 SI N019alwaad 9S3Tlfl N03a3N 031V714NI SV 1430X3 1~3o21d ,INV aOd ~fl 3910N 3 w o H w ols n o ,~ ~. ~ ~ ~' w a~191sao 3N1 do ua3d0ad 3N1 3aV s9N9.N21Q 3s3FLL o I ai _ - _ _ -- ~6=ss ----- ___ - - ,or=rte -- - -- ------- - ~~tir , I -- I ~ I f 2 I I I o '~ ~ I ~~ , I ~~w ~ O ~w l~ 1 ~ _ p / ~ 3ep. I I ~ J 9 ~ ~ ~ r I ~ \ ~ ICI ~ ------ _.. .._ _ .. _.. ~ ~ a ;Mil I I ---f,,~-- I ._ i ~J 9 ~ \ ~I t I I-- - Z ~ I _-1 - --- I A ..._ _ ~~ I - --:- ---__._-~ _. _ i II t ~--- ~- q - '' 0.9 I ii~~ ~ i t I I \ i0 \ ~ Z ~ I ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~--t---- -- i~ ' ~ ii ~ / ~ - ~ --- t -- ------ _ ~ i-- -J ~ ~ --- ~ ------ - - - ~ i ~ ~ ~- - ~ ~ -,~Z- ~ ~ ~ j I -, -'- -- - -- _ -~ ~I i~ ~ i ~~- -- J i -.~ . _._ -~6 J=~~Z I I ~-~-~ -----. _ ..._J II I__L I~ ---- -- ~ I - -_ _ _- - ~ .. N -~-- _ - - i I- ~ I ~~ ~ I 1 _ ~, ~~_ ____ .01'.EY _.. ...__ ~' i 'F - ~ L ~ i - m i -- -- ~--~ --, ------ --- I ~ ~e '; • • • ~: m~~ _ i i U rc I ZSOZ-p 95 (90/) ~•o! / 5991-895 (90/) ~4d OS IS! ' ~ NW ~oS ~M+O •6p1+4VM1 ZLS9 Eu1Nn~uo~ ~ ulpo0 Eu1P11nB lola+•wwo~ 'IONwPI••M 'S9NIM'dL0 353LL AB NMOFIS SNOLLIONO~ ONV SNOISN3-!Id 3Hl W021d SNOLLVRIVA ANV d0 ?31dLLON 3A 15M11 3710 51HL ONV 90f 311 NO SNOIlIQ10'7 ONV 5N015N3110 T1Y '210H 31915NOd53l1 30 dNV 'l.dRl3h 5 52l017'I2i1N07'NOISN3WI4 43T'J5 M3A0 37N3®0321d 3/~VH lTJHS 59NIMV2W 35311 NO N015N3~110 1~711R1.1 T~319534 311 A6 N3h19 51 NOISSIWM3d 5531Nf1 N03M3H 031V714111 SV 1437X3 173'07~d N1'I ]!Od e~~ 3910N 1 L3191S30 3H1 d0 .LL?13dOMd 3H1 321V 59NM1'I2W 353H1 vo 'vooivavs •anv aaoNiads ~ti~~ irnn~vw •saw ~• aw ~a3w~no 3WOH WOlSf10 o~ I m G I O ~ ~ 3<IY ~O iW ~ Z Iw <mIW o <~ < II Im I ~ U I o r ~~ ----- - ------------J `- ,~ - -~~ ~~ i ~~ ~ I E ~ r-------I I \\ I I I O I r - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --..- ---._----- -- ----- - - „ -~ I - -__ -__ I i - L=,L-- -Z7t~--,~ I I ~,J i 1 I, I ' i lu~ i I -~_... '.. i - I._ ''c_.~ U Iy I ~ A I ! Q al I Q I \ - - - tY_7--- ~~- / ~ - z ~ 9 ~'--- I - -~ /\_ 1. ~d ex~ - A i~ C ~ - ~ ~i~ .niu I --- -- I _ At ~ ~ I I~ ~ m ~ ~~~I~ ° i _ l , -1 - - - --~ ~ ~~ I I ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ i ~ i1' ~ I I - - - J - F -- I -- -' ---- - -- - - I -- f-- I ' n o j _ L--_.~ ~_ ~_ _,_ \ 0 - --- ~ '~ _ ~ I ~ M _ I I I i~ 0. r - --~- ------'F I e ,µ u -~--- i i ~ - 'I- i I I I I 'k-~`k I ~ ~- -~-----r- ~ 1-- - - ~ ~ ~;j ~ ~ I i ~ i I I I „b-,fDl I ~ I - I PI ~ I 0 I ~ I I ~ - - -~ ~ • r • 1 i ZZ02-99L (90f) :•e~ / 9991-99L (BOf) ~4d ~ '~i I ~ OilS6 'off ofa~ uo9 f"IM • PNVVPN ZLE9 EulNmuo~ ; u61f~0 eWPIMB plauwwo~ yol,u~%utl s' ~ ~ A l i S311/I~OSS11 N~JIS3Q HSf1lJ rc I ~ ~`7 ,vOOl~~s In 'S9NINIVMO 35311 A9 NMOFY SNOLLIONO~ ONV I W 5NOI5N3l10 3u WOMB 5NOI1VR1Vh 1NV 30 mI~LLON 07 ' •~d k13oN~ads ~ti£b ~ I o j I ~ =S 3B 15fW a71~0 slNl 4MI 90f 311 NO sN01114l @~IV SNOISN3•IIQ '1lY 'MOJ a-re15NOd53M 38 OM' •AdlMah ~Q~~W •SaW ~• aw ~a3NM~~ < z p W O ° y~ J '~' I p j , ^ u z I W II V I 5 STg17V2LLNOJ MOISN3N10 03TI'JS ~O 3'7N3~ 3hHFi ~"NNS 59NIMVMO 3S3N1 NO NOISN3~71a N3111MIA ~ ~ ~ < rc ° i ~ ° < ~ v ~ ~ < ~ m ~_ • O ~ ' N 'M3N9K7O 3LL A9 N3h19 51 N01951WM3d 5531Nf1 N03M31 431V710N1 5V ld3'7X3 173'OMd J.NV MO.d Q35f1 aB lON ~ ~ O ~ 'w, O~~ ~ /I~ r, v ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 Mil91530 3LL d0 J.1M3dOMd aNl iMV S9NIIdV21a 353LL I - O I ~~ I~ n I ~Y ' i I I PI ~ * .. _ _. _. x`.61--~_- _____- __ I --- ~--- I ----- -__- ~ --- -~-- --I--, _~__ I ~ r I ~ - 1 1 \c- _.. _ _--~ I i i I I I i I i ~ ~ I I I _J I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I w~ ,~ '~ ~ ~' ~ \~~ 4 ~ I J I~ 4 __ I ~ el A I -- _ '~ I __ I __ -~k I -Ih it ~ I I ~ I '~ I I I bl i i ~~~ ,~ w ~ i -- ~ ~, I l i ~ ! I '-J ~ ~ ~~ ----~ ' --------r__-_- ._.. -li. I I _ I - I -- -- 'V' I I ----- --~--- -----~-- ~ .Cl.-- -_. !- -----~ I • • • ° " VO 'MOOlVIiVB m u a ~ -L_ seNlMVaa ~u .~e lana+s sNOUIaNm mrv W RIOK~TB~I(1 3LL F70>~ SNOIIVIN.'h ,WV d0 CT31dIlON ~ ~ ~ zLOZ-99z (80f) •o~ / 5991-B9Z (BO-) +Vd _ ~3AV Ii30NllidS liVEti L ~ ~ /\ \/\) _ O eZISe 'off ..~ u.5 •M+0 .eDNVV~N LCS9 ~ -_ ~ 15fW YJIdJO SIHI @IV QOI' mil NO SNOIlIWOJ O ~ ~ O ~/ ~ \' I ~ I e.,N~.~.~' ~e,..a 6ulDll~e ~.~.,.u.u..~ •I.u~•Dn•a /~ ~_ aHVSNO15N3rla~T.''WJ.1~'IaSNO~s3a30a1v'xrla3n IaVI'1VW 'SHW'~' kIW =H3NM0 3<lY ~~ ~~' Z ~W v. ~ ~} ti ' LVI saolazuNm'Nasa+la mivx a3no ~N3a~aad < u ° I Q < ,e m I = • s ~ ~ ' ~ ~ S31VI`JOSSid NJIS3o HSf1lJ - 3nvH TIVHS ssNlnwaa Flu No ~alsalla 1811RM om = ~ I~ ~ iu, ~~° i" ~ ~ , ~ i ~~ 3LL ,l9 N3/U9 51 N01951YJtEd ~ 3 wo H wols n o ~ ~ ~ - Q31V71ONI S'o' 1437X3 173'OMd ANY ?/O~ ~ 38 lON ~ /) 719530 3LL JO uM3d021d iu iaY S9N9.ML0 363u I I ~ o v~ ~FF ~~F ~---------------------J - i c ~ I t - . _ - - I 1 I --_ -.. .-_. ~ L-_.__-_-- _ ~ I ~ I I ~ I I _ ~ / _ ~ / / I I /i'~ ~- ~ ~ ~ I I i~ ~ I f ~~ ~~1 A ~ -- I l~ ~%~ ~~-C't~ i ~~ III ~'~ A9 ~ I II I~~~ ~~~~ IIII ~ ~ .o-.c 1 IIII I ~__~ =Rtl---~~T III A II ------J I 1 ~ ~ o J I A9 ' 9~ ~ 1\\~~\ ~~~_ ~ IIII 11 _` I • ~/ p~ L - j-I LL _Il -, I \ ~ / O~ I ~i( L ~ -rl I J L_I i~ ~~ I ~~---~r- I --- ------ ,r ~ I~ \i I II I~ ii II ~ \i °i' 11 II~ `j~ II II ,e _~L~ ~_~ I~ II Y 0. I I - IIII ~~ II ~ ~/ IIII O II III N I I ~ I~ II ~ ~ ~_- ~ ~ II MI l_ ai~ ,I ~ r-- I ~ / I 111~~ ---------- - __JI j p - -,~------- l -11 I III eJ -_ III II '~ 11 III e~ III II I II III II ~~ II III I .m-.c II II ~ III ' -- II II I u~ ' II ~ I f" L _ =J~------- -~~ -J _ I 1 II ~ I II II I ~~~ iii i ~~ I III '. III ~~ UI ~ I III ' ~~ l~-- II as I I I ~~ II iul Sul I~---~ u I I ~ li' I 1 I' I ~d IL--- ~~I i I I III ~ I~i I I III ___ I ~ ~ ~ - I I -- I --JL----- -- I I -------- •., T - I \ I I ~I I ~ I I I I ~ I ~t • • • m ~ Q t N y- ~ s qq ,~ n S ~ N ~ ~ ~ - 'Sf7NIMYtl0383HL A9 NMON88NOW01p00NY I ~~ ~d~Ol~dS ~ AAL1QL boH:ed~„Y19,i IWr):Vd = i 838301ii0 SIFLL ONV 801'3 ~SNOLLIOND~ i ,~,,,~ •..a~ .~,b.,A..~z~„ '~ •3I~V ~13ONIddS ~bSbL aw.uo~,~a..uan.~e VI = ~ ~~suo~ u~ s1e 1a»~ IQV'71MW 'SdW'p' !!W ~H3NMO i S31dI~OSSV N~JIS30 HSf1lJ `III ~,„,~~,,,,,,,q~„o,,,~,~/311,~„ 0311~'JpN 9Y 1d30X31J31'OF1d ANY UOd 0381138 lON AMI U~4118303HL i0 AW3dONd 3N138Y SOMMYtl03831/1 ' ~~~°~`~"~"'~'"~'~"~" 3woH wolsno ~ ~ ~ ° t 0 ~ 0 - ~ tl p z L ~~ '~ • . o UU of °Z u t c -+ ~ +~ I ..~. -~ ~~j _ L.. Z ... ~ ',,~1 . ~~ i ~~~'i J r,'`~ +, 11I„I „ ` t i ~ `:~ c ~~ z ~I ~ ~-a ~~ s eL~ ~ { . r i b~ ~ ~' II ~ ~, 'I I I '4, :.. \1 ~ .-. '~ S 2 ~ D w ~- z~ m ~i' o~^ ``+1 ~: ,n'p~y, J N SYt~ ~dl~ N r ~~N ~€ u~~ ,~~ ~~i/ l ~" ~_,_ ~:, ~. ,\ ~'~ l - r'~ ~',~0.y I i xF i ~: I I iJ I l~ W ,~v i~ .~~ ~ i ~.~ ;; it-- ~ i I j ~2 0 a W JI .q r ~I v ~ y 8 ~ bz -- -~ ~ J N~ ~ ~ ~~ I .~ ~- y0-, 71 ~C./Yl9 ~ ~i I t J ~~ A ~~ ~~ V j !~ ~~ !w ' • • • > ~~ 2 N ° ~ a ~ ~ LZOi-991 („Of) :.ei / 5991-991 (90f) ~4d OLIS9 'off of uo5 • NO • pyyNON LLS9 6ullln•uo~ ; u9p•Q 9ulPlln9 lory•wwo~ 'lol/u~quy ss~+udvaa ~+>. ae r9dorls SNOUIaIm alv sNOlsl~-Ila au woad SNOUVIavn ,wv ~o ml~uon 70 15fW 7'JId~O 51N1 CiM/ Oq' 3LL NO 5N0111[NO'J @IV 6N01$f13~114 llV ~d 7~91QJOd67a 78 d11Y'Adla7n 5 5a017Va1N0~'N01518114 mT/75 aano 371gt8'J3ad 3n~fV1 TINMS 59NIIAH2KI 76311 NO N01678r1a N7111Md ~a3V9153Li 311 A8 N3n19 51 N015Slwa3d 553?Ifl N03a31 Q31V714NI SY 1d3 JX3173'Oad ANV a0~ ~!1 7910N 1 a319163Q 311 JO .LLa3dOad 311 3aV 59NIAIVa4 757H1 V~ `V~OlVadS •anv aaoNiads ~~~ irnn~vw •saw ~• aw :aaiunno 3woH woisno 3 I°clw+I`eu = WI00 < Y p Om C~IO~~\() NI~ V I I ~ O t~ 119 IEZ ~ __._ d r ~~ - - -~- I -- --~ ---IJ a~ o- I~ - - +- I a°'1 ZI I ~~ ~I i I 'i ~, I , ',~ I I I , I i. I~ 'i~ I I I ~) li ~ I I i I .I i ~ ! li I i' i it ~~ i ~~ • • • i ~~ i ~ ry~ i \l ~ i ; ~ lv I ~b~l~l' ~ I I z - i1 1 Y I -~ f i I J N , I I~ ~w ~; ~ - ' °-~ IiI f o ~~ o. 1 ~- - N ~ +' I I f (I I P ~ ~ I I 1 ~ I O U I I ~I ~ ~~ YiJ~dad.S ~ 59NIMdLO aS3H1 J,© NMOHS $NOI110N07 ONV I F 2LOZ-B9L ~ Of) ''o! / 5991-p9L (BOY) ~4c °-- SNOISN3Wi0 3H1 W02L SNO~.1VI21dn .INV ~O 431dIlON •~d a3~N~dds ~b~ L o i , OZ lib -o! o~ uop •n~,,p •6pH4yoN LCS9 -_ s - 6ullln•ua~ y uM17••Q 6ulpll^8 Inl.,..wwn~ •lollu•pl~•y 3B 1S'W 371340 SINl ONV 90!' 3H1 NO SNOI1IaN07 GNV SNOISN3W'O Td ~M03 3191SNOd5a?J a8 G`!V 'n3R13n ' • • ~ o I ' W - Y O ~~ of z w - ~ ~ a "S 5TJ017Y~1N07 ~NOISN3wlo a3ivx nano a7Nac373~d 3n'dVi lh+ ' O 59 IM O gaW ~ ~Q~ ~dw aw •d3NM~ 3 ¢ ~ m I - ~ o ~ o ~ , a II "' ~ ~ ~` a ~ ~ a ~ m o N ' • I W S31dI~OSSb N JIS3a HSf1l J M ~ N b 353H1 N NOISN3WI0 N3;1RM ~ o ~ ~ ' b3N'~I530 3H1 AB N3ni9 SI NOISSIWTJad SS `Y1 N0321'oH Oa1d710N1 SV loa7%3 173'OZId .WV MOd 035f~ 39 lON =/~^ 3 W OH W OlS~I V I . A W T1aN9153G 3H1 30 J.1a3dOMo ,H1 3?JY 59NM'dbO 3S3.L ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 I I Y' ~~ ~~ YI k. 1i ~I jl ~I II i I I II - - -- ~ ~~ ~ I I I ~ ~ i ~ .o-,a lp { fin, i ~ j - -- - - I`-I I j,~ I -- = .. ,. - - ,.: .. ,~ ~ __:_ ___ .. ~ ~ ~ I. __ -_ ~' 'e ~ ' ~ ~ ! '' ___J_ L_ i ~ N ~I ~-L'L_~ - ^Z _ P ~- p_ J ~~` r~ j N I ~ • S-.r _ - - . J I I 1 I - I I M I .0-.a I I ~ - _ ~5 J - .0-.6 j u - - i I ~ ------ ,Tai ~nala - -- n • -- _..--- -- _-L -,-- e ~'~# e^ 0 ~ N1 ~ Q - go-lb l ~ -- r 3 M~ - ~ I II°-)b P-I ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ I .a-A i .O-.6 I q ~ y' 4~ 1j I I ~ I I I .a-.a i I I Yz Yi ~', I 'I I I ~~ ~i ~I 2, • • • N.BYN/JNJ 7L1/J - NY/O/YS BOJY! OBB6-dB8 (BBr/ ra/ss riNNO,ri~rJ '.rso! NrS srnoJ NiirrlN.ve srsa 1N3WdOl3n30 030NVnOV ~y O I I ~~ 3nr+3nv ~- ~~ n, a3or+iads ~ I O - - ~ - - a q~ C zu z ~i I O - I 4 I I~ 8 8I~ ° I ~ ~- `Ia w I z ~~ ~ 7 I I }~±~ X3 ~ ~~ w \ U 1 ~ ~~ ~e Y N O Y ~oydu•pp ~~' U p ''^^ ° 4 v, o ~ > i ¢¢ < < O x ~ x w W vlNao~nvo `voolvavs 3f1N3~d a30NIadS S~£~ l DLO - LZ - £OS 'N'd'b N1lld 3JbN111a4 ONb JNIObaJ o r~„ N -~ !~ ~ - \ A o ~- gias/so srB~da roar-dr-tro ~•reo 60fCr 'BN 'rJ'N .ol~•/ ~'•7••S •r s!r•~•ro ~ . e Nrmns' B/IONJYd 'rv ""11''B t ° ;s n ~~ Z U H~ ~ P W ~ YY 0<= N < U~ ~ 00 <~ < a ui °O K j ° ° H lr a < C W u C p 0 W ~ 1 - - - ~~ ~W °~ <g~~ a ~ I y s ~ Z~ Wo „~ °~ ":~~m ~ ~°Si u ~ a °f Ys m~ i°z ~ ~~ °~~vxi z o 3 N' Q W 3 << U O 2 ~ Z Z O ~ ~ N Y N K m N C ~ 3 < O I °3i ~~ iZ W m ~ O iW~3 m ° w n A I `jy W/ ~< ~i m° rJ<W < a I i :>~ WWV n~ <°rcw o~cau &< ° I wSo iii •°u o~zJ <~ ~ I ~. mF0 =dJ 3w < ° OumON ~~ ¢ ~ °o, I c I o ~ 3u ax I iz~ ~m '^'^& °>~ aJZ I u<~° <wF Wo W N~ ~rcHW c 4 I a N ~ V ~Zm iGm G~ ~ O O i y~ N;CmO w~ i O 7 Z ~' Z J LL n 6 ZO Z_ u~ I 1~J omu mpz ud WHZ= ZJ F~~Ow ~C a O qoq I u = m `~ 1 z< zz iWC zz <o o mu °O m i i F ~ < °wW m ii ° ~ o a C I S s m -' .+ F ~F ~ =I~ ~ n o~4 oFi W~ az°WU° i,^n < ~ i I :i J<W ~zvxi z u <rc is rcr ~ Wm u rcu w ° ~ 6 v. w3 izt o u w ~, ~ 3m ino < -` N m°~ 2y°jN JVI I <WSO ZV N V < z S~ i O V ' o Z~m oo u I I 3~ F OH3 Ot 2¢u °OZ UZm <2Z G =~ ZOw¢J ~~ ° U < I zix zmu °a Wa i o ~ o<~ <u-uw z~ o c ° u doa Jig s~ iirc 4 zu j_n-g ug a ~W ~ d z ~ o iur. ~mn ~xa i <v~t-um <? u u ~` ~ ; eo m n m ° bb - ~ w Jm ~ o ~ ~ V s LL <?F F° _ J O w W O V~< ~ J03m S xJ N Z h ~ < 3a V m ~ _~ z ~ . ~F OaVU N m < Z ~ O V 2 < wmv°i< VrcOrc< ~p i N ff v w T°< ~ ~ yy~~Z `O < W ~WNO ~ u O 3 1 a i u zu yy \ r' 7 Wu~ ~ a ~~ ooW ?~ s \ 3 ~ O ~rw0 irs~s ' i s < upVJ o <i I Su =~dv i < ~Um V3 R ~~ 7fe !9 ~ d3 \ \ :~ ~ \ \ Ud \~/\` ti~ n \y d ~ j ^e \ \ ~~ 'H ~ N/\~ \ .v~ ae \ t~ 3/ Y~ + Y y0 ^, art y ~ \ 2~ t ~3~ )I3~ C h/ W ~o ti 8\ m~' Sg °a. ~a q 'r °p'z B ~~ ~~ . - pP G P~ 1 b Or ~$ ;$ a~ 00 3 S d l/ryjM,7 0. ~~~ ~ g~l riI I Y I I ~ 0 =~ i 1 N3I N~ -- o ~I 6g 8z ` ~ lp~ .~1 R~; \ 1V o ~zoOF `r~~~m auo W< 3 ozw ~ om = N ~ \ OK N¢CV OmOOI ° Ou O< (. O Ii\ ZV ¢IfOSO `<`214_O O J„O WO ~~;' U w y WOW V U¢< < w 3° 4 F LL~ 3 am °wai ~ _auo ii5 &8 ' q. \ FFU 3 FuxoN m'u Z< S. ~/_ ~ Jc zw F ~<m um \ P6' ~O 6 C~~X ~ <r"o i No~Ni ° iFti u~ \ < tYb'Y~ ~J ~e ~~\ ~~. \ iz°o~o a~a3m m iVta ~~ g y-` a. •• urcma~ ziao~ ovi 3~Wa" i ~PV ~ ~ \ \ ~ so~~i iis=~ a~ iy<ij j iN ZVOY v~~ U S,~V w GOB .. V \ °u wuoo xixix i~ '^ms< ivy °j'not \.~ os •OO ~'~{J/ de \ ~aNWa o~ ~O ~~~_ <a ° 6 \-oa o{osi "~ o<~W6 Jw~«~ ~~ s'<^Wi 4~y .'Yb SOS Re ~ \ oza°c rc~n¢aa Nrc aWO= ux~ 1~ \~ ~ ~ ~\ ~~ \ n~u~i iii<°°<o t~ ~urci i3d 0'1• ~ \ T w °' \ a o~ ..i ooN' t6 <~ \ rcf °y Is a7 oY ~ ~~ ~ a haS~ 5 ~ 4 v~~ 8 0 0 ~8~ nor ti~ W/fN ~ \ u''§~ ~ y~'d• o .in e 7~ g~ ~~ r 1N 3SY Po~ zz u BOM~3rd ~ B( S j 3 S'B ~1 .r, Q Op.Q6 ~~ OYy ~~ °r for or `o! / s j .+3~ ../ 313b NpJ B/ f 'CJ 5 + 6a . }'~ h.,,,,,~ ~ y,. MS 6g sZ\~~~ lp~ 0 oM M1/ n~` ~ h ~.( O ~ ry? .=O.OS ` R ~s~.. 3..00.b1.6lN /l. l " ~~ MJIH .9 6g ,~ or.~o v r' ti~~ r~l •s; I•~p 0- ~ l0 gJ! ~p\j~~ Milli / ~ /I ((`~~ y N/? $ ~vJ 3j~•M$ 8 ~~M~ .00'OS ~ 3.,00.>_ ~ ~~ M,pO tZ0<N sg ` Z ~ ~ ~/ F lp~ ~ pF ~ ~ 3 10, -•~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ uzo `~ g o Igy < " o rC+ ~ w ~ x 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~J~ u cud i~=~~J ~ 1 ~ya F~<~ Y m Y Y WW 3 ~ u x~ U< m ~ C su$:'d~~kk p$ m~u ~i ~ y" ~ G < ~u N"u~~ui W; ~SCi ~~ ~ ~c'+u rcw ~ ~~S g ~ ~ ~ ~j~~ ~~i~zw woz °..~°J ui: o~oLL ra~u o o i> 3 ~`~~ ~~ig~3~g88x~~W >$1 gr°oa ~:F o~V ~~NOO ,~ am <u'"Www yyJJff77 `Tj'~ yy/ 4 yyy9~1111 pp WS F ~y.rC >>>y>> yy ~~2[[ 3m O V W _ .. 0 ~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ G~O ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ 3 < ' ZO Z 7~- ~ pin j Z O i ~ p 0 0 0 ~ ~ D S - ~ ~l < < 8: ftl3 8 L`ccc c 3s_ R°019~~~zii $"'~S$~ue i~G4N~Na z»>333 z i _ TTTTT i ~aiui~u a ~vi ~ai im~o~~nu~~i,y-'aiiu J.dmiio~d ~ ~ ii 3 •~ii u~ o ._" ~~' ~ouu ii iim~mai uuririu u... .:.:...:...iux__~JJ~~iiizgid>i~iinia.n ui ui ui vxi vi irir~~~ii333 k ~po \ o \ P ~~\ se :e t~ \ OQ ~ Se \ ~o~ ~ ~\~~ ~'9 ~~! .o 2 Q F U o Z a ra3N4 ^~w w m ~~< vi zrcz~Q a $uz ¢ ti i~ 4 ~ OV V ~ ~~-z4 ZJO oau , ¢ ~ °~!i h/ ~ ~Qa~~ w=~= ' ~~ o~ z'" m < wiz z wry ~S'~~ u~ 4 b~ ~1~~_~~, ~ < ~o W ~ OZ~m UZb~ ?~ ~ow~• rc5~~ <v'S zLLwi ~opOZ 'g'mau i¢ ~ ° Imo ° 05~~~ v i Zwaw za ~ b~ a-~i i:.d ~~am ~ U T n =24 V V p4< ZY 3~ `~W W~rc~~ w wo~8m~ 0 ~ 3~ ~°{°¢a u. za QQgQQ ~m C~ <~~°"m g°ww m ° ~9w °€ zap°a<<~ -< ~J< w ~~ OUP ~ ROVI m 2? ~i U LL ~ N s 3 ~ Q Q J ~9. ~~ .~ ~ 6g ~ U' •/ ~ Fs ~ 0~ • . • • • a~rrvrrer ~w.~ - .vnairs aa~r~ bIN210dl1d~ `V901b211fS ~ r '~"""° s '"°'`9,-" "'O ( sour •av r~ ~~' - 17/96 7NY0//7Y,7 :-SOP MS 3f1N3~d 213JN121dS Sb£~l ~ ~ sr r~+•+as ~ v .rava~ .viw,nvrs r666 DLO - LZ - £OS 'N'd'V .~ s~ .~•~•w ~ ~ w 1N3WdOl3n3a a3~NV/~4V .,.,,,~.,.., ,..~ .,.6 ~.~. 210d ~13n21(1S IV~IHdd21JOd01 ~w+ "~~ '" ~ .,~, ~ ~~ II ~ ~ 8 ®00 ®a a ®I I I ~ ~ I~©~~ ii a s ~® IWI III ~ ~ II ~ I z ®.o®: ®~ I I I ~`~ i t I~®~~~ ~~ I .m~ ~ ~1Wi ~~~I I I , ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ m o 3 ~ G 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a 7~ d ~ ~ cl 3 c~a 3 CI ~ ~ °c~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tl o a ~ CI b ~® ~e se d3 d3 ~. O W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ Wm~ ~~ ~o~~~~~ W; ~~~ ~~ ~ ;~~ ~~ ' ~~~ ~ ~ ~° If~~a ~3~~r~ u viua'o~~1_ i i i, i iii r~1,lidii u~ nu9ia~nv~'~u'oci ai ii ==1 ~iid>uddcdcv~ ui v~~~~i i333 o ~ ^~ ~ ~ o g ~ ~ ~< & ~~ $ ~ ~~~<~g~~ ~pp~ ~g~ ~ ~ ~ u 3~: 9SLL_ ~ ~~=u~iV~?;o~jF"_J=$~zo~e~'d'~6'ig~~~W$r~°x ~'~' `~~~uuu°uog~Gi ~`iw~z~~~zu~`'x'i£°~3~3~ muu im~jo~6uiu ~~irur~~iJ uimii oZ~r> <2m~mu uuuriduwZi ~.i ~:~~.,~~: ~: aiui _E JJ~~i /T ~' Al = ,l ~31Y05 0 • • • ,4pZ6 948 90h X'dd 9Eb8 BY9 80b 3NOFId 03096 `dO .IOHIIO NO 3O1lid 194E t60EA 1'J311H'JW 3dVJSbN`dl WVFIONIli1,S T13SSY1H . 8 3 1 V 1 0 0 8 8 Y MI V H O N I tl 1 8 1` ~~ ~Q 0~ W p 0 ~'~dMJygN~ ~ `~~. Rlt6 +--- d3 3 RBtB ~$~ o~ 8~ R Rs6 'n"a~8 d3 Y ~6 .~ v~ ;f~ x~` '~ °~ •~ ~ ~~a '~ a~ .\ .~ .\ ~Q ~. a u~ ~~ m _~~~ , ~~m ~ ~~~~ `I ~FQQ t W~~~ - `~ i t i i i ~ ~~1 ' $ C~ m O i m om ~~ ~a I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ 0 m ~° ~~ oQ >~ ~~® Qo ~~~ ~ m ~ U D ~ °0 ~,,~n ~t j/ ~ ~~ ,. ~ ~~ /~ % Z ~ i j `L~~ ~ -~ `€ ji a~ ~^' j ~~ ~ ~ rL d0 i ~ ~ ~ ~ rL\ ~ , O ~ m ~ '" m ~ ~ ,X-: ~, ~ m $ ~o~ ~ a 69 , F ~ r ~ ~ Z \ ~ ~ xruQ ~}q! WYCdiF Z ~O~ ~~ ~ii a~ ~ u ~~ ~ m~ .~ a r J _~ ~ W X ~~ W 3u ~ o d5 ~~ ~Y 0 ~~ ~ ~~~ °~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~Q g ~ Q W I- 0 W n~ l~ <3 ~ \ ~ti '~ ° ~\ ~ zz ffW ^oN ~ m\'~\ ~ \\ F wa D 2 Q \ \~~ _~ ~`s E om5 U ~ ~ ~~ j ', ~ , ,, ,~'~ % '. v~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ d~ •~ 6- W ~ o~ ~ .,~ ~ / a .~.. ~ ~~ Z ~ '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ '~ .~ ,\ ~ \ / \ ~ ~ ~~.' '~ \ vOU Y \ • \~ ' _, ~3 / g~ "~ ~S3 / ~ J 8e / //~ ~ i / / ~ ~ • • • S4Z6 949 804 XV~ 9648 948 804 3NOFId OZOS6 d~ AOlf11J a(] 3~Ill~ LB4L 180E 1~311H~HV 3dN~Ndl VVVFf.)PJ0.i1S ll3SSf1H 8 3 1 d I J O s B Y w v H o n l d t s ?~i~'1v0 !p 31r J Y~ W 0 A '•~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ o~~ lL1sJL~~~~ ~~~~ S (; 3 ~ ~ ~. Z~^ Q~mm ~~ ~ ~~ cgQs ~ ~.~ 8~ Z ~= JIIQ ~ I I 80 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~u ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ x~a ~ ~s ~ ~x . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Y $~ ~ ' ~ ~~ JI ~ xr~ z C~ F 9 J 1 `~ 1~~ J*y~~ tti ~ uY~ `i~~ OYi ° LL Z ~LY l ~~i F i ~L~~KK1 ^~~3.~ !~^~~ e6 ~~ ~ O~ ~~Oe.d~« ~11~ ° ° ° ~ ° ° °° ° . V °0 ° ° Z °poo „ ~ J . , ~; H a Z ° 8 0 = a ~ o o X o ~ ...... 4 W ° °° ° ~ ° T Q9MII SNI1R'~\61 NW . -.C (N NW .