Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. 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, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 • ROLL CAU: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-272 SHANKAR 22461 Mt. Eden Road Item 1 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 3:30 p,m. and 5:00 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. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic 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 ABSENT: Commissioner Schallop ~ Zutshi STAFF: Planner Welsh ~ Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 26, 2005. (APPROVED 5-0), ORAL. CO~~IMUNICATIONS -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 lativ 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 underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL CO~~iMUNICATIONS- PLANNING CO:vI1v~tISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on February 3, 2005. 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 - \Tone 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. APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road; -Requests Design Re~~iew Approval to build a ne~v t~vo-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The lot is to be developed as Hillside Residential and contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The proposed house and garage would be 5,842 square feet with a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and a 1,908 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from the natural grade. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE 5-0 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN) S r- ~,~ M t: DIRECTORS ITEM - l~Tone COMMISSION ITEMS - i~TOne COMMUNICATIONS - 1\TOne ADJOURNMENT AT 9:05 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 23, 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 Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctcler-hC~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 Februar}~ 3, 2005 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.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to lak nning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 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 January 26, 2005. 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, thePlanning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 3, 2005. 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. APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road; -Requests Design Review Approval to_build anew two-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The lot is to be developed as Hillside Residential and contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The proposed house and garage would be 5,842 square feet with a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and a 1,908 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from the natural grade. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Nane COMMUNICATIONS - Nane ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 23, 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 o f Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Bvrel, 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 February 3, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, C.A 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 a-mail, please send your a-mail address to Qlanning@saratoga.ca.us MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION D~~ ~~ DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 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, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 26, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15 and 17. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Schallop was absent and Commissioner Zutshi abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 20, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner John Livingstone 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, ten (10) days for Conditional Use Permits, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #04-032 (389-12-019) SIERRA "The Reading Clinic," 18820 Cox Avenue: Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow an educational facility in an existing tenant space in the Quito Shopping Center. The proposed use will tutor individuals in reading, writing and math. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an educational facility within an existing 1,320 square foot space at the Quito Shopping Center. • Reported that a reading clinic .was established at this site in November 2003, when the business renewed a business license from a previous location. Staff subsequently realized that no Conditional Use Permit had been obtained for this location. • Stated that the parking requirement for retail is one parking space per 200 square feet of tenant space. Six spaces are required under that formula. For educational uses, the parking requirement is one space per staff member. The applicant proposes a maximum of six staff so the parking previously required also meets the requirement for this use. • Informed that the proposed operational hours are from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Since the space is located within a shopping center, these hours are allowed. • Said that no negative correspondence has been received and that findings can be made in the affirmative to support this request. • Recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are any concerns by either the shopping center and/or the City over the loss of tax revenues from this space since it was previously occupied by retail use (sales of antiques and clothing). Associate Planner John Livingstone said that having an active tenant is a positive thing for the shopping center. Additionally, the parents who drop of their children at this reading clinic will likely shop at the center during the hour that a child is receiving tutoring. This use will generate more traffic for the other tenants at this shopping center. Commissioner Rodgers sought clarification that this center does not fall under the same Ordinance requirements as Big Basin Way. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Chair Garakani pointed out that there appears to be eight tutoring stations and therefore the potential for eight staff while the parking available for this business is limited to six. Commissioner Uhl asked why operational hours are not listed within the Conditions of Approval. Livin stone re lied .that this business is situated. within a shopping center with Associate Planner John g p long hours of operation with varying peak demand times for the various businesses there. However, the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 3 Commission could elect to establish specific hours of operation as a Condition of Approval for this Conditional Use Permit. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Deborah Winter, Applicant, The Reading Clinic, 18820 Cox Avenue, Saratoga: • Said she was available to field any questions. Chair Gazakani asked about the potential for eight staff with the eight tutoring stations. Ms. Deborah Winter: • Advised that students are not always picked up immediately following their tutoring session. They have set up two extra study workstations for these students until their rides arrive. • Assured the Commission that there would only be six tutors in total. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Deborah Winter if she would have any issues should specific hours of operation be detailed in the Conditional Use Permit. He proposed extending the hours as proposed by the applicant to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Ms. Deborah Winter advised that their clients drive their hours. During the summer, mornings aze their peak times. During the fall, winter and spring, the evening hours are the peak times. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. schedule is adequate for operations. Ms. Deborah Winter replied yes, that would be fine. She questioned whether they would be obliged to stay open that late. Commissioner Nagpal replied no but that these would represent the latest possible hours for operation. Commissioner Rodgers asked about operational hours for other locations for this business. Ms. Deborah Winter said that the other locations have similar hours. Commissioner Hunter asked if the applicant could compel their staff to park further away to leave closer parking available for customers. Ms. Deborah Winter said that this would be fine and pointed out that a lot of employers in the center ask that their employees leave the nearby pazking open for customers. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Sazatoga: • Expressed her support for this application. • Pointed out that there is a 24-Hour Fitness facility in this center and that the hours for The Reading Clinic should not be restricted. • Suggested that the City consider waiving filing fees for this application, saying that there is no zoning district within the City that allows the establishment of a school without a Use Permit, making applicants jump through hoops. She added that the 24-Hour Fitness facility did not require a Use Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 4 • Stated that this process is a heavy burden and that education should be supported.- • Said that this is a perfect location for a school. • Asked that the Commission send a message to Council not to burden these types of uses with these application fees. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Deborah Winter if the school is afor-profit or non-profit.business. Ms. Deborah Winter replied that it is afor-profit business. It is a small woman-owned business for students that are struggling with reading. It is complimentary to the public school system. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Deborah Winter if the teachers are certificated. Ms. Deborah Winter replied that some are. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: ' • Stated that this is a wonderful program and it would be nice to have it. • Said that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission to waive any fees. • Added that it might be worthwhile to discuss the types of uses that require Use Permits and that Ms. Jensen made a good point about the 24-Hour Fitness facility. • Advised that she takes her child to Cupertino for tutoring. and it would be nice to have something available closer to home. Commissioner Hunter said that Council is the body to discuss any fee waiver. She stressed the importance to have staff for this business park in the center lot to leave nearby parking for patrons of the shopping center and reading clinic. Commissioner Zutshi reported that the 24-Hour Fitness facility actually closes some time between 11 p.m. and midnight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow an educational facility (The Reading Clinic) in an existing tenant space in the Quito Shopping Center located at 18820 Cox Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None x~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-280 (386-14-028) FREITAS, "Primary Plus," 18720 Bucknall Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to allow an educational facility at the old school district site with the ;addition of two new 960 square foot classrooms, one of which has already been installed. The proposed use will provide early education and day care to infants, toddlers, preschool and Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 5 kindergarten ages and after school programs for children up to the age of 12 yeazs old. The site is located in a Residential Zoning District. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval to allow the expansion of an educational facility located at the former Moreland School District Offices site, which was sold to Primary Plus in August 2002. Primary Plus has been in operation on this site since 2002. • Said that the expansion consists for two 960-square foot modulaz classroom buildings, one of which has already been installed. The buildings will be used to provide early education and daycaze services. • Described the location as being residentially zoned. • Said that when the new portable was installed, Building staff issued a stop work order. The applicant was required to apply for both a Use Permit and Design Review Approval, which will establish conditions of approval for a school use. The Use Permit allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions and ensure compatibility with the adjacent uses. • Said that the maximum student count would be 397 and the maximum faculty would be 54. Fifty- four pazking spaces aze required and 68 are provided, exceeding the requirement by 14 spaces. • Stated that the hours of operation are from 6:30 a:m. to 6 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. The school is closed on Saturdays and Sundays: • Reported that one piece of correspondence was received in opposition to this expansion. That letter was included in the staff report. • Advised that findings for supporting the Design Review and Use Permit Approvals can be made in the affirmative. • Said that the modular buildings- match the existing structures on site, blending in nicely with the school. • Recommended approval. Chair Garakani asked if the public noticing was distributed within 500 feet of this location. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that State Law requires noticing within 300 feet but it is the City of Sazatoga's policy to notice within 500 feet of a project site. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the limitations to 397 students and 54 staff came from. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that these numbers aze based on State licensing requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked when the State licensing was issued for this site. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he did not know for sure. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the limits on staffing are within the Conditions. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the Conditions could be modified to add that number. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission.Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Carol Freitas, Applicant, Primary Plus, 18720 Bucknall Road, Saratoga: • Said that she was available for any questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Carol Freitas when the school was permitted for 397 students. Ms. Carol Freitas replied July 1985, when they moved into their previous location. She added that they have three separate licenses. One is for infant care,- another for pre-school and the third-for extended stay. Their total capacity is for 397 students. However, they cannot accommodate 397 students on this site even with these two additional modular units. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Carol Freitas if the school would ever need more than 54 staff. Ms. Carol Freitas: Replied no. If there were to be 397 students, then they would. However, since there is no room to accommodate 397 students on this site, they would not need more staff than the proposed maximum of 54. Said that they can accommodate between 50 and 75 infants. They currently have 275 students and anticipate growth to approximately 300. Their staff is currently 40 and would increase to 42 with the new space. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Carol Freitas where she anticipates the most increases. Ms. Carol Freitas replied the pre-school program, children from the ages of 2.5 to 5 years. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Carol Freitas to explain the pick up and drop off process. Ms. Carol Freitas advised that for many of their students, both of the parents work. The children arrive from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. so arrivals are spread over athree-hour period. The pick up times begin at about 2:30 p.m, until 6 p.m. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a line up of cars. Ms. Carol Freitas replied no, that is not a problem. Commissioner Hunter asked about when there are holidays or events. Ms. Carol Freitas replied that there are about five events per year, which are outside of typical operational hours. They include a Spring Extravaganza that runs from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., fall and Spring Back to School Nights, as well as Halloween and Christmas events that run to about 8 p.m. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are ever any neighborhood complaints. Ms. Carol Freitas said that over the- last 20 years there have been no neighborhood complaints over their special events. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are ever any traffic problems. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Carol Freitas replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked if parking extends off-site when there are special events Ms. Carol Freitas replied yes. The parking does flow onto surrounding streets but that is also true for soccer and baseball games that are held in a park. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there have been noise or parking complaints. Ms. Carol Freitas said she was aware of one complaint over the years. A nearby neighbor was disturbed by the noise of gardening that was being done on the school grounds on Saturdays. The schedule was changed to address that neighbor's concern. Ms. Joan Faunce, 18644 Bucknall Road, Saratoga: • Reported that she lives across the street from the Primary Plus School and saw the transition from the Moreland School District Offices into this school. • Described herself as a "Happy Neighbor" to this school. This is a very neighbor-friendly school. There are no traffic problems with this school due to the staggered arrival and departure times. • Said that a Traffic Study of the area is on going for other reasons. • Congratulated the school and the parents who bring their children to this school, as there have been no near accidents. • Commended the school for doing a fabulous job over the years, saying that she has always felt free to talk to the administrative staff. • Said she is comfortable with this expansion and asked the Commission to take good consideration of this request. Mr. Bob Weisend, 18338 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that his daughter, Alexis, is apre-school student at this school. For the last four to five months, she has been waiting for her new classroom to open. Right now she is sharing class space with younger children, who are not yet toilet trained. This is not the best situation for her. • Urged approval so Alexis could begin to use the new classroom with her appropriately aged peers. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that the person who complained about the expansion actually lives. far from the school site. • Said she is delighted to have this school in Saratoga and that she occasionally picks up her grandchildren from there. • Expressed her support. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there are more young children that need such a school. • Said that it is wonderful to have this school that has earned the respect of its community. • Stated that she is wholly supportive. • Expressed support for a Condition that would limit the maximum staff size to 50. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Zutshi expressed concern about a neighbor who had wanted to see the portable but said that she believes that person is now happy. Commissioner Hunter said how nice it is to-see a neighbor here expressing-such strong support. Commissioner Rodgers:. • .Said that the emphasis on education is something -that sets Saratoga apart from other communities. • Stated that there is a wonderful feel to this school and that the parking provided is adequate. • Added that if problems arise in the future, this Use Permit can be reconsidered and adjusted accordingly. • Expressed her support. Commissioner Hunter clarified that private schools come before the Planning Commission while public school issues do not. Reported that the new building at Saratoga High School did not come before the Commission for consideration. Motion:. Upon motion of Commissioner. Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a ° Use Permit to allow an educational facility (Primary Plus) at the old school district site with the addition of two new 960 square foot classrooms located at 18720 Bucknall Road with the maximum number . of students to be 397. and the .maximum number of faculty/staff to be 54, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S- ITEMS Advising of an Appeal Associate Planner John Livingstone reported -that Mr. Christensen has appealed the Commission's decision regarding Palomino Way to Council. Commissioner Hunter asked what date this appeal would be heard. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied tentatively February 16~'. He assured that he would keep the Commission updated. He said that the matter might end up in mediation. If an agreement is reached, the appeal might be withdrawn. Joint Council and Planning Commission Session Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the joint session with Council has been scheduled for a school vacation week and wondered if Council could be asked to change the date. Another option might be to wait until the new members of the Commission are selected so they too can participate. COMMISSION ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff has any update about the establishment of a Design Review Board. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that Council has created atwo-member Council Sub- committee to look into this matter. He suggested that this issue be included on their joint meeting agenda. He asked if any other Commissioners have a conflict with February 16ch Commissioner Nagpal said that she would plan her time accordingly if this meeting goes forward on the 16`t'. Commissioner Zutshi advised that she would be gone for the month of March. Chair Garakani asked what items are proposed for the joint meeting agenda. Commissioner Hunter suggested asking Council how they feel about having the side of a house facing a road when positioned at an angle on a site. Commissioner Nagpal suggested issues such as the use of retail space and design review issues such as entryways and side elevations of a house facing street frontages. Commissioner Uhl asked about the update on the Downtown Sign Ordinance. Associate Planner John Livingstone reported that this is on a work program list to bring forward. He reported that the Director had met with the Business Association and obtained comments. The initial draft now needs to be revised and reviewed again with the Chamber and the Business Association. Chair Garakani cautioned that the joint meeting time is not long and the time should be used as effectively as possible. Commissioner Hunter suggested the issue of position of garages. Commissioner Nagpal suggested Hillside development. Commissioner Rodgers suggested the role of neighbor input. Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps a second meeting might be needed and suggested the need for a Council Liaison. Associate Planner John Livingstone suggested that Chair Garakani select one or two Commissioners to work with him on the agenda for the joint session. Commissioner Nagpal said that she could email her list of suggestions. Commissioner Hunter stressed the importance of having an excellent agenda. Chair Garakani said it is very important that the Planning Commission become involved very early in the Design Review process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Nagpal said there needs to be a way to make the process easier for people. ' 'nt session with Council. Commissioners Hunter and Nagpal agreed to work out the agenda for the poi Commissioner iJhl advised that he might miss the February 9`~ meeting, as he is likely to be going back to Asia on business travel. Commissioner Hunter advised that she is now the Chair of the Business Development Group. She questioned where the promised sign is designating Saratoga's Historic District that is slated for Highway 85. Commissioner Nagpal suggested topics such as affordable housing and secondary living units. Commissioner Rodgers asked at what time the next site visits would occur. Chair Garakani replied 3:30 p.m. COMMUNICATIONS City Council minutes from December 1, 2004. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to the next- Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • Item 1 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-272/ 22461 Mount Eden Road Applicant/Owner: Udaya ~ Kavitha Shankar Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Application Type: Design Review Date: February 9, 2005 APN: 503-80-O1 Department Head: ?~~ Q 500 ft Buffer - Shankar ~.--,~ \, [~ Shankar - Mt. Eden Rd f ~~ ~ ~~ _ r: ~"C' ._.._ ~~ ._ +. ~- , ~ %' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ _ \\ CHA R I ~ ; , , DEE L ~ ,` ~ - '~ i I ~ ~ ~~~ ~V 'i~ ILLA.~ i~, ,,l I ~, ~, ~ a_ , - _ ,\ ~ '~ ,\ ~< ~ ~ ~~ f ,~ 4 ~ / fi j£ Y ~I \ \ ~, ~~~ ~ , -M~T E ~l~N~f~D ~~ i ~` ' ~`' ~ - ~ ~, ~~ r ~~ ~'~ .~ ~~ MT E E RD ~\ RE MT EDEN DEER TRAIL CT \ `~' , ~ :. ~ AR '~(~CIA~RD ~~ '`. 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 22461 Mount Eden Road 00001 F~IeNo. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12/11/03 12/23/04 1/26/05 1/26/05 1/19/05 The applicant proposes to construct a two story Spanish style home with basement on the 1.89 acre lot which abuts Mount Eden Road and presently contains a two story home with a barn, a horse stall and second dwelling unit. The home is 5,842 square feet in floor area with a 1,908 square foot basement. A 533 square foot second dwelling unit is proposed. The property is currently within Santa Clara County but is in the process of being annexed to the City. With the annexation, the parcel is to be reviewed under the pre-zoning of Hillside Residential District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the project be approved with conditions relating to landscape, trail easements, and buffer screening. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Reports dated 7/21/04 and 1/3/05 3. Fire Department report dated 7/22/04 4. Geotechnical Clearance Memorandum dated 7/1/04 and Geotechnical Reviews dated 1/ 8/04 and 3/16/04. 5. Santa Clara County Encroachment Permit 12/29/04 6. Affidavit of Mailing 7. Neighborhood Correspondence 8. City Council Report -March 3, 2004 -Initiation of Annexation Proceedings 9. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~~~®~~ File No. 03-272 -22461 Mount Eden Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Prezoned -Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The Hillside Specific Plan states that apre-zoning density designation should be established for County lands. Since this parcel is pre- zoned Hillside Residential and is in the process of being annexed to the City from Santa Clara County, the General Plan designation is the same as Hillside Conservation Single Family which permits .5 DU/net acre. MEASURE G: Not ap hp 'cable PARCEL SIZE:1.89 acres square feet gross. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of lot is 28.27% GRADING REQvIRED: The grading plan indicates that the project will require 810 cubic yards of cut and 770 cubic yards of fill of this amount, 585 cubic yards of cut and fill is required for the basement. Thus, 995 cubic yards of cut and fill is required for grading exclusive of the basement. Since basement excavation is not typically counted as grading, the threshold is not met for considering the findings for grading that exceeds a 1,000 cubic yards in accordance with Section 15- 13.050(f). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of constructing 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. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing a new home. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The plans depict stucco with sand finish facade in Kelly Moore, Navajo White and Spanish Clay Tiles in VieJo Blend, which is a rust blended color. • ®®CD~®3 File No. 03-2T1-ZZ461 Mount Eden Road Lot Size Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Hillside Residential Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Walkways, Patio Pool TOTAL First Floor Second Floor w/Garage Second dwelling Basement TOTAL Front Side House -Rear Proposal Code Requirements 82,328 sq. ft.'s 87,120 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 25% of net site area or 4,370 sq. ft. 15;000 sq. ft. 5,670 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 10,840 sq. ft. 2,801 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 2,387 sq. ft. 6,428 sq: ft.'~~ 654 sq. ft. 533 sq. ft. (1,908 sq. ft.) 6,375 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 35 ft. 30 ft 48 ft. 20 ft. 176 ft. 60 ft. Two Story Maximum Allowable 25 ft.10 in. 26 ft. Due to 28.27% slope, net site area is reduced by 54% for the purpose of calculating floor area, yielding a net site area of 37,871 square feet. '~~ Section 15-56 (d) permits a 10% floor area bonus for second dwelling units if the property is deed restricted for low or moderate-income rental. This provision provides an additiona1584 square feet of floor area and permits retention of a portion of the existing second dwelling. • 4 ~~~~®~ File No. 03-272 - 22461 MountEden Road PROJECT DISCUSSION This application is for Design Review approval of a 1.89-acre property that is currently located within the County but is proposed for annexation to the City at the City's request. This parcel is pre-zoned Hillside Residential which permits single-family dwellings on two acre lots. A resolution initiating the annexation was adopted by City Council on March 3, 2004 and another resolution finalizing the annexation will be scheduled for a City Council vote in the near future. Since the parcel is pre-zoned Hillside Residential (HR) it is being reviewed in accordance with the Saratoga Hillside Residential zoning standards. This project has undergone numerous revisions. The initial location of the house was proposed on the same basic footprint as the existing house. However, after the City Geologist reviewed the previous location, the applicant decided to move the house location in an attempt to avoid the landslide impacting that building location. As the geotechnical report states "land sliding of variable activity is present to the west, north and east of the proposed building site." (March 15, 2004, Geotechnical Report) Thus, geotechnical limitations had a major impact on the location of the proposed house on the lot. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two story house and construct a two story, 25 foot 10 inch high Spanish style home containing 5,188 square feet with a 654 square foot attached basement level garage and a 1,908 square foot basement. A 550 square foot balcony is proposed to project from the kitchen area to the west of the property. The property presently has a barn, which is to be demolished, and a horse stall which is to be modified and a second dwelling unit containing 533 square feet which is to be remodeled to eliminate the square footage within the garage. The total square footage for the property is 6,375 square feet excluding the basement. The parcel has an average slope of 28.27%. The applicant is seeking the 10% density bonus for the second dwelling unit in return for deed restricting the second dwelling as a low ormoderate-income rental unit. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT Comments were received from a number of the neighbors. The neighbor to the south of the property had concerns with the drainage plan. He objected to the dissipaters being located close to his property line. In response to this, the applicant revised the main drainage line from the house; however, the remaining dissipater at the property line should also be rerouted to eliminate concentrated flow onto the adjacent southern property. This revision is included in the conditions of approval. This neighbor also had concerns with the balcony. The issue was the potential lack of privacy such a feature might create between the two properties. In response to this concern, staff recommends that the balcony be scaled back to m~nimi7e impacts on ~~~®~~ File No. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road privacy. In addition, the landscape plan should be revised to depict additional evergreen plantings at the mutual property line in order to create a visual buffer to enhance privacy. The applicant does not want to scale back the balcony and considers the evergreen buffer as sufficient mitigation between the two properties. Another concern expressed by neighbors was the location of the new driveway. In response to this concern, staff contacted the Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports since this portion of the road is maintained by Santa Clara County. An Encroachment Permit had already been granted for the driveway; however staff requested that the County re-check the driveway for safety concerns. In response to this request, the County made a site visit and revised the conditions of their Encroachment Permit. The County conditioned the Encroachment Permit on the property owner maintaining a sight triangle by removing and/or pruning trees and vegetation and grading an elevation, which interferes with, sight distance. : Removal and pruning of the trees and lowering an embankment at this curve along Mount Eden Road may contribute to the overall safety of -this juncture in-the road, which according to one neighbor has been the site of a number of accidents. This sight distance line was reviewed by the City Arborist and he noted that achieving sight distance to the west would involve minor pruning of four trees. However, achieving the sight distance to the east -would place five trees at risk of removal. He also recommended revising the limits of grading to avoid impacts on two nearby oak trees. Another issue brought up by a neighbor was the disposition of the second dwelling unit. The concern was that the existing second dwelling be remodeled to reflect the design to the proposed main house. Also, the creation of the carport in the second dwelling unit was questioned. The thought was that a completely enclosed garage space is preferable to a carport. In order to meet the allowable floor area, the garage portion of the existing second dwelling would be converted into a carport because this is not considered as floor area. Given that the existing garage is built against a hill and by virtue of topography is well below and screened from Mount Eden Road, there appears to be little visual impact to creating a carport in this area. Staff recommends that the front facade of the structure remain. Another neighbor expressed concern with the size of the house saying that they felt that it was too large. Responses from eight of the surrounding neighbors were generally in favor of the project and stated that they did not have any concerns that needed to be addresses prior to the public hearing. • ~~~~®~ File No. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE The Trails Subcommittee recommended that the existing equestrian trail, which crosses a portion of the property frontage along Mount Eden Road, be formally dedicated as a permanent trail easement. The applicant would prefer not to formalize this trails use and encumber his property with an easement although he will continue to allow the use of the trail for equestrians on an informal basis. Staff recommends that the existing trail be formally dedicated to the City because it will link with the Ho Subdivision trail and create a lasting public amenity. Recording an easement for the equestrian trail is included in the conditions of approval. 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. Actraal Findings . The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivary. 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 construction impacts the scenic character of Mount Eden Road as well as the view of the neighbor south of the property. In order to minimize these impacts the following recommendation are made. 1. Since the driveway location requires regrading along the roadway within a sight triangle area, the area east of the regraded area should be planted with replacement vegetation and evergreen trees, which will eventually create a visual buffer between this house and Mount Eden Road. 2. The proposed balcony is oriented towards the large yard area, which is the high quality view however this deck may impact the privacy of the neighbor south of the property. In order to minimize this impact the plans should be revised to reduce the length of the 25-foot balcony. Also, structural features such as planter boxes or some other design technique should be placed along the southern portion of the balcony in order to limit view angles to long rather than short distance views towards the neighbor's property. In addition a substantial landscape buffer of evergreens should be ~®®®~~ F~IeNo. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road planted within the southern property line setback area in order to enhance mutual privacy. Lighting on the balcony should be shielded and kept to a minimum in order to maintain the scenic character of the area. (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 beeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The plan proposes to retain a significant portion of the natural landscape. The drainage channel to the rear of the property will be undisturbed. The impervious coverage ratio for the property is proposed at 13% of the site. The existing equestrian trail is to be dedicated along Mount -Eden Road. Four of the trees which would be-removed to achieve the site design ,are to be retained and moved elsewhere on the site. The comments of -the arborist regarding grading at the front stairway and the grading boundary at the sight triangle shall be incorporated into the final plans. (c) Minimizeperception of excessive bulb. Theproposed 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 proposed main structure uses architectural features to break up massing and is in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. The north and east facade which would be most prominent along Mount Eden Road are low profile in design.-The south and west facades have greater setbacks to mitigate -the prominence of the elevation. (d) Compatible bulb and height. Theproposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulh~ 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.. The proposed home with a height of 25 feet 10 inches as measured from the average natural grade is compatible in terms of bullz and height with the existing residential structures on adjacent lots. The adjacent parcel to the south which is most impacted by the proposed development has three; two story structures and a high percent of impervious coverage. In terms of solar access, the proposed home would not impair the solar access of adjacent neighbors since there is a 48 foot setback between the closest neighbor to the south of the property,. The design maxii~es the benefit of sun since the majority of the windows and the main living areas are located on the southwest elevation. (e) Curi-entgrading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development orgradingplan incorporates . currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. ~®~~~~ File No. 03-2TZ -22461 MountE"den Road The grading plan indicates that the project will require 570 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill for the basement and the remaining cut and fill will amount to 995 cubic yards. The applicant will be required to minimize the impacts of grading in the vicinity of protected trees as indicated in the arborist report including eliminating fill in the vicinity of trees #10, 11, 12 and 17 and minunizing cut in the area of the sight distance triangle to preserve the tree canopy along Mount Eden Road and preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbooh The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Handbook Policy #1, Technique #6, use architectural features to breakup massing, by the low profile entry along Mount Eden Road and varying height of roof elements. Policy #2, integrate structures with the environment, Technique #1, use of natural colors and materials is addressed through use of neutral colored stucco and rust/brown colored tile-roofing material. Technique #4, integrate all structures on the site is addressed by combining the garage and house in a single structure and coordinating the colors and material of accessory structures. Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy, Technique #1 is addressed by planting of additional trees and landscaping to ensure privacy, and scaling back the balcony. Technique #3, maintain landscaping to enhance privacy, is addressed by requiring tree planting, minimizing tree removal and requiring additional landscaping. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for maYir~ing views while avoiding privacy conflicts, is addressed by planting trees in areas of potential conflict and scaling back the .proposed balcony. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, Technique #1, design for maximum benefit of sun and wind is addressed since the main living area windows are southwest facing in orientation. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed home with a 48 foot setback to the closest neighbor will not encroach on their solar access. Thus the above analysis concludes that the findings required for granting design review approval can be met if the plans are revised per the conditions outlined in the staff report. The City Arborist, the Saratoga Fire District, the Public Works Department, the City Geotechnical Consultant and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", Shankar Residence prepared by Robert Avilles Design dated December 16, 2004 and Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Lee Engineers and dated January 3, 2005 as revised per the conditions of approval outlined in this staff report. Conditions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated into the final plans. ~~~~~~ F~IeNo. 03-272-22961 Mount Eden Road 6 1. Revise the balcony area by reducing the length of the balcony to the degree whereby it does not impact the privacy of the neighbor to the south and it is riot a conspicuous design element from Mount Eden Road. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage plan to eliminate the energy dissipater adjacent the proposed swimming pool. Connect the pipe to the western drainage pipe which is depicted adjacent the proposed house. 3. The right side elevation adjacent the garage of the house shall be revised to reduce the clearance between ground floor elevation and finished grade to no more than five feet. This can be accomplished by a creating a berm along the facade which slopes down to natural grade. 4. In accordance with Section 15-06.090 of the Zoning Ordinance, revise the ratio between garage and basement to equal the 20%/80% requirement in order for the basement to not be included as floor area and the house to be viewed as two story. This requires eliminating one bay of the garage and excavating one hundred additional :square feet of the. basement. _The applicant must consult staff in making-these revisions. 5. Due to the landslide issues with the site, staff recommends that all surface water be carried off of the site. On-site water retention does not appear feasible for this site.. The retaining wall that is located within the front yard setback must be reduced to three feet per Zoning Ordinance section 15-29(b). A deed restriction must be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds, which limits rental of the second dwelling unit to low or moderate-income households. This restriction must be recorded prior to final occupancy permit. r~ 7 8. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and the Resolution for application #03-272 and the Arborist Report on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 9. -The complete construction plans shall include a revised final landscape plan. This final landscape plan shall depict the trees which are to be transplanted as per the recommendation of the City Arborist, .the proposed evergreen buffer screening at the southern property line and along Mount Eden Road, the replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. 10. The location of the new fire hydrant as required by the :Saratoga Fire District should be shown on the final site plan. 11. The existing equestrian trail along Mount Eden Road shall be formally dedicated to the City of Saratoga. This dedication shall be recorded on the deed prior to final occupancy permit. io ®®©~~® File No. 03 272 -22461 MountEden Road 12. The sight distance triangle, which is required to improve visibility along Mount Eden Road for the driveway Encroachment Permit, shall be maintained by the property owner. 13. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 14. 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. 15. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 16. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 17. A utility plan, including the location and trenching for the fire hydrant shall be submitted with the revised plans for the arborist to review in terms of impact on adjacent trees. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated July 21, 2004 and January 3, 2005. These reports are included as Attachment 2. The recommendations o ese rep ~~~omndatiens outlined in this report are the following: 1. Relocate trees # 18,19, 20, and 21 to an alternate location on the site. 2. Revise the driveway and curb to be at least 9 feet away from the trunks of trees #2 and 3. (This requirement conflicts with the sight triangle clearance conditions of the Encroachment Permit.) 3. A bond equal to $72,940, which is 100% of the trees to be retained, is required prior to issuance of final zoning clearance. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on July 22, 2004. Their requirements, which are included as Attachment 3, are conditions of approval. The requirements specify among other items: 1. The developer shall install one fire hydrant unless the adjacent parcel at 22551 Mount Eden Road completes this hydrant requirement prior completion of the Shankar residence. File _No. 03 2T1-22461 Mount Eden Road 2. Automatics rinklers shall be installed in the house, the second dwelling unit P and any accessory structures which are 500 square feet or greater. GEOTECHNICAL AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance was granted on July 7, 2004 and the conditions of this clearance are included in Attachment 4. Related geotechnical reviews are also included in this attachment. The conditions outlined in the July 7th Clearance memorandum are included as conditions of approval. 1. A noteworthy item in the geotechnical clearance memorandum is the following: due to the complexity of the landslide conditions, at a minimum daily inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be completed during grading of identified landslide areas. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND AIRPORTS The County issued a revised Encroachment Permit on 12/29/04. This permit includes the requirement for a sight distance clearance, which has -been added to the Grading and Drainage Plan. This permit is included as Attachment 5. CONCLUSION The proposed- residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the r-;rt~ od.P if r]PVelOlned with the recommended conditions. The residence is compatible with the neighborhood, natural features are preserved within the constraints of the site and privacy impacts are minimized. The proposal if developed with conditions and revisions, will satisfy Hillside Residential 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 #03-272. • • • • Attachment 1 • ®®Q~®~~ RESOLUTION NO - OS APPLICATION N0.03-272 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Shankar/22461 Mount Eden Road WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new two. story 5,842. square foot home with a 533- square foot second dwelling unit on a 1.89 acre. - parcel which is to be annexed to the-City. 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 proposed main structure uses architectural features to breakup massing and is in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. The north and east facade which would be most prominent along Mount Eden Road are low profile in design. The south and west facades have greater setbacks to mitigate the prominence of the elevation. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan proposes to retain a significant portion of the natural landscape. The ..drainage channel to the rear of the property will be undisturbed. The impervious coverage ratio for the property is proposed at 13% of the site. -The existing equestrian trail is to be dedicated along Mount Eden Road. Four of -the trees, ~®®®~.~ File No. 03-2TZ -11467MountEden Road which would be removed to achieve the site design, are to be retained and moved elsewhere on the site. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The revised plans address issues of privacy by requiring planting of additional evergreen buffer screening along both the southern and western property lines. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views With proposed revisions, the project will protect the neighbor's privacy by appropriate landscaping and additional setback in areas of potential privacy conflict. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The orientation of the house maxiriizes the southern exposure since the outdoor living areas and majority of the windows are southwest facing. 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 Udaya and Kavitha Shankar 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", Shankar Residence prepared by Robert Avilles Design dated December 16, 2004 and Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Lee Engineers and dated January 3, 2005 as revised per the conditions of approval outlined in this staff report. Conditions outlined in this staff report shall be incorporated into the final plans. 1. Revise the balcony area by reducing the length of the balcony to the degree whereby it does not impact the privacy of the neighbor to the south and it is not a conspicuous design element from Mount Eden Road. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage plan to eliminate the energy dissipater adjacent the proposed swimming pool. Connect the pipe to the western drainage pipe which is depicted adjacent the proposed house. 3. Due to the landslide issues with the site, staff recommends that all surface water be carried off of the site. On-site water retention does not appear feasible for this site. ~~~~g5 File No. 03-272 -22461 Mount Eden Road 4. The retaining wall that is located within the front yard setback must be reduced to three feet per Zoning Ordinance section 15-29(b). S. The right side elevation adjacent the garage of the house shall be revised to reduce the clearance between ground floor elevation and finished grade to no more than five feet. This can be accomplished by a creating a berm along the facade which slopes down to natural grade. 6. In accordance with Section 15-06.090 of the Zoning Ordinance, revise the ratio between garage and basement to equal the 20%/80% requirement in order for the basement to not be included as floor area and the house to be viewed as two story. This requires eliminating one bay of the garage and excavating one hundred additional square feet of the basement. The applicant must consult staff in making these revisions. 7. A deed restriction must be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds, which limits rental of the second dwelling unit to low or moderate-income households. This restriction must be recorded prior to final occupancy permit 8. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions and the Resolution for application #03-272 and the Arborist Report on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. vi ed final landsca a lan. 9. The complete construction plans shall mclude a re s p p This final landscape plan shall depict the trees, which are to be transplanted as per the recommendation of the Ciry Arborist, the proposed evergreen buffer screening at the southern property line and along Mount Eden -.Road, the replacement trees as well as tree protection fencing as depicted in the Arborist Report. 10. The location of the new fire hydrant as required by the Saratoga Fire District should be shown on the final site plan. 11. The existing equestrian trail along Mount Eden Road shall be formally dedicated to the City of Saratoga. This dedication shall be recorded on the deed prior to final occupancy permit. 12. The property owner shall ~ maintain the sight distance triangle, which is required to improve visibility along Mount Eden Road for the driveway Encroachment Permit. 13. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 14. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type; topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, ~~~0~~ File No. 03 172 -22461 Mount Eden Road 14. 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. 15. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 16. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 17. A utility plan, including the location and trenching for the fire hydrant shall be submitted with the revised plans for the arborist to review in terms of impact on adjacent trees. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The Ciry Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated July 21, 2004 and January 3, 2005. These reports are included as Attachment 2. The recommendations of these reports are included as conditions of approval. Among the recommendations outlined in this report are the following: 1. Relocate trees # 18,19, 20,-and 21 to an alternate location on the site. 2. A bond a ual to $72,940, which is 100% of the trees to be retained, is a required prior to issuance of final zoning clearance. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on July 22, 2004. Their requirements, which are included as Attachment 3, are conditions of approval. The requirements specify among other items: 1. The developer shall install one fire hydrant unless the adjacent parcel at 22551 Mount Eden Road completes this hydrant requirement prior completion of the Shankar residence. 2. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the house, the second dwelling unit and any accessory structures which are 500 square feet or greater. GEOTECHNICAL AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW Geotechnical Clearance was granted on July 7, 2004 and the conditions of this clearance are included in Attachment 4. Related geotechnical reviews are also included in this attachment. The conditions outlined in the July 7`h clearance memorandum are included as conditions of approval. ~~~~~~ File No. 03-2T2 -22461 MountEden Road • SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND AIRPORTS The County issued a revised Encroachment Permit on 12/29/04. This permit includes the requirement for sight distance clearance, which has been added to the Grading and Drainage Plan. The requirements of this permit are included as conditions of approval. This permit is included as Attachment 5. CITY ATTORNEY 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 ariy 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, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~~~~~ File No. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9`h day of February 2005 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 • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 ®~+~Q2© - N ARBOR RESOURCES • Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 22461 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: SHANKAR APPLICATION #: 03-272 APN #: 503-80-001 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A July 21, 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~~i~. David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 21, 2004 SUMMAKY • Twenty-nine trees were inventoried for this report. Of these, seven (#18-23 and 25) aze in conflict with the proposed design. As mitigation, I recommend replacements for trees #22 and 23, and the relocation of trees #18-21. Tree #25 should be removed regazdless of the proposed project and replacements aze not suggested due to its significantly poor structural condition. Plan revisions are recommended to protect the longevity and structural form of trees #2 and 3. Tree #26 should be permitted for removal due to its weakened stability condition. Replacements are recommended. nvTxonucTTON The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with demolishing an existing residence and constructing a new one at 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets 1 thru 10 by Robert Aviles Design, dated 6/26/04. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are presented on an attached copy of Sheet 1 (Site Plan). Trees #1, 8, 10, 18, 19 and 21 are not shown on the Site Plan. Their locations were plotted on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. I suggest each tree's location be shown on all future plans. Tree #24 is located on the neighboring western property. It was included in this report as its root zone and canopy are susceptible to potential damage during construction. .For identification purposes, metallic tags with engraved numbers corresponding to those presented within this report are attached to the trees' trunks (the exception being #24). FINDINGS Twenty-nine trees regulated by City Ordinance were inventoried for this report. All trees are considered native to the City and include 19 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and 10 Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata). Trees #18-23 and 25 are in conflict with the proposed design and would either be removed or expected to decline and/or become unstable. Page I of 4 Shankar Property, 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~+,(~~~~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 21, 2004 Trees #22 and 23 aze situated where soil is eroding away. The proposed grading appears necessary to correct the situation; however, the activities will jeopazdize the trees and promote their decline. As such, they will be considered a loss whether retained or removed. Given the trees' relatively small size, location and less than ideal structural stability, I find their loss is appropriate. Trees # 18 thru 21 will also require removal to achieve the proposed grading and/or home design. I find they aze suitable for retention and should be relocated to an alternate location on site rather than be removed. This work shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. I recommend tree #25 be removed regazdless of the proposed project. Decay is prevalent throughout its lower trunk and has created a large hollow in the trunk's base. As such, the tree is unsafe and presents a significant risk to public safety. Though not in direct conflict, the longevity and structural form of trees #2 and 3 would be at risk by implementing the proposed design. To maintain their current condition and achieve sufficient overhead cleazance, I recommend the driveway (including curb) be redesigned to be at least nine feet from the trees' trunk. Tree #26 is proposed for removal and I support this decision. The soil surrounding the base of the trunk has eroded away and exposed most of the structural support roots. The tree appears to have slightly uprooted as evidenced by its slight lean towazds the north. Overtime, I suspect the tree's ability to support itself will become further compromised. For the above reasons and those stated in my earlier report dated 12/29/03, I find the removal of this tree is appropriate. Replacements are recommended for mitigating the loss of trees #22, 23 and 26. They must consist of those defined by the City of Sazatoga as being native and be equivalent in value to those removed. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed. They are subject to change upon the plans being revised. 1. The driveway and curb should be redesigned to be at least nine feet west from the - trunks of trees #2 and 3. 2. The locations of all trees presented within this report should be shown on all future site, grading and drainage, and landscape plans submitted to the City. 3. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter,. galvanized steel posts, driven Shankar Property, 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department .~~~~23 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 21, 2004 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. Fencing shall be placed precisely as shown on the attached map, and be no further than one-foot from the proposed and existing driveway, and two feet from the proposed retaining wall neaz tree #15 and staircase beneath tree #17's canopy. Please note the fencing assumes the driveway will be revised beneath the canopies of trees #2 and 3. 4. Should the existing horse trail remain open during construction, I recommend the fencing's location be reviewed on-site with the general contractor and me prior to grading or demolition occurring. 5. Unless otherwise approved by the City, all demolition and construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) as well as outside from unpaved azeas beneath the canopies of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipmendvehicle operation and pazking. 6. The removal of hardscape beneath the trees' canopies must be performed carefully to avoid scraping the soil surface and roots immediately beneath the surface. I recommend the hardscape is manually removed. Equipment shall. not operate or park on unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies at any time. 7. Throughout construction, water must be supplied every three weeks to each retained tree during the months of May thru October. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter. The water can be effectively applied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the trees' mid- to outer-canopies. 8. All underground pipes and irrigation lines planned for removal beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. 9. Upon availability, plans showing drainage, irrigation and underground utilities should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. Additionally, plans to landscape other areas of the property not shown on the current set of plans should also be reviewed prior to installation. 10. All underground utilities (i.e. water, gas, sewer, electrical) should be designed outside from beneath canopies of retained trees. 11. Irrigation should spray not spray beneath the trees' canopies. Irrigation trenches should be designed at least 10 times the diameter of the neazest trunk; imgation installed within this distance should be placed on top of existing grade. 12. All plant material planted beneath a tree's canopy must be compatible with Oaks and be drought tolerant. Shankar Property, 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~Q~4 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 21, 2004 13. Mulch, stones or other landscape features must be placed no closer than two feet from the base of the trees' trunks. Bender board should not be installed and tilling of the soil should not occur beneath the trees' canopies. 14. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. I recommend trees #18 thru 21 be relocated on site rather than removed. They must be installed at least 20 feet from another and outside from beneath the canopies of other trees. The work must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to industry standards. Post-transplant care guidelines should be provided by the azborist, and shall include installing adrip-type system water supply source to imgate the root ball for two to three years following transplant. I suggest the trees be relocated. prior to any grading or demolition occurring. 16. The removal and pruning of trees must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standazds. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 17. Soil should be cleared from the trunks of trees #14, 15 and 16 to expose their root collars (the area where the support roots and trunk merge -indicated by a distinct swelling at their trunks' base). The work shall be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist or a landscape contractor familiaz with the process. 18. New trees equivalent in value to trees #22, 23 and 26, which is $18,770, shall be installed on site prior to final inspection. The replacement values are shown on the bottom of the attached table. 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 the landscape plans. The future location of the relocated Oaks should also be shown. TREE PROTECTION BOND Per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention is required (including those to be transplanted). My review reveals this amount to be $72,940. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table aze calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`j' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Sheet 1) Shankar Property, 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 4 of 4 L'~~Q~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consultin g & Tree Care ' TREE IlWENTORY TABLE . ,-, 3. -- 3. ~ 3 •~ .. ~ ~ . ~ o~ ~'i o°° a ~ ~.o ... u. A ~ .~ Q '~. ''." o ~ c . o ob ~ ~ - U fA ~ "~ P] ~~ U -~ ,~ . ~ o . $ ~ Q . TREE A a~. ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ b ~ c ~.o ~ v C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ > °' ~; U q ~ ..~ ° , °~° ° . . NO. TREE NAME ~ E., ~ ~ x U ° x G ~ .. ~ ~ .~ F+ 1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 11 20 25 100% 50% Crood High 4 - X _ $2,030 2 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 15 25 30 75% 50% Fair High 1 - _ _ $2,500 3 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrijolia) 12, 8.5 20 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 _ _ _ $2,360 4 Valley Oak (Quer+cus lobata) 8 25 20 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ - $1,030 g Coast Live Oak (Querrus agrifolia) 9 20 20 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - _ - $1,090 Valley Oak us lobata) 9.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair High 4 - _ _ $1, 6 (Querc ~ Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 9.5 20 35 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ _ $1,320 g Coast Live Oak (Quer+cus agrijolia) 13.5 20 25 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ X _ $1,970 9 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 11 30 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ _ $1,660 0 Valley Oak (Quetcus lobata) 8 30 20 75% 50% Fair High 4 _ X _ $1,710 1 11 Valley Oak (Quencus lobata) 15 35 40 75% 50% Fair ~ 3 _ _ _ $3,370 12 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 8.5 30 15 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ _ $1,120 13 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 10 30 20 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ $1,420 4 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 13 30 20 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 _ _ - $2,100 1 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 lion = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Sae: 22461 Mt Eden Rd, Saratoga Prepared for City of Saratoga Commwiity Development Dept 1 of 3 July 21, 2004 prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 1 ~ ~~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care i TREE INVENTORY TABLE :. ,-: 3 ,-. 3 _ ~ ~ o '~ ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ A . v~ . A eo >, _ ~ Q ~ TREE „ x .011 °' c ~ $ ~ e C ~ c b C ~ o ~ ' ~ :;~ ~ "~ ~ x > ~ '" o U ~ ~ ~, ~ m p . c . NO: TREE NAME H w x U. ~ ~.. O ~~ .. E" Coast Live Oak 15 (Quercus agrifolia) 13 35 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - - - $2,100 Coast Live Oak 16 (Quencus agrifolia) 22 25 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - - - $5,400 Coast Live Oak 17 (Querrus agrijolia) 19.5 25 35 100% 25% Fair High 2 - - - $4,680 Coast Live Oak 18 (Quercus agrifolia) 7 10 15 100% 75% Good High - X X - $1,140 Coast Live Oak 19 (Quer+cus agrifolia) 6.5 10 15 75% SO% Fair Moderate - X X - $750 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5 20 25 100% 100% Good High - X - - $2,890 Coast Live Oak 21 (Quencus agrifolia) 7.5 15 15 100% 75% Good High - X - - $1,230 Coast Live Oak 22 (Quercus agrifolia) 7.5 15 10 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - $1,090 Valley Oak 23 (Quercus lobata) 6.5 20 10 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - $ Coast Live Oak 24 (Quercus agrifolia) 22.5 15 30 75% 50% Fair -High 5 - X X $6,100 Coast Live Oak 15, 14, 25 (Quercus agrifolia) 12, 11 40 40 50% 0% Poor Low - X X - $0 Valley Oak 26 (Quercus lobata) 37 60 90 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - X - $16,500 Coast Live Oak 27 (Querrus agrifolia) 17.5 25 35 75% 25% Fair Low 3 - X - $2,790 Site 21461 Mt Eden Rd, Saratoga Prepared fm.• Ciry of Saratoga Commrutity Developn-ent Dept ~ Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 2 of 3 July 21, 2004 , ~~~~~~`~ • ARBOR RESOURCES _. Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care _ TREE IlWENTORY TABLE ,-; o c ~q ~b ~ ~ o ,~-. ~ c . ~•°a' ~ ~, cam- ~~ U `.y>+.~°~ ~~. ~ ~, ~ U o A ~ ~ c ~ ~.. ~ b ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 > o. o b > U o o :. F TREE o ~ ~ ~ o . ~ o _> o . ~ o ~ NO: TREE NAIvIE . ~ ~ x U.. C ~n ^. 0 Coast Live Oak 29 (Quercus agrijolia) 32 55 70 50% 75% Fair High . 4 - X - $14,600 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- allon = 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Sife: 21461 Mt Eden Rd, Saratoga Prepared for: City ojSaratoga Comnwn+ry Development Dept Pr aced David L Bablry, RCA 3 oj3 ep by: • • Jaly 21,~~rr2~~004 ~~~1'~~~ • • • }]z _ ~ ~5~. f y_~, i\ '~ ~ : ~ ~ 2 SCALE: 1' = 20' ~0j t,. ' ~ 5 c~. V a~1 ~9~\ 4 6 t ~ ~ ~~ Site Address: 22W I Mt. Eden 2oa4 Saratoga 4 ~ p }, Prepared for: City of Saratoga Comnwnity Development Depamnent PROTECTIVE FENCING ~ts~e ~Y ~ 9 ~ U '^ \ Imo; Map idenfifiez 29 trees of Ordinance size. u o7A0o ~ ~ . Carropy perimeters arc approximate. l ~ \ M has been redixed in siu end iz not to scale. )'~ ~ ~ X11 ~(13~,14~ ~ ~17 ~15 ,~ . '~~ `"'. r ~ 16 ftRbg6.o0 -- ~ \ ~' ~ ~ c. ' ~KoRnCb RE=~,DElJCE ~ ~ ~coac. ~ ~,:0,.-6~~.00 ~~ v,ANx 3, a ' r: P,g. `~C]A~(WaE ~9(FLR.EP. ~68fo.2',9 ~ fJ~~~~I~yJ'J)~.50 yr F.5 .-.6,S.1a- 1 N'~ 419 ~, W ` t ~. of tV 1st; 5: G _\ \ 1 \ \ L~ (n>ca •oFF ~ ~ I STREE~PPRk~ ~~~ ,~j ¢:o~o ~ Q ,g ~ 4s+:SO ~ ~ \p i 23~ X20 ~ t n°"~' >a `'~ ' ~ ~`~ W - ate// ~'. `1 5' ` ' , ~8 IS Z \ vl ` \ 24, ///111 111 1 ~~ u,9v"4°° ~ PROTECTIVE FENCING n tW ~ p ~o ;• ]I ~ ^ 095 - ~ ~ - / _ qO OOt ~\ a ? ~K rPRoa.~D ' PBGC a ,g'-0°R 1NL ~L78A0 I(E)6AR ' e 'a11.a t97.94~ 'rafeEnw' ~ ..:. ~i1 ~ I~26 I O~Q,FT. (N ET) ~ 1 ~ T~ i \ 1 ~. p 25.6.00 ..~T .6 ~ ~ 27.. 55 ~~ ~ '21 ~~ Prepared By: \ -------~ ARBOR RESOURCES ' ProJ,a]onn! Arboneulm.al Canzulnng k Tree Carr P.O. Box 23295 San Moron. CA • 'N~a2 Phone: (650) 654JZ51 Emoil: orhprrerauruadptthlmk.oa S IX]t5'.9' u •]].9•' .3, pGoJEC.1~ n.E~GRIPT1oN: b6H oLKN E%tsTING 27ToRY S,Fb '(f+E GITt', 76j 6ncks coN~ilR+uT H 6w 2 sToR-Y h, p, G, J LET'f61e. 7MAT P,,.oy, q, per, hDJACENj LAUr, usE IS Ize51 C>ENTTRL (S.F. t7~ STORY BLDG. W_.A5 2HD,. i IT / r, i ~, /~. \ \ \ Onu •) 'y tee . / n I I~ ,$ ~;s _8 .+~.R• .~ ~., ~1 ~f,.n A ~Jl ~../4r OJl1 ~JJ ~/O KJIA Vily „ Professional Arbnricultura! C'onsulttnR cg Tree Care January 3, 2005 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Saratoga ! 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: SITE D[S'TAN~CE LINE REVIEW; 22461 Mt. lEden'Etoad, Saratoga Dear Ann: have reviewed the `site distance lines' proposed on the Grading-and Drainage Plan (dated 1211104 by Lee Engineers), and my findings and recommendations are presented below. 1. The proposed `sight line' west from the driveway entrance appears obstructed only by branches of one Valley Oak and three Coast Live Oaks. Sight clearance can seemingly be achieved through the-pruning ofthcsc trees. 2. The proposed `site line' east from the driveway entrance is obstructed by numerous trees. My assessment reveals trees #2, 4, 7, 15 and 16 arc at potential risk of removal and several others may require pruning, Please note, however, due to the density of the trees along the road and site line, a meeting is necessary between. the Project Engineer, City Engineer and 1' to more fully determine the impacts. 3. The "grading boundary for traffic sight" requires revisihn to prcrtect the longevity and stability of the two Oaks immediately north of the boundary (the second and third Oak east of the proposed dissipater), To achieve this, the limits of grading should be established at least 15 feet from the second Oak and 10 feet from the third. 4, The proposed grading design north of the home's future staircase Conflicts with trees #l 1-13 and 17. The plans should be revised so no lrading is designed beneath their canopies north of the proposed staircase. . Sincerely, David L_ Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist urccs(G?carthlink.nct P.O. Box 25215. San Mateo, California 9~~~2 • Email; arborreso ... Phone: G50.65~.335 ~ • Fax; GSO,G54,3352 • Licensed Contr,~clor ft79C7fi3 ~~~~~® -~- ZS68 bS9 OS9 sao..-nosa}~ -ioq.aki t00'd y0Z~60 S0/E0/Z0 • Attachment 3 • ~~~~1 22461 mt eden rd revised site plan review From: Harold [hal@saratogafire.com] Sent: Thursday, 7uly 22, 2004 4:19 PM To: Ann welsh subject: 22461 mt eden rd revised site plan review Ann, it should be noted that I have not seen anything for the hydrant requirement for Huerta at 22551 Mt Eden Road. If this project starts first, the hydrant will be required prior to the delivery of combustible construction materials. Do you have any info on the Huerta project? Hal SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone: 408-867-9001 Fax: 408-867-2780 www.saratogafire.com <http://www.saratogafire.com> PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE #: 03-272 DATE: January 7, 2004 (Note: this transmittal was in Central Fire District office prior to being given to Saratoga Fire) Note: received revised site plan, comments for this submittal dated July 22, 2004, shown in italics. # OF LOTS: One APPLICANT: Shankar LOCATION: 22461 Mt Eden Road PROJECT: demolish existing main dwelling, construct new 8,233 sq ft main dwelling, convert existing single story building to 1,170 sq ft second dwelling unit. Note: revised site plans shows increase in total floor area to 8,415 sq ft for the main dwelling, second dwelling remains same size. 1; Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 2: Fire hydrants: developecathons.