~ W ~ 0 i//~~ N rM~NW .F i~Vl'P1NOO X t u4 V,~ N7LLOYD r0 WOLi0~ OL NW .i-~L (~Ni11'~) ~ ~ ~~~ 3 a a ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~g~ A VQ ~x ~ b~ ~~'~ 11~ ~ ~Q C ~ ~3 ~~~z~~ y~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~Q~~~ 1y ~ o ~ ~~a~~0 Fw ~o ~~ aR x~ oB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~~~ Z ~~= o ~o ~~~~ ~~$ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~s ~ ~ $~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ u~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~3~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~$ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ 8a~~~~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~° G ~ E '~ m E C~ ~ ~ m C ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d [G °i L - - ~~ y! $$~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N -~ tby~ p ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ = ~ ~ ~ a -- > • • • ITEM 4 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 02-281/ 21794 Heber Way Applicant/Owner: Steve Sheng Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~.~~ Type of Application: Design Review, Variance for Setbacks Date: December 8, 2004 APN: 503-31-067 Department Hea . p SOO n r~s Woad P ~a H.ee. w.r ~''F~~Y~~ , ,\•'.. ~•~~! ~'•.. ~,/' ~ ~ l O z nw wna. w .rc.k . u,n sao ~ . ~ ~ ~\ 1 ~ _ I '~ I _ _Y ~ ~~ J l r- . .% t `i H ~\ J r'" i -. ~ ~~ ...__J ~ \~~ __ _ ~. ~ ___ _~_ - N - ~ ~' ' (~ l 1 ,l !~ I ~ 1--~=~ E /• I ~T ~_Yi l/ti~ -fir ... = .1 \ j_ y~r'C_ lh ;~iy ~ ~7~~ --_, ;-~ _ _. _ . ~--- t , f ~~ ~•~ ~h- -~ .' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n l~ .,) ~ ~ ' -~ -- ~ ~ _... ~ ~ ~ - f . ` __ .. __.__. .. .. \ 4 ---- - / .. ___ \ -- -- .~ ,,_ ,~F --- a wo eoo .oo ,zoo hsoo /I ~+ ' i - .< ~,/. •- ~ f v ~~ i lr;~ --~n---a c. 21794 Heber Way • ~oo~oo~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 09/22/99 08/27/04 1U24/04 1U22/04 12/2/04 Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a vacant lot and a Variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 6,483 square feet. This includes a 726 square foot three-car garage. The height of the structure will not exceed 26-feet. The gross lot size is 263,973 square feet and zoned Hillside Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for the Design Review and Variance with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Letters From applicant 3. Arborist Report November 10, 2004 4. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 5. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit 'A' • ~'1 • ~~~®~~ File No. 02-281; 21794 Heber Way/Sheng Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Conservation Density Residential .5 Du/Acre MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 263,973 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 47.57°!6 GRADING REQUIRID: The applicant is proposing 730 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill. 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: Maximum Allowable 3.696 Building Footprint 4,788 sq. ft. Driveway 3,843 sq. ft. Walkways, Patios 1,032 sq. ft. TOTAL 9,663 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 3,029.07 sq. ft. Second Floor 2,727.86 sq. ft. Garage 726.66 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,483.59 sq. fc 7,060 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 93 ft. 128 ft. Rear 470 ft. 160 ft. Left Side (garage) 25 ft. 46 ft. Left Side (family room) 20 ft. 46 ft. Right Side 93 ft. 46 ft. Height: Maximum Allowablc Residence 24 ft. 26 ft. • ~~D(1G03 File No. 02-281; 21794 Heber Way/Sheng Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The project was submitted to the Planning Division in 1999, prior to the current staffs amval. Due to the complexity of the lot the applicant was proposing several variances including building into the open space easement and grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Once the current staff started working with the. applicant in 2001 the direction of the project changed as a result of staff recommendations. The project was deemed complete and noticed for the Planning Commission for January 2003, but the project was postponed at the request of the applicant due to issues raised by the adjacent neighbor concerning the property lines. During the time that the property line issue was being resolved, the definition of height in the City Code was changed; this caused the applicant to redesign the proposed structure to meet the new height requirements. The project was then refined and once again deemed complete and scheduled for the October 2004 Planning Commission meeting, but the neighbors asked that the project be continued to a later meeting so they would have the opportunity to attend the meeting. The applicant agreed to postpone the hearing until the neighbors returned from their vacation. Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to build a new two-story housc on a vacant lot and a Variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 6,483 square feet. This includes a 726 square foot three-car garage. The height of the structure, will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 263,973 square feet and zoned Hillside Residential. The homes in the area vary in design with no consistent design pattern. The majority of homes in the area have stucco exterior finishes with non-wood roof materials. The applicant is proposing to use high quality exterior finishes and designs. The proposed exterior finish will be a smooth trowel stucco exterior finish with true divided light wood windows that will be recessed 4 inches. The applicant is also proposing details such as wood louvered gable vents and wood shutters. The roof will be a slate type roof with a subtle variety of colors blended together. Cultured stone will be used for the door and window lintels. A stone veneer will be used around the entrance to help identify its location and break up the building facade. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Article 15-45.080 of the City Code: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. • ~~Df1004 File No. 02-281; 21794 Heber Way/Sheng Property The proposed house is not in a view comdor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The house is located at the end of a court and built into the hillside. The closest home is over 70 feet away. The proposed house has been situated so that its garage faces the closest neighboring homes garage and the proposed house has only two second story windows directly facing the closest neighbor's home. (b) Pirserve Natural Landscape. No protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately 28 native trees and numerous native plants. Approximately 17,000 square feet of the 263,973 (6.06 acres) lot, will be disturbed with the rest of the lot remaining as undisturbed open space. The proposed structure will be built into the hillside liLinirrri7ing bulk as recommended In the City of Sazatoga's Residential Design Handbook, but limiting the amount of grading to 730 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill nrinunizing soil removal well below the 1,000 cubic yard threshold (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees on the site. No replacement trees are required as part of the Gity Arborist Report. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately 28 native trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. As recommended in the City of Saratoga's Residential Design Handbook the proposed structure has been built into the hillside reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The varying rooflines and stone veneer act to breakup the front facade and add character and interest to the proposed structure. Details such as divided light wood windows recessed into the smooth trowel exterior stucco finish with decorative shudders and gable vents also reduce the bulk of the structure. In addition to the project details, approximately half of the proposed floor plan angles back into the hillside significantly reducing the front facade of the structure ~nir,,;z;ng the perception of bulk in relation to the structures on the surrounding lots. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not cxcced 24-feet in height, two feet below the maximum 26-feet allowed The proposed housc will be built into the hillside blending in with the natural environment of the open space area. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The proposed slate style roof with neutral colors will blend in with the hillside. The traditional design and attention to details will add chazacter to the neighborhood and be compatible in both height and bulk with the varying designs located throughout the neighborhood The proposed project will not impair the light or air of adjacent properties. ~iDn~05 File No. OZ-281; 21794 Heber Way/ShengProperty (f) Currentgradingand erosion control methods The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical clearance from the City Geologist. The project is also providing a bio-swale to allow for storm water filtration and semi-pervious driveway pavers. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, integrating the structure with the environment, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing athree-car garage. Trees All existing trees on the site will be retained. The City Arborist Report contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. All of the Arborist recommendations have been made a condition of project approval. Variance Findings The applicant is proposing a variance for t7ie front and left side yard setbacks. As proposed, the front yard setback would be 93-feet instead of 128-feet. The left side yard setback would be 20-feet (and up to 25 feet in some parts) instead of 46-feet. In order to approve a variance application the Planning Commission must make all of the required variance findings in the affirmative as stated in Article 15-70.060 of the City Code. If any one of the findings cannot be made the request must be denied. The following is a review of each of the required findings for a variance: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the sed regulations would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties In the vicinity and clashed in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in that there is only a small portion of the lot where a building could be placed due to the steep slope and open space easement that was recorded as part of the subdivision, and the geological constraints of the parcel. The lot is unusually large; only one other lot in the neighborhood is of comparable size. The lot's size coupled with the requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and depth would result in a building pad of only ~~n('1C16 File No. 02 281; 21794 Heber Way/Sheng property approximately 1,100 square feet if the setback regulations were strictly enforced This would make it impossible to develop a home comparable to the homes in the vicinity and elsewhere in the Hillside Residential zoning district. The proposed variance would require setbacks that are comparable to the setbacks enjoyed by the other properties on Heber Way. The strict enforcement of the setback regulation would allow development of an unusually small home notwithstanding the fact that the underlying parcel is up to five times larger than other lots in the vicinity. (b) That thegranting of the variance will not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties In the vicinity and classed In the samezoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with special circumstances not typical of the lots in the vicinity or elsewhere in the Hillside Residential zoning district, and the granting of a setback variance would not constitute a special privilege. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the existing setbacks of many other lots in the area that were developed with 30-foot front and 20-foot side yard setbacks. The one lot that is comparable to the applicant's lot in the neighborhood received a front setback variance in 1996. The lot is adjacent to the applicant's lot and is similar in sizc and characteristics. Granting the setback variance would allow this project the same privilege enjoyed by the neighboring parcel. The project will exceed the setbacks for many of the lots in the vicinity. Approval of the variance would not allow development that has been prohibited on any other parcels in the vicinity. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements In the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will meet all current Building Code standards. The proposed setback variance is beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare in that the variance will allow the proposed building pad to be located in an area with a lower overall slope than would otherwise be available. If the variance were not approved, the building pad would be located on an area with approximately a 3396 slope. Discussion of variance Findings Staff is recommending this variance for approval because of the special circumstance as it relates to this particular lot. The lot faces unique constraints including an open space easement on roughly 80°16 of the parcel, geotechnical issues, and lot slope. Because the variance would allow development only in a manner that is consistent with the current development pattern of the existing structures on Heber Way staff does not believe that this variance would be a grant of special privilege. The only other lot on the street that is comparable in size to the proposed project also received a f=ont setback variance. ~~~~n~ File No. 02-281; 21794 Heber Way/ShengProperty The majority of the homes built on Heber Way were subject to a 20-foot side yard and 30- foot front yard setback requirement. The current setback rules were adopted after those homes were developed Several homes on the street are built to these standards with 20- footside setbacks and one house with a 30-foot front setback. The applicant is proposing to meet the minimum required standards used for the majority of the neighborhood The following table shows the existing development pattern in the neighborhood with 20- foot side setbacks and front setbacks inmost cases considerably less than the proposed 93- footfront setback. Address Lot Size House Siize Setbacks 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft. Front: 87 ft 21790 Heber Way Rear. 132 ft Right Side: 30 ft Left Side: 24ft 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft. Front: 58 ft 21781 Heber Way Rear: 132 ft Right Side: 20 ft Left Side: 90 ft 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft. Front: 42 ft. 21780 Heber Way Rear: 20 ft. . Right Side: 25 ft Left Side: 140 ft 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. 21771 Heber Way Rear: 196 ft Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 24ft. 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft. Front: 60 ft. 21770 Heber Way Rear: 250 ft. Right Side: 50 ft Left Side: 20 ft. 1.4 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 177 ft. 21760 Heber Way Rear: 120 ft. Right Side: 45 ft. Left Side: 50 ft. 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft. Front: 120 ft.~ 21791 Heber Way Rear: 550 ft. Right Side: 70 ft. Left Side: 213 ft. '~ This property received a variance for the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was 147-feet. r~ L The remaining building area after applying the required setbacks leaves an approximately 1,100 square foot building area located in an area with an average slope of 32.98%. Any building area that has a slope in excess of 3096 requires a slope variance per Article 15- Q~1n+f~O8 File No. 02 281; ZI794Heber Way/ShengProperty 13.050(e)(2) of the City of Saratoga Code. Rather than recommend a variance for slope, staff is recommending a setback variance to allow the proposed project to be built on an area of the lot with less slope. It increases the building pad area allowing a structure of similar size to be built compared to the neighboring parcels and allows a consistent pattern of development in relation to setbacks. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the dcsign rtvicw process to assurc that the new constn~ction and major additions thcrcto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed design of the house and the materials and colors will blend in with the existing homes in the neighborhood and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMITY The proposed project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan in that there will be no protected trees removed and the area will be revegetated and impervious pavers used for the driveway and a bio-swale installed to reduce stormwater runoff. The earthwork will be minimised to below 1,000 cubic yards and the majority of the lot will remain preserved as open space. 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 Articles 15- 45.080 and 15-70.060 and of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will mininuze 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, maximum height, and impervious coverage. Correspondence The applicant has shown the plans to the adjacent neighbors. Letters from the applicant are attached STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review and setback Variances with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ~61nf1(19 Attachment 1 • ~~~1n10 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sheng; 21794 Heber Way WHFatFAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application• for Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a vacant lot and for approval of a Variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 6,483 square feet. This includes a 726 squaze foot three-caz garage. The height of the structure will not exceed 26-feet. The gross lot size is 263,973 squaze feet (approximately 6 acres) and zoned Hillside Residential; and WHEx~AS, 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 is Categorically Exempt hom 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 applies to 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 Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project will: (a) Avoid unreasonablelnterference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The house is located at the end of a court and built into the hillside. The closest home is over 70-feet away. The proposed house has been situated so that it's gazage faces the closest neighboring homes garage and the proposed house has only two second story windows directly facing the closest neighbors home. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately 28 native trees and numerous native plants. Approximately 17,000 square feet of the 263,973 (6.06 acres) lot will be disturbed with the rest of the lot remaining as undisturbed open space. The proposed structure will be built into the hillside m~nim~ing bulk as recommended in the City of Sazatoga's Residential Design Handbook, but limiting the amount of grading to 730 cubic yazds of cut and 15 cubic yazds of fill minimizing soil removal well below the 1,000 cubic yard threshold. ~~n~1~ (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees on the site. No replacement trees aze required as part of the City Arborist Report. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of approximately 28 native trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. As recommended in the City of Sazatoga's Residential Design Handbook the proposed structure has been built into the hillside reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The varying rooflines and stone veneer act to break up the front facade and add chazacter and interest to the proposed structure. Details such as divided light wood windows recessed into the smooth trowel exterior stucco finish with decorative shudders and gable vents also reduce the bulk of the structure. In addition to the project details, approximately half of the proposed floor plan angles back into the hillside significantly reducing the front facade of the structure minimizing the perception of bulk in relation to the structures on the surrounding lots. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed 24-feet in height, two feet below the maximum 26-feet allowed. The proposed house will be built into the hillside blending in with the natural environment of the open space azea. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The proposed slate style roof with neutral colors will blend in with the hillside. The traditional design and attention to details will add chazacter to the neighborhood and be compatible in both height and bulk with the varying designs located throughout the neighborhood The proposed project will not impair the light or air of adjacent properties. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical cleazance from the City Geologist. The project is also providing a bio-swale to allow for storm water filtration and semi-pervious driveway pavers. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, integrating the structure with the environment, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines. WHE1tE~-S, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that a variance to the requirements of section 15-13.090 of the Sazatoga City Code allowing the front yard setback to be 93-feet instead of 128-feet and the left side yard setback to be 20-feet instead of 46-feet as shown on the approved plans and further finds and determines: ~~n~12 (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the speed regulations would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties In the vicinity and clashed In the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in that there is only a small portion of the lot where a building could be placed due to the steep slope and open space easement that was recorded as part of the subdivision, and the geological constraints of the parcel. The lot is unusually lazge and only one other lot in the neighborhood is of comparable size. The lot's size coupled with the requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and depth would result in a building pad of only approximately 1,100 square feet if the setback regulations were strictly enforced. This would make it impossible to develop a home compazable to the homes in the vicinity and elsewhere in the Hillside Residential zoning district. The proposed variance would require setbacks that aze comparable to the setbacks enjoyed by the other properties on Heber Way. The strict enforcement of the setback regulation would allow development of an unusually small home notwithstanding the fact that the underlying parcel is up to five times larger than other lots in the vicinity. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and clashed In the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with special circumstances not typical of the lots in the vicinity or elsewhere in the Hillside Residential zoning district, and the granting of a setback variance would not constitute a special privilege. The proposed setbacks aze consistent with the existing setbacks of many other lots in the area that were developed with 30-foot front and 20-foot side yazd setbacks. The one lot that is comparable to the applicant's lot in the neighborhood received a front setback variance in 1996. The lot is adjacent to the applicant's lot and is similar in size and characteristics. Granting the setback variance would allow this project the same privilege enjoyed by the neighboring parcel. The project will exceed the setbacks for many of the lots in the vicinity. Approval of the variance would not allow development that has been prohibited on any other parcels in the vicinity. (c) That thegranting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormateriallymjurious to properties orunpnvvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze and will meet all current Building Code standards. The proposed setback variance is beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare in that the variance will allow the proposed building pad to be located in an area with a lower overall slope than would otherwise be available. If the variance were not approved, the building pad would be located on an area with approximately a 3396 slope. ~~nti13 WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and a Variance and the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project is consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The Ciry shall use the design raiew proccss to assure that the new construction and major additions thcreto arc compatiblc with the site and the adjaccnt surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed materials and colors will blend in with the existing house and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and a Variance and the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project is consistent with the following Hillside Specific Plan Policy: The proposed project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan in that there will be no protected trees removed and the area will be revegetated and impervious pavers used for the driveway and a bio-swale installed to reduce stormwater runoff. The earthwork will be minimized to below 1,000 cubic yards and the majority of the lot will remain preserved as open space. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review Approval and a Variance 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 November 29, 2004, incorporated by reference. Any modifications of the approved plans aze subject to the review of the Community Development Director. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Division with a proposed set of plans highlighting all changes with a cloud Staff will approve no exterior downgrading in the appearance of the proposed residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: 1~3Q)~(11.~ a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 3. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. 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. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 9. 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. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 24 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 13. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. • ~~n(l~.S CITY ARBORIST 14. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated November 10, 2004 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.' Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall pazk or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 15. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant and comply with the standazds established for Class A roofing. 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached gazages including any workshop or storage areas within the gazage that are not constructed as habitable space. A National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the gazage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. A licensed contractor shall install the sprinkler. 17. A State Of California Licensed Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application, and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beguining their work. 18. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. 19. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 20. All driveways shall have a m;n;mum width of 14 feet plus 1-foot shoulders. Slopes form 11% to 15°16 shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a c~c~n~a~s public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 1596 to 1796 shall be surfaced using a 4° PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4° aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. PUBLIC WORKS 21. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, site drainage improvements and design pazameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. Proposed grading, drainage and foundation drawings shall be reviewed for consistency and conformance with the Project Geotechnical Engineer's drainage recommendations. The consultant shall verify that the location(s) of sump(s), pump(s) and subdrain pipes aze satisfactorily depicted on the drawings. 22. 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 permits. 23. 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 prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 25. The owner (applicant) shall enter in to an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 26. 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 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. • ~~n~1~'7 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 8`~ day of December 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ArrEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~r~flfly.8 • Attachment 2 • ~n~n~ 9 . '• • • • ~ ARBOR RESOURCES _ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE IlWENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 21794 HEBER WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Shensi APPLICATION #: 02-281 APN #: 5031-067 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Frtritvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A November 10, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 ~ Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~Y~O~~O • '• • • •, ~ David L Bobby, Registered Co~rsrdting.lrbarist November 10, 2004 • INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with constructing asingle-family residence on a vacant lot at 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Documents reviewed for this report include the Grading Plan by Kam F. Leung; Sheets C1, L1, Hl by Detail Ink; and the previous City Arborist report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated 3/28/00. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy dimensions) are presented on an attached copy of the Grading Plea. The previous arborist report reviewed an earlier version of the proposed development in which six trees, #1-5 and 7, would be at risk of damage during grading and constnrc~tion. This report only include trees #1-4Z from that report, as well as an additional two trees, #8 and 9, that are regarded as `protected' under the current Ordinance. Most information regarding trees # 1-4 from the previous report is integrated into this report, such as trunk diameter, height, canopy spread and condition ratings. The appraisal amours for each tree do vary, mostly from a more current method of calculating values being used as specified by the current Ordinance. Trees #8 and 9 are not shown on plans reviewed; their trunk locations have been plotted on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS There are many City regulated tt+ees located on and immediately adjacent to the subject site. I find only six are vulnerable to potential damage during grading and construction. Each is planned for retention and includes four Coast Live Oaks (#1, 3, 4, 8), one Valley Oak (#2) and one Coast Redwood (#9). Specific data regarding each tree is presented on the attached table. Trees #1, 3 and 9 are located on neighboring properties. They were inventoried for this report as their canopies and/or roots are subject to potential damage during development. Tree #2 will sustain a significant amount of root loss by implementing the proposed grading design.. To minimize the impacts, I suggest the 10.foot setback specified in the previous report (item #4, page 4) be incorporated into the plans. ' The canopy dimensions shown on the plan do not accurately represent the canopy sues. References for canopy sins slwuld be obtained from the attached map and tabb. s Trx #S appmently split apart approximately two years ago and has since been removed. Tray #6 and 7 are not expected to be impacted by ~ Prom Sheng Property, 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga Page 1 ~'3 City ofSaratoga CommrarityDevelopment Department ~~()~~1 .' • • • ~ David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 10, 2004 RECONIMENDATIONS . The recommendations presented below are intended to minimize the potential damage to inventoried trees and should be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. 1. The proposed grading near tree #2 must be revised so no grading occurs within 10 feet from the tree's trunk. 2. The surveyed trunk locations of all trees inventoried for this report should be shown on the Grading Plan and Sheet LL 3. Sheet Ll should be drawn to scale. Additionally, the existing trees shown along the eastern property boundary must be revised to show the actual site conditions. 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading, construction or heavy equipmeirt arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, galvanized steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Please note chain link fencing should be also be established along the entire eastern property boundary to protect existing plants, shrubs and trees (Ordinance size or otherwise) on the neighboring property. S. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath the canopies of Ck~dinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: surface scraping, trenching, stockpiling and dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 6. Trenches for the sewer line and underground utilities should be designed outside firm beneath canopies of Ordinance-sized trees. Their proposed locations should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts prior to approval. 7. The removal of any understory brush, shrubs and debris beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees must be manually performed. 8. The distance between new trees proposed on Sheet L1 should be substantially increased to provide sufficient space for their canopies to grow into their natural form. Furthermore, the trees should be planted at least 20 feet from the home's foundation. 9. Provide tree #2 with supplemental water throughout construction during the months of May thru October. I suggest 120 gallons of water is applied every three to four weeks to the root wne area beneath the tree's canopy (do not apply water against the trunk). Sheng Property, 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga Page 2 oj3 City ofSaratoga Community Development Department ~'jinn(~2is'r .' • • • ~ David L. Babby, Registered Coruulting Arborist November 10, 2004 10. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. I recommend pruning include reducing the heavy limb weight of tree #4. 11. Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100'/0 of the combined appraised value3 of inventoried trees is required, which equals ~~4.420. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of the Grading Plan) 3 'I7~e appraised troe values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Tabk am calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant .lppraisa~ 9'i" Edition, published by the Iirternational Society of Arboricultime, 2000. Sheng Property, 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~Ti~O~23 ' ARBOI~RESOLIRCES ~ .~ " Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE a a ~, ~ ~ v '~ 'y' ~ ~ 4 ~~ ~.~. ~, ~ ~. ~~ ~~~~ 1 ' dio 22 30 3S 100% 100% Good 4 - X 59,'100 Vallry Oak Z lobcrla 12 30 35 100'16 7596 Good 2 - 24120 Coast Live Oak 3 a ' dio 10, 9 20 2S 10096 5096 Good 4 - X 52,620 Coast Live Oat 4 a ' d67 32 4S SS 100% 5096 Good 4 - 514 S00 Coast Live Oak g ' dia 9 25 15 100% 10096 Good 4 - X 52 90 Cooed Redwood 9 'nov 7 20 10 100% 100% Good 3 - X X 511 REPLACElYl1+1VT TREE VALUES t - sizo z~ ~ = s4ao 36~ ~ - s ~0 4s-~~ - ss o0o s2-~ u~ = s~ o0o n-~ ~= sis o00 Siee 217li/ Big Wy, SwrMrp PYrpwMlfer: ~9' als~ia 9' ~ Frrp.rW y: Drril L ~, RCt N~rwr6rr UL ?I~! ~~~0~124 r • P 1 ~° I __~ - ~ ~`~ ti../ €/////l' M; i' ~ ;. / ~ . "':4' i~p.F, ~.. • ~t~q.. I • e • Ott ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~tl~ ~. a ~ t1 i ~ ~ ~ } ~i ~~~~ 7 #~+~; f ~s~;` J ~~~~ ~r ii i ,_~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~ ~~ ~~n~n2s Attachment 3 • ~~~~i~~'r~~ ~~y 3~S)^ art `~ ~ r ~., y mfr ~„ ~ 7. ' ~ e4 .}y ~~.j( 1Fi ~r11y~~F'~`'4~ ~ y .•,{ ~i ~gpytb~ ~(' ~ a~.~ .'1'. 3(.~.•~ v~fc' if^~l wW /j~ ~1.LriS+~~~XS~ 3' A:~~~f S~f . ~ l~'~2~'L'1'&S'~ix~+fS~7~SJ~;iJ 7~~.~~ln`~71!" ~' L'.,4.14':~'~fh~.a 1'~.~1..~SB;AFi7•LGiYS ~Novernber~O,~~Q04 Planning Comrttission CHy o~F Serdtopa 13777 f~ri,rihrale Ave. Saratoga, t.-i4~.~ ' REs Z17g4 Heber way APPLICATIQN: I)R->i9-Q~47 ar~d V-00.00-004 Dear ntembars of the Plarming Commission: ~~ f would like to take this opportunity ~ provide some background ir~forma#ion pertaining tp. this projs# and clarify the need for variance approval. , The property owners, Mr. and IMs. Steve Shang, began the geological analysis and } preliminary residerrtial design process approximately seven years ago At that time the ~,. . , .geologists~deterrrtirted' an acceptabk pad location much farther upfrll than we are momently :. ~' proposing. Due~ta the vast areas of open space easements on this property, the kx~tion was in tbrrMct Irrith the City of Saratoga'a allowable bung locations. In the search for ottwr l~r , geologically acceptable building locatlons, additional faun zones Nero disoovened. This dizcovery necessitated a much more detailed analysis of this lot. This analysis took quite a krt of time ahd:•it~was quite difficult for the City ~geologiat and the geologist of t+ecord tD locate a mutually agreeable building pad location. R was during this phase that I was hired by the Shertg's to begin the design portion of this project This was approximatey four yearn ago. ' ~ h has taken tour years of working with the City of Sarabga s planning departmer~ ~~ , the City C3eologist,lhe City Arfiorist, the City Atbonwy, the neighbors and the ShQng's a,• themselves to arrive at the point that we now find kwrselvos. We have redesigned the projeQ several times; morn have incorppreted many of the suggestions by the rreighbors sa weq as the Plan i D tm t d h l n ng epar en an av® a ways strived to follow all of the guidelines, rules and s regulations sat foAh by the City of Saratoga. ThQ~ geologically acceptable building pad is now located partially upon a steeply ;~ sloped portion of the lot with the remairrcier of dhe acceptable area being flat but lying within ' the c~xrerrt frgirrt and side setback aroas. The size of this building pad, without any side or front vatiar>ce approval, is 1,100 squsn feet (on a seven-acre bt) and will require a slope c, varianoa since the average slope h greatf:r than 3096. The granting of ony a frnr~t variance wiN result in a building pad of approximately 2,500 squaro feet and will nequMe a sbpe variance as well. We are askirtg'the Planning Corrnttission to consider and approve setback viiriarteea for the front as weN as two sides of the property that wNl r+esuri in setbacks that ~ ' conform to pl+e-1'992 rcquiremonts. These r'equiroments are consistent with rite adjoining par+oels aswell as the rerr~airtder of the neighbortrood. We have prosented the design b the K neighbors'and have nr+oaived signed letters of approval with only one exception. •'. I ask ya, to oortsider and approve this request on t~ahas of Mr. and Ma_ Steve Shang. Steve Nelson t 4•~~r ce. moos ~~~~~~ Zd Wdii' : S9 t~09Z 0£ '^~N 6ZZ£-ZZ£ 80b : 'ON Xti~ ~u I i T 2~~Q : b10Z1~ Mr. John Livingstone Planner, City of Saratoga Ref: 21794 Heber Way, Lot 14 Nov. 18, 2004 Dear Mr. Livingstone: I have been going around all neighbors on Heber Way and having their acknowledgement of our upcoming construction project. There are 8 houses and 2 vacant lots on Heber Way. Except 21790 (Mr. 8t Mrs. Kuntz on their concern regarding this project), 21794 (the subject lot) and 21791 (Steve Sheng, owner of the subject lot) I have all 7 signatures on attached statements. 21800 is a vacant lot. 21760 & 21761 are the most further houses from the subject lot. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ Steve Sheng ~~n~~~ .~~ J' A~1J V `~ V /A~v, T • 1 r ~ ~r ~, ~~~~~9 To:Mr. John Livingstone, Planning Staff City of Saratoga From: Steve Sheng, Owner ~~~ ~-~- ~~'~ Subject: New House Design at 21794 Heber Way As I discussed the application and the geological situations with undersigned neighbors, they feel the architectural designs with respect to building location, size, access, curb appearance, style, etc on a six acre lot are adequate and acceptable. __ ~ ~~ us ~ ohs ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ C ~, J , ~~~ ~~-Q ~ ~ ter- Q __. _ _ z= ~ ~ 8 I ~-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-~- ~~ ; ~ ~~~h~ ~ I ~ ~p _ 1-f .e ~-/ L.Jny_ ___ _-- - -~~ a )~ ~~l ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~V~_. ~.~ __ ~~- ~ ~ To: Mr. John Livingston, Planning Staff City of Saratoga From: Steve Sheng, Owner S~'~.~~ r'~ Subject: New House Design at 21794 Heber Way As I showed and discussed the architectural design, geological situations, and building pad location with the undersigned neighbors they acknowledge that there is an application for building, a new hous in the Subject location. • ~ ~~~` 2 i ~ i ~~~ ~~--~- • ~j ~~nn31 • Attachment 4 ~~t1n32 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 8`h day of December 2004, at 7:00 p.m. In the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION # 02-281(503-31-067) - Sheng, 21794 Heber Way; -Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to build a new two- story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square fret, which includes the 726 square foot three car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum building height of the residence will not cxceed 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 may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order 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 868.1231 • ~~1~1~33 • 21794 Heber Way ~~~~~4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 22na day of November, 2004, 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 S00 feet of the property to be affected by the application 21794 Heber Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. F. Livingstone A P Associate Planner • ~(lf1~135 MITCHELL, ROWLAND L & RUTH Y TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50309008 22101 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9731 VINTNER INVESTMENTS Or Current Owner, APN 50331067 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 SNEDDON, STEVEN L & PAULA A Or Current Owner, APN 50331070 21780 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 PALMER, WILLIAM & CHARLENE Or Current Owner, APN 50331100 21761 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 DENTON, RICHARD & SHERRIE Or Current Owner, APN 50331103 21770 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 CHATEAU MASSON LLC Or Current Owner, APN 50332002 15585 LOS GATOS BL LOS GATOS CA 95032-2503 SHENG, STEVE NIN-CHUM & ROUNDA Or Current Owner, APN 50331065 21791 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 REKHI, MUNINDER P SING & SADARSHAN K Or Current Owner, APN 50331068 829 CAPE FLATTERY PL SAN JOSE CA 95133-1526 HWANG, LII,Y L & JOSEPH J Or Current Owner, APN 50331088 13966 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9718 LEV, LAVI A & SARAH TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50331101 21771 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 HILL, ROBERT W Or Current Owner, APN 50331104 21760 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 CHATEAU MASSON LLC Or Current Owner, APN 50347007 15585 LOS GATOS BL LOS GATOS CA 95032-2503 SHENG, STEVE NIN-CHUM & ROUNDA " Or Current Owner, APN 50331066 21791 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 KUNDTZ, ROBERT A & NANCY J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50331069 21790 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 HALADUS, ZBIGNIEW TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50331089 13937 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9718 ZEID, JAMAL F & BEVERLY A Or Current Owner, APN 50331102 21781 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700 CHATEAU MASSON LLC Or Current Owner, APN 50332001 15585 LOS GATOS BL LOS GATOS CA 95032-2503 • r,1 U (~~illil~G ..r LL~ ~' ~/ ~ "' MIIIII~P 'llMi iLCf'LLf'YOY '>•! 11Y4'ILf oOY '~Id ' .. : ,w.~.,, a.., . .... ... . ~ooac ~v~ ~iafuuvo avoal x~ao ..ra m ~ „, . I~. .Y ~ } ~`~"~~'°'"~` _ __ _ _ ~NlldtrJQ 4N'7 N~7143a + F ~ h ~n rw _.___._____...___ w ll~ y I~M• n~M rm~r r+w ^ • ~~~ I ~~~~ ~,~ T ~7~~$ ~ !; 3~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~I ff ~~ ~ ~ ~I ~ nvanl~lir+~av l'~ z w 0 w u w N w ~-- 3 v/ W Z W N O O ~ ~ 4 ~earuonaa.s Q a A = ~ ~ ~'sY V G W N ~ r9 .J W 0 -- r-- ~ 0 t- ~ ~ ~ V c~ ~ ~ L ~'- ~ ~ ~ ~ L w~ VJ z W Q z Q a w! Q d w Q 133118 3111 ~N3t-tS 3/~ls SW I~ Z!W ~ t ~ ~ 8 9 g $ ~I~ z O ~~~ ~~~ U ~ , ~ ~s a 5 ~o ~o~ m~ . ,.c~ ~~ U v ~ L' ~ A Q QO ~ ~~ m U 'rlOd 3~N3QI43J RI3N 4340dOJd d ~ ~ S ~I~j ~ j~ GR clc~i I I Ic!~4 t._ ..` $ $ i 3 n ~ i ~{ 8 8 0 8 I ~ a ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ 3 I Q $ Ii ~- ~ •t'l . ~I~ s I, ~ ~; ~ ~~;~~~ >s ~ I~ ~~~ , s ~ 4 I ~ i ~ ~ (` ~ ~ ~ ~~ j i i ~_~~~ ~, I .~ tr~~ 4 '~ ~ ~' Y T. `<< ~, ~~4~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~, S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ z A~ ~_, s ~ ~ } ,., l~ • t t p III VIED 'Ile'A eLLt'ILf'M~ '>• - - - •Ni'RC.O~'e~ld OLO56 d~ '?6o}p.n?g ~r,+"~,""., .owa •s~ ~aa./wrv avoal ~al~ x>ta ara .;f,.~", .,, ..~.w.e ~..~. ~_~'^"»_~ ~Nlld'4EdQ 4N17' N=JI43a .lUi'11s Nb`'Td 3115 fipfil aageN '18L9 }dal t~l ~o~ N ~' ^- " ~~ ~+i Il~s'Q ~N~tis ~/~31s s~ nun ~w i ~ U ~a~o~ ~~r~ois3a m3N meodo~d d o ~ a ~ I II ) ~ . ~ C, _ ~ __,. ,. , ' I~~` ~_~~ ~L.~ _; ,! II ~~'>)~, J/~_ ) ~. I -, ~~~-;5 ~~ ~~' ) i jL --15 II ('- ~% -- ~ -~f'~~~jif~ .i-~i(~ _-VIII it ilk ~~ b ~ ~i~-~-Jl =~!~ l~ ~~' ~ :. I ,_- ~~ - 1 -- - _' - - - -' - -_ ~- _ i ~~~ ~ ~~ 1 S - H 1~'~df~~K J ~ - o \ ~ , '.~ ~ '~~~' ~ ~- _-- ,~ ~ - ~ ~ •~~f ~.1~ '', I IM~A i d ~ i ~~. ~g ~--- ° ~- i, 2 ,~ J ~9 ~S\ e • t ~.. ~~' __ ~ ' --~ ,,_ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ; q ; f~ ~yQ~ ~!( rI QIM 101 I OI II I I i ~~ .. ~_ ~ _~. -- k ' ~ ~, f, I_ / ~~ m`y .8 ~o -< oo'~ ' ~~ ~~.~~~ ~~ I I ,~ Q '~ ~ y N - L~ ~ '!+ ~ ~ 0 ~ ' \ ~. .. ~ ~ Q~ ~bo'Ob ~~ ~~~ J M ~ ~ '~ • ~` ~~ f '~, 3~~ \ ~k ~ ,~.. ~~~ ~~~ s~ ~ ?- ~~~ ?' ~; ~~, ~~ ~ ~. ~,w~~~~~~- .~.~~,-~.~ ~,~~.~,~ sr~oi ~b~no~~~ ~3ab ~Q as a $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %Nlld'v'LIQ aN'p N~IS~ . ~ .. ,,,. 1 ~ Il~ ~~ ~~ia-tms aN~r Najd 31 is ~i~l3t-fS 3/315 SW t~~+~ ~kW N ~ l~ 'n"""." ,.,.•~••.. 'f^ T °JOd 3~N3C11S3~ fT13N ~SOd02dd b ~ ~ j a ,~ n ; --j ,l ~;-=- ~ , ii ` ;:. o ~.. > . ~~ .-~~ ,...~ ,' _'~ ___~~ (~ ,,, .:~~ .,. ~_ _ i~. .. ;>";. ~ ':) ,~ _ ~ , ;'~~~' l it : j~ ~ ~ : ;_ ~ -.,~r ~ ~ ,:~' =, _J! _. " > _.. ~ ~ r'; 4 ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~,. rq, o 4 'f o r i i ~I I I J1L ~/ (0957 T~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, Q ? N m~~ ~, / ~ ~~~ ~' ~~ S ~~~~ z ~~ a -: d ~ ~ a-~ _ ~ y .} r i \~ ~ ,. ~i I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~_-- ~ i ~ ~ '' 1 - !~ ~~ __ ~- ~, ~ _ N 'cr d ~~ yea l of ~ j GZ ~ ~ j Y1~ -y nl ~~~, I 192 ~ i ''~ ,Lg 11e0 sviq ~'_~.. t i 3 ~. : '~ ~~ 6Q •c. ~~. .~ <..- ~ mM .~ 2~ \. ~~ o~ z ~.- ~\`~ ar ~ i .. ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~.yp ioe~SN ~ ~ I ~bo'Ob Q-- II FJ i ~ ~~ ~8 ;, i M ~~,J ~ I ~~ ~ I I i • • • /~-~~.,,~ ; 1Vd7d '~11lIQ~X~ ~ L lOl - 18L9 ladal ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~1 ~IW OC'oN _ g ~. _ U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~p day ~ ~ ~~ rt 2y'33f Df $ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a] 10~ WW }`~a~yf {}y1rj~1 p ^ m i`f~ ~~ '~' ~~ ~~ F ~~ ~ ~ ~aRSR~~ o ~~ M ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ 3 m ~ ~ ; ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~m~ ~~ ~W N ~ • ~ -Y' 4 ~~~ ~~ ~~ • • • n T av...wmnaa ~u«e utcat~ror Ewa ++rt'a[•eo. ~auwr 01' ~j a~ ~Q~G}Q.IQC~ 01 ~ V~ ""° ~ .. .w.~~4wwM M r.n -^~......~,..~. ~. Y009G 'V7 "iIBGdWCJ OVOa1 X33a17 .uW 9YEI i~lb`'fd 3db'~SQN'a`'1 Rom a~~~ is~9 }goal ~~ }a-t ~ o ~ m _+ ~ . '"' ~='~.~~~ .~..r .~iihww.rrHOi rIi ~~ r*u ~Nlls!_dJ_Q_4Nd N~183a ~ ~Q ~ ~./n I~ I~ ~Y I'~~~/~O/ y~~~/`N' }L~'~~/y~~ I C {/~~ ~~/y~' ` II ,~1 ~V ~~~iV V~ 1_ N~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ a ~ c "° ~ ti ' I I ~ ~ ~ '210 3~N3QIS3b f11~N a350dOZld t/ ~ ~ h ~ , (~ ii ,; ::":.~.I il !( ~~~I `~. I ~ _l, i~ .( :,_.,.~I ~ ~ ~ J`,,.. I /i ,......,1 ~.': Ij i 1 .__~!I ~( `( ~ ~l - i~ ii r::_:~ l ..__h )I i ( , ~ l~ ~~'•:.JI ~I ~ ~li ~ / - Il 'a.a I~? __ "~.., i( ) ii .', ~ .~ ~~~. ~_ .. i li j l~. -'._ U .. '' i. ._ U l i \i ! ' ., '_.. '~; _ r._::: _ l _ _. , _ . i i I~ is ~ i; 9 a 9 n s p A A A R A ~ ~ A A u N Y z o } ~ ~ i ~ ~ a ~ I ( ! O F ~~ I i ~ , ; ~ , I r ~~ I II " - r /~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ + \ ~ 1 ~; '' i *~- 0 ~„_, r. u \~ '. • • • p '~ +rnvw'u~ tuc•nrwr,~ rK'LLCi01'•~'ald OLO96 •7O'76oiPJP$ ~~ ....;:.:'S ~Fw w hw w ~OOiLL "YJ `I~OJF11^7 O-'Oll ~7i•YJ A11C GM ~,,;~ „~~ ISL9 iov~l bl io1 ~ , A ~ ^ -~ 91VIldt~?1C! 4Nb N'aIS3a ,~ ~.~-„w ~„ N'v`"id ,l~b'/~~~kd ~N3MS 31~1s SW t~ ZlW ~ ~ ~ ~. ,.,,,,,,,.. ~aod a~r~aisaa rtraN a3sodoad d ~ a ~ ~~ ~ 1~8Q i •' Z VII d ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~~~,E~= ~ ~i ^~ 3~~3~ *~ .a~ A '~+WTS~!.:S i ' ~ i'' , t ^^ ~;! 9 SOP " Y~ v/ \ C ~G~y I I ~~~''OtlA ~ \, ~...~~ ~ ~'~ i ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ,,~ ~,, Atlf7 ~~H~~~ /.'. ~~~ // ~ ~ _~ ~~. ~' ~ ~ j ~ ~~ ~~:~ ~~ Y ~;~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~. ~a~ I ~" "~ ~~~~ y~ ~Q J aY(1]i 2F 'U m R' = ggQ~~ ~ z ~ ° a~~~~ r Fos N Z u~du •, •~ m ~,MI„a 'wr.+wlunw~ufri 4LC'ILfiYOr'bf MK'ILf'OOY'.~wd OL0~36 "V~7 ~PEO'~P.IP$ ,.. «, ««.. w.. «..,,w. oooan •s~ 'iTaa.wro osoal ~~r~ a>ra srfil ~A«~~.~.....«,...., 19L9 i7v~l bl zoo ~ ~' .«...............,»..,., 9NIld'dtJQ aND' N9193Q ~~1C~ ~~~~~,n~1b~ l.t"'f~~~H .~_«,~_,w,....«, ---- -'-'----- ------------- ~i~l3t-ts 3/~31^a 8W I~ Ohl - ~ ..W ~.~.~~ y 1 ~,,~ ~ 'f~I Ij~T~Q ~ao~ 3~Naolsaa m3N aasodoad a ~ ~ ; ~ Y > o~ U n n n ~t~ ~O i o ° ~ I ~Z~~ ~~ ~~r0 ~I . ?U yt~ NZQ C3w¢~ I/t~ ~ I ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ r S ~a~ ~ ~~ _~~ ~ ~~ O I W ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~= ~ ~~~ ~~ i V ~ ~ I ~~ N 1h .f N b I ~ a .o ~~~¥~ ~~~~~~ ~ .~~ ~~~m o•~ i ~~ s ~tl~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ 1 i ~~d ~ Q ~~ bpt~iJi W ygU~ 1=- ~ C ~~ U E ~~ 1 ~ 2 1 = ~~ °~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ J; ~ ~~ ~~_ ~ ~ W ~~~~~ ~~ 3 EG Oi O i ~~~ ~~ • Y 'Z '~~ ~'+'~Ww+~~in~P •~~w8 4LE,LE~.OY ~w, MK1LE~.Of ~~1d l11 r y.~3.: w..w., aoova •r~ •i~aas~ a~oa ~aa~~ iaa arEi .~~ M~ .....,.......w. ~,,,~-,~hw .,, ~; ~NIldVLIQ aNt/ N'71S3a S r.oi i it i ~ I~ y .y._. .__. ..__. ._. i .-._- ._. _..____... ... ~ __.. .I S n M n ' , , .• ~• ...,i,.~ ... .._._..~~a.y - ... _ ___._.__...__ ~ _ ______ \.-1 OL056 ''D'~ 'Q6oiv,,vg o - IBL9 ioy~l bl l01 $• '. ~ N17'1c! JOO~1~ Nlb'W ~IV3ii8 3/~3.L8 SW f~ ?~W ~' ~ ~ '~ 'AJOi 3~N34193a ff13N 43SOd02Jd 0' ~ ~ a ____ - Y,LS _.__. r__._._ _...... ._. _.-_..__ _ .. ._. ........... .._.___._.. ~ ,r,a „5L-,R i ~ ___ ,k.._._._.. __.___.._- .____. .____._ __. ___.-_.. _.__. .____._. .___ _._ ._. _ .f E .E• W .CIF 1 .[tE•,> ~ .._..___._.....~._. _. ._. r ' „h1~,1 ~ .,L~.C I ~ OCOL OLOC O[Ot ~, YI ~ ~~~ ~. ~n, ;~ ~ ~~ - • • ,6,; i .__ _-. .. .. .._ _.______..X._.y ,b,d , -_- ~1 -__-~--__ -(• `V~~~ !- ~ i II P I ~i it i i I e -_,~_ ---F- I I _ _ I ' I V + _- i __.-___ ', I ._~I I i i ' i i i i= G , i i i i I m ~' ' I , ,~' ~~~ ; . ~~. n~ , i v .,* ' • Y ~ •w..+rliln.p 'u..l .~c'ILf'wr 'w~ 'M..'Ilf'.Or ~..e~d OL0~26 ' Y / '~o'~~S .,."~'+.~... «..., aooae so'iaawro aroa~ ~ar~ xala arcl b ;,;.o M w.;'.~, 9NIld'v'?.IQ QNCr-N'~133a ~~1C~ ~001~ ~~ddn , N _ 3 ~~ ~I Il~~s'Q ~n~t~s ~~is sw r~ aw ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 'T~Od 37N3C7143LI RI3N Q390dOZld d f ~ 6 ~ ---'- ~A•.a ~ .. o-.d ' O['f •.'f I I - - - --!-- --- --- -- - - -- --l -~__ _ __ ~~ ._ _._.__.. I_______._.......