~nHydran~(s)fshallybeainstalledeand Saratoga Fire District s spec~f accepted prior to construction of any building. (City of sarato~a code 14-30.040 [a]) NOTE: this requirement will be waived when a previous project -for Huerta @ 22551 not Eden Road DR-01-018 completes its hydrant requirement. If the Huerta project does not fulfill this hydrant requirement, then the Shankar project will be required to provide one hydrant. 3; Roof covering shall be fire 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) 4; Early wacondgdwellingaunitssteEarlylwarninnsFireeAlarm Sastem~shaljor both main and se g have documentation relative to nc~tpforoaeprovalall(City ofd5aratogaeCode submitted to Saratoga Fire Dist p 16-60) 5; Automatic sprinklers shall be installed for the new 8a~a3e8,415 sq. ft. main dwelling and 1,170 sq ft second dwelling including any g 9 workshop, storage areas and basement. An NFPA 13R sprinkler system with a single 2.5" Fire Department Connection (FDC) and 4 head calculation is required for each dwelling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropri-ate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and under round water. supply must be installed by a licensedtcoofrsaratoga(Code 16-20r165gforode 16-20.150 for fire flow >2,000 gpm; C y designated Hazardous .Fire- Area, all new buildings except accessory structures #500 sq ft) Page 1 ~~~~~~ 22461 mt eden rd revised site plan review 6: Driveways: All new or improved driveways shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet wide with a one foot shoulder on each side. (City of Saratoga code 16-15.200, as required by Saratoga Fire District) a: unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) b: Maximum driveway gradient shall not exceed eighteen percent (18%) for more than fifty (50) feet. c: Finished slopes from level to 12.5% shall have at least a six-inch aggregate base and a double-coat oil and screening surface. d: Finished slopes greater than 12.5% to15% shall have at least a six inch aggregate base and a two inch asphalt concrete surface. e: Finished slopes greater than 15% to 18% shall have at least a six inch aggregate base and four inch rough-surface (Portland cement) concrete surface. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.200, as required by Saratoga Fire District) 7: Parkin: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the- proposed dwelling site or as required by Saratoga Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. Note: site plans show off street parking for 2 vehicles. 8: 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) 9: The protJect shows an existing propane tank. A permit from Saratoga Fire District shall be obtained for the use and maintenance of such tank in accordance with CFC Article 82. Provide adequate vehicle protection such as guard posts or bollards.- (CFC 8001.11.3) APPROVED: HAL NETTER PLAN CHECKER: HAL NETTER Page 2 ~~~~~~ r Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Welsh, Associate Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for 03-272, 22461 Mt. Eden Road (Shankar) DATE: July 1, 2004 Conditions of approval are as follow: 1.. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, design parameters for foundations, pool shell, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant shall verify that adequate erosion control measures are specified for areas of fill placement. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Engineering Geologist 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 keyways, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of engineered fill, steel and concrete. Due to the complexity of site landslide conditions, at a minimum, daily inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be completed during grading of identified landslides areas. Keyways excavated for the placement of fill materials, and the basement excavation, shall be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to confirm site geologic interpretations. The Project Engineering Geologist shall log excavations and cut slopes. Data from these mapped exposures shall be included in project documentation. -1- ~~~~~~ The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic .and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final (as-built) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 4. 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. 5. Applicant shall submit plans to Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department for review and approval. All conditions required by the Roads and Airports Department shall be incorporated into Grading and Drainage Plan or other development. plans prior to issuance of its. All conditions shall be fulfilled prior to final project approval. Encroachment Permit perm shall be issued by the Roads and Airports Department prior to commencement of any work in the County right-of--way. • - 2 - ~~~~t ~~1~ • 04 ' ~~, ,~ .~.. ~. "~,'i;D ~~ O e 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22,1956 January 8, 2004 Udaya Shankar 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 22461 Mt. Eden Road,' Saratoga Geotechnical Review Dear Mr. Shankar: Stan Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline .Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Attached please find Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated January 7, 2004. Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation needs to be prepazed as per recommended action No. 1 of the review letter. Please submit two copies of the addendum report summarizing required information for further review. Upon the satisfactory completion of the outlined tasks, Geotechnical Clearance can be issued. . If you have any questions regarding Geotechnical Clearance process, please do not hesitate to call me at (408) 868-1274. Sincerely, r • Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer Public Works Department Co: Ann Welsh, Community Development Department ~~~~~~~ ~ C ~~~ ~~ ~~ ° ° `BOO ~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: January 7, 2004 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S0283) IZE: Shankar, DR-03-272 22461 Mt. Eden Road At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale) prepared by Lee Engineers, dated December 10, 2003. • Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, Existing Floor Plans and Elevations, Landscape Plan (8 sheets 20- and 4-scales) prepared by Robert Aviles Design, dated November 2003; and Geologic Hazard and Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed D'Angelo Residence, 22461 Mt. Eden Road, • Saratoga, California (report) prepared by Milstone Geotechnical, dated Apri118, 2000. we have erformed a site inspection, reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office ~ In addition, P files, and discussed aspects of the subject application with the applicant and project geotechnical consultant. DISCUSSION Based on our review of the referenced plans, the applicant proposes to demolish an existing residence, barn and shed, and construct new structures in the same general vicinity as the older structures (in the eastern portion of an irregularly shaped lot). The property is bounded on the west and north by Mt. Eden Road, on the south by an existing residential development, and on the east by an undeveloped parcel. The new improvements include atwo-story residence -and attached garage and basement, swimming pool and surrounding deck, and new driveway and patio. An existing, detached garage would remain, and be converted into a secondary dwelling. The referenced Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the proposed construction would involve approximately 490 cubic yards of excavation and 530 cubic yards of fill (net im ort of 40 cubic ards). P y ~~~~~~ John Cherbone Page 2 ONDITIONS SITE C January 7, 2004 S0283 The subject property is generally characterized by moderately steep to steep (10 to 40 percent inclination), south-facing, natural valley and surrounding hillside topography. The eastern portion of the property is generally defined by asouth-flowing ephemeral drainage ravine. Grading associated with construction of existing site improvements, Mt. Eden Road and improvements on adjacent parcels has resulted in local cut and fill slopes with gradients up to 50 percent inclination. Drainage on the property is characterized by uncontrolled sheetflow directed to the south and channeled flow within the eastern ravine. The property is underlain, at depth, by bedrock materials of the Santa Claza Formation (i.e., conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and expansive claystone). The bedrock material is overlain by potentially expansive silty clay and sandy clay with gravel (soil, colluvium and artificial fill). According to the City's geologic map, the intact bedrock materials are overlain by a lazge, shallow landslide complex. The Ground Movement Potential Map of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed indicates that the property is located within the "Ps" category: "Ps" is defined as "relatively unstable material including landslide debris, surficial slope materials (i.e., thin soil, slope wash, colluvium, etc.) and weak bedrock; commonly less than 10 feet in.thickness on gentle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, and soil creep activity." The subject property is located approximately 1,200 feet and 1.5 miles east, respectively, of mapped traces of the potentially active Berrocal fault and the active San Andreas fault. During past reconnaissances of the area, we have observed open cracks in Mt. Eden Road just west of the property. The cracking is associated with periods of heavy rainfall and is believed to be caused by slow downslope landslide movement. Downhole observations of large-diameter boreholes drilled on the adjacent pazcel to the east revealed landsliding to depths of approximately 25 feet; however, those depths do not necessarily indicate the depths of other landslides in the vicinity of the property. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed development is potentially constrained by expansive surficial and bedrock materials, soil creep, landsliding, adverse drainage, and the susceptibility of the site to strong seismic ground shaking. The referenced geologic and geotechnical report (Milstone, 2001) addresses a different development plan (for a previous owner) than what is shown on the referenced plans. The previous development site was located in the western portion of the property, whereas the current development plan places new improvements in the eastern portion of the property. Although data, findings and recommendations presented in the 2001 report may be generally applicable for the current development, some additional investigation and design considerations are required to fully address the new application. John Cherbone Page 3 January 7, 2004 S0283 ~~ ~~ According to the 2001 Milstone report, the new residential structure -would be located on the toe of a Dormant landslide (Dls). Previous site exploration on the subject property and adjacent parcel to the east indicates that landsliding .may locally be on the order of 25 feet in depth. However, site-specific landslide parameters and the long-term stability of the proposed development site have not -been determined. Consequently, we recommend that supplemental site exploration and laboratory testing be conducted to characterize the landslide conditions impacting the building site, and slope stability analyses be completed to demonstrate long-term site stability. In addition, other geotechnical aspects of the proposed development need to be evaluated and addressed in the form of geotechnical design criteria and construction recommendations (e.g., proposed swimming pool, use of existing barn walls to support the driveway cut, etc.). We recommend that the applicant retain the services of a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Geotechnical Engineer to characterize site-specific conditions, evaluate potential constraints to the proposed development, and provide design criteria to mitigate potential constraints prior to Geotechnical Cleazance: 1. Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Eneineerin Investi ation - A Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct asite-specific investigate ' vesti ation shall include, but not necessarily be limited to of the new buildmg sites. Them g following: • The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare an updated engineering geologic map and cross sections at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1"=20'). The map and cross sections shall depict the extent and probable thickness of earth materials (fill, colluvium, apparent landslide debris and bedrock), natural and aztificial slopes, existing and proposed topographic conditions, and locations of proposed structures and unprovements. • The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall assess the long- - term stability of the building sites, including the impact that the proposed development may have on slope stability. Supplemental subsurface exploration appears necessary to more clearly identify the characteristics of the underlying landslide(s) (i.e.; landslide boundaries, depth, strength characteristics, etc.). We recommend that the consultants utilize appropriate subsurface investigation methods, such as large-diameter borings or hand-dug excavated shafts, which allow the geologist to directly inspect and log excavation walls and perform detailed sampling of identified shear surfaces. The consultants shall obtain representative samples and perform appropriate laboratory tests to provide characterization of geotechnical properties as a basis for slope stability analyses. ~~~~~ - John Cherbone January 7, 2004 ~~ Page 4 S0283 Geotechnical desi recommendations shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, recommendations for uplift forces in areas of expansive soil and bedrock materials (if applicable) and lateral forces for foundation design. Foundation .design criteria shall include recommendations for m;n;mum pier depth, pier diameters, and steel reinforcement. Recommendations shall be provided for improving surface drainage problems in the vicinity of the building sites. • The City requires that proposed basements be investigated by a Certified Hydrogeologist. It is our understanding that the City's concern is with the potential for adverse drainage or surfacing of subsurface water in the basement. Therefore, the project geotechnical consultants shall provide recommendations for under-slab drains (such as a minimum of 6 inches of gravel hydraulically connected to a perforated pipe running down the center of the slab) that are hydraulically connected to a sump with a pump, or other appropriate measures to mitigate the potential for surfacing of subsurface water. In addition, an impervious barrier (such as minimum 10 millimeter thick plastic sheeting) shall be considered between the recommended sand and gravel for a more effective capillary break under concrete slab-on-grade floors. • We understand that the previous consultant has been contacted by the applicant and -will likely perform the supplemental investigation. However, if another consultant is retained, then the new geologic and geotechnical consultants shall review data, findings and design criteria presented in the previous report (MiLstone 2001), construct an original engineering geologic map and cross sections, and provide a new report addressing all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the new development. The consultant should discuss the intended investigation with the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to site exploration. The results of the Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation shall be s,~mmarized in an addendum report with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to Geotechnical Clearance. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have .been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. ~a~~~~~. .. A ~ d O ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O~ ~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVEIvt1E • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 195G March 16, 2004 Udaya Shankar 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga Geotechnical Review Stan Bogosian Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Dear Mr. Shankar: Attached please find Geologic and Geotechnical Review .letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated March 15, 2004. Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation needs to be prepared as per recommended action No. 1 of the review letter. Please submit two copies of the addendum report summarizing required information to the City for fiuther review. Upon the satisfactory completion of the outlined tasks, Geotechnical Clearance can be issued. In addition, please submit one copy of all documents and drawings- submitted to Cotton, Shires and Associates to me. Thank you. If you have any questions regarding Geotechriical Clearance process, please do not hesitate to call me at (408) 868-1274. Sincerely, Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer Public Works Department Co: :Ann Welsh, Community Development Department ~:: ~~~ o~~~~~~ .~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Review (S0283A) RE: Shankaz, DR-03-272 22461 Mt. Eden Road DATE: March 15, 2004 At your request, we have completed a geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale) prepared by Lee Engineers, dated Mazch 1, 2004. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files pertaining to the revious application, and discussed aspects of the subject application with the applicant and project P geotechnical consultant. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing residence, barn and shed, and construct new structures in the west-central portion of an irregularly shaped lot. An existing barn would remain. The referenced Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the proposed construction would involve approximately 1,100 cubic yards of excavation and 1,100 cubic yards of fill (zero net import/export). A large portion of the planned fill would be used to construct a level grass play area atop an identified landslide. The referenced plan reflects a revision from the previous submittal, which depicted new improvements in the eastern portion of the property. We understand that the applicant has opted to revise proposed building sites in an attempt to avoid the landslide impacting the previously selected building locations. In our previous review memorandum (dated January 7, 2004), we noted that property development is potentially constrained by expansive surficial and bedrock materials, soil creep, landsliding, adverse drainage, and the susceptibility of the site to strong seismic ground shaking.. A previously submitted geologic and geotechnical report (Milstone, 2001) addresses a different development plan (for a previous owner) than what ~~~~ ~~~ john Cherbone ' Page 2 March 15, 2004 50283A Tans. Althou h data, findings and recommendations presented in the 2001 rep is shown on the referenced p g may be generally applicable for the current development, some additional investigation and design considerations appear to be required to fully address the new application.- According to the City's geologic map, the bedrock materials underlying the property are overlain by a lar e, shallow landslide complex.- The Ground Movement Potential Map 1of the Upper,Calabazas Creek g Watershed indicates that the property is located within the "Ps" category. "Ps is defined as relatively unstab thin soil sl wash colluvium, etc.) and weak bedrock; material including landslide debris, surficial slope materials (i.e., ~ commonly less than 10 feet in thickness on gentle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow iandsliding, slumping, and soil creep activity." Durin$ past reconnaissances of the area, we have observed open cracks in Mt. Eden Road just west of the property. The cracking is associated with periods of heavy rainfall and is believed to be then the western landslide caused by slow downslope landslide movement. If caused by slope movement, identified as "Old" (Ols) by previous consultants would actually be an Active landslide (Als). Downhole observations of large-diameter boreholes drilled on the adjacent parcel to the east rave ee deanthdsss o~the depths of approximately 25 feet; however, those depths do not necessarily indicate th p landslides in the vicinity of the property. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Observation of large-diameter borehole LD-2, excavated within the currently proposed building envelope as art of the 2001 Ivlilstone investigation, did not identify the presence of shearing associated with P landsliding. However, landsliding of variable activity is present to the west, north and east of the propose building site, and the extent of these landslides have not been well defined. Despite -the apparent lack of obvious shearing in borehole LD-2, additional subsurface exploration is needed to characterize the potential im act of landsliding on the building site (and to demonstrate the lack of landsliding underlying the site). P Consequently, we recommend that supplemental site exploration and laboratory testing be conducted to characterize the landslide conditions impacting the building site, and slope stability analyses be completed to demonstrate long-term site stability. In addition, other geotechnical aspects of the proposed development need to be evaluated and addressed in the form of geotechnical design criteria -and construction recommendations (e.g., proposed swimming pool, use of existing barn walls to support the driveway cut, etc ) We recommend that the applicant retain the services of a Certified Engineering Geologist othe a osterea Geotechnical Engineer to characterize site-specific conditions, evaluate potential constramts p develo ment, and provide design criteria to mitigate potential constraints prior to Geotechnical Clearanc P ~~~~~~~ ,~ : John Cherbone ' Page 3 • • March 15, 2004 S0283A 1. Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - A Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct asite-specific investigation of the new building sites. The investigation shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: • The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall assess the long- term stability of the proposed development sites (structures, driveway, and playground azea), including the impact that the proposed development may have on -slope stability. Historical aerial photographs should be reviewed to help characterize landsliding in the vicinity of the property. Supplemental subsurface exploration appears necessary to more clearly identify. the characteristics of the landslide(s) in close proximity to (and/or underlying) the proposed development (i.e., cleaz definition of landslide boundaries, depth, strength characteristics, etc.). We recommend that the consultants, utilize appropriate subsurface investigation methods, such as large-diameter borings or hand-dug excavated shafts, which allow the geologist to directly inspect and log excavation walls and perform detailed sampling of identified shear- surfaces. As needed, the consultants- -shall obtain representative samples and perform appropriate laboratory tests to provide characterization of geotechnical properties as a basis for slope stability analyses. The potential for adverse impacts to' the house site from future movement of nearby landslides (encroachment or removal of support) should be evaluated. The potential contribution that the proposed fill prism may have on the identified landslide in the western portion of the property should be evaluated. • The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare an updated engineering geologic map and cross sections at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1"=20'). The map and cross sections shall depict the extent and probable thickness of earth materials (fill, colluvium, apparent landslide debris and bedrock), natural and artificial slopes, existing and proposed topographic conditions, and .locations of proposed structures and improvements. The locations of fissures are other possible deformation in Mt. Eden Road should be depicted on the map and cross sections. 0 Geotechnical design recommendations shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, recommendations for uplift forces in areas of expansive soil and bedrock materials (if applicable) and lateral forces for foundation design. Foundation design criteria shall ~,; ~~~~~ ~,, '~ March 15, 2004 John Cherbone 50283A ' Page 4 recommendations for minimum pier depth, pier diameters, and steel reinforcement. mclude Recommendations shall be provided for improving surface drainage problems in the vicinity of the building sites. • The City requires that proposed basements be investigated by a Certified Hydrogeologist. It is our understanding that the City's concern is with the potential for adverse drainage or surfacing of subsurface water in the basement. Therefore, the project geotechnical consultants shall provide recommendations for under-slab drains (such as a minimum of 6 inches of gravel hydraulically connected to a perforated pipe running down the center of the slab) that are hydraulically connected to a sump with a pump, or other appropriate measures to mitigate the potential for surfacing of subsurface water. In addition, an impervious barrier (such as minimum 10 millimeter thick plastic sheeting) shall be considered between the recommended sand and gravel for a more effective capillary break under concrete slab-on-grade floors. • We understand that the previous consultant has been contacted. by the applicant and will likely perform the supplemental. investigation. However, if another consultant is retained, then the new geologic and geotechnical consultants shall review data, findings and design criteria presented in the previous report (Milstone 2001), construct an original engineering geologic map and cross sections, and provide a new report addressing all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the new development. The consultant should discuss the intended investigation with the City Geotechnical Consultant prior to site exploration, and provide the City with the opportunity to observe exploratory excavations prior to backfilling. The results of the Supplemental Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation shall be summarized in an addendum report with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to Geotechnical Clearance: This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property.- Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties,. either expressed or implied. ~~ ~F~ ~ • Attachment 5 • ~~~~~~~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT = # 56040242 R1 INSPECTIONS REQUIRED ! TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS CALL 408-573-zir6q G~UNTj, v' 24 HOURS BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK. o ~~~\1 I ~~i~ O, ~ ~ .t,, > o KEEP THIS PERMIT ON JOB SITE ~- `..- .: , SEE ATTACHMENTS FOR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ~ ~ ~:~ ~~~ N IK#I O E TA CV ~ .Permit Number Date Issued Expiration Date 56040242 R1 DEC 29, 2004 MAY 1`2, 2005 / '~~ ~ ~ -E ERMITTEE P ---- - Ted Ngu UDAYA SHANKAR Sr. Construction Inspector 22461 MOUNT EDEN RD Telephone SARATOGA CA 95070 (408) 872-1113 t~MIPLETED CPJVCELED LOCATION OF WORK ------- BY ------- Address Road Name Locaide 22461 MT EDEN RD @ VILLA OAKS DR 74-19-59 Inspector File Number APN Zone _________ BY ----- 3 -1 1 1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK Permit Office Installation of County Standard B/4 driveway approach with valley ATTACHMENTS gutter as shown on the attached plan sketch and detail. Revised plan sketch SPECIAL PROVISIONS Revision 1 12/29/04: *- Refer to e revised plan sketch (attached) for work above. *- Property owner is the responsible ;party to keep the sight triangle clear,`according to the plan. ,~ *- All other conditions of the original permit remain the same. ~ ~ *- Attach this to the original permit ~ ~ ~L LDE BOND INFO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BONDS AMOUNT TYPE. RELEASE DATE ~ ~ ~~ ~ Performance . ~'®~ ~~~ Labor and Material ~ ~ ~ ~ Monument Engineers Name Plan ID No. Inspection By -Roads & Airports SP No. - ~~~~~~~~ ~/~-C~~ I o ~ ~, ' ~ L.EE ENGINEERS 1211 PARK AVENUE SAN JOSE ,CALIF. 95126 ~ (408) 293-3833 JOB SFIEET NO. OF _ CALCULATED 8Y DATE CNECKEO BY DATE F _ County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Planning Office County Governmerit Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 7o West Redding Street San Jose. California 95 1 141 705 (408) 299-5780 FAX 947- l 165 Ann Welsh, AICP City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 December 29, 2004 Subject: Revised Encroachment Permit for 22461 Mt. Eden Rd. Dear Ann: Per your letter dated September 29, 2004 regarding the sight distance at the property located at 22461 Mt. Eden Rd. , I had requested that my Department revise the encroachment permit. The Roads and Airports Dept. reviewed the situation and has issued a revised Encroachment Permit which I have attached to this letter for your information. If you have further questions regarding the mater, please contact me at (408) 299- 6720. Sincerely, ~~~ Ted Nguyen planning Office, Permit Issuance Unit attachment: copy of revised permit # 56040242 R1 • • Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall, Jr.. Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras, Jr. ~~~,~(~~~ • Attachment 6 r~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES S?A?E OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ~(/~ C'~~/~L- , bein duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a I, g citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the o~ ~o day of 1lCWu-a-~y 200 that I deposited in .the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County; a. NO?ICE 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) 'd ersons are the owners of said ro erry who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing that sai p P P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was. regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~~~~ • • • N O O~ 0 0 0~~ O O O O O N O~ O~~~ 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O r O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l1~ 117 Ln lC) In In to In In Ln In l!y In In lf') to In In In tf) lL') Lf) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U a aaaaaaaaaaoaa~ C~c~c~c7c~c~~7c~C~c~?c~c~w 0000000000~00~ ~~~~~~~-~~~~~~-o ~~~a~~~~a~~~a~~z ~aaaaaaaaaa~aaa ~cncncncncncncncncncnUcnv~cn aaaaaaaa U U U U U U U U aaaaaaaa c~oc~c~ooc~c~ 00000000 ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ r 0 0 r r pN p 1.1. w W Z Z ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ UppwpppUUpwppp cncncnw wow a~~p~~~~~~Z.~~Z YYYp pC'1W ozzWZZZ~~zazza 000 H~F- ~ W W H W W W W J W W H f'ppZppp p}pp~ Z00z~z ~ww~wwwwwwpwwa g~g~co> > QF-I-OI-I-I-JJF-zI-H~ JJJQrOaO ~ncn~~~~~~mm~J~~a »>~X~(A~ ~OOr OOOr O)Of~rlnln~ CDOOMrO0000 ~000000OOOOrNrr~ N0000Cflm0aD00 ~pN(plnCpCOCOONNNrNNr rrr~QNNN 'C7 N N N N N N N~~ N N N N M N N N N N r N N N N N N ~ r N N N N N N N N N Q. N r N U U J w J J w O a~ aa~ Ja W 2 W W 2 {-~ UaU' w aQ z ~Q ~~Q zwi o~~p = ~O ~~OH~ =w~a C~7U~Q0 a ~ Uaa n-YH~ aa~~U 2 _wzowwz~~ QJwa cnWaawu. C7 U~~UU~00 cn}zm ~ m- z ~zw~zzw==~HW=~ OZ~s«s~W~~ ap~Opp~ W'~~zUZp ots~s_ otS }~ Z W~~ Z~~~} Z Z Q p N W 2 J~} Y cZC7~>C9C9~~~Y~~YQ aiU?~aa.aZ2 M 00 O ~ ~ CD N 00 O O ~ l!7 VJ ~ N 00 O t0 r N M ~ CO O N N~ d' ~' M M M O CO _O _O r N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 ~OOOOON MMMMMMMM 0000000000000 O r r r r r ~ r r ~ r r r ~- r I~ ti ti 00 CO O 00 00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M t~ t~ lO t~ ~ ll~ ll~ ll~ ll~ llO llO L~ ll~ ~ llO ll~ L~ ll~ ~ ~ ll~ l~ ll~ ~~~~~~~ • Attachment 7 • z„ , 4~~~~~~ • • August 5, 2004 Mr. Udaya Shankar 22641 Mt. Eden Road Sazatoga, CA. 95070 Deaz Mr. Shankaz: RE: Application for new home Vie have reviewed your proposal to remove an existing home and building a new structure and very appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposal. We, here at the Garrod Trust have only a concern about the amount of widening of the Road you will be required to do. The present corner is dangerous to cazs, bicycles, joggers and horses,. however your engineers may design away the problem. Our concern would be that they do not increase the problem. Otherwise Good Luck in your building and we look forwazd to having you as a neighbor. ' cere y, Vince S. Garrod: Trustee, Garrod Trust -w- -_--~-==_:== - _. ~- _ L' '~',L ~ ~..~~ 1~Tefghbor Nutilicu~uuL Template for Development Applications Date: ~' 3i 2bo PROJE DRESS : L?1j- b f M aw1~ ~~ ~d ~~ sa~R ~ ~~ ~ ° ~° Applicant Name: r, ~ fr • S~aM ~f Application Number:,, d 3 -2 ~ 2 The Saratoga Planning Commission re.~~~irps applicants to work with them' 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 solictted by ~ applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have diregtly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of thr vpintor~ expressed below, you "may reserve-tTie right io amend your opinion- at a later date and communicate it to the City ojSaratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I-have reviewed the project•plans; I un erstand the scope of work: amd Y do NOT have any eoDCertis or issues wbieh need to be address by the appIIcant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed project. ^N1y signature below certifies the following: I have re~G-iewpd the prgjeet plans:l understand the scope o wor1~; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion Yvitb the applicant, have oot been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): NcighborNamc• ~ ~ ' c"-~r~ Neighbor Addresc~a: a gyn. Neighbor PhonC 1F: ,$ ~- C~ ~~ Signature: Printed: • ~~ ~ ~%~ ~ ~ h ~' °`"r ~ • ;,.~.. Ciey of Saratoga PlanningDeparim~~~~~~~ Neighbor Nutif catiun Template for - Developlment Applications Date: '3 2t't' PROJE DRESS: ~~ ( ~~. . So-r~~ ~ c,~}--q 5 0~•0 • Applicant Nau~e: f F n • ~ ~n,A,vb~-q r ' Application Number: 0 3 - 2 ~-2 . The Saratoga Planning Commission req~~irpc applicants to work with theft' 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 conce»is and issues when soticited by ~ applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, fj`'and the Planning Commission prefer that ~ R neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have dtregtly . to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents restdtng on yourproperry. Irrespective vjth~ opinion expressed below, you -may reserve-the right to amend your opinioriat a later date and communicate it to the ~ - • • -- City of Saratoga. Neighbor I~?am ~ ~' ~~=iGC~ Neighbor Addrpca. 1Vly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject•plans; ~ 11n~~-stand the~scope of work: and Y do NOT have any concertis or issues vvbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed project. • • ^11+Iy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the prajeet pleas: I . understand the scope of work; and I have issues or eot~cerns, which- after discussion - • with the applicant, have aot been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Mo R ~rr~-L u~ ~T P 1.4.1 s ~~eo~~~ do 2 ~.g~rte, T~ ~ollBwc'~` con,~•v7~',• / ~ /vt T -M ~ ~ ~n~~ l~ c. u -~ i i-l f R o o -~ 'f't ~s . ,~t o T (fit-p/~ y ~,,,~ '~ c Ott - p e ~.-r • •p~(f'~/ r3~cn4-ctS,e o~ j~oT~•e..t,Tiv~-C, ~~pos~'~ 57~~~jG . ~05',~~~o o e.v co c~ C (~'R '. ~ D 2~' / `~ ' Jz-~.~+~'Ik11 1'1114 G.. L p~ v C,~ ~ %~~ i +'-~~.~ /1[ ~ 2Zr - lli/ ~s~i/. ~~~~~9~BPi}~, L°~ Neighbor Phone ~: ~~~~1- ~ (`~ ~ Signature: 1'~~: ~ - • ,.=._: Ciey of Saratoga ~ Planning Aepartm~nt ~-. ~- Nefghbor Nutiiica•liun Template for Development Applications Date: `~ 3 0 ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 2-~1-~I MOUNT ~.~N P-o~~~A-~-To~~~ CA~15o•~ Applicant Natae: ~. ~l~ . V hAy1-! ~ N~N+~~2. ~ • Application Number: C~ 3 - 2 ~2 The Saratoga Planning Commission req~airps applicants to work with their. neighbors t0 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 rhat neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have diregtYy to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yourproperty. Irrespecttves uftJ,r opieio-i expressezd below, you 'may" reserve i3ie 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 project•plans; ~ ~lnderstand the scope of work; aztd T do NOT have any concerts or issues vvbich need to be addresa by the Aplicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the proposed project. ^My si~ature below certifies the following: I have ret-iewP.d the project plans:l understand the scope of worl~; and I have issues or concerns, which after- dfscussion with the applicant, have aot been addressed. My concerns are: the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Ncighbor Name ~. ~ ~'~~~- - Neighbor Addresa~a: 2,11 ~ ~ ~!~) (LOA~.~ ~ S A~ t pC,o+- Neighbor Phone ~~ , ~ ~•~~ ~ - ~.~ U ~ Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: PlanningDepartm~nt • • 1~leigbbor Nutirca~tiun Template for • Developanent Applications Date: ~ ~ ~ ~'o ,Z ~- '~~ 1 ~ Sd PROJEC DRE S:_ ~"6 ( ~'ia.+ ~ r~ ~ ~~ ~ Applicant Nazue: ~~'' ~ (Y • S~~ r - Application Number: d 3 -2 } Z The Saratoga Planning Commission re.~~eirpc apj~lirants to work with them' neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on [he 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. Stafj'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have diregtly to the applicant_ Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yourproperty. Irrespective uf~he vpinton expressed below, you -may reserve•the ri,~ht to amend your opinion at a later date arui communicate it to the City of Saratoga. t ,~y signature below certifies the following: I have rev;eweA the project•plans; ~ understand the scope of work; have any conceros ox issues vvbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hesaring nn the. proposed project. • ~R ~-,~ ^N1y signature below certifies the following: I have rei~iewP.A the project plans: I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or eoucerns, which after discussion witb the applicant, hove not been addressed. My concerns are: the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: r'~ ~ ~ G, b ~ a } q n Neighbor Address: ~D ~~ ~ ~, C`~ • ~ -. Neighbor Phone ~: ~~ I c~S ~~ ~•~~ ° X ' ~ ~~ Ciey of Saratoga Planning.Departm~nt ~~ ,~,~~ . ~ ~~ ~;,~L~ti>~ Nefghbor NutiricaUun Template for Development Applications Date: ~ 31 n PR07EC DRESS:L7~1-~ I I~ot~ ~ ~r-~ ~o ~ Sttrz~-Ir~~er, «-9 5c'~ Applicant Name: ~ ~n - S r . Application Number: D's -2~ 2 The Saratoga Planning Commission requira_~ ~plirants to work with their neighbors t0 address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not took 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 diregrly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of ail residents residing on your property. Irrespective of chi vpinfon expressed bclow, you -may reserve ifie 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 pmjeet•plans; ~ »nderstand the scope of wor ~ and Y do NOT have any concerns or issues vvbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewP.d the project pleas: I understand the scope o, f awr1~; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion yvitb the applicant, have aot been addressed. My concerns are the fallowing (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~ 74~ ~' Neighbor Name: -i7©~i~'~ `~' ~= p C ~ . Neighbor Addzpaa: Neighbor Phone fF: ~~' ~ r Signature: P ~ ted: . r • ~ _. • a~- ~. '~t _ ~ .i iS.. t:~.~ ~' C=ty of Saratoga Planning Department • R njA~elAy'~`;~ _ ~ ..- - - -- - ---r---- --- Development Appllcationa Date: - ti~ 3% 2-G'~~- PRDJE~T ADDRESS: d~2~-~f, ~ ~ OZt~~ ~~ ~ " ~ `lj ~ ~1vcti~ , Applir.~t Nemec: ~~ 0.i ~ ~ ~ ~a r Application Number: b3 - Z~ Z Tha .Saratoga Planing Commission r~cir~c applirmtts to work with theft. neighliprs tQ address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing an the proposed projee#. The ~'lanning Commission does.not look favorably upon neighbors wTio fQll to voice their concerns and issues when selicfted by + applicardEs prior to the public hearing Sta,,~'and the Planning Cornmisstan prefer that neighbors take tlafs oppariunity to express any cone or issues they may have dtre~tly to the applicant. Please etrs~ the signature on this document is representative of al! resutenta residing Qn your properly. Irrespeclivg ujcle up/xivn txpresaad below, you may rescue -tlie right ~ amend ,Yom' opinion at a later tote arrd cornmutsicate it to the cuY ojsaratogu. ~M[y signature below certifies the fo]]owang; I heve re:viewal the project~plans; j u~crstaad the sccrae of wo • end T da MDT bane any concerns aa~ issues whleb need to 4~e ad~ess b~- t6t t~pplicutt prior to the City's publir. hearing cm the. P~~ Prol~• ' ~My signature below certif es the fotlowing: I have reviewrcl the prcajetit plans; j }~.derstand the scope ~f wvz~; and I ba~-e ~su~ ar ~ncerns, wbfeh S.ie?' discuss}oe wiUa the apptlsasrt, hs~~c net been addressed. My csmccrns arr. tke fallowing (pkgse attach additional shits if necessary): f o, Neighbor Name: ~-1~ tr 1 ~- S, 4~rq U1 ~ ~~~ , Neighbor A.delre~+s: ~A ~ (3 7a ~ A ., ~ ! So 7 o Neighboz Phone {~: 1-/O S - g G 7 - 3 ~Gj Sfgas~ture: Printed: ~: ,.~-. G'fsy of Sarntaga Planning Department ~~~~~~ Nefghbor Nutifca~iiuu Template for Development Applications Date: 3 2ootf. _ l - PROJECT AD RESS: Z~-b 1 ~ ~- ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ 5 °~" Applicant Name: r. ~ Ir . ~ S~vt K~r" . Application Number:_ d 3 ~- 27 2- The SaratoSa Planning Commission re.~~~irps applicants to work with then' 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 soticited by ~ applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f,~and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to e~zpress any concerns or issues they may have diregtly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents restdtng on yourproperty. Irrespective ujth~ vplnto-i expressed below, you ~muy reserve tfie right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga -~c y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject~plans; I understand the scope of work: aztd Y do NOT have any concertis or issues vvbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed prgject. ^IVty signature below certifies the following: I have rer-iewP.d the project plans: I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion ~vitb the applicant, have not been addressed. Icy concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets- if necessary): / , ~,,e. ~l.~C~+S k~~_ iu ~~~ Kul -~ ~ C~ ~ S-a ~/ OCrf G~J l -~-~. ~G-1v~ ~J 1 Neighbor Name: L ~-+ (~ , ~ t GI Z'J'7 J~Qe^~/ C7 L ~~ 0~/~t..~ ~~ J7''V~iT~-~' '1 • Neighbor pddrpaa: ~-~:~ ~~ 22 S [ ~-~- ~~ ~J° ~ ~~~ ~S~Z i5 Z~ ~~'~ ~ Neighbor Phone ~. si dtun: ~, %~cc.,.l.~ __ City of Saratoga Printed: • • -~,_ -- -~ ~~ Planning Deparim~nt ~~~~~ • Attachment 8 ~, J ~~~~~~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: .March 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Ann Welsh, AICP DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Initiation of Annexation Proceedings for Shankar Property, 22461 Mount Eden Road (APN: 503-80-O1) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council discuss the subject annexation -and direct staff to proceed with the implementation process discussed below. REPORT SUMMARY: The applicant for the property located at 22461 Mount Eden Road has submitted an annexation application. This application is submitted in concert with an application for approval to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the 1.89-acre parcel. The subject parcel abuts the municipal boundary and is within the City's Sphere of Influence: Due to the location of the parcel and proposed development, the City policy is to evaluate the annexation. Pr ed xatian 22461 Mt. Eden San lava my ity of Sarato a 0 -N- soo ' so`o ~'soo ' 1200 1500 n _~ -~ ~ i • City Council Report -Shankar Annexation ~;~~~~~ DISCUSSION: The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the Act) provides that cities in Santa Clara County may proceed independently of the (Local Agency Formation Commission) LAFCO in processing annexation applications within the City's urban service area. (Government Code 4 56757.) The Act requires, however, that the City follow the procedures used by LAFCO to the maximum extent practicable) (See Government Code 4 56757.) The Act establishes athree-part process for annexations: (1) Initiation of Annexation (see Gov't Code 44 57000(a) and 56650 et seq.); (2) Protest Proceedings (see Gov't Code 57000 et seq.); and (3) Approval of Annexation (see Gov't Code 4 56757). Initiation of Annexation 1. Preparation of Supporting Documents. The Act and other state laws require that annexation proponents prepare a number of documents as part of the annexation process. Before commencing with public hearings, staff will prepare or cause to be prepared these documents. The documents fall in three categories: a service plan, LAFCO materials, and the California Environmental Quality Act. These are . described below. A. Service Plan. Government Code sections 56653 and 56700 requires that all annexations begin with a proposed service plan for the area to be annexed. The plan must include the following components: i. A description of the land to be annexed including a map prepared by the City Surveyor; ii. A list of the organizational changes proposed (in this case, annexation to -the City and perhaps City assumption of public services currently provided by special districts. Staff has not yet ascertained what, if any, districts would be affected by this proposal.); iii. The reasons for the proposal; iv. A listing and description of the services to be provided to the annexed lands together with a discussion of the level and range of services to be offered; v. An indication of when the services listed can feasibly be extended to the annexed lands; vi. An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions that the City would impose or require on the annexed lands; and vii. Information on how the services to be provided would be financed. B. LAFCO Materials. Cities in Santa Clara County proceeding independently of LAFCO are required to make the findings listed below before approving an annexation. (See Gov't Code 56757(c).) Although the formal findings need not be made until the end of the process, staff believes it is prudent to prepare the documentation necessary to support the findings before embarking on the public review process. The City will be required to make the following findings. Each 2 of 6 ~~'~~,~~ finding is followed by a brief description of the process staff will use to develop the information available. i. That the unincorporated territory is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by the commission. Staff has confirmed that this is the case for the of fected properties. ii: That the county surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposal to be definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. The city shall reimburse the county for the actual costs incurred by the county surveyor in making -this determination. The City Surveyor must prepare this information for review by the County Surveyor. iii. That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership. Staff will work with the County Assessor's of f ice to obtain confirmation of this fact. iv. That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services.. Staff has reviewed thegeography of the proposed annexation and concluded that it would not create an island or present difficulties inproviding municipal services since the majority of services will remain the same. Typically an annexation in-the middle of a block would create difficulties for emergency service response as to what jurisdiction is responsible. Because of the unique situation, that the City of Saratoga service contractors are the same as the County, it will reduce impacts of providing services. v. That the proposal is consistent with the adopted general plan of the city. The land use designation for .the lands to be annexed is RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation); this is consistent with the existing uses of the lands to be annexed The land has been prezoned Hillside Residential which is consistent with the General Plan designation and the surrounding zoning. The General Plan provides that lands in the hillsides should be considered for annexation if they meet the following General Plan Policies: L U.1.1 Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the existing City Limits and it is determined by the City that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. LLL1.1(Imp) Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic and urban service impacts to the City. Staf f has discussed this annexation with the City geologist and a geotechnical report has been prepared for the proposed house. The geologist expressed concern with annexation of Mount Eden Road,- which provides frontage for this parcel. The geologist recommended eliminating the road from the annexation process, since the long-term maintenance of the road could be costly due to underlying instability. 3 of 6 ~ ~~~ ~~ vi. That the territory is contiguous to existing city limits. Staff has confirmed this fact and will be obtaining a report from the City Surveyor. vii. That the city has complied with all conditions imposed by the LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the city. Staf f is investigating the conditions that were imposed at the time the urban service area was approved to confirm that the City has complied. C. California Environmental Quality Act. Annexations are projects subject to the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case it appears that the annexation would be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines. That section provides that annexations are categorically exempt from CEQA review if they include only existing structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency whichever is more restrictive. Staff is confirming that this exemption applies. If an exemption is not available, a negative declaration would likely be required; this would require a total of three months for preparation and public review prior to the City's final action. 2. Notice to Affected Agencies. The Act requires that notice of pending annexations be given to all agencies potentially affected by the annexation. (See Gov't Code 56654, 56658(b).) In this case the County may be the only such entity. Staff is dete~in~ng whether there would be any other agencies. This notice would be sent at least 21 days prior to the date proposed for Council action on the determination to initiate proceedings and maybe sent before completion of all the items listed above. Determination to Initiate Proceedings. Based on the background information prepared by staff and the comments of any affected agencies the Council would determine whether to formally initiate annexation proceedings. This would occur at a regular Ciry Council meeting to be scheduled as soon as possible following completion of the items described in item 1, above. Waiver of Protest Proceedings The city may waive the protest proceedings if the following criteria can be met: 1. All owners of land within the affected area consent to annexation and the area is considered uninhabited (an area with less than 12 registered voters). The Shanher annexation falls into this category since the applicant has applied for annexation and the parcel is an area with less than 12 registered voters. 2. All affected agencies that gain or lose territory give consent to waiver of protest proceedings. Written consent from the county to waiveprotest proceedings will be requested. The city must give the county mailed notice of the filing of petition or resolution of application initiating annexation proceedings by the city. The city shall not take any action on the resolution of application initiating proceedings for 10 days following the mailing. The county 4 of 6 ~ ~~~~~~ during the ten-day period may through a written demand request the city to make determinations on the proposal only after notice and hearing. If no written demand is filed, the city may make determinations without notice or hearings. Annexation Approval If there are no protests then City Council must adopt a resolution ordering the annexation. The resolution must contain the findings specified in Government Code section 56757 and discussed above. Following adoption of the resolution, staff would file the resolution and relevant supporting documents with LAFCO and the annexation would be complete. The timeline below is an estimate based on the services of several consultants and working with other agencies. It may proceed more quickly or slower based on individual responses. Annexation Timeline March Aril Ma June Jul 4 weeks 4 weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks Service Plan Count Review Res and to Notice of filin A rove Annexation Surve Ma Count Comments Geolo Re ort No written demand for notice or hearin 3 Months CEQA, if not exem t FISCAL IMPACTS: The following list of fees is an estimate. Additional fees may be required as the process continues. LAFCO processing fees-------------------------------------''-'---$340 State Board of Equalization fee based on less than Sacres----$350 Reimbursement of the County Surveyor---------------------~--Unknown City Staff time------------------------------------------------------- 60 hours City Surveyor .........:...:...........................................$5,000 City Geologist--------------------------------------------------------$5,000 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff will proceed with the annexation as directed by Council. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: • • 5 of 6 At the direction of Council Staff will proceed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The item has been placed on the City Council Agenda, noticed and posted pursuant to Government Code 54954.2. ATTACHMENTS: None • • ~~~~~ 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO.04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAR.ATOGA INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22461 MOUNT EDEN ROAD AND SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACCEPT PROTESTS OF SAID ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the City Council is considering the annexation of a parcel of land located at 22461 Mount Eden Road contiguous to the City of Saratoga in order to provide for use of City services and to apply the terms of the City General Plan and City Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council has determined the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is the conducting authority for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the proposed property to be annexed on Mount Eden Road is located in the Ciry of Saratoga's Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence and is Pre-zoned Hillside Residential; and WHEREAS, the Ciry has consulted with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters and determined that said temtory has two registered voters and is therefore considered uninhabited for the purposes of annexation proceedings; RE BE IT RESOLVED that the Ci Council of the City of Saratoga hereby NOW, THEREFO tY initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the territory known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503-80-O1 at 22461 Mount Eden Road (with the exception of the Mount Eden Road right of way) to the City at a public hearing on the proposed annexation on May 5, 2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the Ciry of Saratoga hereby directs the City Clerk to issue all required notices regarding the public hearing described above. The above Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Ciry of Saratoga held on the 3rd day of March 2004 by the following vote: AYES: King, Waltonsmith, Streit, Bogosian, Kline NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk ~~~~~~ ` t e ~j N j ~\ R 0 • v A~ ~ .P .~ N CJT s ~ v -~ w a 1D c9 O -~O -- N ~ S`: ~ ~ ~ _ ?~6 ~ ~i 0. I~ ~ ~{~ k T - .: S~~~ N ~ a - N ~ fv r ~~ z 1I ~ yP 'oa w v -~ N S lP C CY J~ -p 1+' U' ~ ~° ~ o z - mJf=~ $u-~, ~~~ o°I° 0'00 0 0 0 ~o o D o o •o o. ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ v _ I~ ~ ~ o -o 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 -0 Q O p a s f p O JI ~ ' i J,.t ...... ~' i _~ Z ~ ~ _ ~• -{ la ~ ~ .'J.. ~ ~ m~ ~ i I L ~ o __ _ . __._ _.- -. ~ o - _ - =- - _~ i i ~ m ~ i I i ~~ i i ,~ i O i z m ~ w ~ ~ i l1Li p ~~ ~ ~m 1 = 7 E fi ~ ~ 6 _{ c ~~ ~ ~ ~~ u f G Lp at o N T~ a z ~ _1 z A r ~ -~ 0 ~ F 6 ~ ~~, T ... ~ ~ T~ y 3 1 ~ y Q ~ Imo. ~ ~ N - 1 - N x -e ~ _ -4 -i ~ Y i 0 3 (~ ~p rn r- 76 Z ~ b ~ 4r~z 117----'~- y~- -. ~ o 1L z~ g~ m ~ ? z fi ^ -:~oPl f0 (17 L - S ,i ~ N... fO Q - ~ ~ .t Nz -pi ~ ~ ~ -- - 1~ ~6 m~ ~- ~ - - :~ ~ { ~-- ~ I. ~,~n ~ ~ ~ D ~m n~ 6 ~ ^ Q O (~ B~ .~ m 6 O- ~ S (~ ~ Q D a~ ~ m N ~atT ~ ~ ~ Np ~., i l~`°ff }' ~ ~ ~ _'1 O ~ ~ D r ~~ ~z .. c rn rn m :n ~ ~' ~ ~ r< N • ~ 1 ~ ° v D t~ V ~° < ~~~ y a ~., ~ i - I ~ ~ ~ m 3 {- ~ ( ; `: w ~, ,, ~ w ~ p„ ~ ;`.j7 N i~ W ° D o ~~ ' :. IL"= i Pt 1RI~ S r ~ 8 -. _ ._.. _. __ __ '-/ _ t - F ~ ~ ~~ / ~ ~ i i : ~~ : ~., _.~~~ ~_. - j_~ 9O'FO>s j ~ R +~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ \ ~/ ~ ~ r~z;'1~ ~~ ~ lA ~ ~ ~ ~~ j / ~ : zo ~~~~ ~ , / ~ N -- - ~ _~ p 3 ~ ~ o-/ ~ ~~~ pp~$ o. ~ / s ~ IZ - . y ~ _ -I .~ ~ h / ~ UUU ~ - i /~ /~ {~ ~ ... - ~ o aoo~ _ 3 3 3 3 z z z Z I 0? l.~- lP_ I P - o Q o= ' Q v v r O n p L >__ ~ Z ) L- ;. ~ ? -- ~ .~ ~ ~ '~ <~ b ~~~ ~ C~`Fr ~ r EC 7.` ~, ~ ~ ~ -~ iC~ ~" ~~ r I ~ ,~~ y ~~\ ~ s / ~ a. £ ~ ~f` --`" ~ ,`\ f~. / ,~ •.,1 ~~ 1 fl,_ I ~i ~~ F ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ; '' /'' ~ - R -~i~ ~ f . ~ 3 S t~ / /` - f - 3. > ` e .. 3 If~f ~ ~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ max' ,~ ,. ? }~ W sn / / ~ ~ ~-~ ~ J ~ yam. 1 > ~ ~_~~ x } L- ' .C S . 'f ti I ~..~ _ ' i f L~~ ~ f I - ii ~ JJFl' U 1 ~1 ~,'.ii f i~ j~ ~ s II ~ m m ; i. ~ ~ ,o r i~ 1 D ~ Id o ~ ~ I ~~ , ~ ' es\o li i ! ! "'o u `R. t lir y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ I I ~.'~ 0, ~ I 4 `~~v 1 i ~I, ~ ~ ~ ~~ d ~ o~ T 1 ~ ~I ', ~,~ r , , --,-_ _' _'~ g6 1 ~ '~ 1 ~ ~ ~o,~ ~o ` {~~ ___ I I /' \ 1 `''~' ~ gi ~~S d'F m ~ rb~~675 . ~(N ~ -R D ~ ~ O ~ ~ N "~ ~ ~. ~ ~ m ~~ "~i -~ ice/ i / S~ , i -.~ ~' ., ' ~~o`~ 4L /i ~ / -- %" ~~/ OL9~ I\ ~ /i~ / ~ ~~ / .~ ~ ~'% ~~9 ~` '~ ~~' ' \~ \ ` .g ~. ~-~ a~ .- ~ ,. ', ,• ,` ~ ---- ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ P. - 7yY `_ - ~. \\8 ~ ,- ~~-= 690 T Y~~ -~ - \ +}~ f1 T.` ~ - _~L=. is ~ `~ SL S'- \ ~ i ~ w.-r ~ \ i _ - ;~ T ,~ `! $ $1 ~ _ ° ~. .. =~-. ~, ~ _ ~ ... ~ J,- .... .- ... , ~`__=_ " _ Wit?'-~~_~-= ~% 'i _ j1^, ~~ -_~ / _ '~s~ ~ -_~7 ~'~ - ~~ ~~ _ ~~~ E 3 Q g Od 0~ DT N N C'f D rm a N `O u ~ N~ m ~` 35 1 ~/ / S * RE j9 ~ j ~ a d ,. ~ °s o;. i ~; 0 ~O OD ~! O~ VI A (.+ N ~o mm~~mF orn-'m D~~ m~Z~ a~ mz°OZ=m ~cn as°m~v a~rr- ,r COZ ~tnym~p AZn ~OV vD-'17C mA AUI Vl ~.O cD rm(7n AO ~vA <m z0 im5 Or < Dz r~ ~~Im z ~O D< z~~ J I , I Ill D~ ~~NZ Do nor mNZ ~Dm~ =o =nn~~ ~F mZ~~r~ •"=o N ~ I 1 ~ ,;, m v~ z°~m~~ m~z ~°rnv Zm° v~ ~oo~~ °f'' p°1~D° m~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ Z ~~ --.°zp~c~= ~vZ ~~ prn~~~ mj= mDOjm ~~ p~~~~v {Vl I I 0 r -~ °.ZCI`Dr OOA mZ DD~~ 1r mZmZ~ Zvm m;OD~~V-~l O~ m~ mZ~ZZr mm- ~O ~~ZO mr D~:i1Dy v~ •°~v~-Div v~ mv_•-rn~•.J--v-;~--n~~._.-__c---G-r- -- D_m _ _p (~_ - ~ A m -=m. _' - O-y -^D_ m__Z v-fn A.G~_D. v - ..rD, v_~ m r-_ "'u>-m mA z D O ~ Z Z ~vm Z 'im V1D 00 ~ cnr-m A pyl)D yA >~ -i o v n -~ io oAp ~~ ~~ m~ `~rinzQ ~v Dz°xm~i rZ m<~xDZ ~~ y ~ ~ _ ~ m1 BOA 00 rOm ~~ r~mZ m Z DD stn <D r D °zz j i ~ a A O C)mm T`3 1AG~ DO D(~Dfn D'~ OOrz2 N~ ~O~NV ~O ~ F ~ 3 Z fv*1~ (n°m 2~ fZ~13m O~ D~~Z ~~ Z~mD~ ~ my D~f*1 Dm ~ a r m ~V1 O~ZDDO Or~~ Z~ o°~ <m Dm~mr mz N(n Df~ ~ m ~O zzzAmv °~Z o~ ~~zm ~z rzooz ~ o;A~rZ- ~n ib O G7 m<~ r~yA cm m AN z m ~ ~ z Ova O~ vm m~Z mm =x~ o< N~or~* Zc _Z~OVCiZ m mOmO~ a0Z C~ m0 Z--iJ my a0 2 DA D v r v<O O m~ ~~~y~~ Dm~ mr NCD Zx ym,Zmj~S ~ "';{~~ m~ O ~ mD O ; 00 N~ AZ vi> r~m rc~v a°oo v,~ m~~mm ~ cZ vm ~O Dp~OC) ZyA Dy Nmm Oy Dv--~oA1 ~ 2~~mm ~m X10 rG~ ZC) °Z~ mm p~Z T~jm °IL*Im~m m ~N~ZD D~1~ (~/1 fm*1 mD °~ °AD °N mfv+lZ n~1 C1C0~ ~ f~*1 .TV1~OD r:< r ~ Q +n ~ ,v -i~~Z mnC ~D 1rr ~1~ ~ m2~ CDf N~~00 fD/ly C ~ /~ cn m~ ~N OOm ~~ D~ O r~A ° m DO Z? -im ~ Z D ~ o~ O~ o~N -io °'omv ~o "'r~~~ -Z+ vovr"*iv p3 a ~1 ~ a N r Z o~DO,'~,~ ~z~ m~ °mD mo z°Orx o ~~oDCDi =1 .. ~ z~ ~ ° DmNmz a°; pD ODO O~ °n~~~n o ~>j~ om iv v (n °D ~ ~ OZA~~ OON ~~ D~VI z{ OZ°NZ Z ~<OrvZ Vv1° N A mx TJ CD~ ZVf ~ vZC m ?~v O~ ~ mr5=o--1 :O ° D ~ D ITI ~ mm mm '^Z om yini v~ ~~o m ~~''~' mA n s < Z ~ vm ~v z ~m z~ ~~ ~v r { vZ ~D ~~ a ~ Z d i U rA- pm ~ ~~ GOV Om°r r m ~tnz Ov 1 ~ ur`°ic H ~ ~ rp ~O cm mm~ ~ m~00 O Ot~/(no° mm Dm 3 ~ ~ N ~ m,= Z 2m ?~ v°r Cf~Tt v<_ -~ O CDVTIA f~*1 Df+~i ~ ~ F-i ~~ ~ 0 °ODZO m. ~O Amy D <O'V fx~l ~ mvDm~ ~Z -iz rn Z > r p v L) [7 y '< to --i A p m ° m Z Z v D~ -. crnr_ m ° x ~ c ~ ~D z D ~N ITI z owmm~ °~ mm ~m~ No zZ~c z mc~~~ ACS DO v ~ N H j ~V m.lmly ~.r ~ A y <CIOm ° Z1m(n~0~ O< i~d p (~ (''~ ~ ~1Z- A 2N O; AV)m ~ ~ ~r v ~nOOZ (n D wm OHO 2 ZOi v- ~Dm O m A A -i~O Dx ° 'D ~ r ~ 00 =71m n ~N Z VI O N Om0 Z D r. w mfx*1° rD Z D ~ m 0~2v jr ~ ° Vl 1 Z 1 ~ .-600 , "~~-".`- ~~ \ \~~~w" / ~ % i ~\ C _ te ;" r-" ;/ i";~~` i''' 1 ~ ;~ -' f- ~ L t ;" X~,~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ , ~~ ~~.,~, l ~ ~~r// i~,, ' ' ~' ~~'., ~~ . ~-= - ~ VJ v ^^~ Y, ~~ -~- v^^ YI Z //mom~ VI ~(I ~ ~ 6"10` ~ ^ ~~/ .1~ / ~ ~___~ /~ _~~1~~ r~~ ~i~ Y/ fi' ~/ ~~ / __~ ,:~. _;~ ~ _ ~ - i r ~~ / or i 9 ~ / ~i $~ / \ 'z ~ - ~j Y~ ?I~ ~ ~ ~,~ \ ~~ \ ~ ~~` ~ \ \ \ p,.. ~.\ !~ \ \ \ n ~~ s~s Sti 0 0 b 0 ~m ~~ ~ ~ u T p o ~n o 0 o u ~ o ~ o s o ~ ~ Ooo D D D r r r o ~ V Go V O O O ~ ~ ~. Q s as • • • s A J~ V 2 vvp y~t~M P ~_ ' ~ J~ ~ N U ~ 6 Z ~ ,~ ~. ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~. 2 P t I. o° i ~ ~P A -1 Q ~ i T u x { ~ v ~- 6~ I I 0, Oo ~ -. w , jj c~ z ~ ~a ~ :, i ~s ~~ ~ cP ~ v ~a ~ pz~ ~ g£~v ! ~ i % 11 c ~N II ~s p ° ~ ~ I , ~,~° r't ~~ - i ~ o~ ~ ~ i I ~ --1 I .-~ \ y.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " m , ~ ~ L L ro ~' O ~ 1.\~ r Qt fi T ~ v _ ~ 6 ~] c ~ ~z P V ~, 1. m ~~ ' N C~ m z _~ -i z P r ~ -~ 0 n A Q j ~" 41 :~ Q ` ~ y NAY P i .., .~ ~ ~ ~ ~I 6 E `` ', - ~„ ,~- ~`- _ ~..:' ~___.__--`l i S S J J Cn ~ l9 c9 -O Q ~ N~ S. cP a~ O~ 0~ 0 V` ° ~` 0 ~ P ~; m~ Ns~ Cc~v w ~w N~~w v z U'~r~ ~6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.~ o p p p -s+ 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0= ~ ~ _.-_- i / I /y , / m` ~o m~/' T 9 3 ~ ;i -p i;, ! ~ ~,% is ~/ / c';:' ll \ ~_ f~~a n"1 xas~~~/ ~~, cs- ~~tSWQ / / Z~~~O((555 "~z~ // ~lC 7 ~ // ~ JJ1m Z ~ ~O / ~ \ ~']1~ ,,i,~ o,,~ -~ xD = / -~- / i-= ;~ //i / ~ fLy. / i I I^ 1 ~ ~ N a y p z A vN L~ ~ .. S ~ art . ~ ~ l0 0 3 ~ ('0 ~ ~ (, D r 6 1, U ~~o Y - .. - ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I m -~ 0 -~ 4= ti ~~ ~~ UN ~ O - j ry - rn ZOZ ~ ,~ - ZL ~r ~~ m ~ Z u Z lA 11 N p 0 6 to 1~ Si cD ~ -1 ~N ~~ nD L ~ Q~ yrnm N 6 (9 7Q ~Q ~~.~ _. _.. . - Q~ ~ y ~ ~ L L r , a~ ~~ rN y ~ C? lP ~ N ~ 1 ~ D D ~ fi a ~ 0 A " ~ ?~ 1 ~' z ~~ ~• to 4 N rti ^~ ~ p O ~" p F - ;lS ;c i v ~ ' ~ N ~~ _ ~.~~ p m c ° J V .i ~ ,~ ~ 6 J ~ 7 o w n n~ I i u ~ ~ ~' .. i~ U wA n N .... N N W ro ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ CV ~ j t~i~ W N C4 -P (P ~ ~ . D ~~ vv ~ oU Oe ,;, u ~,PT S!• o N U y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I--tAIJ KAl2 !2~G;" ~ C N C E A ~ -~ y ~ s 22~~1 Mi. ~b~f. fib, _ , O ~Z ~ - -' S ~ 0 ~ .~ r ~: Z _ . ~a-1s - ~~ ~ ~,,. a ~N ~..'A e '~. J, ~~, `.~• ~:1 ~T / -~'1 e !'~ .,`1~iF ~~.~ .. _' _r ~~ ~ .~ ~~ ; ~, 1 ~ ti-r* it i ~O~E~T AviI.ES I~~SiGN x-833 SogUEL GR. S~QUEI~, CALK; 9So'73 8~~-~f'~Co- S~v°JCv .~~~i 0 e Cis ~~ rn _~ _~.i U I i f - -- -- - ~ 1 _~ i _-1 ~-- ----- __. _ . - 1 ---- ~ ---- F--- I ~_-- --L----------_ ~~ - ~ .., I Il O 1S"V 1 ~ Z2 -Co _~ \. • Lis r me \ ~ ~~ I IO ~ ro N ~ ~ ~ `~ ~, , /~~, . i ~ .. _- l ~~ ~" i~ ~ ~u ~_ ~I~ W N .-' -n ~ -fit y m~ rn ~" T ~ r i^_~-~ p - Ar= ~~ ~~ rn~ rn~ n u ~~' j o - O -, ~ 1K- ^= `_ ;j O T~ ti~ ~,~ {~ Ir ,~ iU inf- ~ S (~ ;o ~~ ~N N~ -~5~ U ~- -- 3 rn i __ N ~ w sA °o Q c• 3 as A ~° ~ ~.- ~o r• • • _ ,; _ ,I , \ ~ :.` - ~ \\ _ I ._ f~ I I '~ ` ~~ sum ~ I N o I cv ~ i core si.A6 2° nowt ---- I -~ `? ~ ~ I ~ i - - - ~ - ---- ~-- ~ i R i I I 6 I~ N m e Oi F i i ' ~ 3K i I I ~ zf a I _~ , N ~ G ~ 1 r ~ T ~ i~ S ~ ~ ~ y { '~ _ ~~ ~ H Y - m ~ p u1 ~ I ~ J i _ 1 ~ 7~ A I o _n :_. ~~ Z ~ ~ i ~~ ~ N v A ~-~ ~-- ___ r a N ~ O oO -a ~ N ,, _ CA I s . o ~ ~ fi N~ i I >o O~ <Z m° v A X K 'per -T mo a ~-0 ~~ O J1_ i 1-- I- o II ~ ° 6µ ~ lw i I ~ I ~ y~ U' ~ I ~ I ~ ll v l 6 _ _ I i _~ _ __~ I p ~ ~ fE I ~ ~ I Who ~ y~ I I W ~ ~ 3SI ~ Iw Uv ~ ~ - I I -_ ~ O '""' ~4 E ~ c ~- ~i Im e?~ is ~ is sc + - ~' am ~~ i , -6 ,6 ~_ _D S .aQ o rn~ s '~ ~n is ~ i ~ ~ ~ 2C0i-Coil 4Z1- [III l.ji.oo __- Oi ~~~~ppp ~ ii~VV ~7pp ~ ~ C ~ .F ~ p y p Q~ v~ ~= O i N N C < ~ N'c~~mm ~Rgp U~~ ~„mB~ ~~~ i xmm y~3Am ~S6T ~~yY z a''~'-i~3 ~~Drn thcs~ r a1 z 1 ,n Y`.~~N ~~3~ ~~P~ o > m .~g~(1wl tV d-T A 6~m y y~ D -i ~ ~R F~ c 3 -`,~, p -n 7Q ~n m c a 6Q'~~n ~,=NF SE V' ~ = m D - ~~~~~ ~~{ c~~ h m. ~mi ~cz mxA !N Q 1 F y {D Z ~ rn 70 ~ ~j 4 6 ~ m~~ ~sW ~'v1 ~~p ~bfi mr°,a ;~=m ~~ 43Z - ~ mp ~~ _ ~ r ~ r r1 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o2~E12T AVILES JESI~N ~ c ~ _. Y ~ ~ ~}' 3 QUEL bR, ~~ Z 4- /: r n / ~ ~r ..- I'`( ~ `~' I -/l~~V i1~ Soc~UEL CALIF 9507' ~ ~ y ~ ° O ~ ' ~ ~ ,~ ~_. .. °~ :~ ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ ; ~ . 831-~7co - S~gcP a ,.~ .~ t ' '• I ~ ~ \ m'n~ _ xa_ c ,_ \ ~ ~'t~y76 6 ~ ~ \ ~ I ~ `I ,_~ \ D ~ _ \ Q ` ~ I ~ zp ~ \ ', ~~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • • • • • w ~ (LT V ~j I I ~ i .0 ~ ~ I ~ I I ~o i N 3~ ~~I I I ~~~ ni V I ~ ~ - I 6 I - I - Q ~ II y j n ~~~ ,-" aAE j, i a;r III Y ~ ~z$ L s. - it _ tom- i~ _ IC ! S~ i ~ ! I I II I '- -- ~ - i ,~ I i i`- i~ I I ' I I i I I a9 ~_~u I i I I F i i I I i p IJ ~ is ~--- I -- I --- ~ - .\ I m ~ -- I i i O I' o n'~~mn > ~ I I ---- I J „ „~ ..„~ I I „ w N~wo.N N ., m~ S~~ I; w oNNOO r------ J. y L ' $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H,~f~fCi-~„2 ~~~I~i/~~~ ~O~E~2T AVII.ES I~ESI/N ~' ~ ~ ~ e ~ '? ~ ~"C~1 MT ~f~-t/ X833 SOQUEL bit, o a ~ ~ '- ~ . ~,aK~AT~,~,~, Gr'~LI ~ ~ -- , ~3t-~1~o-5~~~ m • • • t I , c rn rn r T~ L -c ~~ N p ~' -~ ~ -c,,_ c a s ~ ~ .~ l ?D :- >~ ~~ m ~ ' ~e I I T I 2 ~J~ ~O I (*r i c e ~ A ~~ I ~ ]'S ZS ~ ~ s~ J o O ~ ~ i _ 7 ~ ~. ~N ~n ~ - O W '~ '': ~ ' G i p I R . % a ri 3 = - ~ - I -rI ~ EZ~ ~6 I I I o a R i F s In A ~ ~ II ~. ~. A S I ~7 I . ~ s rn ~L ~a _ r m ~ 1 ~ t o _ < p 1`` --_ - ~ ~ .~ o I ~ I' --- ~_ -. ~. s - - o D -_ ^_ _ ~ _ - . I EB b~~ r-- oF° _- II ~A _ I ~ j(p .. V~ ~. ~ - ! I $ ~ ~~ _ it i ~ ~" I ~ c f _... _ ~ s, - - yaI z -.. )~ _ _ ~ - ~ I~ ~ 1-:___ - ___ ~~ _~ - _ . ~ ,~ . c ~ =- --_ _ _ -) ~ ~ } _ ._ w r _ . .. . ~ I I I _- -. .. _ 2 ~Sl ~ ~ 2 -- ... _ - _ - --- ---- - _ _. - o O ~ z.G~ I 3~ 3 .. _ _ __ D~NI I ~ - _ - I - . ~ ~ ' ~_..- J 6` N IJ 6 r ' ~~___ _ i3 m' ~ 7 v~ -- -- - -- ~ . ~ ~o c. 1 i C -~~ _S ` -i N~ J D ~~~Zo ' ~ ~~ L `~ N ~ I - ___ ~Z~a~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~O O v ^l D ~T ~ - f'vp~ ~ ~2 m ~ L~ 2 ~^ ~ ~ ~ I , i _ __ -. = ~z, lull -'i' , O m p ~` < I _ gQ~.y Q' zortn - ' °ln ~ L 6 am I --- ~ zo -- -- ~Im 11 ~ - -- -~ t - ~ f ~ s~ FN ~ -1 _ 7 ap ~-~ ~t~ '•` ~n 3A F~ ~m ~ x~ ~~ m J'~p ~ A 0 ~T z0 N~~ v _~ ~3 o~ R~ ~ -hl-----~ ~ j - 0 yN'-~~ C RL~~_--__~-~_ J ~ r Z A~ o 0 0 ~ ~ Z D r s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~H-.AN KAI2 f2~Si 1E.NG E. ~ovE~T AVILES ~E.SIGN ,~ w ~ s f ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 2 2~F~o 1 F i-+ i MT ; EIS ~ b ~('8'~'.7 SoQUEL bR, o -~ ~ ~ ! e R ~ . ~, . A C ?; 5 T'7 IF SoC~~IEI.., CALIF 9So~~ o A:. ; ~,~ Ca • • • $ "~ b_ F K "~ s~ ~- - -, co @l0 ox ='T c~ 3~ 8p zz s,~ iz ~~ £~a S. Ty N " s F~ -~ 61..~ ti ~z ~ ~ -IaA y~ U -, 1 l o,o W N r' _ ... _ _ _. _ ~2 c s s i 0 m • a 0 /- - ~ I --~~ - - - _ _ ~ _ - _ CpA F ~ ~ '. - -- ~` ~~ _ ~{ ~ __ ; -__ - - _ caS ~ ~ I _ ji } ..~ c _ ~ ~ - - _ - ..._ ~: _.. .~_ ._ ._ .~ .. _..- ~ ~ Ili , _ ~ i t ;, __ _ _ "~J { -- z e ~ _ ~ {}-~~ L1 r f _ __ ' I ~II - ___ << i ~ ~ \ A A ~~ ~ , I~ fi`~ ~ - -•---- - -- t i E w N ~ lIf ~ ~ `~ ® ~ ~r S " i N j __ _ S ~ ._ lPZ ! .~ o° ~ ~.~-.. ~ ~ ~~ __ I ~r__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sHANKAi~ ~.~SII~EIJCE 6~ g a ~== ~29-Cpl MT. ~D~V fz~ v O ~ -" ~~9 ~o~~.~ZT a.viLes DESIGN ~j'833 SEQUEL bR, ~° '0 0 Soc~uEL,., CALIF 9So~?~ ~' W 83~ -~I`7Co - Srv~cp • • • ~ ` r~ N z 1'1 O O - p.- ` -`y-t~~ . -~ ~ ~ o \~ A ~ ~ 3~ ~ 2 ~ ~~~ N ~Q ~~ _{~ ` ~i n~ ~~ ~~s =s ~N ~~m o 6 -~ fF ~ ~ ~N o~ 'p ~~ ~ £~ y ti~.. y m~ r ~ I i _J -J s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~HP~NKl~f2 EZESI~ENGE 12O~ERT P.vi~es ~~s!~N ~ ~ 'a J ~ g ~ * =' ~ L4~1 MT. ~bEl-l 121 ~f'833 Soc~uEU b2. ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ 9 ~ o ~ . Sf~~ ?.-i'O~A GP~LI F, Soc.~uEL, CALIF 950~'~ : o = ~ , ~ 831-~F1Co - Slo`3Cv • • • e ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ SN ANKA12 ~2ESIb~NGE- ~o~E~T AVILES -OE~I(a;~l ~ N ~ ~ _ ~ ~u 22q-%1 M?'. ~b~N R"J. ~I'8'~3 soQUEL .1~t2,. o a o pp v o' o ~Ar'"Gt~TO~aA, GALS `' S~QuEL., CALIF `ISoI'~ P ~ e _ -P 1331-'I'7Co - S~o°~ly ~' ~. s ^ f 6 i I -- -- - -A ~ ~ ~__..._.._. - ~ -i ,_ ' _ - ~ ~ ~~ F rn~~ v; o ^ - Q ~ ` p ~ _= I gy 3 ~^ r i -.. ..-"' - 2~ ~A pr .P g ~~ ~ -- O `~ - ~ . ego f~m ~ I `~. .~ ~ yp:f m'. 3 ! ~\` i ~ .. ._ _. --' "' 2~~-O~I . I I ~ (E)6o305~ 1 ~~ F ~~ -l ~I ~; _; Y N ~ O! u I - - y m Q ~ p n ~I ~` r ~ r 0) I x ~ ~ J TS p or; ~ Z ~~ 3 ~ I m ~ ~ ~ i ~~ y (u v j~ 1 p 6 i 2 O i p i ~ ~ r ~ ~_ T, ~ L ~ G ~ to m j 3 _ 7fi ~ a 3 ~ ~ ' ~ r`~ _ ~ i ~ Q I ; ~ ~~ f -~~ 1f _i_ W I ~ Ilc~r~l p_ i o 1 1--J~-~ - = I v .y h ~ ~ _- _ I 3 - j ~ ~ .. ~ J~ ap i '~ O O , vo -~ ~ ;~ ~ n~ ~_ cis ~ I I i - F~ ~~ ,a - - i, ~~ ~~ r ,_ ___- ~ ~ ~~I ~~; Q _- -_ ~'i ._ __ i _ - -- ~ - - _.. -- - - o ~ I `Try= ~ - - _~._ -_ - p ~ I ~, frl ,qr~ ~~ £ _TUi '~. AT c ~ ~ -r . ~rn~~ x-a ~ ~ t~x 6 n ~~ 3 -`-~ our'-° r~r v z-±~ ~ 6 .~ .- ~. ~ _ err o s i ~ ~ ~~ U~ I~, _ _ _ ~ ~ ; ~~ L J. I ~~ Z ;1 ~ ~ y ~, Dio --------- i----___ _ _. ~ ~I ,- '''~~(~ _ -_ _ -- ~ --, Z '''(~~~ ~ ~nl~ 7 ___- -' r P ~ i ~ _ ~ - - , __ _- _ ..__ r -- -- _.. ____.• u!~ _ ~' ~ __ _ __ _ ~ m a~ _~ ~ I ~ r am ~ ~ ~p ~~ ,ID F L ~ ~ ~~ 1~ _ ~ 4 i o ~ u o m o ,~ 1 ~ Si-;AI~I!CP.~ ~'-=..~,JI~~i-inv.. % ~ yD „iy~T y n s ~ J c:r~L'~ . ~ ~ ~ ~r D ~~ go n~ ~4 T v ~ ~_ - _^ i \J ~~~III ~ _ _ _ L~ L___JL-r J " - ' N o n - '- - I ~T m= N I I ~ R`, o ~ ~ ~ i.i `-. ~ ~~ Jt .I n ~ J I ~ ~ _ ,__J z N C o_ _ ~ ~ i c "' ~ 3 _m. ~~ , J ' fi -i:s ~ i ~, n V' i r o _ ~' y IF- -I `~ ~^., sLO nR.renn I, ' ~~:. ~r~•y~~~L c:~. . ~~ 831Y~'rn 'S(o3C~ x rn ~o ~o io i 0 z • ,:' k • • L ]0 m D ~S go m ~ fl ~ ~ DA 3 ~- :o O ~. s, 0 D is -1 3 I ~ -G D 7 h x 3 P rn 0 m 1 z ;n c -~ S V' 0 ~- ~ i D £'~ on, (~(QQ6rn N.i X ~ ~ ~~ ~~D oD ~o~ o~ ,.r o ~c9 ~ -4p m ~$~ Q D r r ~~ E _~ f. c ~ ~~ ~ O S m (S? r . rn -~ I . ~ ~ N i D ~~ ~ ~~ _ O i ~- =~ ' L ~~ i ~~ r }.. c ~ J µ a N ~ N I C O I -P x ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I: AF • -1 ~ Q 6 z ~ i ~ I nm ~ i ~3 - ~_O f'- 'mN -' :' ~ _ SNANKAI2 {2ESIf~E"N GE: 13A12N GONVE12510N = 7°' ~' 22 4(01 MT. EbEh! f2 b. O D ~ - ' ~ 9j ~ SAi2ATOGA ~ GA o ~° ~o;~E;zT AV I L E ~ .I^iESIa N X833 SrJQUEL bR. Soc~uEL.., CALIF 950?: 83~ -.~7Co - S~v~ra s I w 'I • • • i ~~ it '' O •It~ c 0 1• O o •_ -1 ~ (~R~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ftt -i ~ r ~ -{ V V 6 L T~ ~i 3 c~ j O< ~ ~ ~ { O n I m ~ - r ~ m• . I~ ~ I V ~c N ~ L' rn ~ 6l~ n ^~ ' b ~ < Cn `~ w• ~! v ~ ~ ~' ' W g W ~ o m v ~ ~~ o I ~ ° ! S O ° ~ rn ~ N a I I `I ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ I w i H- I ~ w w ~~ ii j~~ o m`~ O ~A -~~ A ~ ~° t I aF ~. '. ~ c _ ` N ~. 0~ • -c ~ ~ I'v ~~\ II: II ~~il( ~~.. I \ ~ / s ~. ~ \ ~ ~- - --- / '. ~ I ~ j ~ ~~ r. {I!;; ,I L r ~':. ~•' c Am -- m v - _ ,.~. InT - ~~ v p / ~ `~ 6 ~"• Y ~,~ \ _.A .1.. .~, -_ -__. mp ~ ,r - ~-- ~ I~ - - - - - - r - 690 ~r ' ,r~`~~' / , -,~,~ ._~ ~_, 4%;~ ~ `/"~ s ~ .~ s ~• ~. .~ -~ ~ ~ ~• I 1 ' .] ,~: ~_ ~''' m ~~ iU ~ i S G ,c ,i ' .N ~ ~._. __ \\I %: __ ~ ~~ .~- >/o ._ ~ ~a c: ;; '~ ~._ •~ ~ w~ / ~~ ~ , .~ ~~ ~I ~ ~ I ~_ A ~' 0 ~ ~~ y Dw ~ A = Tc ~ ~ f'( Q 1 N a m ~3 ~ rn q~ N o to m~ (,t~ L (R ~~ /;~ l .r m°1~ ~~a ~~ ,~ ~a 1 Y ~\ ~/~ I \ ~ ~/ ~\ ~ F ~ ~~~ ~~ Q Z ~ m D ~ W 0 3 x r x ~` a n o ~ T D O +~ _ ~ _ W m ~A 2 p ~ 3 ~C ~c ~_£ s7O m -;_ ~~ ~X °~ a -`°` a ~ g 1 6 ~i_ ~ , C I}- N 1 ~I - - o~ > -,. r Z 3 I r ?~ ! c. T i S~~ pT I Q C~ 16s A~- R~ r N O N N I~ I ~ ~ .~ I C I I - / '-- ~-- ~--_~-- _-~~ ~~ ~ ~ N~ p ~~o° TJ , s .r ~ w - ro p I i9 ~ o~ 1 S _1f~ i ~ I ~' N ~ ~~ ,mac o _ m --~ = x i~ A D w r y I Y ~< - r r- c- I r r I r t- r C- c- I r ~, -1 6 Q m i I n I y1 (~ . S 74 Y ~ _~ Ll I~ I i .3 I~ V I A ~ ~: f~ ~ O O I• j 0 ~ ~ C I O ~ ~ ~ ~ I= ~ p:r m ~~ -c ~m s z: I~ , ~ ~ m i 10 :0 '0 O 0 O O O O I I. ~0 to I~ ~ ~ ~ o A 2 ll Y cP 1~1 ~ m r >_ ~l ~ '~ ~~ d :. I i I _ I ~ -~ F -~~ ! rn a s a ~ _ : A S ~ y '"' ~ ~ ~ 0 S` 6` : O C~ Q' ' ~D W ~ ~' ' V' J ' -~ ~ ~ ~- 0 J' ~ -4 ~ S 10- I y- (~1 ~ ~ A m N ~ 70 6 ~ ~ _ ~ O ~ I F i y ~ ~ 11 c _ I - = i L I - . _ = I - _ - m = I\ rn a. ~ ~ ;~ I Q I z ~ c ~ p , y I m y'I ~' I I I I~ ~ ~ ° z ~ < i IvIT m ' ~'i L' ~~~i ~ r 1 ~ ~ A ~~ u Q ~ i~ p ~ I ~ I ~ ~N ~Q ~ I~ i~ i-~ t~ ~ ~ ~ $ 9 Z ~ v_! s I~!~ I N A I ,~ jc ~: a m' -• ;= L7 ' - I I i I i ~m Nj a ~ ~ n n l c ~ m p' O N x I ~, m i rn ~ ~ ~ r°* 7° ~ ~ ~ m ' m F ~ ~ ~ R --~ I y ~. w i ~ , ~k• I •~ w I ~., I w - U~ w ' to W W I w u+ I N to ~ N ^ N ~ N ^i~ `~ ~ L Y ~ ~ I Z ~ N - ~ ~ U m ~ ~ N I-~ O - t9 I ~ - ~ 6~ - W -4_.~-w - Iv _~ o ; m W J - S .n ': S I `r ~o ,~ ~° ~~ aid ~ ~r ~I r r !~ <^r+c m;m Ir+Tm m ~rn m rn r I< >-~ ;rn r r ~ ~ ~r°2 IL~~-i 6 U' ~~ N3 2 ~' J` £ d RI D i~ .O O o~ C c C c c c G c is - c c~ O' O p ~ Y N m ~~ .. _ v I C~ - n I (~ C7 C~ C+ h I O O O - O I O O I p ~ I m ,r ~; ;n Jc ~ p ~ ~ ~ N ; n £ n _ I I I m ~ 6 ~ n i N $ Y ~ ~ ~ _ Y ~ ~ C~ I CP p I O i (~ -! W ! W ~ I -A w hl U N N N , J' IN ~ ~ ~ S` Q9 c+~: ~,~ $ i = ! A I ! _ cy- ~~~V1 J_, may.; - ~ - _ _ O ~6` -~ N ~ ~P ~~ O' :0' ~P ~a O_:0 ! ~ O_; O_;~ rm s I V, O p N lR ~ 1P I N f x ~ I i = _ - -~ - _ - I ,, - o ~~'~ s'`~ g `'' ~ O~rnICP:,r) v I I I Q o _ _ v o'c~ i -`u• N ~~- N~I v- ~ ~ ~, ml I Q ~ -il lP ~l~ IW ~ W Iw -!J IN N n1 N ~ ~ '~ ~ ~` ~~: -9.N y~l ~~virn~rni° ~ i N o: II ~ _; - ~10'O i0 :O ~.n ~;~r 0iNi0 00 OOis. .µil •. I ~ N - ! rn - - - - ! - - - - - - I I ~ o- ~ ~ ~~ I I I - 3 I ,. o f a i f I I I I ~ I ~ I I o I _ _ o ~ ~ < i I s ~ ~ ~ ~ = SHANKAI2 I2~SIdE~IG~ ~OJEI2T AVILESf"i~SIrN W ~ 6` c s v u ,~_ ~ !? lGf-Cod ~''~T. ~~!~ LI I<I2 ~'83'J' SOG~UEL f~R.. a° -t~ € z x y N .o ~ o ~~~~T~°a~, GALL: SoQUEL~ CALIF 95073 a o .~' ' 631-~7Co - S~v°JCa