____.. i ~ i I W ._ i ~L_ . ____ -- ..-- - - -----~- - -..~. ' ~ i' ,~ i orac I a ~_._~. h ------_ --_ .-- ------- ~y ~~; ~- o ------- ~,II I -=____- O i „ _ -.__ _ _. --.._ - -_~- - orac '_ ~~ ~ ,gh,95 -. _... __ ____..._ __ __ ___.,~ I ._.. _.. ....__ -.. ..- -__. ~. .. ..._.. -_.r-.... __._._.... fi._ ____ -- - r - - --- - ~ ~ • _ - ,o-r ,o r~ -- i '3's ~- I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~~ ~ _ __- -. --~ -- - - • ---- -- - _e 9!. _ I I ~ li 9,: n ' arui __ _ 9pm~i~ g-._ a ~-._~._ I. .__..- _.__ ~- F_ -_ - - _ _I- _. - ._ t' I y a `- I 'i 411 1- 1` r n _ ----- _ ...--- - ~- - ' - I ,_ ~ _ ,~ __ .o-.1 -_ - _I --~- ~ i ~' -_ i_ _ ---- ~ ~--- _ ~ I _ ~ --~-----I _ ~, ~ ~ I q 3 ~ J _ i I i ~ / I m ._-. Q __ \:~ ~ ~, 3 1 ~, ii°~. a - I I i' ' I s - _~ - I I ~ ~~: ~ , I h I > ~- 1 ~ ~ ~. ^ I I I I ~ 1 ~ I ~ _ ~t ~ -- '~" i '; ~ i >e .~~ ~ ~,o...~ ~ of _ I _ I i k ~ I I I YI ~ ~ _' ~ m , - - ---1-- - - ~I .o-,ll i ...._ OIL .qf•[ .L'.Y .kc-.OI y I . _-_ _ _.._ - NI'~II ~ LL i ~I ~ ~ ? - ._. _. - _..- ~- -' -- - -.. _.. -- -- I . _ .i I I ~ I l i ~ ~ I 4 --_ __ _ -- I I ~ ~ F '-r-"-' --'A _ i u / ...-~-'~- +' ~-fir-----_..._....__ __..-- -.___.--~-- Q n R ~•\~ ~ 0 ..I_. 0~ \ UI \\ T) ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ •s~ P ~ ~ _ Y vl ':..~ ~ ~•~ ~ .. 3 Q ~~ ~ ~ ~i . ,d,` ~ ~ \~'~ . r- ~, ~~ 3A .Sq % /_ y,' ~, ~~, _ ~ , / 0J~ ^~ ~ ~~ / Q~ e p- r • 1 i ~ / ~ ~' 1 M' / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1~ y ~ ~~ ~~ \ ~ ~~ / „\ < n.3 ~ / ~ ,;`~ \ % j /~ •fa~, i i ~\ ~~ /, ". ,Y\\ / ~ i .qs~~ i / . .0.~\ • m,; ~y u 1/ ~. • ~ rRRQ ~ ~ ~I O ~ ~ W ~ i z `a f ~ '] y] F ~~ gg~ 00 W ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a $ lv ~~a Q3 s ~~ ~~~~ ~U~~y`~ r1 yI ~ ~ ~ a~ ~¢ ~ S W Q Q 3 ~~ ZQ O ~j W ~ ~p g yy ~~~e ~_ oT ~~ ~Q u C~~u~ p ~ ~ n T f ~ ~ a ~ T l ~~ Oogg~} q m ~ J ~ ' p 7 X (00 p ltr•? i ~~ ~p ~~ q¢ { .?} ' t?y ( } ~~ ' 0y ~1 y ~ ~ ~~ I 11 I o . ~ t ~ _rl I 4~~ I ._ ~ l .b:B I - °~ ~ ~ _~ ~ __I e1 lu ~ ~ ' I ~1 ~ ~~ n~ I~I ~ ~ ~ ~I~ i ' ~' i ~~ rl3j ; ~, 1 1 '~ ~, 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ , ; 1 U Is r 11 I I I I I I I~ I ~ I I ~ I i ''':1 ~~~ P ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ i i~ @ °v ~~~ ~ i i I I of W ~~ ~i ~, zj ~I 0~ a LL: e~~ ~~ I o T to I V I_._....____-__._.. _.._...._ f._.._.._-__. _... _._.. ~~,q „ac ~6w .o-,c _____~,_ ' o ... • NOIlV/313~(188(fU 1MrJIL1 ~f ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ I II 'I I i i ji ~ li i ii I i ', ~ . , ,, ~, ~, ~, I I I I ~ I I i i ~ I l I I ~ I ~ r~ i ~i °I ~i al $I t~t~ ~I 3~ ~~ ~~ ~I ~~ i ~ I ~~ ~ 's, a, ~, ~~ i i ~ ~ ~__._. I .67.-. _ _ .. . I I ~ ~ +111 pP - _ _. _ _ ._ _ _, ~ll I pll ~...,.~z~~.zz~l ~A l ~Z _I_-.7 _I-~ II ,I ~li ,IcJ__I_1 J=L]I~ p, '~[2'ILL 7'f'11 +~Y III~~C S _I_ L J YL ]J I ~I~ ILG~J'r~'~~'.'_L~1~ P' I I 1I ILLI I ~ ~I~_ _ ell' ._ .. ~1'll f _ - i. j111I I II IF 3 "a T v III Slll ~l IIr'Y ~'-1 -YI _ j1~ llil it 11 ~- ~1'I bll _ ~ ~ ~ 11 I~IIII i I I l __ ~ ' i 11l I ~I i ~I+ ~~ ~ ~~ ,I. l ~ ~~! IS l l ~~~ I 1 1 ~ i pp ~4 Q I .~ ~ ~ ~ a -_ ~ ~ ~ ~. _ --- o ---- ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ _ ~ ~~ 11~ \ I ~ I. I j it xl ~ .:., ~ k .~~-----I~I--`-k ~I _.. ___ s.g - - --- ----------'fL • • n ~a », " "" "" `' ' """r+wninw ~un+a xeraceor ^~d nea'aa'aor ~raWJ ' OLOS6 '4'~ 'p6oip.IPg 0 ~, ~ . ~-. .'~ . aoots'v~ rria.+us~ aroe~ ~raa~ ..aa are ~„„^~ ~ ^ ~^ ^^^^ w...T..-w...~ W ~ Q ld' 'L N ~ ' 18L9 ioval bl i0"I g U ~ '~;° :« ;':.r"..:,.~ ,Q Nl I 183Q ~ t~ _N CJ' N~~.~b~3~~ ~~~~~.~x~ u ~1 ~ ~~I ,~ ~~.1.~ ~W 1~"Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ C ' ~ "° :% 2103 3QN3QI93TJ RI~N Q3SOdOald tr ~ ~ ~ N 1. Q ~I 4' 1~= --_ II /-_ 1_-, E~ -- , J I .~= _ ~j ~~~ ~. Ir 1 ~ ~ I' ~ { ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ,` ~ i _ S - ~~ = 's ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s i ~i ~ ~ a~ =i • ~¢ ~~ y~y~ i~ ~a B -,~I `!; T; ~I s~ k Y. t; ~I SI ~1 QI £I y~ t ( • -.~-.... ~~~~~~_- ~~~ 44 {S ~~-..-- -- -.__..---_ ._ .- ~---- ~I 99 X[. ,'lava -. ..,hj S__.__._-._...__.RT~ii- *9 ~ ~~K= RR [[ IIkSg I X ~' ~~j p~ ~, 2 ~~I ~~ ~~~~ I~ ~ ~~~~ +~,l1 ~= • ,wo~.i ~ NOIlV/~3~34t+'3) 1N~111 _ -__.. ~' ~ ~~ . a ~~ ii 8 ~' ~~ ~ _, n F r~ Mi i i i i i I I • z O I- U w N N N V _~ f{j r 0 ~g T S Z O U w N N O a V __ • ~ ~ ,o-,t ~ ~ .o-,a +o ~~ Y ~~ 555 ~ ~ Ill;r _ _ _ • • ~ ITEM 5 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: App # 03-168/ 14010 Alta Vista Avenue Applicant/Owner: Blackwell Properties Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner~~~ T'ype~ of Application: Design Review, Variance for Front Setback, and Floor Area Determination Datf:: December 8, 2004 APN: 397-28-069 Department Hea ~ -- ~~, _ QISOOFT LIE AROlR~D 14010 ALTA VISTA AVEf~JE ~ _ _ '. 14010 ALTA VBTA AVB4UE R~~. / ~~~ ~~~. t ~~ _.._. Street Lffiels \ ~.`..y- Hat ~ ~~~ PARCAS N7fT1P1500 FT OF 14010 ALTA VISTA /J\~`'-"' _~~ \~ ~ J ~ ~ r`T--~•~ .__ _ ~ ~~~ - ^v ~' { F ~~ '~--~ '~~ w~` ~ e ~ ~ A ~i^~~""'~'~ ~ `, . - _ .. , _L1/ ~ .~~~~% ~~ '" ~ ~ 0 w 14010 Alta Vista Avenue ooooo~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 03/17/04 10/25/04 11/24/04 1U24/04 12/2/04 Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a vacant lot and a Variance for the front setback. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. This includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26-feet. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and zoned R-1- 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for the Design Review, Variance and Floor Area Determination with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Arborist Report March 26, 2004 3. Arborist Report October 14, 2004 4. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels S. Site Plan showing adjacent lots 6. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 000002 File No. 03-168;14010A1ta Vista Avenue,/Blackwell Properties STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 8,721 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 29% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing minimal grading due to the structure being located on the flat portion of the lot. Approximately 280 cubic yards of cut and 130 cubic yards of fill will be needed for the basement that is not counted as grading. 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: Maximum Allowable 24% 60% Building Footprint 1,360 sq. ft. Driveway, Patios and Walkways 785 sq. ft. TOTAL 2,155 sq. ft. 5,232 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 912 sq. ft. Determined by the Second Floor 1,053 sq. ft. Planning Commission Garage 420 sq. ft. Basement (not counted) (797 sq. ft.) TOTAL 2,385 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front ls`/2nd 20 ft./21 ft. 25 ft. Rear 1s`/2nd 92ft./90 ft. 25 ft./35 ft. Right Side ls`/2nd 6 ~`i ft./11 ~`i ft. 6 ft.nl ft. Left Side 1~`/2nd 6 ft.nl ft. 6 ft.n1 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 24 ft. 26 ft. ~i C:\Myl)ocuments\VatiancesWlta Vista 14010 Staff Repo.doc O®OOO~ File No. 03168;14010A1ta Vista Avenue/Blackwell Properties PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The project was submitted to the Planning Division in October 2002 for a time extension. The Planning Commission originally approved the plans in October 2000. During the initial review of the plans for the time extension staff discovered that the approved plans did not receive a variance. The original staff report combined three sepazate design review applications into one short staff report that did not address the variance for this project or adequately address the required floor area determination for the three homes. Two of the homes aze currently under construction. As part of the Time Extension process the plans are subject to new ordinances or conditions and are considered denovo. With staff direction the applicant changed the application from a time extension to a Design Review, Variance, and Floor Area Determination. Design Review • The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a vacant lot and a Variance for the front setback. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 2,385 square feet. This includes a 420 square foot two car garage. The structure will also have a 797 squaze foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26- feet. The gross lot size is 8,721 squaze feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The majority of the homes in the area have a craftsman design. The proposed exterior finish on the first floor will be a smooth trowel stucco exterior finish and the second floor will have horizontal wood siding. The home will be a craftsman style with gable roof and corbels. The roof will be a 50-yeaz high definition composition shingle. All of the proposed colors are earth tones. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in Article 15-45.080 of the City Code: (a) Avoid unreasonablelnterference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The house is located across the street from the high school and has no visible neighbors to the reaz of the house. The second story is stepped back on all sides of the proposed structure increasing the privacy for the proposed and adjacent structures. • c:u~yna~~.~wtiv,~i,oios~x~.a~ 000004 File No. 03168;140IOAlta Vista Avenue~Blackwell Properties (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan for the front yard that includes planting two 24-inch box trees. Minimal grading will take place, as the proposed structure will be located on the flat portion of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees on the site. No replacement trees are required as part of the City Arborist Report. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of two 24-inch box trees. Existing tree canopies cover the majority of the site. (d) Minimize perception ofexcessive bulk. The proposed structure will have varying rooflines with a stucco finish for the first floor and horizontal wood siding for the second floor that will reduce bulk and add dimension and character to the building elevations. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed 24-feet in height, two feet below the maximum 26-feet allowed. The traditional craftsman design and details will be consistent with the chazacter of the neighborhood and compatible in both height and bulk. The proposed project will not impair the light or air of the adjacent two-story structures. (f) Currentgradingand erosion control methods The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical clearance fTOm the City Geologist. The project is also providing semi-pervious driveway pavers. (g) Design policies and techniques The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, integrating the structure with the environment, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines. Variance Findings The applicant is proposing a variance for the front yazd setback. In order to approve a variance application the Planning Commission must make all of the required variance findings in the affirmative as stated in Article 15-70.060 of the City Code. If any one of the c:~yn«~~a~v~~wa v~ iao~o s~ Repod« ~ooooos File No. 03 I68;14010AIta Vista Averrue/Blackwell Properties findings cannot be made the request must be denied. The following is a review of each of the required findings for a variance: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the speed regulations would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties In the vicinity and classified m the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in that there is only a small portion of the lot where a building could be placed due to the two large Oak trees located in the middle of the lot. The strict enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant a reasonably sized building pad as enjoyed by the other owners on the street. (b) That thegranting of the variance will not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties m the vicinity and classes ed in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with two large Oak trees located in the middle of the lot not typical of the of lots in the vicinity, therefore the granting of a setback variance would not constitute a special privilege. Due to the angle of the front property line in relation to Alta Vista Avenue only small portions of the proposed structure will protrude into the required setback. The variance will have a minimal impact to the two neighboring properties to the side of the proposed project and the school field located directly across from the proposed project. Lot 54 on the left side has a 25-foot front setback and Lot 52 has a 28-foot front setback due to the large trees located in the front of the property. The difference in setbacks between the three homes will be difficult to notice due to the angle that the homes are placed on the lot relative to the street. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will meet all current Building Code standazds. F1oorArea Determination The maximum Iloor azea for a pazcel is determined by the net lot size after deducting the average slope of the lot. Where the net lot size is less than 5,000 squaze feet the Planning Commission must determine the appropriate Iloor area for the lot. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approved the proposed Iloor azea of 2,385 squaze feet based on the building design and how it conforms to the lot and the surrounding structures. c:~yD«~~~~v~«wa vim i4oio staff Itepo.aoc ®0~~6 File No. 03168;14010A1ta Vista Avenue/Blackwell Properties All of the nearby structures aze a Craftsman type design. The home on the right side of the proposed project on Lot 52 is 2,256 squaze feet and Lot 54 on the left side is 2,242 square feet. Staff feels the proposed floor area is consistent with the neazby homes and in scale with the neighborhood Parking The Sazatoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed pazking spaces within a gazage. The applicant is proposing atwo-car gazage. Trlees All existing trees on the site will be retained. The City Arborist Report contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. All of the Arborist recommendations have been made a condition of project approval. Correspondence No correspondence has been received from any of the neighbors. The applicant owns the lots on each side of the proposed project. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Land LIsc 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 house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed design of the house and the materials and colors will blend in with the existing homes in the neighborhood and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. 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 Articles 15- 45.080 and 15-70.060 and 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, maximum height, and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for a Design Review, Variance, and Floor Area Determination with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. C:\MyDocuments\Variances\Alta Vista 14010 Staff Repo.doc ~~OOO~ Attachment 1 • ~~00~8 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alta Vista Avenue WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to build a new two-story housc on a vacant lot and a Variance for the front setback. The proposed structure will have a total floor area of 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. This includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000; 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 anew 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: (a) Avoid unreasonablelnterference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The house is located across the street from the high school and has no visible neighbors to the rear of the house. The second story is stepped back on all sides of the proposed structure increasing the privacy for the proposed and adjacent structures. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No protected trees will be removed as part of the proposed plan. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan for the front yard that includes planting two 24-inch box trees. Minimal grading will take place, as the proposed structure will be located on the flat portion of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees on the site. No replacement trees are required as part of the City Arborist Report. The applicant has shown a conceptual landscape plan that includes the planting of two 24-inch box trees. Existing tree canopies cover the majority of the site. 000009 (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed structure will have varying rooflines with a stucco finish for the first floor and horizontal wood siding for the second floor that will reduce bulk and add dimension and character to the building elevations. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed 24-feet in height, two feet below the maximum 26-feet allowed The traditional craftsman design and details will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and compatible in both height and bulk. The proposed project will not impair the light or air of the adjacent two-story structures. (f) Currentgradingand erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. The project has received geotechnical clearance from the City Geologist. The project is also providing semi-pervious driveway pavers. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, integrating the structure with the environment, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance Approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specked regulations would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classed in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique in that there is only a small portion of the lot where a building could be placed due to the two large Oak trees located in the middle of the lot. The strict enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant a reasonably sized building pad as enjoyed by the other owners on the street. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties In the vicinity and classed In the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with two large Oak trees located in the middle of the lot not typical of the of lots in the vicinity, therefore the granting of a setback variance would not constitute a special privilege. Due to the angle of the front property 000010 line in relation to Alta Vista Avenue only small portions of the proposed structure will protrude into the required setback. The variance will have a minimal impact to the two neighboring properties to the side of the proposed project and the school field located directly across from the proposed project. Lot 54 on the left side has a 25-foot front setback and Lot 52 has a 28-foot front setback due to the large trees located in the front of the property. The difference in setbacks between the three homes will be difficult to notice due to the angle that the homes are placed on the lot relative to the street. (c) That thegranting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materiallyinjurious to properties or improvements In the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will meet all current Building Code standards. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and a Variance and is consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed materials and colors will blend in with the existing house and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review and a Variance, and the Planning Commission has determined the Floor Area to be appropriate based on the following: The maximum floor area for a parcel is determined by the net lot size after deducting the average slope of the lot. Where the net lot size is less than 5,000 square feet the Planning Commission must determine the appropriate floor area for the lot. The Planning Commission has approved the proposed floor area of 2,385 square feet based on the building design and how it conforms to the lot and the surrounding structures. All of the nearby structures are a Craftsman design. The floor area of the home on the right side of the proposed project on Lot 52 is 2,256 square feet and Lot 54 on the left side is 2,242 square feet. The Planning Commission feels the proposed floor area is consistent with the nearby homes and in scale with the neighborhood. 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 for Design Review, 00011 Variance, and Floor Area Determination 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 November 30, 2004, incorporated by reference. Any modifications of the approved plans are subject to the review of the Community Development Director. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Division with a proposed set of plans highlighting all changes with a cloud. Staff will approve no exterior downgrading in the appearance of the proposed residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. 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: 3. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. 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. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 00012 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific chazacteristics 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. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 24 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 13. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan with a note `to remain in place throughout construction.' Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. CITY ARBORIST 14. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated March 26, 2004 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.' Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. 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. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 15. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attachedldetached garages including any workshop or storage areas within the gazage that are not constructed as habitable space. A National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 000013 Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A licensed contractor shall install the sprinkler. 17. A State Of California Licensed Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application, and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. 18. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. PUBLIC WORKS 19. All living areas, including basement, that use slab-on-grade floors shall include a protected impermeable moisture barrier, between the bottom of the slab and drain rock. From astandard-of-care perspective, the incorporation of a capillary break/ moisture barrier beneath living space slabs should be standard regardless of immediate floor covering plans. 20. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall address the following listed items regarding geotechnical design criteria for house foundations and the proposed basement. The consultant shall also review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for building foundations, and driveways) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations and standards of good geotechnical practice. 21. The consultant should address the potential performance benefits of supporting the entire eastern portion of the residence (beyond the basement) on a uniform, pier supported foundation rather than a mix of shallow and deep foundation elements. 22. Verify that retaining wall backdrains and basement drainage on final construction plans are adequate from a geotechnical perspective. An axial subdrain (including perforated pipe) beneath the center of the slab should be considered. Also, the consultant should verify that an appropriate drainage outfall location (for any water collected by backdrains/subdrains) has been selected to minimize adverse slope impacts. 23. Review the planned steel pier reinforcement for geotechnical adequacy. Local standards of geotechnical practice include minimum steel reinforcement of four, No. 5 vertical bars constructed to form a cage. 24. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 25. The Project Geotechnical Consultant 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. 26. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 29. 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 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of December 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • «~~®015 Chair, Planning Commission ArrEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ®~®016 • Attachment 2 • ~~o®~~ ., ARB R RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE IlWENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 14010 ALTA VISTA AVENUE (LOT 53) SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: BLACKWELL APPLICATION #: 02-232 APN: 397-28-069 Submitted to: • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A March 26, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 O®O®~,8 • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 26, 2004 SUMMARY Six Coast Live Oaks regulated by City Ordinance are vulnerable to damage by implementing the proposed design. All trees are shown on the Site Plan to remain. The driveway should be redesigned to be no closer than 10 feet from tree #1's mink. Revisions to the irrigation design are recommended beneath the canopies of trees #1 and 2. Provided the protection measures presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report are carefiilly followed and incorporated into construction plans, the trees have a reasonable chance of surviving. The newly .adopted Tree Ordinance requires the tree protection bond amount to be 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention, which is $59,040. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant lot at 14010 Alta Vista Avenue (L,ot 53), Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provide protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species and size; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets AO thru A6 (by Britt/Rowe, dated 7/15/03), the Grading and Drainage Plan (by JMH Weiss, Inc., dated 3/15/04), and the Planting and Irrigation Plan (by W. Jeffrey Heid, dated 10/20/03). The attached map was created from a copy of the Site Plan (Sheet Al) and identifies each tree's number, location and canopy perimeter, as well as the recommended location for protective fencing. Tree #4 was not shown on the Site Plan reviewed. Its location has been added based on its location shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. Tree #2's surveyed location shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan significantly differs from its location on the Site. Plan. Its location shown on the attached map is based on its location shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alta Vuta Avenue (Lot 53), Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City ofSaratoga Community Development Department ~~®~~~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 26, 2004 RECOMII~NDATIONS 1. The driveway must be redesigned to be no closer than 10 feet from tree #1's trunk. 2. The entire portion of home proposed without a basement shall be installed using a pier and on-grade beam design with no crawl space. The beams should be established on top or above existing grade with no soil excavation. The piers shall be designed as small in diameter as possible and placed the maximum distance apart from each other. Heavy equipment used to the drill the piers or deliver materials should not travel or park where the home's footprint is proposed east of the basement. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and prior to any excavation, grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. It shall be placed at or beyond the outermost canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch). Where this is not practical, it shall be placed no further than five feet from the home and two feet from the proposed driveway. • 4. Tree protection fencing shall be installed in two phases, one for excavating the basement and the other for constructing the home. The fencing for the excavation involves placing a line of fencing four feet from the eastern basement wall (see attached map); this section of fence can be removed once excavation is complete. 5. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and from beneath canopies of all Ordinance-sized trees (inventoried and not inventoried). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (soil fill and excavation), surface scrapings trenching, storage/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 6. Prior to excavating the basement, afour- to six-inch layer of organic composted mulch shall be manually spread beneath the trees' entire canopies, excluding the portion located downhill or within the basement's footprint. 7. A four-foot wide root zone buffer shall be installed as shown on the attached map, as well as within the home's footprint proposed east of the basement. The buffer surrounding the basement shall be installed prior to excavation, whereas the buffer surrounding the remainder of the home shall be installed prior to construction. The buffer shall consist of a four- to six-inch layer of %- to '/.-inch wood chips placed on the existing soil surface and covered by full sheets of 3/.-inch plywood. The plywood should be secured together to enable a sturdy walking surface. Its removal shall occur Please note that surface scraping has already occiured on this lot during construction of the home on the neighboring soudrern lot. Additional scraping should be avoided. . Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alto T'ista Avemee (Lot S3), Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department 00020 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 26, 2004 manually. Where within the home's footprint, the buffer should be manually removed just before the floor is laid. 8. Before digging the proposed basement using an excavator beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3, a one-foot wide section of soil outside the future wall shall be hand dug to a three- to four-foot depth. All roots two inches and greater in diameter that are encountered shall be cut clean near the soil line with a hand or chainsaw. The freshly cut root end must be immediately wrapped in a plastic bag secured with tape or a rubber band. Great care must be taken to avoid excavating beyond two feet from the basement wall. 9. Trenching must not occur within the home's footprint east of the basement. This will require attaching all utilities to the home's structure. 10. The location of tree #2 as shown on the site and landscape plans must be revised to reflect the surveyed location shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. 11. The irrigation design shall be revised to show no trenching closer than 13 feet from tree #2's trunk and 14 feet from tree #1's trunk. If irrigation is proposed within these distances, it shall be of a drip type system placed on existing grade. 12. The redwood fence proposed along the lot's southern boundary shall be installed prior to excavating the basement. Otherwise, additional tree protection fencing must be installed along the perimeter of tree #3's canopy. 13. Underground utilities should be planned outside from beneath canopies. I suggest plans showing underground utilities are reviewed prior to their approval. 14. I suggest downspouts be designed so they are directed away from and at least 15 feet to the side of each tree's trunk. 15. At the onset of construction, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #1, 2 and 3 and continue throughout the construction process during the dry summer and fall months (any month receiving less than one-inch of rainfall). The suggested rate is 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter applied every two weeks. The water should be supplied using soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at approximate mid- to outer-canopy. 16. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. U Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alta Yista Avenue (Lot 53), Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department ~°®021 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 26, 2004 TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of inventoried trees is $59.040. In accordance with the newly adopted City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9d' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Site Plan • • • Blackwell Properties; 14010 Alta Yista Avenue (Lot 53), Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~®®22 ARB(~ RESOURCES ~ - - Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care LE TREE INVENTORY TAB coast Live Doti ~ lCher,cus aerifolia 1 17 1 S S 30 40 High 100% 50% Good 1 - 54.330 Coast Lire Oak 2 ericus a ' olio 16 14.5 30 35 10096 100% Good 2 - 56,600 Coast Lire Oak g arras a 'olio 46 33, 26 50 75 10096 5096 Good 2 - 527,600 Coast Lire Oak 4 errw a 'olio 15 14 25 35 Hi 100% 2596 Fair 4 - X 51,910 Caest Lire Oak -uerrus agrifolia) 23 22 40 40 Coast Live Oak heertiwa a¢rifolfa) 28 24 50 60 ~: l~Ill AMr r6M Awrwrs ~f 531, Sr'~{~ pr~~+eilfir. Qq els/'.~ree s~..ry: owitL arai.ltG 100% 75% Good 3 - 100% 50% (food 3 - AlnrA If, =1/K ~~O®23 • I 1 'F m Z Z~ ~t i ~~~ ~a ~$~~~ ~~~ ~ ! E. ~. ~~ ~. a os° ~ V O A ~ qJ ~ ~~ 3 Q ~i ~~ ~ ~° ~~ ~~ ~ R ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ w A 2 i Z s~ 6~ o ~' n ~l I ~~ - i i ~~ ~~ ~~ Q. ~~ ~ ~ • I g I a • • Attachment 3 ~.i ~~0025 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care October 14, 2004 John Livingstone Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: PLAN REVIEW for the Project at 14010 Alta Vista Avenue (Lot 53), Saratoga Dear John: I have reviewed the most recent set of plans prepared for developing a new residence at the above-referenced site. My comments are presented below. 1. Most recommendations from my previous report dated March 26, 2004 have been incorporated into the plans. 2. There is a discrepancy between the location of tree #2's trunk shown on the site and landscape plans versus the location shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. This should be corrected. 3. The proposed planting and irrigation design should be revised so no plant material or irrigation is designed within 9 feet from the trunks of trees #1 and 2. Sincerely, ~~ ~' - 0 David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 OQ~®®2~ Attachment 4 • ~~~~2~ 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 8`h day of December 2004, at 7:00 p.m. In the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. APPLICATION # 03-168 (397-28-029) -Blackwell Properties, 14010 Alta Vista Avenue; - Request Design Review Approval and a Variance for the front setback to build a new two- story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. The proposed floor area includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 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 may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order 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 868.1231 ~~~®2~ • 14010 Alta Vista Avenue • ~~~°~~ :~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 24`h day of November, 2004, 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 14010 Alta Vista Avenue; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. t John F. Livingstone CP Associate Planner • ~~~~~ PASTUSZKA, WALDEMAR M & LUCYNA TRUSTEE Current Owner, APN 39728024 WALSH AV TA CLARA, CA 95050-0000 SCVWD Or Current Owner, APN 39728030 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 MCKENZIE, FRIEDA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39728034 15311 BELLECOURT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6466 CHANG, WEI & ANNABEL W ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39728041 14078 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 SCHAEFFER, THOMAS H TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39728060 13995 ALTA VISTA AV TOGA, CA 95070-0000 CKWELL PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39728063 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 Or Current Owner, APN 39728066 Or Current Owner, APN 39728069 BAC, STANLEY & SUSAN Or Current Owner, APN 39729011 13990 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 HARTGE, LAWRENCE C ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39728025 15808 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS, CA 95030-2911 GRIFFIN, CHARLEY L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39728032 20365 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5458 Or Current Owner, APN 39728035 BONNET, PAUL A Or Current Owner, APN 39728055 20900 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5750 Or Current Owner, APN 397280601 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39728064 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 Or Current Owner, APN 39728067 CHENG, GARY Y TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39729009 14043 OAK HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5449 LOS GATOS H S D Or Current Owner, APN 39729012 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 WETTERHOLT, DAVID G Or Current Owner, APN 39728027 14054 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5422 MCKENZIE, FRIEDA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39728033 15311 BELLECOURT AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6466 NORA, JOHN P & KAY M Or Current Owner, APN 39728040 PO BOX 73 SARATOGA, CA 95071 HART, THEODORE & VICTORIA A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39728056 PO BOX 427 SARATOGA, CA 95071 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39728062 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 BLACKWELL PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39728065 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV CAMPBELL, CA 95008-6607 Or Current Owner, APN 39728068 FREEMAN, JERRY E & LIANE D Or Current Owner, APN 39729010 13993 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5421 ~~®~31 RODRIGUES, GARY M & FIONA D Or Current Owner, APN 39725048 14098 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5413 HUR, JIM R ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39725056 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5522 CHU, HENRY H & SALLY S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39725059 14081 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 ALLEN, C DONALD & SARA B Or Current Owner, APN 39725062 14101 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SEIPEL, ROBERT S & JOAN V 1988 LIV TRUST T Or Current Owner, APN 39726016 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 CLEMENT, ALBERT & DIANE M Or Current Owner, APN 39726019 14157 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 LAFFOON, POLK IV & ANNE C Or Current Owner, APN 39726022 14191 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 GRIFFIN, JAMES A & CAROLYN M Or Current Owner, APN 39726027 14170 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5418 PEAKS, BENJAMIN & LEII.IA Or Current Owner, APN 39728018 20400 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 BIETZ, RICHARD J Or Current Owner, APN 39728021 14081 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5421 FRITSINGER, FRED J & HELEN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39725054 14051 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 KOO, SHAWN MYUNG-KWAN & TERESA Y Or Current Owner, APN 39725057 14069 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SANQUINI, RICHARD L & ANNE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39725060 14087 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SCVWD Or Current Owner, APN 39725063 SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 VICK, PATRICIA & GARY J Or Current Owner, APN 39726017 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 MARTIN, DAVID N & ROBEN S Or Current Owner, APN 39726020 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 RUBY, ALLEN J & CYNTHIA W Or Current Owner, APN 39726023 14205 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 BLOOM, JAY M & PAULA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39726028 14150 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5418 GANESAN, SUBRAMANIAN & CHARUMATHY Or Current Owner, APN 39728019 20470 WILLIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 MILLER, FRANCES C Or Current Owner, APN 39728022 14600 WILD OAK WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5550 LIN, YEN CHUNG & SU IN HSIEH TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39725055 14057 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 LIU, YUAN KWEI & JU PING CHANG Or Current Owner, APN 39725058 14075 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 CALLAGHAN, JOHN B & MARY L Or Current Owner, APN 39725061 14093 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5412 SPADES, JOSEPH F & FRANCES L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39725091 14090 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5413 WEISMAN, WENDIE E Or Current Owner, APN 39726018 14147 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 BURLINGHAM, PRESTON & MARGARET M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39726021 14173 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 TALLAK, SUBRAMANYAM S & PRATHIBHA Or Current Owner, APN 39726026 14190 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5418 TOBIASON, DONA R TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39726029 14130 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5418 TEEPEE, JUDITH L ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39728020 20480 WII.LIAMS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5428 ESHLEMAN, DAVID & CO~ TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39728023 14130 ALTA VISTA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5459 ~~~®32 • Attachment 5 ~Q~®33 ~/G e6ed :Wd89~G bO-OE-~oN ~LZ6Z 959 Ol9 UUUl1a3`.t 'rte A 9 s a.~noa• w laa r~ I.~m~x,. o "" uauuM'pa~+a,daa ,yl unnpiM ~,a,ay,~.<xx x„ I~,.x,y ...., ~an wan~'~-#4!n'b~1t~ •`f S ~~ so/ s l / +- 3,L1'(I O o ~ - umlx,gi.~ .w ..l, pux ,Mwec,y ,y~,.~,wawo..~yy nx,,,~x.,,,,..,,1. S3112~3d02id '1`13M~i~~l8 P/u • O d"' ~ ~ ~ Nux .9u....e,P Ile „ e of ~I.yv..u.,.~. I~ue ~ ~~.K ' .'~ W . ~ u lle ru~a~ riy ~Mlla•J_I.Iaa ~~""""'C%"'t~ "(~4S~ ~ o f x _ ~ o ~ul ~~a o.,d .L'i3llti ~'r ~( r ~~_ r .I!` ~> U r x . ae c~ ~ ; tn` o ~ ~ ! ~ . .M'' ~ Ob ~ M ~ ~} , .. .& _ a Ta+ P •^~\ x 3 F l pn ; s° ~" ~ q~•1cl ':. se awae v 7J~W CI 2 o p \.u+•P°1 C n nv b ~.«~N ` ~~ J ( 1 . a ~~ fy~ 6 yj ~~ VyJ ~ ri ~ ~ I ~ •: a S ° p `+ ~ i1T a? } 3 $" O N ~ G~ ~ L 2 O Vwbr PI ` ~ ~~~y M 0 } ~~ I ~ ,a ~` ~ r n tri ~~ ® "~ z o N d o ~ d O, ~ ~ H ~ ~~ ~ ~I Aj .. ~, ~'~ ~~ --• ~ wawa A O o ~ ~ °` , ' ~ - ~ rn q by ° vS °w 3 U ~ Z v. AA U ~ U' ~ ~ dl AL o i , 1~. Y 4__ C I N V ~ ~} o ~ ~ ~~ . ~" ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~? . a~ ~ ® O ' 9 o , o cod ~s~~° ~•,a~a ~ ,, , , I 'a ,~ o 0 ~I ~ ~~ a~ II a ~ ~ ` m ~ 1 I ,.. v= ~~ - _ _ ~ b ~~ ~ ' 3 30 g~ ~ rn ~ I I ~ ao O l ~ ~~ Q ~.M1---- .., .~ ~ ,~s ~ Fr «S ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ _. ~ ~6 C}y , ~ ~ E _ z ° ~ 3 1 ~ °q °c ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ `~ m ~ ~ t ~- ~ c~ , W w G ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ { N O N a) N M ~ v ,~, ~ r ~ ~ o ~" _ - a - oL ' c ~ ~ > ~B - LL ~ W ~,'~ ~5~ Hx,ov,n ^ ~ „ 3~9 j S U 3 £ W y i ~ ~.~ ~a ~ ~ W d e'o` .~ c o; r 5 "u g ~y ~ o o^ S m ~ 3 ~ ~ a .C ~ 30 4~0 o C r - ~ ti f 19 a i r. - r~ .n ~ oo .gin z3 m$=us '. oC g'm.xm n ,=v~, O F'•m .. 9~~'- r5o ~.I°~~ - oo. ~ N O U .~ C~ s N ~ d- ~ N 9 e~i~ U Q~ „ L' U' .. e ? ~R~xLL ~ U ~ ~ m ~ N ~ d.. Q C C _ ~ _ . ~ '' S ~ Q~ ~ ~ r~ ~~r \ J . ~ vF~ ~ ~~~ >? o - - Q~- Nf9'~'IAQ~ C~ W G u~ ' Y~ u ~N3 ~~~ a,o c 3?~ ~ - n 4 3 ~- sxa as aaaaaa L E~= _~~- E=y ~~A ~` °~=t E~ N~ ~ d a- c '« `~~ :2 ~ 0 8. - ~ 3 ~~ ~'~ 4 W g ~ ~ ~' ~ `~~~ o a -' ; c _ 3 ~ F ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ °° 53 r ' E S ~~x ~ p ~ Z _ _ ~F•1-fA~i m ~Z . do mm~ S w ~ ~$ ; ~ ~8 ~~ _~ a ~ 5 " V W ZWW~a y H W Od ~ = a 5^ a ~ ` E _ ~ ~ ~ W N J J aWWV~ Z ZW ~ . ~°°- -'~~ _-'~ vg's v =~ a --' ~` ~ G) Z (A NN W a z ~ z `` ycEu ;~ma" Ey 3 a ~ s~~ g WOO Z -- ,~ W ~ ZW W Wpm U QZ ~ m _ ~ ~ .: - ~ Uti~ w~~d 2 a ~~ ~ ' a~ ~ ~; ` , ~ C7 • • • m ~ ~ ~ 0 ~° LIUN J°,uasun., 3MON•J OL056 ~,,,,g~,,~,,,tro ro?tA~IO~'t~~ ~~[w-FU S ~ h,mtlll(1 ~ . uanua, •pavsanl:a ay, ,noyuM d~ay,n.iue„npa~naq,,,,, , fo ry1 ~JYYIA'dilYf~~/~~-~b` -l ~~5~1 £O~SI~L ~3.Ltl(1 !~~ Z. 'n ~}" • ne ` w ,.„v.,, ~aa~hp c.Au~..e.p 0 0 0 ~ , u ay„o s,uauu,,, aqy ~ on•ay~.,aJ. S3112l3dO~td 'I'13M~1~~+"18 pa~°u '3'iV:ri Qr ~ ~ - - ~ pue sYmMeuP Ilc o, d~ye~an.wu pue ' ` A17 7' enl du llR .me,ai 3M(lN •,I,J.INfl /X1 . ~i~ yWJ~;I'~C~ -`/4,S /L{'b14A•~,~„I~ bt v ~ o. ue~d a71s ~ ~.33HS _~ O O ,II ,II N y 9•~9 „ ~ w ~ N s ~ v ~ y N ~ Il ~' r tV ~ ~ p u ~ ~ ~ a• a _ _ c z £ ¢ ~~°9 °%r ~ ~~ ass !~ •s ~ era J `' 4j ~~a ~`ei,~ ~ ~ ~ L Q W o W ~ ~ r 0 + U ./, u v~ \ ! - ~ T ~a -y~uo ~ Ly r w ~~'~ ~ ~ ~ \ ° N ~ °~ a°~~ $ LL d O \ V r O1~ ~LL T yry ~ Oy~ O ~F v [C 4 C p= V= .~ 3 ~ Y s y 0. `~ ~ u ~ , ~ * v ~ z O-m : x o 0 g~ o ~a~,~sd ~ o L ~~ °a~ ns~ 1 i ~_ 1 ~ . ~ NC } °~ - y .~ , J O ~ d` . W ~ 1~ N ~ ~ y v A rr ~~ y t ~ y r-- - I i ~ ~ ~. 1 ' -1 -- ~ - -- - ~ ~ p ~ es ~~. i 30 `-' ~ ~ o ~ O ~~ Q' L C £~ a` ~ o a ~~: t ~ O ++_ 3y O ~U V o ~ ,.j ~ ,'6 ~ . 3 J L y 1 I ~~ 1 O by 1 9~ 0 9~ s I 9 c ~--. ~,/ ~ _.__ ryo ~4 ~~'e I ~ in ~ o~ vx , a ~ Y v ~ ~ y IJa ~ I 1 • ••..•...• ® ~ wQ'F+~. J A O V ~ s L 1 I - 1 \ 1 ~~..., ~ ~ it .: ~ ~...: ~r g~y~ 1 :. . . sqy I ~ J~ ~ ~~ L ~y ~, CC ,_ . ~~_~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ N ~/ 0` r-- , ~ . ~ I y v 0 ~ ry ' °~ ~ ' I ' d c c ~ i F ~ ( ~ S ul z £ 9 I s tl o S / 1 G f j, OV y0~ LL ov ~ ~ OS~"1•• UC~ ~~l~~ ~ T .e OCR =3a VO `~ I ~ ponce-d OJ+.~ Si ~_ S/ y 7 ~ b i~ ~~ b - 0 ~ 4 a ~ 8 , .. . o ~ L L o W >~ z L + r ~ u V~ OyvO. w~ • • • w,,...,.. wl..w. ~~ voolvavs ~o uio V _ sm-~z c~,> /~;' ~„' % r " ~ a ~ mss,-ees cso, •> ~ \ oa'%or~os ez 10-90-91L Ndf1 ., ~ ~M~ ~ -a~~, OI~Z oling one o>ao8 V7no5 OSB i ~ ~ l.i r 6uryunld Duos -. 6u/an~ns ~ 6uuoou~ u3 ~ini~ ` ~ t-~a~ ~ ~ z S311l~3dO~ld ~13/N~~~d'19 e ~~ a , A-ly Q ~ A n SSI~ ' 1 II ~; . ~ wen A3~arts 33au ov ut ~ i ,~ g 1 ~ `~~ ~ °°`~ ~ ~ ~° ~r5S3_Otl: :I~.Hn.,,o~ rvo~siniaans dis~n died Nt1ld 30b'Nlb'a0 ONb' ONIOVa9 £'S 10~ Z ~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~ ~~fb§#~f~!l i L> ~. ~ C ~ v 4 \\ 1 ~ ~~'~~°' O ~~ ~~lr a ~~ ~~a ~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~e ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~'R ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ e ~ ~ $~~ ~ ~~~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~g ~~ 8 A e~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~M ~~ ~ ~q e~ ~~ z ~ a ~~ ~ ~~ ~~Q3¢ ~~ ~ e~ 2 e~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ hi ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ee \^ ~ ti •i • ~i ~ b a \, I i I ~,~ I ` gF.Cr4 I ~ I ~ ~ ,, ,~ \~ a I i I ~ ~_ ~ I i `_` ~ ~ I ,~ " I . ~ ~ I i ~ I `~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I l Iii ~~ I ~ ~, ~ W ~ I 1 wl yOa2-k I ~ 't, / i I ~I. .~ ~. 1 ~I ~ i I I i _~ O O ~`~o~ ~3I Q N ""~~~ I F- ~ Q ~ ', I, L LL --~ r h I ~µ ~~ ~ ~ I J ~ ~ i -- ~ i ~ I '~~ ~ ~~ I ~~ I~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~~ I ~ i. I ~ ~ ~ ~ '. ~ I I ~~ ~,~F.~ `°Fe F9 ~ r \s \I 'CL' ~i I~ \~ ~~'.. ~ I \~ ~°$.~~, ~ .Q ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ , I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~, bb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b ~~ ~. ~ ~ w 2 2 s ~~ 2 ~~ ~~~a~ _~ Q R .~ o ~n 0 a ~~~ !~ ~ ~~a ~ ~~ ~ ~ e~ ~~ ~a ~~ ~~ >d ~e~ ~ ~ ~~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ a ~ ~ ~~s~~~ ~a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ^S • n b n t ~ ~ ~ ~~ », °~ ~~R ~~ ~.. ~~~$ $ ~ ~ ~ k ~~~~~~ ~~~.~~~ y ^tP~b va'r4.e~vc~v4 ~ J..YM r~rvret y~4 a/l.~I ~ ~ ~ ys44 -~n~ C~~'> NWON 11~~11~Jr-1~ ~~i ~!1 10'f M~L~IA M11r ~ -; ~ .~. - g 0 o _ )` _~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ _ __ ~,. ~ D 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a O s O ~ ~- ~ i .~ ~ s ° ~ ~ 5 ~t 1 ~~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~d b~ `~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~v ~ ~~~ ~~ @_~~ ~$ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ( c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ a a • • m ~ ~ 3.MUN•.LJ.IUA1"luasu~.~ OLOS6 'b,~''~;~~ '~~-~'bS ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~.~ gall,,,. •Na•w,au, ay, ;,,~,y,,, ~v-vru2n)f ro~"/1'e-21 H •` ~ S ~7 ¢o/ s i / ~ cn -~- u.fuid i.,ylo .(un „ N.n ,y 1..u ~ ,~.I.ull i N z ~ o .~~,.,~,,,I,..,,,,.,.Hh,,~.,~~,,o,,, o_ o' ~ .n,1,..eluaP~n..ay~, .u„pe..ap,A,l. S3112~3d02id "1'13M}IJb'l8 paaou ~3'Itl:Y: V~ N pue .Yni.n~p pe of d~yxiauMO pne \ ~~ •IyYi~„e vu~•la' 3dAl)N •.w.iaa ~~1'JWdp;~42Z/, 2'~~SM'nla~t#yna~ It 6- SUEId _I OO~f .I.3'~FIS O O ~~ c ~ O , ~O N '~ J 0 n: •O J ~O O .~ .p "~ ";y in _~ :O N Q N O N 0' Z O O i J LL I-- .. !L 0 „o•os ~ o _ ~ N _ I--- --- L -- -- -~ I. I O ~ ~ o u ~ I _ ~ O ^ I V _ 1 I I I - 1 1 h ~ I I I I r O - _ J N •~ -0 t/ I VII IIIIII1II~ O O < ~ ~ - ~ ~_ - ~ = ~+ u ~ -_ ~ £ = E Z I ~i~ii~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~ - o P~ o 1.1. L- - - - ~~~ Z wo g~ U a ~ - W i "'.5 - w^ ~ _I _ ~t~, °~ ~, J-, , M _: _ . .4~-. _~:~"~ .::~. • • ., . ~ , , ,~-,Z, „ , -. J I, I ~ 1 m3 ~ o 6 ~, 9 ~ O N ._- O ~ ~ ~ s t ~ - _ `~ _~ III IIII IIIII~ O ~ Q U1 ~ D Q 8 d m O T ~ 7 3 ++ ~ y ~ m i ~ L_--- J <~ a ,Q ;£ „O-, SI „9-, 41 o c M 0 iii Z g a z i W ~ ~ M r r W ~ a 0 0 Zd J a v. 0 0 • • • ~ ~ o ~ `_ ~ a- o „o-,~bz „o-,e L p O ~ ~ r ~ ~ s o rt J ~ S 6~ v ~ v L ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ A F d n- ~ £ 3 v- ~ NMtlHa {aer"~d3U11:~ amoa• w 01056 'e;~-~ ~?'j'~~ `~ ?b~S . . uanuM •passa,dxu ay, u,uqum ,aa{o,a,.,yn,a„euopa«naq,,,n ur aSluphe,p aad, cvu, a,na~, - , rd'YYU'dnbtro~/~%~b` `£S~~ ~o/SII L ~3,1N(1 g~ p . aq,}ocuupu,.,ayy ~suonPag~aa'{s S311~13d02id '7`13M~~~'`l8 pa~ou ~ 'a ~~'~ '~ pun viuu.e,p ax u, A~y.,auw,u pue „yn~,i{ew~~o,a, ~mua•.{.{.{aa -~O}~''s'a2~'a1~S'u'~~-+~ It ~oua o{ gna s x } w ~ u a :,L:~I3Il~ o _o b p o col =~, d - m - ~ m 0 c s - _ "* o a 'O a, t 1 i ~ I' I I III n ~~~ ~ y (a R O ~~ ~~ o t R do ? n ~ O -p3 ,y y, ++ J O S OWOm ~ 1 + 8^ ~~ 3sV- ~a ®° II ~ 1~ i I ^ ~~ o~ I II II I I II~ ~ ~ J'O i u .~ 'll .dab '-' 1 ~ ~, do ~ o o~ l ' _ ~c~ '~ t ~3 ~~- o r ~ ,, a u ¢.,s ~~ ~ 3 "' sow O J , m~3 11 C V- L O t O- s Zvi tS 3 sE+~S+~D -jai t Z d W W Z Q E= J W ~- Z {'O w _~ ~` '~ 4- O ~. O ~ O ~ U'Oi LS 3y £US D 3 w L • • • ~, i/~\ O Z .., Z O H W J W W l~ m "tea ~ -D ',tr 3AAOH •.LI.IHH Jo ~uasuu'' OLOS6 'e".'U~?2'-~~ %~-7n~S ~ N;btl~1Q J1 ~ O ~ uaaua. ~paawnlxa aye uroyuM „aloud ~ayn. .toe un l~a,n ,,, you ,~n~,Pn ~y1 ia'YY1.4~d~~}" i': /, rort ~ ~~5 ~1 ~O~SI~L :.j~,~'~~ 1/~ -~ Q o tem .unnc.ny.,ad. pue am..e,P l _._ _ -a ~ ~ .giy~su~a~m.~ayy -uoue„J"a'~' S3112i3d02~d 1'73M}i~~d'18 p,~ou ~ ~~rv:x _ _ Q N pne s5uiweaP Ile u~ d~ysaauw,o pne 9 e .n e rau t / ' ,y „Il re 3moa•-.w.IHH . JWdp?42~2 0~ ~i ~~S~a~ ti •- d~ ~ _ Su of ena a aof~a xa 3 I 4 .L33fIti „o-,;t ass s cy- s p J a L v n 6~ n N c s 0 c m i 0 O ~\ VI W v Z ~_ W J W t~ M~ W O ~~ t 3 W D Ss~ ~~ v s c ~ ~' S 11 ~y_ ~ N p u -6 ~ 3 W_ v a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o c v `~- S ~ 3 s0 `nC 'O~ O J tS 2Y ~i ,(~ J R L M1 as S S c 0 O ~_ O I ... Z O F W ..a W • • • _~ ~_ -o ..+ ~ ~ ~ ++ ¢ u •e m =S 3 S' ~P ~~- 'rte ~ ,.fl u~aarv,~A5U1Jj aMOa• OLOS6 'b;~'e~ 'b'~ ~-roS ~ NMVIla Z ~ o ~ ~ . va,tur •passaa.ixa ay, ,nuytt.w t.a~,.a~aay,,,~~.~„p,.,...,,,.,. „~, ' ,.~ ~ ue:~u «~~ ~a ~ - ~»uanttro~/1'e~1t/ `£S~~ Eolsil ~ ~ ~,~va ~ 4 p _ . v p , ,~, . ~ ..~., ,u ~o, .ta n..a ayy ~~~.,, . t t ~.,„... ~ S311~13d0?~d '1'13M~I~b'l8 a ou p ~ ~ :~'t~r:n pu e,9~u.r,p„e,.,a~y,aa~M..p,,. ( s ty9ii „e cmetaa 3AAt1N •.W.tNA ry~j~ , ,A.(1~'7.""'C;'.'~~d'L'~-{S~•'~~ ~ S UO 7 _ a I 25 ~ ~,I.3.~II~ r r ,0-,8 .o-~ b a °s ~ ~ J .r . -~ ~ f s L ~. 8 ~ `" ~' ~ d- \ ~ ~ ~ ~ +a ~ L ~ ~ ~ O ~ -L S ~ •r 4 ` t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ f S ~ ~ N v ~ d ~ ~ _ r_ ~ tr m s % ~ F n 3 ~- 3 E x £ y_ ~; re ° r i ~_ ~~ ~ r~ ~ r~ +'~ r~ ~' iJ S i~ f~ f1 ~~ f"~ r' ~- c O - - - - ~ o t ~ t ~ u L tU V ~ T V am J. y . '1M "~1~ ..a-,6 t ~ ..o~~~Z °r a. ~ ~ f S A L ~~ ,g ~~.b ~ ~ ` ~ v L 9 a L c v i, p ~ ~ w ,,, ~t + ~ t s t + c ~ L N o a ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ .r c ~ e~ c) a 4 L ~ ~ _ d S t Z ~ S ~ c 3 O c it z O ca i I{,_~' ~° U o ~ U1 , _ N s o a O J ~ 8 L ~ 94 ' by _' ..~ ~ 6 0 I ~~ 0 u s s m F ~ u 0 0 L ~p ~ ~ O L L 'O ~ ~ ~ °9 E Z O ~ t_ o w S ~+ jV' ~ o~ ~ c _ i ,. 9-.~I • • • '" : HAAtlUa ~ :~,nox•w,ixxi",aa.,,o,, OLOS6 roru.~u~;rC»~ %-~O~%eroS ~~ uanuw, p s Jxa aye morppx '~yy11 7 i.aa(oad iayru eue un pasn ay r~ru ~d'V1'IA'~i1 f}%~/~ ~rtL ~ : £ S -~7 ~ ~ ~~/~ ~ ~~,Nn c ^r•w.u,,,rr..r,,,,ad,~rro~~~~,~,,, 1Zi3dO~Jd 3M}I e U a.,,,.,,,~a„r,~,ar,~, ;~,,,,P,,,,ar,. S31 77 ~b'18 r+ .~y8u „e sum~a~ 3~1Anx •.L.Lixx ~ .oaf `~-JWdp-'~25~'j~-~S~us~~%,r~ y ~~~da.,l ~S~aocia~ .L:i3NS 5 ~~' $~ 3 3 -V +~ E ~ ~ ~ ~~ 5 r ~~ $ ` oZ !d o QJ g~°, I s c' v _° o W ~~ $ €v `~~ a ~e -°8 c~ W GOyC `o ° ° a ~ 4 a s t- ~ ~` h v $ C in ~a g V ~ ~2~ ' $ ~c ~, o '$ ~ u " ~ T >. p~p ' ~p~ y ~ ~ S F' ~ ¢ ~ m ~ p C a ~"~ 3 ~~;~~e• $~~e~~ ~~~~~3 g g~.~ ~~ F ~ 2 < ~ ~E'~ A s ~~=~~a ~€ pg~~~~ E53 ~E3 E ~ ~ ~ ~ g g 8 ~ a °p E ~ ~ L V o'~v ~ 3 e v ~ ~~~4 v g ?i e~~~°3c E° ~ ° E ~ ~ A ~~~~~°ag K~3u ~:~~~~~~ °ae ~~6~ a.= X$E~ g o g E 3 E ~E ~gr~ ~W~B ~ o~~~~~g ~'~ o ~~ ~ E t~Q° E ~ 'O C ~ G 7 3g ~~8~~~~~c' ~'~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .2~W`o c o ? ~ § v c `a v. c~m'~c ~~a i? ~oA~ ~u~.9~~gg~_~ °.~~_ r8 .~;3°~ ~~4W ~o,~-"~-;x E ~.aa~8 ..~a ~~>°5` ~A~-~~ ~~ ~. h E g ° a o ~~ ~ ~ ° v '~~' ~E 3 .E o 3~~`0~ ~v F v m~ °E~~~ a e~ b~ ;,~ B ~a`_~'cSE sk . 4 c E c E € ~ ~ _ v °EG~~ ~C8 ~~gE= ro=5 _~~Dv .`spa ~ $ w c ~ o E ~ n - ~ ° ~ ~ ~ vr~o s°3 "~$ ° ~ ~~'~E~ 3E~ ~`~ sii~ ~~ ?L 3 „ w O ~ ~ ~ ^ _ ~" `°~ ~ d~~€~~~ v ~~~~o$ E~~t .L dat ~ E of E ° ~~ Z' ci' ~ a 'ni ~E'rj Y $ E 3-0 ~ ~ € ~ ~ g ~ ~ a ~ 3rJ °E ~~ ~ ,~ ° ~o~a C C y~ m~ 9~~ q. W a~'OCOA o q ~ s~ 35 v.~ c v y ~ L q L .. c o.E ~ w y3 ~ a c x g,S~Er NU MZ is» 8.~o ~~R g~~S~gR` ~ er~ mg3y EV= L m L ~ ~ a "~ E.~ ~a$ S ~ 2z m o~ $ v 9 -~ h e ~ c ° r o 3 .. r °' E 'o a6 ~ gL ,$_'` ~~ee~ QE ~~a '~ ~ E°E c B $ E.5 ~ ~ C o ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ o~ o °; ~ v 3~ m~ _ " n aV v~ ~~a E'g ~~ Sx ~ ~~ < ~ ~ y ~_ ~~ xy~ dos ~~~ ~3 - ms ~ ~ ~t~ a~~ ~~ q~ ~~ o~~ 3- v ~ 3S ~~ has °~o - '~~ ~~ °~~ ~9 S v c a s E`» c a` r H v °4p ~ Q o v m ~~ r~ F o m 9 0 ~~ a ~ EE 3 ~~ ~ 5 x t :~ r y ~°p ~ ~ n~ '~ ~'~a °'65 ~m~ h ~~ g3° Z'a~ o g ~~ '`` W '.L' F ~ W rn ~f"F 3~sa ~ ~ a ~z ~d rv A= ~ W W H ~ ~ ~ '~y~o Urv~egpr ~mvor ~~e G ~> •~ mili ab ° oGrn o ~Qa za'~ev iiixp~ ~ ?~au $ a0~r^ =c`i= ~D" R W>'~FQ„Q wa .~ ~~ Z O Q~ ~` E ~°° U ~ c O V z f!? 4 ~^p F"' Q 6 F ~. O w Y -->'. `~ \ , k ~f~ ~;~ t .'-~~ 3 Sz ~~' ~ g ~-,VOV9 ~ e~ E" a„ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ E ,o ~ `° `" °~ ~ `° E ~ s` 3 ~. ~ ~ fa c m'n` ~ °, g' o '' 3 ~ ~ 7, O ~ ~ ~ °~ $.~ ~j v ~ ~ CEO ~e u~ ~ .E ~~r ,a ~ ~s~-v z ~ '~,O = 2 ~ °r o.; a 3 a.~ N°nL o. g`w o.y ~c ~ =~ ~E u ~.G Oro .. ~3 G t ~u =~ ~g ~ v ~ ~~~~~ 9B ~~ y ;gpp g o ~,ca° ~ c G - .o' ~ c co_` 5 c ~ ~ ~ °v_ ~ g .~~. h~~L ~ e gJ G ~ 5E ~=~ ~sz 8~ °~ ~ ~~ HN Er ° ~ ~ ~ y 'per ~ O0 v °° ~ `m ° v E n E o ~u C~ « V R'y y ~ n n ~ x.E ~ C u id ~~ ~Y ~`~v ._ _ ¢~aEm~.. acv ~~ ~_ o~ ~a~ ~v. a~ M B ~,~~, 0Y c' F m£ a. 5 0~ L ,~ .~6 E5: •G e~ ~s -~30 ~\ I ~~ ~a~; osa ~gn~- a n ~ ~ ~ g$ ~ ~ @ ! ~ ~~~ - ~~g E--z G. W F~ N //'~'~ /^1..L I..L w _~ MO 1..1. • V MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2004 Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 20, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 20, 2004 was properly posted on October 15, 2004. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that item 3 under New Business has been pulled off tonight's agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Citizen Ray provided an update on the Highway 9 improvements. Richard Allen noted that he was the Chair of the Finance Commission, a member of the Revenue Review Committee and a member of the Save Saratoga Committee. Mr. Allen stated that this evening he was speaking as a citizen of Saratoga. Mr. Allen urged the citizens of Saratoga to support Measure U and Measure V on the November 2, 2004 ballot. Mr. Allen thanked the other members of the Revenue Review Committee and the City Council. Jeff Swartz stated that he was a Trustee on the West Valley College Board. Mr. Swartz thanked the Council for educating the community about the City's budget shortfalls. Mr. Swartz thanked the Council and volunteers behind Measure U & Measure V and urged the community to support the Measures on November 2, 2004. Doug Robertson urged the community to support Measure U and Measure V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. COMMENDATIONS HONORING OUTGOING LIBRARY COMMISSIONERS CATHY FOSCATO, DON JOHNSON, AND MARCIA MANZO STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendations. Mayor Waltonsmith presented a commendation to Marcia Manzo. Mayor Waltonsmith noted that Don Johnson and Cathy Foscato were unable to attend tonight's meeting. 1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 17-23, 2004 AS "TEEN READ WEEK" • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present Proclamation. Mayor Waltonsmith read the proclamation and presented it to two student volunteers from the Saratoga Library and a member of the Saratoga Library staff. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED FROM SEPTEMBER 30.2004. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2 2C. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT IN THE LOCAL _ AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LATE) AND DESIGNATING THE POSITIONS WITH AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW OR DEPOSIT MONIES IN LAIF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-083 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LAIF AND DEDICATED POSITIONS WITH AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW ON DEPOSIT MONIES IN LAIF. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. CONFIRMATION AND APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES DIRECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-085 Mayor Waltonsmith requested that this item be removed form the Consent Calendar. Mayor Waltonsmith invited the new Administrative Services Director to the podium for a formal introduction. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHELE BRAUCHT AS THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING & DUMPING AT THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF AUSTIN WAY AND HIGHWAY 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: MV-243 STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING & DUMPING AT THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF AUSTIN WAY AND HIGHWAY 9. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. 2003 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice of Completion. 3 KLINE/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE 2003 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. CITYWIDE SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice of Completion. KLINE/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE CITYWIDE SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. RESOLUTION ENDORSING ALL FIRE STATIONS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AS "SAVE SURRENDER" SITES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-087 KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ENDORSING ALL FIRE STATIONS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AS "SAVE SURRENDER" SITES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 3. SCHOOL HOLIDAY TREES FOR VILLAGE TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. This item was removed from the agenda. 4. DOG OFF-LEASH HOURS/AREAS IN CITY-OWNED PARKS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction to staff pertaining to Options 1 and 2 as listed in report. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. 4 Analyst Bloomquist reported that at their October 4, 2004 regulaz meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) were presented with information by members of the "Friends of Saratoga Dogs" requesting dog off-leash hours/azeas in City-owned parks. The Commission forwazded this request to the City Council at their October 6, 2004 regulaz meeting and requested direction from Council on how to proceed. Members of the "Friends of Saratoga Dogs" also addressed the Council that evening, and presented a petition with over 300 signatures from Sazatoga residents supporting their request for off leash hours/azeas. The "Friends of Sazatoga Dogs" was recently formed as a direct result of present enforcement efforts of the City's dog ordinance at City owned pazks. Council instructed City staff to agendize this item for discussion this evening. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the City Council and the PRC have discussed the issue of Dog Pazks at different times over the past several months. Lack of a suitable site and budgetary constraints have been hurdles too significant to overcome when looking at Dog Pazks in the past. Analyst Bloomquist described two options: Option 1 The PRC would contact other jurisdictions that offer dog off-leash hours/azeas in their parks and gather information pertaining to the opportunities and constraints it presents. This task would be delegated by the PRC to the Dog Pazk Task Force, with regulaz monthly updates by the Task Force to the PRC until such time as they aze ready to present to the Council. During this time 1-2 public input meetings would be held to gather information. Option 2 Designate an azea at a City pazk as the site for 1-3 month trail period for off-leash hours. Public notice of the azea azound the pazk would occur, along with a public hearing at City Council to amend the existing City ordinance pertaining to dogs off-leash in City owned parks. Azule Pazk may be a desirable test site because a majority of the petitions presented to Council originated from the azeas surrounding this pazk. Tom Barbazo, Saratoga resident and member of the Friends of Sazatoga Dogs, stated that he supported off leash dog azeas/hours in City pazks. Mr. Bazbazo stated the following: • 6,000 dogs in Sazatoga • Off leash hours and exercise is good for the dogs and owners • No facility in Saratoga is designated for this type of use • Requested 1-2 hours of off leash ours in a designated City park • Self policing by user group Stan Levy noted that the City doesn't need to develop new areas for off leash hours, but utilize current facilities in the City. Mr. Levy stated that at the dog pazks he has visited in the past he has never seen aggressive dog behavior. Mr. Levy stated pet owners clean up after themselves and help watch the other dogs in the pazks. Mr. Levy urged the Council to go forward with the public hearing process. 5 George Miller noted that he has lived in Sazatoga for 37 yeazs and fully supports the idea of a dog park in Saratoga. Consensus of the Cit Council to direct the PRC to work with the Friends of Y Sazatoga Dogs, the Sheriff's Office, and neighborhood groups to investigate a trial period of off leash dog hours and report back to Council in three months. 5. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 2002 RESOURCES BOND ACT (PROPOSITION 40) YOUTH SOCCER GRANT PROGRAM AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPROVAL OF GRANT RESOLUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with the Grant Applications; adopt resolutions. RESOLUTION: 04-086 Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the City has an opportunity to apply for two competitive grant programs for park improvements that may otherwise go unmet. Analyst Bloomquist described the two grants as follows: Grant Program Project Description- Estimated Project Costs Local Match Deadline to Apply Youth Soccer "Sand Channel" $200,000 Not 11/05/04 field drainage mandatory but improvements at highly Congress Springs recommended Pazk Healthy Addition of one $100,000 Yes, 25% of 11/005/04 Community tennis court at project costs Azule Park A discussion took place amongst the City Council in regazds to the additional tennis court at Azule Park. Consensus of the City Council to oppose supporting the Healthy Communities Grant application. BOGOSIAN/STRETT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE YOUTH SOCCER GRANT PROGRAM AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6. GRAND JURY REPORT CONCERNING THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction regazding a response to the Grand Jury Report - Inquiry into the Board Structure and Financial Management of the (VTA). 6 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone stated that eazlier this year the 2003-2004 Santa Claza Civil Grant Jury issues a Final Report inquiring into the Boazd Structure and Financial Management of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). On October 15, 2004, the City received a letter from Michael A. Smith, Grand Jury Foreman, which stated that the City must immediately provide a response to the Grand Jury report. Director Cherbone stated that Grand Jury reports have a specific format to follow: 1. For each Finding in the report it is required to "Agree" or "Disagree". If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree. 2. For each Recommendation it is required to respond with one of four possible Actions: • Action 1: The particular Recommendation(s) have been implemented • Action 2: The particulaz Recommendation(s) have not been implemented, but will be implemented in the fixture. • Action 3: The particulaz Recommendation(s)require fixrther analysis • Action 4: The particulaz Recommendation(s)will not be implemented, because they are not warranted or not reasonable. Director Cherbone stated that each of the abovementioned Actions require supporting information or explanation, which staff will include in the response to the Grand Jury. Director Cherbone explained that the Grand Jury concluded with the following three Findings and corresponding recommendations, which are required a response in the above-described format. Director Cherbone read each Finding and Recommendation form the Grand Jury and asked Council for direction. KLINE/STREIT MOVED TO SUPPORT GRAND JURY FINDING I AND FINDING II IN REGARDS TO THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. PROPOSAL FOR THE San ANNUAL MUSTARD WALK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly; adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-084 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that on October 6, 2004 the Rotary Club of Sazatoga submitted the attached proposal under Written Communications for Council consideration. Due to the Brown Act Council could not take any action on the 7 proposal at that time. Staff was directed to bring it back on tonight's agenda. City Clerk Boyer explained that the Rotary has requested that the City Council ' allow the Rotary to sponsor the 3~ Annual Mustazd Walk, waive any permit fees, use of the Warner Hutton House, Heritage Orchazd, and City pazking lot. The Rotary has also requested a monetary contribution of $1000. City Clerk Boyer explained that a contribution of $1,000 could be appropriated out of City Council Contingency. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2004-2005 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT THE 3RD ANNUAL MUSTARD WALK. MOTION PASSED 5-0 8. PARK RENTAL FEE INFORMATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the last City Council meeting Councilmember Bogosian's requested park rentals for FY03/04 and revenue collected to date in the current fiscal yeaz. Director Cherbone noted the following: • Pazk rental fees (excluding group use fees) collected in FY03/04 - $12,502 • Pazk rental fees (excluding group use fees) collected to date in FY 04/04 - $1,725 Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Cherbone for the report. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor King reported the following information: City/School Ad-Hoc Committee -recently met with the Interim Principal at Sazatoga High School and two Boazd members. Discussed forming a Facility AdHoc Committee. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor King announced that tomorrow night at Villa Montalvo Maxine Hong Kingston would be speaking on her book, which is the first book chosen for "Saratoga Reads", titled "The Women Warrior". OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None 8 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • •