Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-23-2005 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PUCE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, ?vlike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ABSENT: Commissioner Zutshi STAFF: Planners Oosterhous ~ Welsh, Contract Planner Ungo-McCormick, Interim Director Li~~ingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE '~~11Ni1TES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 2005. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL COM~IU\'ICATIONS -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 taping action on such items. Hoive,~er, the Plamling Commission may instnut staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLA.\NING COMMISSION DIRECTI01 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 ?vlarch 17, 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 «~ithin 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 #04-396 (397-17-008) - BARRINGER, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for Modification of Approved Plans. The modifications include a new 2,200 square foot pool cover structure and a 434 square foot patio cover addition to the guest cottage. NNo changes are proposed to the approved floor area for the site. The pool cover and patio cover structures will not exceed 15 feet in height. Total site coverage `will not exceed 35%. The lot size is __ ~ _ __- r approximately 45,292 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (DEBORAH U\GO- McCoR~~ICx) (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #OS-052 (503-24-068), ROSENFELD/FRASIER, 14471 Big Basin Way; Suite D; Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Institutional Use to open Bridge Point Kids Technology Learning Center which pro~~ides computer training for pre-school children through adult. The lease area is 1,515 square feet and is served by Parking District #3. (AN?v WELSH) (PROJECT WITHDRAWN) 3. APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road; -Requests Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The Hillside Residential lot contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The house contains 5,188 square feet with a 2,560 square foot garage/basement, a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and conversion of the barn into a 592 square foot cabana. The height of the house is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from natural grade. (A\N WELSH) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN 6-0) 4. APPLICATION #04-039 (503-24-079) NEXTEL, 14407 Big Basin Way; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless facility on the roof of the existing office building at the above location. The proposed facility includes GPS and panel antennas, and a screen wall to mount the antennas. UoH~ LIVIUGSTO~TE) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - Arborist training for Commissioners and Staff with David Babby on June 8`h at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:OS P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Irr compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 368-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.trs. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangernertts to ensure accessibilit}~ 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 March 17, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fnritt~ale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 22, 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, MARCH 23, 2005 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-396 - BARRINGER Item 1 14535 Fruitvale Avenue 2. Application #04-039 - NEXTEL Item 4 14407 Big Basin Way 3. Application #03-272 - SHANKAR Item 2 22461 Mt. Eden Road 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 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 23, 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 March 9, 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, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGEI`TDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 17, 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 #04-396 (397-17-008) - BARRINGER,14535 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for Modification of Approved Plans. The modifications include a new 2,200 square foot pool cover structure and a 434 square foot patio cover addition to the guest cottage. No changes are proposed to the approved floor area for the site. The pool cover and patio cover structures will not exceed 15 feet in height. Total site coverage will not exceed 35%. The lot size is approximately 45,292 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (DEBORAH L7NG0- M000RMICK) 2. APPLICATION #OS-052 (503-24-068), ROSENFELD/FRASIER,14471 Big Basin Way; Suite D; Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Institutional Use to open Bridge Point Kids Technology Learning Center which provides computer training for pre-school children through adult. The lease area is 1,515 square feet and is served by Parking District #3. (ANN WELSH) APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road; -Requests Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The Hillside Residential lot contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The house contains 5,188 square feet with a 2,560 square foot garage/basement, ~ a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and conversion of the barn into a 592 square foot cabana. The height of the house is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from natural grade. (ANN WELSH) 4. APPLICATION #04-039 (503-24-079) NEXTEL, 14407 Big Basin Way; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless facility on the roof of the existing office building at the above location. The proposed facility includes GPS and panel antennas, and a screen wall to mount the antennas. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - Arborist training for Commissioners and Staff with David Babby on June 8`h at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room COMMISSION ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Postingof 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 March 17, 2005 at the office 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 a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us O • ~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 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, Schallop and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Interim Director John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 23, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 23, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 1, 4, 7, 9,11,13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. (6-0-1; Commissioners Zutshi was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication Items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Interim Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Interim Director 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). • Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO.1 Interim Director John Livingstone advised that the Commission could elect to pull this item from Consent and discuss it, open it to the public for comment and/or approve the item. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this item be pulled from Consent and discussed. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Way: At a public hearing held on February 23, 2005, the Planning Commission, on a 5-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a conditional resolution of approval for Design Review. The applicant requested Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two- story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two- story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-15,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that at its meeting of February 23, 2005, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption to allow the construction of a new two-story residence. • Advised that the resolution has been drafted and is being presented to the Commission this evening for adoption. • Pointed that the redesign of the house would be required in order to save Tree No. 5 and Tree No. 26. The Arborist had recommended either removal of Tree 26 or the redesign of the house. He did not recommend retention of this tree with the existing footprint. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the proposed deck. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that this deck would circle the entire house. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the redesign is for the house or the deck. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the first Arborist's report stated that Tree No. 5 could not be saved. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a bond amount would be posted. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this tree would be cut down. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it would be replaced. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied-yes. Mr. Kurt Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Pointed out that during the Study Session it had been reported that Tree No 5 was not slated to be removed. Later it was determined that it could not be saved. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 3 • Reminded that at the last public hearing, he had mentioned that it would be desirable to be able to speak in favor of this project instead of against it. • Reiterated his suggestion that. the garage be moved and the house slide over to the south by about eight feet. With this relocation, Tree No. 26 could also be retained. Chair Garakani said that by moving the house by eight feet, the Redwoods would be impacted. Mrs. Barbara Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Reminded that the Redwoods are already slated for removal but moving the house would save Tree No. 26. Dr. Angela Pollard, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said she wanted to clarify two issues. In September, it was determined that the Redwoods would have to be removed. At that time moving-the house was brought up. They have moved the house. • Reported that they are trying to save the Walnut tree (Tree No. 26) although the Arborist's latest report says it cannot be saved. Dr. Burgos, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said that trimming the Redwood trees had been considered but that the Arborist says that by cutting one, the rest would become unstable. • Said that they also considered trimming branches from the Walnut but were also told that the tree would not survive. • Assured that if the Walnut does not survive, they will replace it. • Reported that the elevations provided at the last meeting inadvertently did not depict two planned windows. • Added that Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous has warned them that these windows might not be allowed to be put in now as a result of that oversight. Dr. Angela Pollard reported that these windows were depicted on all blueprints but were accidentally left off the elevations. Dr. Burgos reiterated that they were only missing from the elevations from February 23, 2005, by were included on the remainder of plans submitted-and are on the current colored elevations. Chair Garakani asked where these windows were located. Dr. Burgos said on the north elevation. Dr. Angela Pollard added that they are first floor windows. Chair Garakani asked if they were included on the three-dimensional rendering. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. She added that she advised the applicants that they must build per the black and white plans but that the Planning Commission can alter that. Chair Garakani asked if the applicants had any concerns about the suggestion to move the house. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 4 Dr. Angela Pollard replied that they have already done lots of ~~alterations. Chair Garakani asked if there is any room to move the house as everyone had been under the impression that the Redwood trees were to be kept. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that to relocated the house the project would need to be redesigned and reminded that the garage is already against the other side setback. Chair Garakani closed the hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she will once again vote no against this project and that the main reason is that it is an environmentally sensitive property with a deep ravine, because the proposed two-car garage is not enough for this size home and due to the loss of trees. Commissioner Rodgers: • Questioned whether the windows that had been inadvertently left out should be allowed or not. • Reiterated the requirement for frosted windows in the landing if requested by the Voesters after the framing has been completed. This is per the minutes of the last meeting. Interim Director John Livingstone suggested that language could be added that requires this decision to be made prior to Planning final. Commissioner Rodgers suggested allowing the two windows that were left out of the elevation drawing inadvertently be included in this project approval. Chair Garakani asked what rooms these two windows would serve. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied a bedroom. Chair Garakani said he did not mind adding them back in. Commissioner Schallop agreed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that it is clear from the Arborist report that Trees 5 and 26 cannot be saved. Dr. Burgos has said he wants to try to save Tree No. 26. However, that should not be required. • Added text to paragraph 22 to read, "to be resubmitted to the Saratoga Fire District for approval based upon an uncovered footbridge. " Commissioner Uhl: _ • Said that for the record he would not be supporting this project because he does not find it to be compatible in bulk and mass. • Added that the project does not adequately minimize its perception of bulk and there is strong neighborhood opposition. • Suggested that the applicants could shrink the size of this home to meet the concerns. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter concurred. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reminded that the applicants have done years of design work on this project. • Said that she would like to see Tree No. 26 saved but does not feel that these applicants can be asked to redesign their project at this point. If Tree No 26 can be saved it should be but she has trouble believing that it can be. • Suggested that the Commission discuss a requirement for replacement trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that a valuation would be determined to be reflected by a Tree Protection Bond. Chair Garakani reminded that the applicant is not asking for this tree to be removed but rather wants to keep it. They will try their best to preserve this tree. If they fail to retain it, it should be replaced. Reminded that this tree has sentimental value to the Voesters. Commissioner Rodgers suggesting changing the text in the resolution to reflect the applicants attempts to save Tree No. 26. Chair Garakani asked how far Tree 5 is from the proposed house. S Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the cluster of Redwoods is collectively labeled as Tree No. 5. Chair Garakani asked how far these trees are from the house. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she estimates they are about eight feet from the building line and one to two feet from the deck. Commissioner Nagpal suggested giving direction for the applicants to attempt to save Tree No. 5. Chair Garakani said that there are two issues. One is if the tree dies. Two is the safety factor. When roots are cut the tree can become unstable. The applicants can try and save as much as possible but the Arborist must give direction. Commissioner Schallop suggested that the Commission defer to the recommendations within the Arborist's report. Commissioner Rodgers suggested eliminated Trees 5 and 26 from the preserved tree list and add text reading, "Applicant shall attempt to save Trees 5 and 26. If it is not possible, the City shall establish appropriate replacement requirements. " Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution for Design Review Approval for a new two-story home and secondary dwelling unit at 14265 Burns Way, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter and Uhl '~ ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Page 6 APPLICATION #04-339 (386-10-056 and 041) Westgate Church 18510 Prospect Road: Request for Design Review to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Interim Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to expand a parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the expansion of a church located on an adjacent property that is within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. • Stated that this proposal is consistent with Design Review criteria. • Explained that Saratoga's parking requirement is one space for every 200 square feet of floor area within. a Commercial zoning. For 2,000 square feet, 10 spaces are required. Nine are provided. The applicant is proposing to increase the parking spaces on this site by 39 for a total of 48 to serve the church on the adjacent property. • Reported that the proposed expansion of the church itself is pending before the City of San Jose. • Added that a condition has been added that requires the preparation of a legal document stating that this parking is to be associated with the church located on the adjacent parcel in San Jose. • Stated that the applicant is proposing the removal of four trees to be replaced with five 36-inch box Oak trees. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter stated that Silver Dollar Eucalyptus trees are proposed for removal due to being too close to the asphalt. Commissioner Uhl-asked where the replacement trees would be placed. Interim Director John Livingstone replied that -the replacement trees would be placed at the approximately same locations as the removed trees. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jack Ross, Project Architect: • Expressed his agreement with staff's recommendations and conditions. • Said he was available for any questions as are a representative from the church and the project Civil Engineer. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Jack Ross if they had considered placing trees on the other side too. • • • Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Jack Ross reported -that he was authorized earlier today to add six Crape Myrtles or Flowering Plums to the landscaping. Chair Garakani said that this addition was nice. Commissioner Hunter told Chair Garakani that these trees would be his legacy as it was at his request that they were added. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said this request was fine. Chair Garakani said it looks good. Commissioner Rodgers stated that she does not like it when mature trees are taken down and replaced with smaller trees. Commissioner Hunter reported that she studied landscape architecture at UCLA for two years and feels that these Eucalyptus trees would actually be perfectly stable if left alone. Chair Garakani reminded that the Arborist put in the report that these trees would not be safe. Commissioner Hunter stated that she thinks they would be safe. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-339) to allow the expansion of an existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces on property located at 18510 Prospect Road to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose with the addition of six Crape Myrtle trees along the other side of the driveway, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-347 (397-10-025) JOSHI, 19327 Monte Vista Drive: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct aone-story, 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 24.5 feet. The lot size is 43,645 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 8 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new single-story, 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. • Described the architectural style as Mediterranean including clay the roof and stucco. The home includes a front courtyard and athree-car garage with a side facing facade. • Said that the home's maximum height is 24.5 feet and varying roof heights are used. Only a small portion of the home has heights at the maximum. • Stated that the project also has a 16 foot attached carport. Such a structure can only be approved at staff level when less than 15 feet high. Anything from 15 to 20 feet high is allowed with Planning Commission approval. • Explained that this carport would be located on the side and has a pleasing design that would not detract from this home. • Advised that this property is located in the Montecito Heights development that was developed circa 1946. This is an evolving neighborhood with modern Mediterranean style architecture. • Stated that this home is well articulated and will blend in well into this neighborhood. • Reported that the neighbors were shown the plans and no negative comments have been received. • Added that geotechnical clearance has been granted and an Arborist's report provided. • Recommended approval and advised that the owners and designer are available for questions. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the glass ceiling located over the entry and asked for an explanation _ as to whether this area is double counted as floor area due to height. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Code says that anything above 15 feet is double counted as floor area. Interim Director John Livingstone advised that this is a typical section and that the object is to control bulk. Commissioner Rodgers asked what the impact is of this glass ceiling and why this is excluded from being double counted. Interim Director John Livingstone replied material. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it is simply because it is a horizontal glass ceiling. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the use of glass offers the benefit of light below without the need to double count this square footage. Interim Director John Livingstone reminded that the applicant is working within Code. This issue can be discussed further at some other time. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that there have been some other similar projects previously approved. Commissioner Hunter said that this is not the case before the Commission in the last four years that she can recall. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps these approvals were made at an Administrative level. She suggested that this issue be taken up during the next Code review. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the gate and wall between the carport and house requires an exception for height above 3.5 feet. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that if this were located within the front yard setback (30 feet) this would need to be lower than 3.5 feet. However, this fence is not located within the required front yard setback. At this location this wall and gate can go up to six feet in height. Commissioner Schallop asked why this carport could be considered compatible. Chair Garakani suggested that one reason is that it is detached. Commissioner Schallop reminded that carports tend to be controversial and he questions what makes a carport compatible in this case. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it is not visible from the street, it is tastefully designed and there is a lot of landscaping provided. Commissioner Schallop agreed that one couldn't tell from the street that this is a carport. He asked if there is any floor area benefit when this is treated as a carport instead of a garage. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Municipal Code mandates that there must be three sides and a solid roof to count as square footage. In this carport, there are only two sides. There are no walls at the front and rear of this carport. Chair Garakani asked what prevents them from later enclosing the carport. Interim Director John Livingstone replied that doing so would result in Code Enforcement action. He added that FAR is limited and enclosing this carport would exceed allowable FAR on this parcel. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer and Builder: • Said he was available for questions. • Assured that he is very familiar with the 15-foot requirement and understands its intention. • Added that he would be glad, at a later date, to discuss why the City needs to abandon that requirement. There is no reason to restrict the interior height of an entry. • Stated that the carport is an integral part of this design, as they wanted as much structural frontage as they could get on this 203-foot property frontage. The house would not look proportionate without this carport and motor court. Chair Garakani said that he has looked at some entryways that are huge and that bulk comes from height. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that this is an eight-foot tall entry here and what is being talked about here is the volume of space above. • Agreed that there are too many Disneyland style Mediterranean houses in Saratoga. Mr. and Mrs. Joshi, Applicants and Property Owners, 19327 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that they. have resided in Saratoga for 15 years and like it. • .Thanked the Commission for its consideration of their request. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a nice design and there is no neighborhood opposition. • Said that this. home falls below the maximum height allowed. • Pointed out that impervious coverage has been raised in past cases and this project is pushing the limits on impervious coverage although this project is beautifully designed. Commissioner Hunter said that pavers are likely to be used. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this is a large 40,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Hunter asked if .pavers are counted as pervious or impervious. t avers are not currentl counted as ervious surface. Credit Intenm Director John Livingstone said tha p y p against impervious surface area is not offered for use of pervious pavers. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that this is just a great design, a wonderful Santa Barbara look. • Said she is excited about this project. • Asked what materials would be used to surface the badminton court depicted on the landscape plan. Mrs. Joshi replied grass. Commissioner Schallop: • Expressed agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that the carport is compatible and fits in well on this site, appearing as a structure or second unit rather than a carport when seen from the street. • Said that this is a large lot. A 6,054 square foot structure, not counting the carport, is proposed for a lot that allows a maximum of 6,800 square feet: • Stated that this is a well designed home on a large lot. It is an impressive design. Commissioner Uhl said that Commissioner Schallop has made some great points. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with Commissioner Schallop. _ Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 11 • Said she also agrees with Commissioner Uhl on the subject of impervious surfaces, saying she prefers more greenery. • Admitted that the carport has been well integrated and is a good example of a carport. • Said she was not clear on how the 15-foot height limitation for the carport worked. • Said that this project is fine and she can support it. • Stated that she likes this architect's plan. Commissioner Schallop said that the issue of the accessory structure exceeding the 15-foot height still needs to be addressed. Chair Garakani said that this has been allowed before. Commissioner Rodgers said that this carport would look odd if it were lowered to 15 feet. She asked staff if there is any issue with the second kitchen in this home. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it brings up the notion of a second unit but in this case it represents more of an entertainment area for this home. Staff does not feel it is an issue. Chair Garakani: • Said that this design looks great and the carport is necessary to the design. • Added he has no problem with the design. This project is good. • Pointed out that the width of this house is 117 feet while the height is 24.5 feet. If there were a second story, the maximum height allowed would be 26 feet. Commissioner Uhl reminded that only a small area is at the 24.5-foot height. Commissioner Hunter asked if the end of a car would hang outside of the carport when parked under it. She said that it actually looks like a gatehouse. Mr. Marty Oakley replied only a limousine would hang out when parked in this carport.. It_ is the minimum depth required for afull-length car. Commissioner Hunter questioned the plans for low-growing landscaping. Mr. Marty Oakley pointed out Sheet 8 that shows trees and lawn. The site will be 100 percent landscaped. Commissioner Hunter joked that she cannot believe she is saying- yes to a carport especially in a $3 to $5 million house. Mr. Marty Oakley said that carport is just a word. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-347) to allow the construction of a new one-story, single-family residence on property located at 19327 Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 12 AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #04-376 (397-07-002) YEN 15040 El Quito Way Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application. The modifications include changes to the floor plan and design. The proposed project will add approximately 1,784 square feet to the- existing 4,232 square foot single-story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Interim Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to modify a previously approved- Design Review Application, adding 1,700 square feet to the first floor for a total of 6,016 square feet. • Described the lot as 57,000 square feet. The maximum height of the home would be 24 feet. • Reminded that the Commission in September 2004 approved-this project. Since that time, the applicant decided to change his design. The original addition consisted of 1,000 square feet and has been increased by 700 square feet for a total of 1.700 square feet. The old design is replaced by a newer design. • Explained that this proposal meets all required Design Review findings. No trees would be removed. No negative correspondence has been received. • Said that this project conforms to General Plan policies. • Recommended approval. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Tim Yen, Applicant and Property Owner, 15040 El Quito Way, Saratoga: • Said that these changes equal a more pleasing architecture. • Said he likes this new design a lot. Chair Garakani said that this is a small addition with no adverse impact. Commissioner Hunter agreed that this is a nice design. Commissioner Rodgers. cautioned that the Commission discourages projects being returned to the Commission for change too many times.- Mr. Tim Yen assured that he would not return as each change to the project costs him time and money. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. e Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Modifications (Application #04-376) of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application to allow changes to the floor plan and design on property located at 15040 El Quito Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None **~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Brown Act and Due Process at Public Hearings-Training to be held May 11, 2005 with Richard Taylor Interim Director John Livingstone announced that training has been scheduled for May 11`t' at 5 p.m. with City Attorney Richard Taylor to discuss the Brown Act and Due Process. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that Commissioners from other local cities be invited to save cost. Interim Director John Livingstone said he prefers to limit this training to just City of Saratoga. It will be intense training and he wants the Commissioners to get as much as they can from this session. Commissioner Nagpal suggested training with the City Arborist some time in the future. Commissioner Rodgers said a refresher on Robert's Rules of Order would be helpful. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if there are plans to bring up Code issues during the year. Is someone keeping track of issues, such as the glass ceiling, as they are raised at these meetings? Interim Director John Livingstone replied yes, staff is keeping track of issues being raised. He added that staff hopes to have a shot at updating the Code within the next year, performing a general cleanup to things such as the Sign Ordinance and other Code Sections. Chair Garakani reiterated his concern over the issue of security cameras and their potential for impacts on privacy. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal asked if the list of new Commissioners has been made public yet. Interim Director John Livingstone said he does not have this list as of yet. He reminded the Commission of the joint session with Council on Apri16~'. Commissioner Nagpal reported that she sent the draft agenda to Interim Director John Livingstone based upon the suggestions made by the Commissioners. ,. r Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 14 , r John Livin stone re orted that this draft a enda was forwarded to Council. Intenm Directo g p g COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD.TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 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: 04-396/14535 Fruitvale Avenue Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Project Modification Lynn Barringer Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP, Contract Planner March 23, 2005 397-17-008 Department Head:~~~ 14535 Fruitvale Avenue ~~®~Q~. CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 12/20/04 Application complete: 01/19/05 Notice published: 03/08/05 Mailing completed: 03/04/05 Posting completed: 03/17/05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for modification of approved plans to add a 2,222 square foot pool cabana and a 434 square foot patio cover to an existing guest cottage. The lot size is 45,292 sq. ft. and it is zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the proposed structures will be 14 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Correspondence signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed plans. 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 4. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped March 10, 2005 .] ~~~~~2 Application No. 04-396, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Sin le-Famil Residential g Y ) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential -Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 45,292 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading proposed for placement of footings. ENVIRONMENTAL .DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of two accessory structures is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 33.86 % 35 Building Footprint 7,080 sq. ft. Patio Covers ~ Pool Cabana: 2,656 sq. ft. Driveway and other: 5,600 sq. ft. TOTAL: 15,336 sq. ft. 15,852 sq. ft. (Impervious Coverage) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: Existing Home - 4,861 sq. ft. Guest Cottage 809 sq.ft. Garage: 441 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,117 sq. ft. 6,120 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front (to Garage): 55 ft. -0 in. 30 ft. - 0 in. Rear (Patio and Pool Cover): 50 ft. - 0 in. 50 ft. - 0 in. Side: (west/right) 20 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. Side: (east/left) 20ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. Height: Maximum Allowable: Residence: 26 ft. - 0 in. 26 ft. - 0 in. Guest House with cover: 14 ft. - 6 in. Pool Cover: 14 ft. - 0 in. 15 ft - 0 in . . ~~~~~ PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a Project Modification to construct a detached 2,222 square foot. pool cabana and to add a 434 square foot patio cover to a guest cottage. The lot size is 45,292 square feet. The proposal will not result in any increase in the floor area for the site because both covers are of open design and are not counted as floor area. The new structures will add impervious surfaces to the site for a total of 15,336 sq. ft. or 33.8%, where a maximum of 15,852 sq. ft or 35% is allowed for this site. The maximum height proposed for the pool cabana and patio cover is 14 feet. The two-story house with basement, detached garage and guest cottage were approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000 (Resolution No. DR-99060). The home is of a contemporary architectural style. Materials include stucco exterior, wood trim and file roof, and colors are earthtone with white trim. The guest cottage was approved with a 141/2 foot height limit and the finding was made the height was necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure. The pool, which is under construction, is located in the rear of the site. The proposed pool cabana is situated entirely over the pool. The guest cottage patio cover is proposed in the rear of the cottage and is designed as a projection of the guest cottage roof. The proposed pool cabana and patio cover are compatible in design and materials to the existing home and guest cottage. In addition, the applicant is proposing to plant 6 redwood trees along the rear property line that will serve to provide additional landscape screening. Neighbor Review The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached correspondence. No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. However, the neighbors located to the rear of the site at 14448 Black Walnut Court have verbally indicated to Staff that they have a concern over the fence between properties and a trellis feature built by the applicant that is located in the rear yard which projects above the maximum 6 foot height allowance. Staff has added a condition of approval stating all fences on site shall meet code prior to the building permit being final. The applicant is aware of this condition and indicates that the trellis will be removed and that 6 redwood trees will be placed in front of the rear fence to fill in a gap (of trees) that exists along that fence. The neighbors would like to see a newer, more attractive fence between properties, but they have been informed that this is not a requirement of project approval, particularly since there is an existing fence and the applicant is proposing several redwood trees to provide screening between properties. Trees Currently there is a row of redwood trees on the neighbor's side of the six-foot wood fence that is located along the rear of the site. The landscape plan for the project includes six (6) 24" box redwood trees along the rear of the site. These trees will fill in the "gap" that exists between trees and serve as an effective screen between properties. In addition, the nine (9) 24" box Pyrias Kavakamii (Evergreen Ornamental Pear) trees are proposed in rear and side yards adjacent to the new structures. u ~®~®'~ Application No. 04-396, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue There is one protected Oak tree in the rear portion of the site, located between the guest cottage and patio cover, and the pool cabana. The Arborist Report for the original design review recommended that tree protection fencing be placed no closer than 14 feet from the trunk of the protected tree, and that it should be maintained during grading and construction activities. The applicant has included construction fencing in accordance with this recommendation. There is an existing bond in place for landscaping and tree protection for the site, which covers the Oak tree. A condition of approval of the original project requires that Prior to Final, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. All original conditions shall apply. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed pool cabana and patio cover are not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse effect on neighbor's views. The structures will not exceed 14 feet and" a row of six (6) redwood trees will be planted along the rear of the site to provide screening. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading is proposed for the construction of the patio cover and pool cabana. The proposed structures will be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The site has one protected Oak tree in the rear of the site, located in the vicinity of the proposed structures. Tree protection measures are proposed by the applicant in accordance with the arborist recommendations for the original design review for the main house and guest cottage. (d) Minimise perception of excessive bulk. The proposed structures are situated far back from the street and will be screened from view from the street by the existing two-story house. The use of stucco with file roofing in earth tone colors will match the existing house and guest house. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The home at its maximum height is 25 feet and the guest cottage was approved at a maximum height of 14 U2 feet. The maximum height of the proposed pool cabana is 14 feet which will make it compatible in height and bulk with the existing structures on the site. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. • ~~~~®~ Application No. 04-396, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue Conclusion ~i Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application 04-396 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Letter from applicant to the neighbors at 14448 Black Walnut Ct. informing them of the proposed pool cabana and patio cover. 3. Correspondence signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed plans. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A",date stamped March 14, 2005 ~~~~®~ • • Attachment 1 • ~~®®® APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-396 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Barringer; 14535 Fruitvale Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Project Modification to construct a 2,222 square foot pool cabana at a maximum height of 14 feet and a 434 square foot patio cover in the rear of the guest cottage; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a pool cabana and pool cover, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and • WHEREAS, the applicant has met .the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed pool cabana and patio cover are not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse effect on neighbor's views. The structures will not exceed 14 feet- and a row of redwood trees will be planted along the rear of the site to provide screening. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading is proposed for the construction of the patio cover and pool cabana. The proposed structures will be in .keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The. site has one protected Oak tree in the rear of the site. Tree protection measures are proposed by the applicant in accordance with the arborist recommendations for the original design review for the main house and guest cottage. (d) Minimize perception ofexcessive bulk The proposed structures are situated far back from the street and will be screened from view from the street by the existing two-story house.. The use of stucco with clay file roofing in earth tone colors will match the existing house and guest cottage. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The home at its maximum height is 26 feet and the guest cottage was approved at a maximum height of 14 U2 feet. The maximum height of the proposed pool cabana is 14 feet which will make it compatible in height and bulk with the existing structures on the site. v ~~~®~. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the -City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views.. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 04-396 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. All original conditions of approval fisted in Resolution INTO. DR-99060 shall continue to apply to the development of site. 2. The pool cabana and patio cover shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped March 14, 2005) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, -including but not limited to facade design and materials - to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The height of the pool cabana and patio cover shall not exceed 14 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Di~~ision. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. The Landscape Plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 7. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. • ~~~~~~ 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 9. Five feet chain link tree protective fencing shall be installed around the Oak tree as shown on the landscape plan, with a note "to remain in place throughout construction". 10. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures shall be installed around the Oak Tree and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 12. The Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 13. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of the ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the `Planting Under Old Oaks' guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the Ciry Arborist. • FIRE DISTRICT 14. No additional conditions are required for this project. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval ~~ill 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. • ~~~~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 23rd day of March, 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 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 ®~~.~+ • Memo i ~ ~ ~ i~- To: Gary and Elisa Pagonis From: Lynn Barringer Date: January 6, 2005 rte: Update on landscape plan at 14535 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070 Gary and Elisa, Happy New Year! Hope all is well for you. ' We are quite excited about the prospects of ending construction soon and moving ahead with planting. The landscaper suggests that we continue the attractive redwood trees look at your back fence and add some on our side. The pool is 50% complete; we're waiting for. a hearing with the planning commission to confirm the hardscape design approved some 4 years ago. This will allow us to proceed with the conforming roof structure over the pool and BBQ area as well as the covered patio in back of the cottage. Let me know your thoughts on the landscape (408-867-9800). I'd also greatly appreciate it if you could indicate you're Ok in the attached letter and fax it back to me (408-868-9909) Regards, • I~-5~,3 ~rvi-~~~LLt~ k~~e . -----Original Message----- From: Hank Nothhaft [mailto:hank@danger.com] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:02 PM To: Lynn Barringer Subject: RE: Pool and Cabana Structure .Lynn, Thanks for dropping off the plans for the cabana. I guess we don't have ariy specific objection to it. Best, Hank This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Barringer [mailto:barringerl@Ibgroupusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:11 AM To: Hank Nothhaft Subject: FW: Pool and Cabana Structure Hi Hank, Thanks for getting back to me. Here is the second page that the builder had scanned. The roof to the pool/cabana is 14ft high and roof materials are the same as the main house and the cottage, tiles. The roof over the cottage was finished at the approved elevation of 15ft. Have a great trip to Japan. Regards, LB Lynn Barringer LB Ventures Tel. 408-998-0199 Cell. 650-888-6522 www.lbgroupusa. com • • • ~~®~~.~ v' Lynn Barringer From: Lynn Barringer [barringerl@Ibgroupusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:41 PM To: 'Hank Nothhaft' Subject: Your suggestion on landscape Hi Hank and Randie, Happy New Year! Page 1 of 2 The designer followed up on your suggestion for screening trees at about your gate area. He recommends three evergreen flowering pear trees along the fence on our yard. We are getting excited about the prospects of moving ahead soon with planting. The pool is 50% complete; we're waiting for a hearing with the planning commission to confirm the hard cape design approved some 4 years ago. This will allow us to proceed with a conformed cover over the pool/cabana and patio in back of the cottage. Planting is scheduled in the spring. Let me know your thoughts on the tree selection or if you have any questions. I'd also greatly appreciate it if you could indicate you're OK in the attached letter. Regards, LB Lynn Barringer LB Ventures Tel. 408-998-0199 Cell. 650-888-6522 www.lbgroupusa.com -----Original Message----- From: Hank Nothhaft [mailto:hank@danger.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:13 PM To: Lynn Barringer Subject: RE: Your specs on fence columns Lynn, Had a great meeting with Ernie today. I think we are all set on the fence. Thanks. In regards to you other question on thoughts. I have been trying to figure out how to modify my landscaping to provide more privacy between our houses. Since my driveway is pretty close to the fence towards your house and because of the location of my gate, I don't have many options. I am going to move one ornamental plant and put in some kind of small/medium sized evergreen tree, but it really won't do that much. So, if you have any desires to plop a tree or two down on your side of the back fence, we would be all in favor of it0 Other than that, we don't have any other comments or suggestions. Best regards, Hank ~~~~~~ ~ iai~nns 1/05/2005 12:48 FAX 14459 FRUCI'VALE AVE. ~Rq-~pC,A, CA 95070 FAX:.(4~) &676845 connN-F~Ts PAGES TO FOLLOW: • • ,P~' From= G~iIJ o~te. /~'.~ " F~ • . ~ • ~ .. ~ ~: .... • j __ - ... ... - D Pty C+oirunent ^ P~ ~~ • 0~~ 'mow •• . ~ .. i • i• I ~~ .; ,.. ., • .; . I • _~.. gARATOGA llUU~ e~ ~. ~~. Q1/05/$,005 12:98 FAX Jan 04 05 O6:12p Jan~~Y 4.2005 City of Sarato94 LH Group 3HRtf ~ w~> •• •• •., rgpg~ 969-9909 . Avenue, ~, CA 95070 _ Re: ~ Plan fot 14535 Fruih-~ VYe reviewer Vie roof p~ for the poet and Sabena area abn9 with the ~ guestcottage• Wesupportthedesg Sirrce~Y• tce-ry 5'tlva 8~ pavitl Bushman i~ • • Page 2 papo f+D~ the p.c ~ ~~~~~ Mar 15 05 11:21a LB Group March 14, 2005 ', (4081 868-9909 P•1 . City of Saratoga Planning Department Saratoga, California Subject: 14535 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California Pool roof structure and guest cottage patio cover Dear Sir or Madam: We reviewed the plans of the above subject application. We support the pro}ect- Sincerely, ~~.. - Sam Arahi C~~~~ Anna Arala Address: 19825 Douglass Lane, Saratoga, California • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Conunission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 23rd day of March 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. o'ect details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Depa ld be dire~t d ro the Pr ~ through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project s ou planner noted below. - Request APPLICATION #04-396 (397-17-008) ' modif'cationsRin lude a new 2,200 square foot pool for Modification of Approved Plans. The cover structure and a 434 square foot patio Soee Th~to 1 cover a depatiotcover structuesswill proposed to the approved floor area for th P not exceed 15 feet in height. Total site coverage will not exceed 35%. The lot size is approximately 45,292 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard atPtuhbli bH ay elan o p1C you may be limit d to decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a g raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Pubh~um~gons should befiled on or in the Planning Commission's information packets, written co before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property ed b theOCounry Ass sosor's office annuallyein of this notice. The City uses the official roll produ y preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered restedeindthe roje t desc bed m this project. If you believe that your neighbors would be in P notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. ~ '~v Deborah Ungo-McCormick ~,) r ~ ~~ ~~ deborahum@sarato a.ca.us 408-868-1232 ~~~`- _ ~Q~C~~~ • Attachment 3 • ®~~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, T 1 Y ~ 5~ 1 ~ ~y'f ~~ ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of 1~1a mil-, 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof') that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~02~ ~~ City of Saratoga , Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 23rd day of March 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. n 1...J APPLICATION #04-396 (397-17-008) - BARRINGER, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue; -Request for Modification of Approved Plans. The modifications include a new 2,200 square foot pool cover structure and a 434 square foot patio cover addition to the guest cottage. No changes are proposed to the approved floor area for the site. The pool cover and patio cover structures will not exceed 15 feet in height. Total site coverage will not exceed 35%. The lot size is approximately 45,292 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing fists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Deborah Ungo-McCormick deborahumC?sarato a.ca.us 408-868-1232 u • ~~~~2~ ~BELOTTI LORENZO M CSC ROSE APN: 39713015 19401 SAN MARCOS RD TOGA, CA 95070-5653 LUDVIGSON DAVID G ~ JULIE D APN: 39713018 19431 SAN MARCOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5653 LAWRENCE THOMAS J &r JOANNE APN: 39713029 14470 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5643 EDELSTEIN VIRGINIA ETAL APN: 39717006 14431 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5642 JAVADI SAEED ~u SORAYA APN: 39717010 13046 TWELVE HILLS RD CLARKSVILLE, MD 21029 ANDERSON GIBBON R TRUSTEE J ETAL APN: 39717014 19571 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5506 FONG ALLEN G Esc GLADYS J TRUSTEE APN: 39717027 19609 VERSAILLES.WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5552 HAN ROBINS &r JIN KIM TRUSTEE APN: 39717051 14403 BLACK WALI~TUT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 PAGONIS MILTOI\? J ~ JOANNE APN: 39717056 14450 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 LSH TIMOTHY J &r MARGERY F 39717059 19550 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5518 C~ MC CUE VIRGINIA F TRUSTEE ETAL APN: 39713016 , 19411 SAN MARCOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5653 • BANO ANSELMO &r FIORELLA APN: 39713017 19421 SAN MARCOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5653 CAO RENYU &z SHELLY MARTEL ALBERT J &r JANET A APN: 39713027 APN: 39713028 14450 FRUITVALE AV 14420 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5643 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5643 WEST VALLEY JT COMMUNITY COLLEGE APN: 39713030 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 LAHANN JERRY &z JOYCE TRUSTEE APN: 39717005 19516 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5518 SYLVIA KELLY L TRUSTEE BARRINGER LYNN H APN: 39717007 APN: 39717008 14451 FRUITVALE AV 14535 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5642 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5642 WAN ROBERT T 6~ ROSA Y LI ROLLINS JOHN S ~ ELIZABETH M APN: 39717011 TRUSTEE 14601 FRUITVALE AV APN: 39717013 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6135 19551 FARWELL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5506 LEACH M ROBERT ~ MAGGIE M TRUSTEE APN: 39717025 14608 EL PUENTE VVY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5552 COLMAN JOHN P ~St CHERYL B APN: 39717026 800 POLLARD RD 1 LOS GATOS, CA 95032-0000 NAQVI SIKANDAR R ~ MAHNAZ TRUSTEE APN: 39717028 19611 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5512 BARBER ANN D TRUSTEE ETAL APN: 39717052 14455 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 YEN DAVID W ~ GRACE S APN: 39717029 19653 VERSAILLES WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5512 OBERHAUSER MARY F ETAL APN: 39717055 14462 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 PAGONIS ELISA A ~ GARY E ALLAN IAIN D ~ ROSALIND E TRUSTEE TRUSTEE APN: 39717057 APN: 39717058 14448 BLACK WALNUT CT 14426 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5515 NOTHHAFT HENRY R ~ RANDIE L APN: 39717068 14563 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6152 CHEN DENNIS SHING DER ~sr YI PING CHU APl\?: 39717069 14551 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6152 v'~~~~a~ T TNDORES LISA M ~St COLIN M •GODFREY RALPH B ~St LYNDA H JONES TOM ~ ANNE APN: 39717070 14545 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-6134 MAGLIONE JOSEPH &r CELIA M APN: 39736026 19459 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6102 APN: 39736003 19450 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6130 KANG SEONG H ~ INHWA L APN: 39736027 19471 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6102 APN: 39736025 19437 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6102 DOW STEPHEN C ~ ELIZABETH D APN: 39736028 19493 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6102 TSAI CHEN-LUNG &i MEI-MAN TRUSTEE APN: 39736036 19498 BURGUNDY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6130 • ~~~~~~ r-~ J • • • • . ~ ,` ~~ I . _.. __. I `.~~<. ; _ _. ~ ~. ~ ;; .; i t w .. - ~, ~ ,._. ~ £ ~ r _ .._ ... i , - ~~ -~ --~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ '` - .a ~ _ ~ ~ .-'~ ' 3 ~ / i _ .. ..... `\ - ' ~ - . I o ...._ - ' w o ~ I ~ ~ I _........_ o i ~ - -__- -- _. I ' _. ~, i& ' ~3 a I • ~ 3 < 3 , _ 1 o ~~ ~ ~-- L_ ,~ ~ 3 i --, a 8 __ ~ _ . - ~ 2 l 3 0 _....__ ~ ~ I _._ 3i l_ - ~ y ~ ~ ~ s '$ . , ~ o - ~--_ ,. N r ~ _ 3..' '~ _. ~ { i N y~ N IL O ~ VI ..._....-.. ~ g '- - _.. +. ' I ~ ~ M ,~ ~ ~ I 31 i I _ _ .: ,- m ~~ ~~ pp gg 2 ~-. ~~ _ i O . ( ~ f~ V ~ p i - ?y~ l ~ I ~.. g , .T: ~~.. r ~~®~~ • '. e Y - ~ -' .. .,r - ~ Coo -. p. ~ ,•0 .I N~ ~ C D- Z j ,a.o+~ p,.~„ iZ o ` +i~ oar Ml-1 t tom. F.R i t3 cu.- ~ Y'1 Y 1 y ~! ~c~_ ~ 3.atF~- ~~ I 7E I '!D ~ ~ o~~~~ ' F~Smii ~.ns .~ z A, i 3 ~ - ~ . - % _ "'t ,..~~i ~ ` ~ Z ~v_, ~(~ ~ 314 0 ~ - ~ t . ~ L ~-~ ~ t r ~ ~ ~ I- ~ r \-a~~~` - I I ~l ~ I F' ~ R ._ / :•i ~..- - ~ ^ ~ O) V P (T A fY N ~+ N X;/; ..jr _ I r 1' ~ ry.. f ~~~~ ~- - ~ + --,~~~ F c'F : s , '~ D E r/ 'pvyv o pm m D V, mm5 R' I I' ~-L•' `yR ~~ ~~ ~~ F C• ~ ~ ~.pz ~~ } .r~ "{-G = j , ~y I . x ~ 7pC ~ ~ O O O. `_F ~ ~ ~ R p !~ ~~ ~;.. ~ '. I.;` T__._.. \ ~ -~ -1 ~'S~!„ ~: S ~ ~~~ ~ilt S ! )tom ~ `i •[.ynai r 4 1 ~/~ ~ Q jj ` r ~ \ , _ ~ •1 ~ a ~ . Ilj I V' 'i~ _- $ -6Cf i ~, V{ ~ qt $ ~ q~ ~ ~ n 10 (n 1T" .~, / ~ m p~ ~~I gyp,-- 1 . . 1 , ~ / , ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ . ,, tf ~ H ~ 2 p I + N~~ ~ a' 8' ~; ~ _-~, - ~a fir, L~ ~_ W 5~... ~' ..?~~ '~ ~ z ~ I ' I t ~ [s ~ °D ~ ~ ~ `f ~ £'e x m a ~ ca ~ N in yb~ ~ " n~i ~ ~ V T. C .A'~ ! O N y.}_ I 1 7 l ~ x 4A ? r ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~: 1 ~ ~ °~~ ~ x ,~lc ,~~ ~i~j C z ~ j ~, ~ \ •. f ,kn a 4 ,, ~ t 7' { d -~ ;~~ ~a~ ~ i c ~ ai ~ _ j'- -- -- - --. - to i~ W ~ --~ Q. '~\ ~ ~mD Ar''v y _~ ,.. _ r ~ I ,f ~ r c ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ # ,;~- ,. is : ~ ~ a .. v c A ~ ~ m - J}~ - ~p,~ ~ ~~ -- -- - - ^ ~-- 1I# - ~ _ -_-- -- - 1414 ~_ _ ~ I .1 ~ -- - S Q ~ N $ ~ $> O ~ ~1 1.. ~Q ' n~~j i ~G'e~~ l- - ~ #:-- ~ .3 S i O p ~:L' W pO ( }' - ~ < , ~ 1 4`~ ., I = ~ A . ~ \ s^ D a ! n a o c N~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ b I1; >,~ d~ ~ 7 10 O ~ - ~ o " ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ S ~ ' '\ \ ~ - -- Y - C 1' ~ -T ttt ~J ~ ~, t.- - N < c - II C~. G , ""t ~ r -a ~ ~ 7t ! t - ~ 5 i-. ~ `.~ g 3 0 o I C i f i ~ L`~ ~ L. ~: c _ ~ ° ~ ' j ~E"~ ~ r '~ ~ ~ i ~~ u10i a - ~o cv `"` i -. _ . , .~ ~" ~ \ A ' `~ ~ ' ~ ~ .,r=te ,T-~-=-...- _ .:.. o ~+ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~" ~ .' l . ~` C,j \ o: r gY Vnww~ ~ E"'^w b ~ 'o A o ~ m e~ A ~°. ~.,s ,,,,.~ ~'~. ~ m e ~ m • `a .: ~ ~ -_15:8 : ~{::z. ~ !~& , ~'0 ~ ~ ~A ~ '~+ -~~, -.-NOS: w:. ~ ~ <,, S ~"R° t-9, ~ ~ !~ F - - ~ ~ 7 \ ~ r~_I i j 4i:~i-~ :.._~t,_ ~iV~. \ ~ ~ °•~~a ~ D1 ti,.. +~ 'I I ~ 3_ p n jry a~ .~ g 8FJ v o o ~ O .. ~,. i ~ s ~ _ _ Slte Plan, Project Mformat#on ~ ,Proposed Cabana Roof Cover for Swimming Des#gned by 9 a H ~- ~~- ~~ ., -; Pool, Proposed Covered Patlo for Guest cre,t,~e oes, „ ~. _ o m ~ C~ ~ " 9 s ~ p., - - ~ Cottage ao4~ First street ' - ~ - ~ ~ Livermore Ca,94550 -' ~~' - 14535 Fru#tvale Ave. Saratoga Ca. ~«,~lzoe,9„-99;, _ ~ m v_ x. `x -~ $ .. ~,' , ~. R S ~ ! ~~ ~:' - } ~~ z s ~ c ~ ~~; ~.. y ~ s s ~ ~ N 3 w ~~ L _ k; _..._ _. ~= i _ ~ jF ~ I ~ ~ ~~ N x I ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~~ t ~ ~ $ 1 L~ , ~' Ij -~0 D 3 ~ ~,~ ~ , -0C m ~ ( ' ~ I A rr, l ~~°~ ~ ~ '' i m, ~7~ ~~I~~ o C. ~ , ~ 3 ;~ ~~-~ ~ p I( 1 j ' k 1 ~. y 1 ~ ~ ~t ~ . v h ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^ ~ 1: ~ ~ 1 l ~~ 'c~ ' ` `, ~ 11~ 1. f 3 ' ~ e ~ .c , ~ ~ ~ Z ~ i ' I ~.- _. ~~ 3 mm o . r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ V ~. k l1. Z 1 ,~ ~Ir~~ •'P j , v 2 ~r r ~ ~ .. i~ t r c ; I it f ,' ~ '~ k~ __. __...._._ __ «~-P11 la ~..GH .. . . ~ . I t .._...._......._.. ., - i. I { -a'= i t '-. -~ . ~ -- z ~~ . . ~ i. n ~; 2d'-~t _ ~ i` . F r- - ., v. 1 4 ~ - ~ {` ? ~ 1 \ r `' r, ~ i ~' ~' ,/' ~ 1 ~~ 7 T Q / ~ ~ ~. 1~ \ ~ ~ _ : ` _~-. ~ ~ ,• ~ ~~~ ~. .; z `~~ ,~. . . ~ ~, ~ ; ~; -- ~ i ~ ~m~ 1 ~• t x r . ~ I~ ~_ ~ ~s ~m~~ I `~~ `N j c, _ t ~ k- .t~/ -~ ~ ~ ~. t"+ . e .'. ~ .. ` 1l ~ I ~. ~ .. ~ ,~ ~s a Pool Structure Floor Plan Proposed Cabana Roof Cover for Swimming Designed by: m c~ ~ 1' Front.Eie3atlon, Typical Cross Section ' Fool, Proposed Covered .Patio-for-Guest ' ` Creative oes~gn ~`- .. , z `•. ~.•• ~ .... .... ... - - - > - 4047 first Street . o . 5 G Cottage Livermore Ca.94550 ~ i~ 14535-Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga Ca. Ph~=czo9,9a<.99~< a K ~ • • ,- x Y g S lEi t .,` t . s o --- -- w ~ ~ ~~ ;!.; n_ ~r ~~~ 49 , .~ a w 4 .~., .. I c- S(i !. i- ,,_ ;t: __ i;• F~' ~~ { ~~J_. f-~ ". ~-'~.. ~ II { ! ' E' I : ~ ~ . tf __I" 1 i' ~ L _ q YI 3 I ~:.. f ~ i } i i t '~-'=- {. li { ~ 1 ~ . ; f I~ ~ i ~: . v; ., _- r,:_. rc \\ ;i " ,f': .{.>. i I,:.. Z! la f ' - - - Y...... ! 3_'`-c V .. _._~ _.._ __~.-. i I ' i ~ ~ f i i _ ~ ~ _ --_---~_~ -------------~-~--4. - i; ~~ o {: I { \ ~ \ _~ e I ~\ 3, _ .. _. ~ ~ _ ~ ..r ~ ~. I i T ~ I! ~_ ~ ar - ~ ' ~~-' ' _. { ~ % i _ ~ ~_ ~! ;' _ o _..~....__ GG .~f{ ~ l . ~ I ~._Ce: ~ _ _j...___._.___-_._~ { ~ ~ 4 __._~ ~ ~_.,__~._....__e..~_.~~_ . _Y _~. ..___._~.._e-_..___.___.___.,._.___ _, _.~_....,_.._.. _ ~_.__- _. M j - t i ;~- f e~ - _. _ ~~. ~ . a .~ - I I - ~I I ~ i I M ` 'r , ~ . . ,. . : % e ~ 8 ~~ { _. F:. - _ ~ Proposed Cabana Roof Cover for Sw{mmmg Designed by: ~ m . ~ ~' ~ Pool Structure Foundation Plan, Roof Plan., '~~ °` Pooi, Proposed Covered Pat{o for Guest ereanve oes,y;, H ~J41 T. n ~: ~j o - Elevat{ons, Roof Framing Plan Cottage 4047 Fret street Z _ - ~ . -Livermore Ca.94550 f° I~ 14535 Fru{tvale Ave. 5aratooo Ga. o-~:z~9;9«.;9:< -, • 4 t (( I }„ --f' Ti I li l ~ y T a I Ip x i ~ ~ ~ xq x . -~ 1 , - I _ , 1 ky:, k. t - s ~ J S ' , err . ~. ~~ is ~-f ) t. - ~~ I 'T ii-- =-'r rJ is -- 1 t \ t f it !. i r ~ h ~ ~ ~.~ ~! i s ~'T I -~,.~~ ~I ~ ' t,~ i}ti . ' 1. ~ n - r - `~ ~ , ' i ;lei { , ~ I T~ ~ ~ t r, j ~r ~ i ~ u _; _ ~ ,. ' I I t ~ ~ ~ r - -;IT t ~ 1, ~ i - . ~~ K - r <- ~ I 1 r~ ~ -- s~T" r ` ~- I ~' +` - ~ Ilr ~~ i i! 1 _ i ~ ~i'1 ~ ' , ~~ ,, I , . ! Ilr T ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ a _ _ _f -il - - i / ---- i ~ _._- 7 _ ~_ ~ i li !i t: !; + ~ , ~ ~ - / ,. _. _ ._ I - ~~ t' -_ ..- ~.. r i ~ ~~" -,f ~ f~ t ~ ~ i T - . ~ ~~ " 3 . ~; ` ~ c: f__ k.. a ,, ~I 1 f ~, --- J ,.: - ~ ~. t`-j ~1 .r 4 ~ ~ _ °t I ~ ~ I , .- z = ~. I ~: T` » z ~ i 1 '~ -.! ax~ :_ f-.. i,' \' ~- ~^ O:i _.. ... --_._ -9w.. ~c .9a ~ ~: ! . ~R ~, ~.z. ~~ -~=~~ 1 r ~ ~~ u-(1' ~ ~ i ~` ~ J~. r-: ~:. ~.. ~:.~, --t ~R z -~.: _ '; ~' z' -~ i, r_ { lry,' -O N ~_ I i ~. ~ \ i A f k I `'b S ~ j~ ~ _ . , ~ i= ;v`X !~' ~ ,~ .~ ~ l^ _ r ~ e. _. ~ ~ ~•, I _ ~ j- 4 _ ~- ,~ . •~ L ' `~ fT~` ~. \°_ ~ .' ' c ~ . I . ~ ~ ~. ~ ~/F`~ ~~ ~. _.~ _ ~, _ i --~ ~~. `: r` ~ I ` ~ ~ ~ , s \`~ _ T.._ - _ _ _.. -.__ -- ~_ ~ -. - - _ I~h," --. s g s s - ~ Proposed Cabana Roof Cover for Swimmrn ~. ~ ~ Guest Cottage Patro Roof Cover. Floor Plan,. 9 •~ Pool, Proposed Covered Pat{o for Guest ~,--~ ~ ~cr- -p: ~ Foundat{on plan , Elevations, Roof .plan _ .Cottage A i' ~. ~~ ~. 1.4535 Fruityale Ave. Saratoga Ca, . Designed by: Creative Design 4047 Fvst Street Livermore Ca.94550 Phonc (209) 944- 99 ~ 4 a m w z m ~ r~ ~~ • • • Y X ' . ^m. `- ~ 1 5rt3. ~(O( - ~' ~s ~ A.R'v~ R_:o p muD =o ,.~ ~ ~~~~ ~~m ~~ o ag - ' ~: ~ - _ - V p_ ~ Y ~F'roposed Cabana Roof Cover for 5w(mrting` :;;Pool, Proposed Covered.. Pat)o for Guest Cottage , 14535 Fru(tvale Ave. Saratoga Ga. ........ ,_... _ ~ 9 Designed by - s CreaUVe Design _ w 4047 `F~rof Street 3' ~ j evermore G.94550 Phone (209) 944- 9914 I _mi n a I~ i ,. z I lv <_ i _. I O s ~ to ~v i r. I.u ~~~ a c'~o ~ 'c_ fl. ~ . < (~ i c`e e ^ ,s o d a O ~ ~ N d f n m ~ y m ~ tat U W Cn z ~ ~ d d z a a ~ b a z __ • ~ Z . a ~ ti ~ 158.86 ~ ~'~'- ^- -----mod--~-- - ---~-- { G -- ~~~Zd i III ~_us - -- 7 ~---- a+~~ _ ----_ ------/------v--"~-- -- ~ ~-,` ----°- i t ''. ~. a/ r _ / A /' ; m i t _~P / j - 1/ m ~ / ~ v I \ / v7 as ~ - / 1 ~ _ }~/ ~r ~ aa ~ / ~ ...... I .. ~%/ 1 I I 1 j----- / --/PC n N ~: ~ av P ~' ~. - ~ / T _ : ~ ~, ~ -- = i= _ - - -- --- _ - ---_.... .._.._. _ r T ...~ __._ - -- - _Jy ~ / ~ ~ Ia _ . ~ -.. 1 ! rs ne¢.5 ~ ~ r ,` _ L ~ 1 , F ~ Y `Y v ,____ c ~~~ `r' -- _ '__ '-~ _ - - ~ _ - ~ ' __ _I ~,'~~ I : I ''_. I ~ a ~ ~~ ~ti Q I ~° __ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ' M _ ~u. N ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~__ / ~ _ . ~ ~~_ _ 3 _ I i 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ i ---- ; ~ - ~ l i ~. 1 r i N - i / _ ~, ~ i ~~ ,. 1 1 1 I F w ~. \ ~F f- ~ \ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ F i Ix I 1 w .~ ~ I 1 '1 o ~ / r t r I eta . o _ ~ ~ 1 1 1 lip ~ J __ -- ~ 1 `~~ _ 1 1 i c ;. / ~ V _ 'y I . ___ _ __ e I I 1 /` 1 ~ ' s ~ ~ I iI O / ! a~ ____~--~ L a 7 N 1~. f~' I ice; ~ 1 3 ~, N m ~ , p ~.__ _. ~ m ;,, i ~; /~. ~ ~ - i a o 0 c, / / ~. R ~ 1 1 pp `'i 1 - 8? o - V ;,~ ~_ ~ I x 1 _ .c b ~ -1 r , ~ _ ~~, ~ «.. I! of "~ - i ' a 1 : ~. alro 3 <~ ~- 1 ~ ` r- ~ .~ ' ~r v ~ f ~t _ g ~ ,. 1' 1 ~ ~ ~ \ e _. ,. I ~~ ~ _ `. ,. e o, ,• ~\ ~_~_ 1~ ,; a' ^ . --~_ ,~ _ I! ~ 1\ .. ~ a........ - .. ~-- ,. \_~ , . / 4 .~ . -, _ ~, A~a~ b _ ~ f I; as 158.96 ~+ `~~ ~' ~ a v _ ~` °`+.~ ~ % ° O _ ~° ~ ~ _ \ ~ D ~' ,Q FRUITVALE AVENUE ~~. [=-~ ~ ~~i ~- ~ T :/: r . ~ . ,c ^~ C o 0 cr ~• • - i , -~ .. ~:.~~.~ I[em 2 s e. ~ " 6 CCB~' zr O~t~~°~ss~r2S OO C~G~ ~~ 137! 7 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9j070 • (408) 868-1200 ~~~~~u~~ COL~?vCIL 11E1II3ERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Aileen Kao Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Memorandum To: Mohammed Garakani, Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Date: March 23, 2005 Subject: Withdrawal of Application #05-052 (503-24-068), ROSENFELD/FRAZIER,144TI Big Basin Way; Suite D The applicants, Barry and Chiki Frazier, have requested withdrawal of their application for a Conditional Use Permit for Institutional Use to open a computer training facility :i for pre-school children through adult. The e-mail that documents this request is attached. `~ for your review. C7 ~®i~®~. Page 1 of 1 Ann Welsh From: Barry Frazier [barry650@sbcglobal.net] ~' Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:05 AM I~ To: Ann Welsh Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-052 March 14, 2005 Ms. Ann Welsh Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Welsh, This letter confirms the recorded telephone messages left for you and 'Christe' this morning. As mentioned in those messages, please withdraw the applications for the referenced Conditional Use Permit and the associated business license. Please expend no further resources or incur any additional expenses in regards to these applications effective immediately. Also, please request a refund of fees paid for the applications and, for tax purposes, an accounting of expenses, if any, charged to the applications. Sincerely, Chiki and Barry Frazier • ~~~®®2 3/16/2005 Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION C7 Application No./Location: 03-272/ 22461 Mount Eden Road Applicant/Owner: Udaya &r Kavitha Shankar Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Application. Type: Design Review Date: March 23, 2005 APN: 503-80-O1 Department Head: \ ~ ,\ ~. MT ~ ~ 500 ft Buffer - Shankar I ~.- . ~ ~ ~ `•~ ~ Shankar - Mt. Etlen Rd I j _ ~i .. -~ .r ~T~~~ ,: %~r I _ ~ ~ MT EDEN RD i ~ ~_ ~ CHA R ~ \ DEE ~ L ~ 1~'_ -- ~, ,,'1 _ ~ ,. 1 ~_ ;' ~~" ~ ~~~ - -- -- ' ~ I ~ ---- ,- I ~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~~ / ~ ,t ~ l ~'~ i .~r~ ~ ~ ~'~ I I ~ -- ~ ~ ~ / ~i ~t ~ ~. ~4 \~~ ~ _ ~ ----- ~ ~ f ` ~ _' MT E Et~RD _ ~ \ R MT EDEJV DE , T ~L CT ~\ ; ^ ,\~~~ UAR ~~I ~RD \ ~~ /~~ .~ E D ~ 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 ft ~ .~~ 22461 Mount Eden Road ~ _~ ®04(~~ File No. 03-2T1-22461 MountEden Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 12/11/03 Application complete: 12/23/04 Notice published: 1/26/05 Mailing completed: 1/26/05 Posting completed: 1/19/05 2nd Mailing complete: 3/9/05 2na Notice published: 3/9/05 2nd Posting complete: 3/2/05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 atwo -story home with a barn, a horse stall and second dwelling unit. The home is 5,188 square feet in floor area with a 2,569.5 square foot basement of which 473 square feet is a garage. A 533. square foot second dwelling unit is proposed and the existing 592 square foot barn is to be converted into a cabana. The proposed height of the home is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from the average natural grade. 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 subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Staff Report dated February 9, 2005 without attachments. 3. Arborist Reports dated 7/21/04 and 1/3/05 4. Fire Department report dated 7/22/04 5. Geotechnical Clearance Memorandum dated 7/U04 and Geotechnical Reviews dated 1/ 8/04 and 3/16/04. 6. Santa Clara County Encroachment Permit 12/29/04 7. Affidavit of Mailing 8. Neighborhood Correspondence 9. City Council Report -March 3, 2004 -Initiation of Annexation Proceedings 10. Plans, Exhibit "A" • pV.Y V V'V ~/M File No. 03 2T2 -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:1.89acres 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 ro osed ro"ect consistin of P P P J g 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, Malibu Beige (LRV: 56), trim and gutters in Kelly Moore: Loam 413 (LRV: 14) and Spanish Clay Tiles in Old World Blend, which is a burnt rust blended color. ~~~~'~a~ File No. 03-27Z -22461 MountEden Road Lot Size: Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Hillside Residential Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Walkways, Patio Pool TOTAL First Floor Second Floor Total Second dwelling Cabana Basement/Garage TOTAL Proposal 82,32s sq. ft.'s 4,370 sq. ft. 5,670 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 10,840 sq. ft. 2,801 sq. ft. 2,387 sq. ft. 5,188 sq. ft. S33 sq. ft. 592 sq. ft. (2,569.5 sq. ft.) 6,313 sq. ft. Code Requirements s7,12o sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 25% of net site area or 15,000 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 6,428 sq. ft.*~ Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 35 ft. 30 ft. _ Side 48 ft. 20 ft. . House -Rear 176 ft. ~60 ft. Height: 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 additional 584 square feet of floor area and permits retention of a portion of the existing second dwelling. •i • • 4 ~~~~~~ File No. 03 ZT1-22461 Mount Eden 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. The 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 revise the house location in an attempt to avoid the landslide impacting the former 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 atwo- story, 25 foot 10 inch high Spanish style home containing 5,188 square feet with a 2,569.5 square foot garage basement. A 450 square foot balcony is proposed to project fifteen feet 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 converted into a 592 square foot cabana and a second dwelling unit containing 533 square feet which is to be remodeled to eliminate the square footage within the garage and convert this area into a carport. The total square footage for the property is 6,313 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 or moderate-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 storm water dissipaters concentrating water flow close to his property line. In response to this, the applicant revised the grading plan to connect both the main drainage line from the house and the drainage line from the proposed pool area; rerouting these lines to the west of the property out to Mount Eden Road. This neighbor also had concerns with the balcony. The issue was the potential lack of privacy the balcony feature might create between the two properties. In response to this concern, the balcony has been reduced in length from 25 to 15 feet and the fireplace has been removed from the balcony. In addition, the landscape plan has been revised to depict additional evergreen plantings at the mutual property line in order to create a ~~~~~5 FrleNo. 03 ZT2 -22461 MountEden Road visual buffer to enhance privacy. These plantings are identified as four, thirty-six inch boxed and eleven, five-gallon Douglas fir trees Another concern expressed by neighbors was the safety of the new driveway. A sight distance line for the new driveway was developed by the County Department of Roads and Airports, for the Encroachment Permit. The City Arborist reviewed this line. He observed that achieving sight distance to the west would involve minor pruning of four trees and achieving the sight distance to the east might place five trees at risk of removal. He also recommended revising the limits of grading to avoid impacts on two nearby Oak trees. In response to the Arborist's comments, the County clarified the conditions of their Encroachment Permit by stating that they do not require tree removal rather they consider cleaning up trunks and clearing. away vegetation as sufficient to maintain sight distance and thereby meet the conditions of the Encroachment Permit. A number of neighbors expressed concern with-the size of the house saying that they felt that it was too large and bulky. There were objections to the three-story look of the structure, which was created by excavating for the basement and garage. In response to this objection, the plans were revised to create a berm along the exposed wall of the house. 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. In response to this request, the applicant has revised the plans to indicate that the trail will be dedicated to the City of Saratoga. Recording this equestrian trail easement will be required prior to final occupancy permit. DESIGN POLICIES AND TECHNIQUES. The proposed project will conform to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. . Policy #1, Technique #6, use architectural features to break up 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, low reflective value, stucco and rust/browncoloredble-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, minimising tree removal, transplanting trees and requiring additional landscaping. 6 V'V'V V ~~ File No. 031T2-22461 MouritEdenRoad Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for ma.~mi 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 #l, 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. CONCLUSION The proposed residence is designed to conform to the- policies set forth in the Ciry's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the Ciry Code. The residence is compatible with the neighborhood, natural features are preserved within the constraints of the site and privacy impacts are minimized. The proposed project will satisfy Hillside Residential zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. The City Arborist, the Saratoga Fire District, the Public Works Department, the City Geotechnical Consultant and Santa Clara County Roads acid Airports Department have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution for application #03-272. • v~~~~+~ • Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO - OS APPLICATION N0.03-272 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Shankaz/22461 Mount Eden Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story S,188 square foot home with a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and a 592 square foot cabana 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 met: (a) 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 revisions have been made to the plans. 1. The area west of the house is to be planted with four transplanted Oak trees and six, fifteen-gallon Coast Live Oak trees which will eventually create a visual buffer between this house and Mount Eden Road. 2. The proposed balcony has been reduced in size to project 15 feet from the house. In addition, a substantial landscape buffer of Douglas fir trees is to be planted within the southern property line setback area in order to enhance mutual privacy. Lighting on the balcony is to be shielded and kept to a minimum in order to maintain the scenic character of the area. ~~~~~ F~leNo. 03-2T1-22461MountEdenRoad (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. 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 transplanted to the west of the house. The comments of the arborist regarding mi_n;m;zing grading at the front stairway have been incorporated into the grading plans. (c) M;nimize perception of excessive bulk. 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. Extensive tree planting is proposed to the south and west of the house to create a visual screen between the adjacent properties. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed. home with a height of 25 feet 10 inches as measured from the average natural grade is compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on adjacent lots. The adjacent parcel to the south which is most unpacted 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 ma<xirrLes the benefit of sun since the majority of the. windows and the main living areas are located on the southwest elevation. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. 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 min;m;ze 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 minim;zing 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. 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, ~3~~~.~ File No. 03-2T1-22461 MountEden Road the application by Udaya and Kavitha Shankar for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 1. 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 2.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. 3.The location of the new fire hydrant as required by the Saratoga Fire District should be shown on the final site plan. 4.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. S.The property owner shall maintain required to improve visibility along Encroachment Permit. the sight distance triangle, which is Mount Eden Road for the driveway 6. Lighting in the area of the balcony shall be low voltage and shielded to 1lLnimi~e the visual impact on adjacent neighbors. 7. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscaped area. 8. 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. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 11. A utility plan, including the location and trenching for the fire hydrant and other utilities shall be submitted with the revised plans for the arborist to review in terms of impact on adjacent trees. ~~~~~ Fi]e A'o. 03-272 -22461 MountEden Road 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 3. 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 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 Attachment4, 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 S00 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 5. 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. , 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 6. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. d ©~~~~~ File No. 03 2T1-22461 MountEden Road 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. • • 5 ~JQ-13 File No. 03 27Z -12961 MountEden Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City '.of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23~ day of March 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 6 •i €~~~i~ • • Attachment 2 ~~~~g~ i ~ ~ Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-272/ 22461 Mount Eden Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Application Type: Date: APN: Udaya &t Kavitha Shankar Ann Welsh, AICP, Associate Planner Design Review February 9, 2005 503-80-O1 Department Head: rfi ~-- Q 500 ft Buffer - Shankar - Shankar - Mt. Eden Rd ~~ .. i.\ i ~ ~ r /~ ( ~ ~ '~~ MT EDEN RD __ Z ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ DEE L I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ : ,~ r 1 MT E E RD ~~ ` RE MT ED DEHR TRAIL CT ~~ ' ~. __ / / `, UAR ~f~gCIA~RD E D ~- ~ i ~~~ r! :' ~`. 0 250 .500 750. 1000 1250 ft ~ 22461- Mount Eden Road • • • ~JUU~~i.~ • File No . 03 - 272 - 22 4 6] M o u n t E d e n tZ ~Ta d 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. 03-2TZ -22461 MountEden~d 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. r~ • -~~~~- • • F~IeNo. 03 272 -Z246I MountEden~d Lot Size Lot Coverage: Hillside Residential Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Walkways, Patio Pool TOTAL Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: First Floor Second Floor w/Garage Second dwelling Basement TOTAL Front .Side House -Rear J Proposal Code Requirements 82,328 sq. ft.~ 87,120 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 25% of net site area or 4,370 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 5;670 sq. ft. 80o 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 ormoderate-income rental. This provision provides an additional 584 square feet of floor area and permits retention of a portion of the existing second dwelling. 4 ~i~~~~~ File No. 03-2T2 -22461 MountEden~d • 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 l0 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 or moderate-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 minimize impacts on • • ®~i0~~® File No. 03-2T2 -22461 MountEden~ • 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. • ~~~~~~ F1le No. 03-272 -22461 MountEden~d • 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) Minunize perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. (e) Employs current grading and erosion control methods: (f) Utilizes Residential Design Guide policies-and techniques. Actual Findings The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. 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 thi"s 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 ~~~~~~ File No. 03-27Z -22461 MountEden~d 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 minunum in order to maintain the sceriic 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) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive 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 bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. 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; t~vo 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 maxim~es the benefit of sun since the majority of the windows and the main living areas are located on the southwest elevation. (e) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development orgradingplan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. ~~~~~~ File No. 03 ZTZ -22461 MountEden~d • 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 minim~e 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 minim~ing 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. (fl Design policies and techniques. The proposed home will conform to each- of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The 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, minimising tree removal and .requiring additional landscaping. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views, Technique # 2, which calls for ma<Yimi 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 Ciry 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. 00~~~~ Fi/eNo. 03-2T1-22461 MountEden~oad 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. 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. 6. The retaining wall that is located within the front yard setback must be reduced to three feet per Zoning Ordinance section 15-29(b). 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. 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 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. File No. 03 2TZ -22961 MountEden~d 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 hardscaped 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 fqr the arborist to review in terms of impact on . adjacent trees. _ - ' CITY ARBORIPST 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 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. 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 100/0 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. F~IeNo. 03-272 -22461 Mount Eden~d 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. 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 m the City's Residential Design Handbooh and to satisfy the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code if developed 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. • 12 ~®~~~ Q, • RESOLUTION NO - 05 APPLICATION N0.03-272 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Shankar/22461 Mount Eden Road WHEREAS, the City 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 Ciry. 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 iri 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, Minim;7e 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, ~~®~~~ Ft1eNo. 03-272-22461 MountEoad 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 rec{uiring 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 ma,~nizes 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. Conditians 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. ~~~~ File No. 03-2T2 -22461 Mount E~oad • i 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). 5. 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 /~st~ff;~n making these revisions. ~. ~ geed 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 Arborise 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 Ciry 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 lagdscaped-area ;est~j:cially along~ny hardSC~n~gl arm 1~. Plant materials seiectea shall be appropria~ to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, ~~~~~~ File No. 03 ZT1-22461 MountE~oad ~J 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 tl~e arborist ~o review in terms~of impact on adjacent trees; - ~ - ,- ~ - _rIY ARBORIST KEPORT _ 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 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 equal to $72,940, ~~hich 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. 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. ~~~v~l File No. 03 ZT1-22461MountE~oad • 1~ 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 1. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. _ Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. " ®®®®~~ File No. 03 272 -22461 MountE~oad • 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 ermit is hereb acce to u r p y p d pon the exp ess terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to -fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~~ • Attachment 3 ti • • . ~ ARB 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 ConsultingArborist #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~~~~~~~ • • Ju 21, 2004 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist h' SUMMARY Twenty-nine trees were inventoried for this report. Of these, seven (#18-23 and 25) are 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 regardless of the proposed project and replacements are 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. INTRODUCTION • 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. Shankar Property, 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga Page I of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®®Oa~~ David L. Babby, Registered Coting Arborist • July 21, 2004 Trees #22 and 23 are 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 foss 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 regardless 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 unplementing the proposed design. To maintain their current condition and achieve sufficient overhead clearance, 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 eazlier 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 Saratoga as being native and be equivalent in value to those removed. RECONIlVIENDATIONS 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 amving 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 - ;~~~~"~ David L. 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. near 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 azeas (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 equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 6. The removal of handscape beneath the trees' canopies must be performed carefully to avoid scraping -the soil surface and roots immediately beneath the surface. I recommend the handscape is manually removed. Equipment. shall not operate or park on unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies at any time. e weeks to each retained 7. Throughout construction, water must be supplied every thre 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 azeas 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. 1l: Irrigation should spray not spray beneath the trees' canopies. Irrigation trenches should be designed at least 10 times the diameter of the nearest trunk; irrigation 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 ~®®~c~~ David L. Babby, Registered Cons~ting 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 boazd 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 neaz 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 standazds. 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. standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http: //www. isa-arbor. com/arborists/arbsearch. html. 17. Soil should be cleared from the trunks of trees #14, 15 and 16 to expose their root collars (the azea 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, 9th 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 - ARBOR RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care = - TREE INVENTORY TABLE ,-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' .~ ~.. ., . a ~. > ,. O O - > V Y ~ ~ yyy NO. TREE NAME- ... E., ~ . U ~ rn- ~ 0 . - m .. Coast Live Oak 1 (Quetrus agrifolia) 11 20 25 100% 50% Good High 4 - X - $2,030 Coast Live Oak 2 (Quetrus agri olia) 15 25 30 75% 50% Fair High 1 - - - $2,500 Coast Live Oak 3 (Querrus agrifolia) 12, 8.5 20 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - - - $2,360 Valley Oak 4 (Quercus lobaw) 8 25 20 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $1,030 Coast Live Oak g (Quetrus agrifolia) 9 20 20 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $1,090 Valley Oak 6 ( ercus lobata) 9.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair Hi 4 - - - $1, Valley Oak . 7 ( etrus lobata) 9.5 20 35 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $1,320 Coast Live Oak g (Quetrus agrifolia) 13.5 20 25 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - X - $1,970 Valley Oak 9 (Quercuslobata) 11 30 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $1,660 Valley Oak 10 (Quercus lobata) 8 30 20 75% 50% Fair High 4 - X - $1,710 Valley Oak 11 (Quercus lobata) 15 35 40 75% 50% Fair High 3 - - - $3,370 Valley Oak- . 12 (Quencus lobata) 8.5 30 15 75% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $1,120 Valley Oak 13 (Quercus lobata) 10 30 20 75% 25% Fair Moderate- 4 - - $1,420 Coast Live Oak (Querrus agrifolia) 13 30 20 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - - - $2,] REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 llon = 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 Site: 22461 Mt Eden Rd, Saratoga primed jor. City of Saratoga Commuttiey DevelopmentDepx prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 1 of 3 July 21, 2004 -~~0~~~ ' ARBO~RESOLIRCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care - TREE INVENTORY TABLE ;-: ,-. w ~M /~ Lrr' b~. ti a-~ ;c \ ~ \ O ~ a ~: ~, ~ ~ ~ pq '~ pq U ~' ~ a~'i Q o~D v CJ I I ~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a OE TREE NAME - ~ $ 'd ~ ~a o Py o ~ ~ ~ x ~ c , o Q H~ x U ... ~ .. O m C r~ Coast Live Oak 15 (Quercus agrifolia) 13 35 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 2 - - - $2,100 Coast Live Oak 16 (Quercus agrifolia) 22 25 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - - - $5,400 Coast Live Oak 17 (Quencus agrifolia) 19.5 25 . 35 100% 25% Fair High 2 - - - $4,680 Coast Live Oak 18 (Querous agrifolia) 7 10 15 100% 75% Good High - X X - $1,140 Coast Live Oak 19 (Quercus agrifolia) 6.5 10 15 75% 50% 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 (Quercus agrifolia) 7.5 15 15 100% 75% Good High - X - - $1,230 Coast Live Oak 22 (Querrus agrifolia) 7.5 15 10 100% 50% Good Moderate - X - - $1,090 Valley Oak 23 (Quer+cus lobata) 6.5 20 10 100% 50% Good Moderate, - X - - $1,180 Coast Live Oak 24 (Quercus agrdfotia) 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 j Coast Live Oak I 27 (Quercus agrifolia) 17.5 25 35 75% 25% Fair Low 3 - X - $2,790 Sire: 12461 Mt Eden Rd, Saratoga Prepared for: City of SaratogaCommWnityDevelopmentDept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 2 of 3 ARBO~RESOLIRCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IIWENTORY TABLE ~ ~ 3` 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . TREE > ;ob ° ~ o : o ~ ~.. > x v +r ~. $~ . NO. TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ ~a o ~ o > ,~ . a~ ,~ ° ,, Coast Live Oak 29 (Quer+cus agrifolia) 32 55 70 50% 75% Fair High . 4 - X - $14,600 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 Site: 214611Nt Eden Rd, Saratoga prepared for.• City of Saratoga Conu~u~nity Development Dew prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA 3 of 3 • ~i• i• • ~f.1T \ ~N~irC ~~.) /1 i~~~~ SCALE: 1"=20'. ~~ rol(ro ~ ~• 2 'g~- ~] ~. •~ •~o~\ 4 6+ . n °~ Site Address: Y2C61 Mt. Eden Road, Sareroga `.. / t6 Pmnared for. City ot'Saratoga Community Development Department PROTECTIVE FENCING +5'-0~ ~ ~ g • ~. ~ tarv[=WA`( ~ 9, I~93Cy: Map~idatbfies 29 trees of Ordinance size. K ovatso Canopy perimeter are approximate. J l^~ ,/ l 0 ~ ` Map has been sedtxed in size end is not to:cale. j ~ =17 ~'_.~ u'15 ~ ~ ,~ ~~~ F, , ~a,Po :, . y.o ~ .16 ..;, . qa •ea,oC1 °~ fuTk~k6g~! ~~ ~~ ~\ ~~ - Epp ~ ~ ~/ Cq ~ltQPd~EG R~StOFJdCE ~ ~ ~ ~rduc. $ ' ~ 21Y•tT.T.p.9.•G74.Od wAy. g~ '' q E ~~RA.(.'P. •48fo.2'J. ~ i.F,s~yN~SD ~ ~-7~ Q vW '.67q.7S~ •,LOr 1 Iw.tO ~ r ".a Y Av: sss rc s' iailggr~ 5t Q ~ ~\, \ , :: .~ ,~~ . 19 \ t \ a ~'~ (~)cn dt:F eTICEE~I~RKG 1\ ay,y~ e , ~ ~,~~,N 21 ~ ,w, 4~ ~ 4 na«... • ` ~ Ye}Sq '\~0 a- ~22-, °° +~ m F ~ ` `~1 1 ~ 'y VI i7 ~ ~~ ~•'~ dFxPAV EH~NT / o I \~ 11 9 ~ - ,". ~ e~ °""°~°° " . PROTECTIVE FENCING . r' 'o ;" ~ ~ \ ,~ - y G95 - ~ ~ ~ \ A \ 20,od \ dk r~~kNiD ~ I \ DEtK ' _g'-q"R y(L_!%78A0 '(E)IygR ' ~; OMN •att~ w19m Tnr~75wN . 26 ~ ~ PPS . I i I. ) I "~ ._ I O ~ F:T (NET) /~/ i \ .-.~T f p. `sss ,~ `~ ` 1 271 ~20 lE)31 ~raRY e -.7O +N- A5 _~ \ u~ _ UNIT Prepared By: s9 ARBOR RESOURCES ' Pao/e+nonal Arbarleoltnrel Consulting fi 7Yee Cnre (~27 ~I P.O. Box 25295 San Matrn. CA •91102 ~~~ / Phmc: (650) 651-3351 • Fmtil: s~hwrpwras:_gcarthlink.na ~~.~.-J/ ~~~~ SW't 51!'W a] 9f' - ~' ~i ~ u T N ~wT2 ~r~s hou F ~ xrln NCB 2 7-ra?Y S. F b T+FE UT{, ~E•T Brucs Y J 1-(;1T61z. Tt#hT 9LDr7, q, AI.L hDJAcENr I.AtJb USE .IS RESIt~ENT1RL (S.F. t.Z~ _~.... _-- ----~--- ' --...._...-------. _. i i L ~®~~~ • • .w<. ~ ~ -:. `~ ,A,R.BUR ~.ESO U1~CES .,,. ... Professional Arhoricultural C.'onsulttnR & Tree Care January 3, 2005 Ann Welsh Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: S11'E Dt5'1'AN~CE TINE REVIEW; 2246.1 Mt. )Eden 'Road, Saratoga Dear Ann: t 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' wea`t 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 of these trees. 2. The proposed `site line' east Crom the driveway entrance is obstructed by numerous trees. My assessment reveals trees #2, 4, 7, 15 and 1 G 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 Bnsineer and l to more fully determine the impacts. 3. The "grading boundary for traffic sight" requires revision 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 grading is designed beneath their canopies north of the proposed staircase. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • • P.O. Bo 25295, San Mateo, California 94at12 • Email: arborresoarccs(ri~carthlink.nct Phone: 650.654.3351 Fas; GSO,G54,3352 • Liocnscd Contr~clor #79C7G3 ~~~~~~ ~- T00'd ti0Z~60 S0t60/S0 ZS68 ~S9 0S9 sao.inosaZ{ ,ioq,ay • • u Attachment 4 • v~~~®~~ . 22461 mt eden rd revised site plan review From: Harold [hal@saratogafire.com] ~, Sent. Thursday, July 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 fi"rst, 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 wuvw.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:~ developer shall install oNE fire hydrant .that meet Saratoga Fire District s specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. (City of Saratoga code 14-30.040 [a]) NOTE: this requirement will be waived when a previous project -for Huerta @ 22551 Mt-Eden Road DR-O1-018 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 warning Fire Alarm system shall be installed and maintained for _ -both main-and second dwelling units. Early warning Fire Alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation-and shall be submitted. to Saratoga Fire District for approval. (City of Saratoga Code 16-60) 5; Automatic sprinklers shall be installed. for the new 8,233 8,415 sq. ft. main dwelling and 1,170 sq ft second dwelling including any garage, 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 appropriate 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 underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (city of Saratoga Code 16-20.150 for fire flow >2,000 gpm; City of Saratoga code 16-20.165 for 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 pro]]ect 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 ~~~~~ • • ent 5 ~~~~8. • 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. • • ~~~ 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- . o ~~. ,, .:k ~~ 4:... ~., ~.. k7 M V • • C~~`~~ o~ ~ ° ° ~D~C~~ 137 77 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22,1956 January 8, 2004 Udaya Shankaz 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga Geotechnical Review Deaz 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 prepared 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, (,gyp /~ r ~ V"` • Iveta Hazvancik Associate Engineer Public Works Department Co: Ann Welsh, Community Development Department • • ~ ~ / ~~ 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) RE: Shankaz, 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. In addition, we have performed a site inspection, reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office 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 pazcel. 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 import of.40 cubic yazds). ~~~~~~ • • John Cherbone January 7, 2004 Page 2 50283 SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is generally chazacterized 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 pazcels has resulted in local cut and fill slopes with gradients up to 50 percent inclination. Drainage on the property is chazacterized 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. ~~®~~~ r . • John Cherbone January 7, 2004 S0283 ' Page 3 I, 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 pazcel 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 En~ineerin~ Investigation - A Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct asite-specific investigati ' ation shall -include, but not necessarily be limited to - of the new building sites: The mvestig 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 eazth 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 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 appeazs 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 lazge-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. . ~~~~~~ n ~J • • January 7, 2004 S0283 ^ 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 include recommendations for ~in;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 m;n;muln 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 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. john Cherbone Page 4 ~~~-~~ • • D ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ 1377 7 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 GOUIrCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Stan Bogosian Kathleen King March 16, 2004 Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Walfonsmith Udaya Shankar 22461 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 22461 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga Geotechnical Review Dear Mr: Shankaz: Attached please find Geologic and Geotechnical Review .letter prepazed by the City Geotecllnical Consultant, dated Mazch 15, 2004. ental En ' Bering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation needs to be Supplem ~ prepared as per recommended action No. 1 of the review letter. Please submit two copses of the addendum report summarizing required information to the City for further 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 Geotechnical Cleazance 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 ~,: '~ i~~®~~~ .~ • • C~~~~ ®~ ~~~`~~C~~ 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 (50283A) 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) prepazed by Lee Engineers, dated Mazch 1, 2004. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files pertaining to the previous application, and discussed aspects of the subject application with the applicant and project 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 bazn 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 S0283A' '~I is shown on the referenced plans: Although data, findings and recommendations presented in the 2001 re 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 of the Upper'Calabazas Creek g 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." 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 then.the western landslide caused by slow downslope landslide movement. If caused by slope movement, identified as "Old" (O~) by previous consultants -would actually be an Active landslide (Als). Downhole observations of large-diameter boreholes drilled on the adjacent parcel to the east revealed landsliding to de the of approximately 25 feet; however, those depths do not necessarily indicate the depths of other . P landslides in the vicinity of the property. _ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Observation of lazge-diameter borehole LD-2, excavated within the currently proposed building envelo as part of the 2001 Ivlilstone investigation, -did not identify the presence of shearing associated w landsliding. However, landsliding of variable activity is present to the west, north and east of the proposed 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 p{ tential impact of landsliding on the building site (and to demonstrate the lack of landsliding underlymg the s ) 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 n demonstrate long-term site stability. In addition, other geotechnical aspects of the proposed develop 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 prop d traints rior to Geotechnical Clearance development, and provide design criteria to mitigate potential cons p ~~'~+.~~ ~. ' • • Mazch 15, 2004 john Cherbone S0283A ' Page 3 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 appeazs necessary to more .clearly identify. the characteristics of the landslide(s) in close proximity to (and/or underlying) the proposed development (i.e., clear 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 S0283A~ ` Page 4 ' ier diameters, and steel reinforcement. include recommendations for minunum pier depth, p 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 ~n;mum of 6 inches of gravel hydraulically connected to a perforated pipe running down the center of the slab) that aze 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 m;n;mum 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 ari 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. - ~'~~~~® e • • Attachment 6 ~.i SANTA CLARA ZrOUNTY ROADS AND AIRPO~S DEPARTMENT ' ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.. # 56040242 ~ R1 ~ INSPECTIONS REQUIRED ! TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS. CALL 408-573-.2~'6q 24 HOURS BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK. KEEP THIS PERMIT ON JOB SITE SEE :ATTACHMENTS FOR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Permit Number Date Issued Expiration Date 5604024.2 R1 DEC 29, 2004 MAY 12, 2005 PERMITTEE Ted N UDAYA SHANKAR 224.61 MOUNT EDEN RD Telephone SARATOGA CA 95070 (408) 872-1113 LOCATION OF WORK Address Road Name Locaide 22461 MT EDEN RD @ VILLA OAKS ~DR 74-19-59 File Number APN Zone 3-1.11 DESCRIPTION OF WORK Installation of County Standard B/4 driveway approach with valley gutter as shown on the attached plan sketch and detail. SPECIAL PROVISIONS a~ 0 .A 0 N N Sr. Construction Inspector CANCELED BY -------------- Inspector BY -------------- Permit Office ATTACHMENTS Revised plan sketch Revision 1 12/29/04: *- Refer to a revised plan sketch.. (attached) for work above. '~- Property owner is the responsible party to=keep the. sight:..: `. riangle dear, according to the plan. *- All other conditions of the original permit remain the same. *- Attach this to the original permit BONDS Performance . LDE BOND INFO AMOUNT. TYPE RELEASE DATE Labor and Material Monument Engineers Name Inspection By Roads 8~ Airports Plan ID No. SP No. ' ~.EE ENCIN~gS 1211 PARK AVENUE SAN JOSE ,CALIF. 95126 (4081 293-3833 ~o. . BNEET NO. OF _ CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DATE DATE _ BCAIE ~' • - i .. ..I ~~ i .. . .: _.. :...........:..._ ..., _~..... .. p ..,. _ .... ~ .. _.. ~ _.._I_.._ . ' ... ~ ~ } j .. ~ ~ ~ _ ..j..._ I _ ,~. ~ ~ ~~• 1 ~ 1 I • ... ... _ _.._.__.........; _.._ . ~ _.. ........ _ , . ; .. , . _.. _ L.S Ni...{I ~ t G1.r..eeYk.b.~o. ~ . ....' ..F ....'......... .......... ......~ .:__._........ . . t I i i ~ I ; I I ! i i ~....... .. ,_. Z' I. . ~ ~.... ~. 1 .. - i. ~ . I.. ~ ...N .. ._.~..._ ._..}.._.__. i i S'j5 ..D ~ t 4 ~.... ~' . it' . _l..... ~ 1 , .. ..:... I of ,~. 1 f. # .... J ~........._. . ' .__ .... Inji ~ .. ~ ~ . L .~.. . . _1.. ~ ~... .~ _ 1 ... 1 s ~ ~ __ _ _ ... ,... .. ...i._!. ~l' :.. .. ..i 2-20 ~ ~ ;. ~. hl.. . r,- , ,. .. .. '. ... ...; . ... ` ~ . .... i ,_ ... f ~° .__._..,...__..t ~._.__. , . ......; ... .... _ ... _ _... ..... .... __.. _.. ..._ - - - - qq ... ~ .. __._ _ _ ;.. , I j ..~ ~ f ...j... .t.. ._~• ~i I i i ~ ~ '. ~ , __.. 1. . ~ ......j i ~ - .. ... _ .__ i......_._: __ ~ _~ ..~.__. 1.. ~ . .. .....1 , ... , . i ;.. ~_._j_.__j I I ~ i i.. ,_ -..y... j ' _~.._ .:. 1 . ronu sa., ~nu.nl. o-a, nrtss I.e. Qrolon. Mu.. ouso • `~ . ~ County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Planning Office County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 7o West Redding Street San Jose. California 951 I o- t 705 (408) 299-5780 FAX 947-1 165 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, ~..~' c 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. -~J • • Attachment 7 • ~~®~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILIN ~G NOTICES i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) -~ ~ I, ~~~ ,f ,being .duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States; over the age. of 18 years; that acting for the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ day of ~ r 200 that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of -which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said ersons are the owners of said roperry who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing p P pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent ec{ualized 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 • ~~~~~~ • aoooooooooo~roo~ oooorooo 'N ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ti ti O ~ ~ N ~ t` ~ r` ti r` ~ ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lf) Ln Ln Lf~ Lf) Ln In lC) lf~ lf') l!~ In to In t!7 Ltd lC') lf) In Ln In In 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O 0 0 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ Q Q U C7 C~ C~ C~ C~ C~ C~ C~ (7 C~ ? C7 C7 w 00000ooooowooo ~~~~~~~~~~a~~z ~aaaaaaaaaa~aaa ~~~~~~~~~~~~U~~~ aaaaaaaa U U U U U U U U aaaaaaaa c~ c~ c~ c~ c~ c~ c~ c~ 00000000 ~~~~~~~~ aaaaaaaa ~~~~~~~~ r O r T O r ~D~/ LL gyp~// LL. W J W J Q Q Z ~ ~pp ZpppUUp pp0 ~ R'Z~ JJJZ Z(=Z ~ a~~o~~~~~~z~~z YYYp ~a~ ~zzWZZZ»zQZZa QQQw wow OWW~WWWOVr WJWW~ W ~ W ~ W w ~ ~ W OOOi- 1-OF- Q J J ~ ~ ~ ~ p Q Z F- H~ Q~~ O f- H F- J J~ ~ 00 ~ ~ J _J J_ O ~'" O Q O _ ~ (n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ J ~ ~ Q > > > ~ X ~ (n ~ O O r O O O r O O ti ~-- In In ~ CO 00 M r 0 0 0 00 i 00 O O O O O O O O r N r r ~' 'D N CO In CO CO CO lC) N N N r N N r N 00 00 (O m 0 00 00 r r r~ N N M "d N N N N N N N ~~ N N N N M (p r N N N N N N r- r N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N d N r N (J V J J w~ ww~ a ~ J Qo i - w~ Paz c~ Q zw= Ha OH~p = ~~ ~W »w== Oz~~ a~~~a U ~0 ~~~~~ =W~Q as m aYl- ~U~¢O a m ~ ~ U ~ c~WpUUw» QQ - U~~ U U~ 0 0 ~} z m ? w a m w ~- z ~zw~zzw==~---W=ors Oz°~°~~wg~ pp waa~ ~z ~p w °~°~~p °~ ~V U O a Z cnp p } ~ Z W ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ } Z Z Q c ~ n p fA ~ Q ~ ~ } Y ~ ~? Q Q? Q a Q Q Q~ Q p w~ Q= p V¢ Q? Q CJC7~>U' U~ppY~~YQ cgUZ~da.J2 M 00 O cf ~ O N O O O~ lf') CO f~ N GO O CO r N M~ CO O N N~~ ~' M M M to CO O O r N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N M M M M M M M M 00 0p 00 O O O O O p r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ti~ ti CQ pp pp pp ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lf~ Ln In In In L(7 to In In Lf~ L(7 In In l1~ L(~ L!') l(') Ln Ln In to In Ln ~~ Y~~ f • August 5, 2004 Mr. Udaya Shankar 22641 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mr. Shankar: RE: Application for new home We 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 cars, 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 forward to having you as a neighbor. ' cere y, c Vince S. Garrod: Trustee, Garrod Trust :-~- ;- ~ ==-=- - S `, _^ ~ - _ .- ~ •_. • ~~~ V l~ghbor Nuti~icatiou Template f~ Development Applications • Date: ~" 31 2oa PROJE DRESS: ~2~1-b f 1~(own~ ~.t•+~ ~ ~, sQt'R , c!~-~'s °~° Applicant Name: ~, ~ ~r . S~na~i kaf Application Number:_ d 3 -2 } 2 The Saratoga Planning Commission re.~~~irpc applicants to work with theft' neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of thepublic hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not-took favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when sotietted by f applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that ~ ~ neighbors take this opportunity to e~rpress any concerns or issues they may have dtregtly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yourproperty. Irrespecltve of [hr vptriton expressed below, you "may reserve-ihe right ro amend your opiniorias a later date and communicate it to the ~ ~ ; ~ -~ City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the projeet•plans; I »n erstand the scope of or • aztd Y do NOT Gave any concerns or issues wbich need , to be address by tLe applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed prgiect. ^My signature below certifies the following: I Have ret-iewP.rl the project pleas; I understand the scope of work; sad I have issues or concerns, which after dfscussion ~ • yvitb the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns ai,P the following (please attach additional sheets'if necessary): • Nci 3borNamc: ~ > ' °~~r Neighbor A,ddr~a: a ~.•~, Neighbor PhonC #~: ~- C~ ~_?- ~_ Signature: Printed: . f}"~ O C~~ F~ ~ ~l. ~T-~ w` ~ S%.= - _ _ ` Ciey of Saratoga Planning Departm~~~~~~~® l~ghbor Nutificatiuu Template f~ Development Applications Date• '3 Wi't' PROJE DRESS: ~ i ~ otu~ ~~ 5~+~ , ~ s °~° ~t-a r Applicant Name: f: n . . Application Number: 0 3- 2 ~Z The Saratoga Planning Commission re~o~irps apialirants 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 took favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by f applicants prior to the public hearing. Staf~`'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 yourp~operty. Irrespective of the vpirtiore exlvre•saed below, you -may" reserve tits right to-amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject•plans; I understand the scope of wor ; aztd Y do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed project. • L1My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans: I . understand the scope of worl~; and I have issues or copcerns,whtch--after discussion - • yvith the applicant, have cot been addressed. My concerns are the fallowing (please attach additional sheets if necessary): /M~ 0 2 ~r+~,-~ wu. tT P 1.4.1 s ~~eo~~~ do 2 .5~~~tc. 7"fK ~vl/1+~,/~~'~` Gor,~~~v7'r'.• /?Y . r~ //~~- _ ,~~ili /I w) 1 ~• /~w t/ C ~ VIA d~7~'" fif ~/1~1 /C1..L/1.~ ~ ~/S Fl f`F'h ~~'~ ~'~~C/ D W •L'1'~ C~4lL~ pe~tT E' ~ 57~R..41' G. , f~o5'3~41a ..._~ .~.~ ri,.. e zz~ l~~l ~s ~/ ,g L°~ Neighbor Pb~one f~: ,~~~~~~- ~~ ~ ' Signature: Printed: C=ey of Saratoga ~' ~ ~ _ Planning Aepartm~nt ~, ~- Neighbor Ir?am : ~ ~' ~~'~C.lJ Neighbor AddrpQa. 1'~;hbor Nuti~ica•~iun Template f~ Development Applications . Date: 3 2op~ • PROTECT AD RESS: Z?~-b l ~ ~ ~4 ~ ~ 50~' •~ Applicant Name: r. ~ . ~ S~~ ~ir" Application Number:_ 4 3 ~- ZT 2 The Saratoga Planning Commission req~~xrpc applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project .The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when soticited by ~ applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that ~ R neighbors take thfs opportunity to ezpresa 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 of thr vplriton expressed bclow, you may reserve the 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 mviewed the project•plans; I • »nderstand the scope of wo • and Y do NOT have any concerns or issues vvbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public herring nn the. proposod project. ^N1y signaturc below certifies the. following: I have reViewP.d the project plans: I understand the scope o wor]~• and I have issues or eopcerns, which after discuss#on yrith the applicant, hove not been addressed. My concerns ors the following (please attach additional ehee~ if necessary): ~,,, e. OAS C ~ 31~-'~_ i.~.} 1 ~' L- ~ ~ ~ ~ ! S~~L~~ a ,~ Q c,f (.~ J ~-Y~-. . -~o n~,~r~ ~J j~ ~~`~~ ~~- see e,-~-~ - • ~,,~ f.C.~ ove~..~ C~a a ~-~~-~--~ ~- -- ~~° 7 Gam" ~` ~ -F`~' ~,° ~` `.L„ ~'`.~e~Q •. / a ~ ~~~-}~o ~M~ver Neighbor Namc• ' ~ Neighbor Addrpca: o - - ~~ ~ _~ 22 S I ~-~- ~Q/~~ G Neighbor Phone ~: -r ° ~ ~~ Z (~ Z C~ Si atur~: printed: -, _: ~ ~:y City of Saratoga PlanningDeparhncfnt l~ghbor Nutircu•tiuL Template f~ Development Applications Date: `~ 3 o fl- .PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~(~ I OUNT 1=~~1 P-p~j ~A-k~E-Tvt,At ~ sn~ Applicant Name: N~~. ~ MQS . U hAYf~ S ~N~~. . Application Number: (~ 3 - 2 ~2 The Saratoga Planning Commission re.~r~ira_c applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and rssue~ when soticited by f applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~j`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have dtrer~tly to the appticant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the v~rtntori expressed below, you -may t`eserve~tlie i-Ight to amend your opiniorrat a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga ~y signature below certifies the following: I have revieweA the project•plans; ~ understand the scope of work; and Y do NOT have any concerns ox issues wbieh need to be address by the npplicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed project. • ^My signature below certifies the following: I have ret-iewP.d the project plans: I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have oot been addressed. My concerns a,-e: the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name ~~~ ~'OS~-~, Neighbor AddrecR: ~,~ Neighbor PhonC ~: _ ~ ~(E~"~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ U ~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Aepartm~nt ~~ ~~~~~ 1'~hbor Nuttflcatiun Template f~ Developanent Applications Date: ~ ~ I ~-'° PRO7E D S:.2 6 ~ t!-c,~.+>~ ~t-+` ! ~tA~ ~ ~ S~ ~-a Applicant Name: ~~`' ~ ~ fY • ~~~-te`a'` /~ S~~q r Application Number' d 3 -2 } Z The Saratoga Planning Co»,mission regvrirpc applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of . the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not took favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by + applicants prior to the public hearing. Staj~`'and the Planning Cornrnissfon prefer that ,~ neighbors take thfs opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have diregrly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your properry. Irrespective ujehe opinion expressed below, you ht to amend your opinion-at a later date and co»tmunicate it to the ~ ~ the ri rv e - a : • -~ g e se y r m City of Saratoga.. - ysignature below certifies the following: I have rerrieweA-the pmject-plans; ~ f work: a:a have any concerns or issues which need understand the scope o , _ to be address by the applicsat prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposod project. ~ ~.~ ^My signature below aettifies the.following: I:have re~iewP.d the project plans: I . ;understand the scope of worl~; and I have issues or eopcerns, which after dfscussion with tLe applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): t 1-~~ ,, r l~ a,9~0 Z' e,;' ~ e Neighbor Name n o s b a a' q rt . Neighbor Arddn3.aa: Neighbor Phone 1F: ~~~ I c~~~-- !~-3~ o~(: ~ (~~ - - -: ~: --~ ^ : C~FU s. City of Saratoga PlanningDepartm~nt l~hbor Notificu~liou Teutplate fa~ Development Applications Date: ~ ~ - ° -~. ~r-vt ~o cd.~ PR4JE DRESS: ZJ-L1-61 I~'ouw ~ Sal ~, ~`~`15e3'v Applicant Name: ~ ~n - S a ~ - Application Number: b's -Z~ Z The Saratoga Planning Commission re.~r~irpc applicants to work with theft' neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of thepublic 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 f applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f, j`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yourproperty. Irrespective of thr opinion expressed below, you _ -may reserve"ifie rfght 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; ~ ~~derstand the scope of work: and Y do NOT have any concerns or issues wbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing nn the. proposed prgiect. • ^Ivly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans: I i gnderstand the scope of vuork; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion witb the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are: the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 7©~ l f Neighbor Name: T ©~/~~ ~' r p C ~~~ Neighbor AddrecR: • Neighbor P>aone ~: ~~ ~ r '7 • Signature: I' ~ fed: • r City of Saratoga ~. ,' v E? f • Planning Aeparhn~nt t'~~~~~ • • ., -- - - -- - ---r---- --- • Developuaent Applfcations Da~~: • ~ 3bi ~~~ PRQJBGT ADDRESS: ~2~-.f, (_ ~ t-ua~~ ~~ ~I ~aveti-~o C~~e~ • rr Applicwtt Nerve: ~~ 0. ~ i ~ ~ ~ Ka r • Application Number: b3 - 2~ L The ~Saraloga Pla~using G'o~rmission rer~drPC ~Altranas to work with their neighb~ tQ address issue`s and concerns regarding development applications,priot to the evening of alze public hearing on the propared project Tfie Planning Commission daps not look . • favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their enncerns and issues when solicited by + applicart_ts prier to the public hearing. SYa,,Q'•and tlse Planning Commission prefer that ~ : ~ neighbors take thfs opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly . to the applicant. please ensure the signat~e on Phis document u representattve of al! r~iaanta residtr~g Qn your properly. Irresperltve of tlts vplntvrr txprrsaad balaw, you may t ege~'ue ~t)ie fight to anted yaaa• apiruor~- at a later date eru~ commurttcate it to the : ~ ctey of sar,atoBQ . ~My signature below certifies the following: I have, re:viewal the praject~p}ans; j undcrstatad the scoua of -~ and Y do NOT bave ~ coacerna ax issues wbkh need , to be address by tLt apliticsut prior to the City'c public he~rrimg cm the proposed project. • ^My si~aturc below ce:tif es tha fotlowing: I have reC~Qwrci the pmje~L plans; j }inderstand the s~•ope ~vaor}~: and I Dave isso~ ar concerns, vvbfeYh a#~ discussiae . yritla tine agepdi~nt, hsevc, quo! bees addreaced. My concerns arr. the fallowing (r}ease attach additional sheets if nece~aty): • Nci~bor Namc: ~h ~ cr ~ 1 ~- S , `l a-'A tkt ~ ' p ~~ 'r ~1 Neighbor A;ddr~aa: 2 2~~~ V t ~ ~ H• C~~-~ s ~'lD ~A rz ~ Ta A „ ~-i4 ! So 7 o Neighboz Phone {l: L/O g - g G 7 - 3 ~Gj . Signatu~: Printed: ~/ ~icC~ f ~/ ~ ~ s , U~~i9-L G'ityofSaratoga PTar~nuigat}epartrn~ist ®~~j"~' • Attachment 9 ~~~~~~ • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2004 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Ann Welsh, AICP AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Initiation of Annexation Proceedings for Shankar Property, 22461 Mount Eden Road (APN: 503-80-O1) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Ciry 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 Ciry's Sphere of Influence: Due to the location of the parcel and proposed development, the Ciry policy is to evaluate the annexation. ~ ~ ~ Pr ed M xation 22481 ML Eden San lava my ~ ity of Sarato a -N- I ~. L~ - 500 l 800 900 1200 7500 ft - l ~ '~ I • • L 1 City Council Report -Shankar Annexation March 3, 28flAfA~.~~~ • .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 a -three-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 fisted 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 affected 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 mustprepare 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 office 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 Bloch 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. Tliat the proposal is consistent with the adopted general plan of the city. The land use designation for the lands to b~e 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: LU.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. Thegeologist 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 Ciry 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 cor~finning 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 determining 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 City 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 Shanker annexation falls into this category since the applicant has applied for annexation and theparcel 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 waive protest 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 ~~~v~~~ i • 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------------------------~U~own Ciry Staff time------------------------------------------------------- 60 hours City Surveyor-------------------------------------------------------- $5,000 -----------------------~------------$5,000 City Geologist-------------------- 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 ~®0~~~~ • 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 Ciry of Saratoga in order to provide for use of Ciry services and to apply the terms of the City General Plan and City Code; and WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Ciry 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 City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence and is Pre-zoned Hillside Residential; and WHEREAS, the City has consulted with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters and determined that said territory has two registered voters and is therefore considered uninhabited for the purposes of annexation proceedings; . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby 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 S, 2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED -that the City Council of the City 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: ATTEST: Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk ~~~~~~ 0 ~F{/ i .., N y+.Z `~1 1^ ~ ° yjl ~`~~m s ff U ~ ~ A ~' ~a0 ~ - at z z ~~~ Vr0 ~• z o ~- _pn Q ~S m ~Z~ r TES N p O ~ ~~ 2 m~ c~ IT ~~ ~~ ~ u- ~ ~ r Z L Q T ~ na Z ~N ~ _~ ccT 7a L C ~ -~ Q t,) O in = o ~~ _ rv (f -~ "_~ o N ~~ - U ~~ m z ~ 1 ~ y ~ a a -~ ~-- ~^ :~ mx j o~ L~ m r~~ 3 ;i s N 'I1 0 ' ~ ~ ~ L ~P- ~ $ fl ~ c z ~ ~ IO 0 ~ -~ ~R o ~Oom r ~ ~ O ~ -+ I., y ~ ~~" z "£ ~ 00 z ~n ~ 0 7~an y miil ~'~ H n c-, ~T O ~ -~ O pz zr ~, m ~ A z ~ ~~ ° ~~' ~ y,ro~ ~ zm any rJ v 3n NL~i s c~ j~tn ,s ~~'~ ~ p ~ zK n ~ Na OQ m P S` c`~v 7 L.Dy ~ p ~l7 S~~ o N ~ ~ v ~' m ~ a -~ ~ ~ 0 n N ~ 4l -i ~ 'n "Ti d ~ 1-+ to ~, ~, tit ~ O 10 O l~ (1 < ~ ~ O s ~ n y mn O O p ~. ^l n I r < ~'`_~' N ~Nn1 ~,: ,~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ tP 1 _ f : ~ W QI J' m G . rl ~ ~ s' Y0..~Ai O Q ~~~. ~~N Fi J _ _ t.- e CS -~ ~ ~ ~' - $ ~ ;i y 1 1 I 1 ! - `- _~ ~~~~ ~ ~ x t ~ } g I t_ R L ~~~'p ~ O Z} `~ a i ~-~- R _, 'a I z ~ y ,-I ~u J _ ~ ~$ t ~, I` y ~'' 1 .. I Q ~`:. i t . `. ~ ~ ` - _ ~ i ; - _,, 'i 1 E \t ~ r l ~r I i ~ S F 7 -~ ~ I~I ~ -~ ~ ` ,~. a. ~ r i r ~ ~. ~ y rte: i ;~~ 1 ". `~•~, a 4~r•~~ 5 ~, ~, is r ` r"s ~ ,,~,~ ,~.,., ,~" us c ~ r i Y -~ ~ ~ n ~ - ``'' - ~ .. . ~ ~ ~~ l:ah _c a ~ - z ~: 22.~t~at M I. ~U~; -? I `~~'~ s.%~°.~EL b,r~., ~~ ~. 5 ~ ~ .~, ~••~,,-<,~--'.~`~'"~~.:~. .;. _Ir ' So~acl.., CA.~. 907: - . I :I i ~t__ `\ - _ - ., ~4~ e~i . (f ~ ~- ~ ~~ 3 o ~ ~~ ~ ~ rn a ` , ~~ r / \ ~ ~ \ 'll ~- ~ i- ~ m p n~ H P CF'66 ~ y ~ Z z__ z ~9 W ~ C N~ - , S Q -'~y W N =' _ ~ ~ y N 8 ~~ ~ p X m gN 3 ~ - ~~ ~~~ y1N S-P D ~sN ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ rn m F rn ~~ ~ (R ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ b iJ~ ~ A ~. 4 O T~ ~ , -1 _ ~ n - :~~~ -; o o l ~ o I~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,.. ~ _ I ' ~ ~ I w ~------~- ~ ~. i n: R- ~ D ?~ _ ~ I i i n c rn a i Y p F A , i 3 i f 4 $ k 9 • o ~, ~, ~'i ~~ ~ ~ ,o i µ O '. i 1 ' i 2 (c'- t,'~ a 2 ~- ~ ~~ '~ I~ ~_ ~I i~l= = \ '; ~ '~ ~ ~ ;~I~~` ~ _ r~, ~ -. , ~ '- ~1 ,~ ~~ '~~ ~ ~ ~I; I ~_ I:~ ~` ; w o I ~ i ~,~ iii I i ~_ i I ' a I tS m i J© ,~ I Z ~ .p m I 4 E ~ ~ { I ~ ~° I.. ' 6 ~ a ~~ 6 ~- j - ~~ ~ ~ i I _~ m ~ a ~--~ O ~ ~ N I I I Y~o I ~ _1 ~; ~: -----' ~~0~~ CFTC ~m 7Q ` Q ~ Z -1 z O Z. tP ~ ~ lP o { m O pLp o ~1 p61y3 Z1 ` Q f~±m~~ g~ C c ~ Tmz r ~~ 1 - AiH z~ p~ -i ~ ~' ~~rn ~~~ Ali C~ , ~ y c- ~, y ~ fi m ..a j `a z .o ~ r m -I ~~i~°' -~v z. m ~ °` ~' 3~1 ~~T7 0"' -S Z -~> ~ ~ ~~ -its ti, ~~ m' m ry v g ~sUN ~~t- " =Oy ~ N ~ - ~n Pi ~i -1 n ~i c S~ 4 c~ ~ m Pl ~ ~ ~~_ m z - o~ A Lrn{ U'v aD rn-{~6 ~ < - ~ 610 Iron 3 p~~ p 2 {R ~~" S U 4; x ~~ my ~~ ~p ~r. 1 ~r ~N ~ }-` JI-{i~i~{~~=~~ .- :~~i~;.;~= I~ ~20C~E~T AVII.ES ~~SICi~I ~~J~6 ~ N a `~, ,. y „_. ~ r:.-. _ ~/ -- J -_ ;_ .' ~'80~J SOQUEL bR. n a n o ,~..: f,->' o__ ~ ,. ,. ,. . ,--,.- / -.. it ~po1~n~lEL CALIF, 9507, ,~ ,r ~ -° F ___ - ----1 _ -- - -- -_ _-___. q.__..__.__- __-_.__.. _.._. __..___._-_-._ ~- -- 'D _~ r _ ___ - 1 m ~ ~.--_.__ _.~ i ~ - 1 1 - --'°_--- - -- ~ I-- -'°- - -- - -~ - -, -~-=~------1---==-- - =r ~~ (r 11 S -~J (\1 Z )' ~r ~1 c ,7 .~ C ~ D m ~n ti X l~ z CF -1 A EFL ii 6' ~ ,wr ~-a~ 000 ~v i'i'- S iu-• j 41=~i1 y, t~'_dl a g QA-' O ~ N'o ~_ ~ ~ ~_ _._ ~ y -+ .D O i ~~ 1 Cp m I C ~ ~. o i 'e A - Y ~ yO A 3~W 'y~ O '^ e ~ _ I ,. I 4~ ~ I -.\ u ~ ti ~ I z~ o •- lr ~ o ` I I ~ i ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ i ~x i ~ I __ s ~ ~n g ~ I ~ s'" ~ 3 I I 'I ° ~ w` Ili! . ~ T ~`n I ~ ~ i ~ o I',, 4 I III; S i i ~~ lT a ~ 11... If 3 '~ 1__~ U Ain p. I ~ /~ 6 c l x c ~~ __ ~ _--,. I 1 _~I s:r i ~ ~I - -,-•T~-I -i l.. °Q ~Q~ STS j J i I c~~ t N' , SIJC cs~ ~~ r i a r ~ 6 O - i ~i _", - fi A ~ 3 I y ~ I ° -~3 v+ 7p ~ i ~' - I ~N - -1 I ~ v~- I ~ I F ~ ~ - I J £ I ~ - -- I I ~1'E'i i i~ 1 ~~a ~~na I :n~ -I - ~ II ~ - <O n _ - NN ~' ro ~a ~ ; ~ r I ~ tl] I ~~. s- u3 i 1I _ _ _ n ~ mk ~ 0 i - - _ i ~f`, _ ~ ti I , ~ -_.,c vQ u _ i s F_ ,ry i moo; / ~~o I j I i i ~ - -' N~ _ ~_I~~_ na _ 81-9~I p I ~+ 71 - ~ ~ Tb ~ ~ ~ -~TI 1 i` O ~ I _ I IA ~ ~ 3 I I -~ F \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I~ _ ~., \ r a ~ a~ iy0 ~i 9 I ~ f~ I< I _ (w~pc ~ 3c- I ~~ F=j J L J y~I ili .- ~'s ''~' dj~ SHIT . ~a lJ - ~~l/ - ~~ ~_i ._.- ~' ~ Ins ~~~ d.o `> F~~ I 11 . i ~ ` ~A l° 7n i I j~ .l~- 1 _ ARCH - t lP N U I is I ~ i i ~ - `-- ~~~ ARAN - a 'c - !Q D Ii _ -( ~ ~ ~ i = H z I ~- a 7q I I I m~. ~ - - I -r I ~ .n -- J';p I Ilj I ;~ 5I N z _ 6~ aaI I ' . ~ I ~ I ~ -- ~ Z. ~ p ~. I I I ~ Tn ~ I \~ ~~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 N -) ~ ~ i - ~ I ;s ~ I ~ I I % 1 ~~ I ~~ - I ~ i. / ~I'~ - n~6~ i; I III,-- I I TU' Pa I II ' N'I - ,;.,._ .. j ; . ~ E.cro si I,I; IS ~ v~ -S+o i _lsr°..-.-- _ O ` Y ~ \\\ I- ~ ,nr y:,r 1 n ~ .~\ `. I II ~ 1~~ ~ --1 -:i ~ oUJ'o _;y `I.. L r~_.o a .`' 5-0 f(4 (1 - _. ' I ~t~ ~,\I iio ~ a~ ~ e' c~ I I I p 1. Q, N ~_ - - ~ ~~~I ~ I s j N ~ S * 81. o~ -11.91 p o I .1 ~ ~ ~ I I --- ~: , -..__ _.. G ~ -- - 19 ~..-- -- - ' I I I ~~z_3I _ o -- _ _ . _ _ _ . -... - --- -----_ ---- - _ 571 op I I I i ~ o l -- -- _ --- _.. _ I' ~. - _~ V ~ v s - tr, -177 -i ~ . L__ ~ ?~ n .. >Q N V ~ -~--1 . e ~ L m rr - . ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o %, , ~, %o o IL~~~°•oc ~~ m ~~ ~ , U j N t N~ W S V c TIC -' ~~, ~v -> r' 12T AVIl.~S ~ESIaN s w x ~_ 6 22~.~? P'~T. ~~~N ~'_':~, `I'8~3 so~uE~ bR, Q ~ ~ b ~. SoQuEL..~ CALOI.,F, 9507' _ ~ G ~` r: . ~~ _a ~~ l.,'":i_.! r~" -- 83~ _sl'7C0 - Slo°'Cp - s r7 T~ OII -- 41 I oll -__'_----'-"- _..- __. E~y cry ~~ DC c. o- i • • • i s f ~~~ rL~ V ~t- I ~ ~ I ~ ~N I ~- ~ ;p -~~ I Y ~ ~- z i r L ~ ~c I ~ 6 - . ~ f0 ci c~ A I m N T' ~ ' n~11~ OT_A Y 7. ~z~p° ~D x l!~ I (` < -~ ,l C: ` ~__ - I c f N i Z 0 I I 49 ~_Gn J 3 ~'rl~N r v ~" ~ ~ a K~a~ERT AVII.ES p~SIC~N x('833 G-~~~UEL bR. SoQuEL.~ CALIF 950~'~ 83~ -~'1~ - 5~og~ . ~ I i .~ I ` ~ Ir --~ _ . i ~` ~... v i _~ m ~.~. _ __ _.__- __ ... ~_ ~ I II 6y` ~,R,4 O .~ ~ %' i t `iA WWW EEF----- -rrTTTf -- - I I .__-~ ~ ~ ~-~ , as ~ O~ o E~ :l - I ~ ~~ ~ PA r~F r~ ;i _'_'_'_'+L ~ ~r n a - r= o s o F- O Y ~I __-_ a -._ fi Z ~ p f'.2 ~° ~~ m ~~ c ~ rni ~ ~r ~ 0 3 O ~ Fn -G 6` m ,po I~ o I~ ~I~ ~ ~.? ~ F ~ :T '~ !A ~ ~ lO IN ~ ~ J ~ Q k g p . -P N ., ;, ~ ~.,-', F2,=; ~ ~'? :a P. ~ : Air I ._I cif m V'~0 T D ~ (g N O ~o~~12T AV~LES ~ES~N ~'8'~3 Sf~c~UEL b2. Soc~~;Ei ~ CALIF, 950~'~ 8 ~1-q'7Co - S~y°JCa O 3 • • • • r • 0 e i r-- - - - - ~ ~ - -- -- 0 ~ ~` - - ~ ~_. ~" ~ ~ z ~ z -- - --- _ 0,~ ~ = x "'~ ~~,~ j .~ - o ~ ° ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ j ~ ~ i ~ ~~ N ~\ i ~`' ~ L_ ~ ~~ --I E° AT .~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r I i ------° o S~ i x• X~ ~~ Y~ • ~~ ~ I, ~ ~~~ ~~ 00 s~ ~~8 ~g Y?7aZ ~~ i -~t~ ~~~ _~ m fi(~jl v N w i _r s --~ m ~~ A _°N ~~= I i fi ~ o ~ - ~-~ '-' p fR m~ ~~.. ~ i ~N ~ ~ ~ r----------- ~~ ~_~ S ~ - I ~ ~ ~ ~ S p ~ ~ 3 r ~nr°,rvicHK .K~SIt~EN.GE ~0~E-12T Av~I.ES pESI~iN. ~ ~ ~ ~° N ~ 24'~~ MT. ~bEl-l IZb ~1'83'~ soQUEL bGZ.. ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ o ~° o_ ~ s~~'~-;-°G;~,~ GPLI F, Soc~UEL~ CALIF 9So73 ~ « 631-7[0- ~~v°JCv • • • • • I~ ` I T ,1 ~ _ I ~ ~ - pT ~ I u~ ~_~ . _.- I- LI ~F: ~I ~. i ~, o~ ~ ~T `i'E~ m~ ~ Dm IiI ~ _ ~' ~ ` ' I t_ ~ ~ ~R A jj~~~ ~ L m s~ . _ a ~~ o~ ,~. ..~21-JII .. . _ . Cs I_011 :_ __ _ ~~ ~E~~o3a5~, 6 '. N Q~ m r-i C^ U fl _a! I _I a _, ~ ~ y I D ( my ~ -,p o Q L: ~. 3 S ~ I I m ! ~ ~ N ~ _D (n -~- ~ I u ~ ~C ~ I h I - V, I f (p 1 i _ J m ~ ~ o m T ~ ~ i -R ~ 33g Aga - - - I' --==-- - I -{ ts~ U -L' ,~ c,~~~ _ _._ ~ 3 _ ... L-J ~ ~ y~D i _ ... _ .. (_ `'-6 F'-i= I - ~~ ~F I ,. , . ' ~ __- r1 - I _ ~._ .~ L ~ .:......__. . _.._.. ._.... - P - L.. _.._.. ..... ..... .' ~ i ~ ~... .. ......_ ;. Y._ ..._._ _ .. _. ... ._ ~ `. ~ 4 ~ I s l •`: I ~' xim~ 3s =a J ~~o ~ `~ ~~Ia 1 D ~ ~ ~ I ~ _~ ~ip- g _ p . `~ I m Q` "~ LA ~ _ .Nrn ~i ~ ~ ~ ~xQn ~Q 3 y~L~ ~ m _..__ .. C ~ ._~ _ .• .~ a ,. I N ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ o A iS. _-__- ylN h i Iii i{II ~_°__'-_.i ~ I~ U i ~ m i /I I~ I ~ IU -- Jc i r , , ... I ~ L_____.:~ _ r.-_._..~ _ /.~j~ - l_-'_-=1 1111~II ~~ ~{. N • O \~ Zv`ee ~r ~'. - i-___ ~~ I, ~_. ~. I _-.. ~'-___- i 1~ ~ ~ I ~ .. _ __ ~ ~ D. ~ ~ ~ ~~ J r- ~ -- -- ~ - --1 ; I ~ h h ~ _ ii ._ ~. ~' ~ _ ~ C_.. U' D'C _ JI(~ ~ I ~~l O y'O m ~ ~ ~ _ vm ~ ~ ' `~ I ~ ~ ~~+ ~1 z' ~ f ~ g ~o- ~ ;~ ~ D ~ro ~ ~ ~ ;. ~ ` ~ y 1~ - i Z_ I ~ I ~ N ~ E ~ S~~Af~1KAf-~ ~-c_=~~ cEFJ~E s ND UI~IIT a c9 z A r~ ~'' 22~-io( Mr ~E7~~a ~oP.~, _~ ~.~ o 0 ~_~ ~~ _ (- v L- 41 ! ~ ~ ~._ _... .. __ _'__._ = , _~ L_ -- r - I I - ~I I TC t - ----- T -- i\ \J I .~ I ~~ . I L___J~ N ~.: ~! _ ~ ~ ~~,` m , U ~' sN l m, ° ~ G ~ I o ~- I (~ _ ; m : ~ 7a 1 ! ~ . o S aU I N 6 j !E; ~Qso S~D. (E~~30+0 (E)HO6H SLD DR.7GM1? .Il _ .. ,. ..___.__-...___LG_I.-OII_____.__.___ i 48~ ~o:~tJ~L oc_ it S,~ c.) ~ C ' ~ .-- - I :C i 1 x ~~ ~° ~o N 0= I w ~, ~ ~ z m t ["r I ~' ~~ ~~ 3~ z< ~ a o ~rn ~ ._ N ;z ~ (n O U~ Y n~ Z ~n ~ ,_ a 2 c~ l ~_ L ~ _.- i. - . -i ~ I j' i LI z = _ J ~ K NI N.. xi °° . , p c s m z s.. c ~ 1 r ~ ~'' -: ~ o` s ~s" A:; ~ s ; 6 _ ~ J i_ I i f=~ A~ 1P~i. ~£~ ~. t.. o ~g ~~ ~~ o~ z~ 3 ~ ~m~ r ~~ w Z s N 0 o . ;n ~ ~ io -~i _~. z~ ,y A~ N ~ ~~y ~ In~m J ~m m~ o j~ ~ ~ O ~'~ ' _' C _ ~ ~ ~ `" J I 1 p Id? i .-P ' I~ \ ~ _ o ~ x ' i ~. . _... - _ --~ i } ~% Q CP f > ;P ° f £f~ ~c~ i r ~~ ' " L _ L ` ~~ p n ~~ ~a° pO~ '~ li ~ • R R ~ ~~ ~ n y Ci ~`,', ~ ~ t x i ~ ~ ~ I U ~ i 7~ 3 ~ n m ~~ ~ D p 1 R y ~ j I v v ~ ~ ~ V __ ~.~ ol~f 1r:. oll ~ _°_ [~1 ~ 1 A o ..._...__...-_-~ _-___- - ~2-O I ~ iN i _ ~ y Q m N ~~ ~I m `_ I . r N r m - _: __-:___ D N2 ~' ? -, .~ F ~- 0 ______ Q ~m Z -_--~_---' ~ Fz I I ~ ~ f ~ I rn ~ I f .~ L____.____._..~ ~ I~ - ~ it og ~ =_-_-= _-___=-~ I ~Q "n ~ _._._.~._- ~< 8 __- im ~ ~~-__._--- - I - _-_ m1a ------- -- ~~ g~P z Y----- "- - o ~ t o`er L ~ -- lnz it _._:.,...----___. , .._' cc~ _ T_. m --._. -.~- 'I B' ~ Sl ~'~i x :~ ~ gi a 4 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~~ "~ ~o~E~T AvI~eS ~~SIGN N a I ~'8'~'S SoC~UEL bR., u SoQuEI.~ CALIF, 9So7?~ N ~ 631-~7~- S~v°~Cp m i I I ii ~~ ~ c ;o ,~ s ,~ ~; ~~ o (, ~' ~' f O ~ o r .{ ~ a`. Y ~ 'a _ ~ > r ~ ~ -~ P Q V ~ ~ Q' F 6 ~ 3 ~, a ~ ~ L L s ~ < ~ ~ s ~ ~ { (~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ II ~ N ~ ~ ~~ .v ^~ w ~ ~ W ~ p ~ ~ < m v ~ -~ c, Q O D ~fi - ~ $ 8 ~ o rn m .~ 0 -~ ~ ~ I K ~ µ I I ~ I ~~- o 4/ m~ O l~ ~ '"in A , _L l ~~ • \ N JC` ~c ~/ !~ i ~ w I ~. ~: !J ~. y~ Rb {\ ~I' ~ r0 . '~I '~ ~. i ~ ~ _~ - e ~i-,._ ~` - a -- _ L`t ~ ~~ ~v-_ i c p m m ~` - rng , \Z • m~ s• m ~3 N rn 6 N o ~ ~ m.. Uz • E 670 b G :mil \, fr[ '~~' ' ~ l ,_. it - yy l l a `f _ 0 ~ e ~ ~ ~ I', II~~I I~ ~DW Tn o _ (n~ A I D I _~~ I A _ / r R,~ ~ Q N _ ~ y i ~n J~A^ •A IW \ orS ~~ .~a .~ Q .~, m p r ~~~~ ;; ~ , ~ _ _ - _ p - ~ ~ i ~ i~ I} m 1 r \~ 1 630 ~~ ~ `~~ CS ~; N.. - ~~I Sr~~• ~ ~ I V Z ~, a Y° w • ~~ - - -- / r ! ' ~ ms ---- ~~~ ~ - s __ ' }~ ~. >. .A ~o _ _.... __ . .. ti _ ., • F ~\\ ~ S ~/ ~w ~` ~c~ r ~f ~. ~... •., ~ ~ C \\~ ~6 s ~~ __ _~_ a O ~ r ~_ { i O _ ~ _ Z ~ b o ~ P ~ Q ~n r ti` ~ y R - - r W I 1 0 ~ ~ -' ~ I _ w` ~ I y ~ . p k ~ n r I I 1n ., m ~, ~~ 1 -+. Ci j e as ~ .o• '3+., a - ~~ :_ ; :~ +' .a Y. O - m m A m 2 0 3 „c ~c x of _~ s A m ~ X I 6 .p s ~. 1 ~; i -L4 ~ I i .. ~ ... ~ ... '-H _ - -7-5~ ~ I---~-- O T- )~Z ~ 3 r - ;~ r~+ -- = I ~ m Q O Els : - tn. t- N ~ N n~ ail, _~ _..i-- } ___ _ ~ N __ _ 9 .~ ~ I , ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ - I t O v - ~-F_ -_- C ~ _ O. _L O~ ..1 , T I ~P - -P ~ W N I O ( to I O° ,l 1 f ~ I -P I V~ N . ' ~J ~l ~ £ >- I `u ~ ' E i ~ ~y v c ~ I 3 ~ ` U n ~. l+ ~'~___ -'1-- _ = _~- ~~ - t--=r -_~(-_ - K ~' o -~n s l o z ~; 'pvp' y ~:i ~ ~lA ~ a 1_t:y ly <;r ~r r :r lr~r`~- r 'r i~ ~ ~ I I a ~ Ir ~ ~ dim i = L ItTi~ Ii~ ~ c G 1a i. `o i0 ~0 .O O O O ~ O IQ ~ ! O I7a m;p O p i m z (~ m ~N m Y ~! x io { `~ I~ 4. p P j 5 i K I S ~1 ~~ m I I I I ~ i I Q ~ I ~ - I I !~ ~ ~ <o` Ti I Z s~ - ? J: m lR ~ r >= i O '~ t ~~ - (3 i rt_-i__-t- -I-- J--~--r----- _JII_---~- `~ ~ '+70 cn o I ~n a m z A I y ~, _ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ v ~ u' ~ ~3 ! tJ N d, I ~ ~ I -- W Qs ~ R1 ~ 03 j = \ m ~. O \ ~ ~ •: 6 Z ,~„ ' D I O bpi ~ ~ ~ II N - ~ 6` I CC^ O I ~ i j I ~ I ~ ~ 1!~ lY I ~T` i J ! ~S I 'e ~ I ~ I 0 i t~` ~ I Q_ ~- I y ~ R ~~ .2 I m l y \IZi p ~ Q ~~ 101 NI~~ O I I I i i . i i I {--- -;-i-- Q 60 Yl- mi~i~i4 ~ ~~T y{~NA~-I n NN:~` J1~1J~ N N~ I ~ N N ~ ~ _I~N:.~N v_F~ Z ~'s a = -+ N ? z~~I ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ v ~)Z, ~ 0_I t)` ~S O O_~ O ~i ~ i0_ O W 'CA_ 4 0 W CP I 0 ~O- CAN_I-P_ r=, i ~ i ~ m S v N - ~p _ ~ ' /~} - N Q _ ~ i - I i - I - I - - I - tr= I~ R ~ I I I ~ I-n~J A v!~_ iDi3'A - - ~I~„N'xrl °' i ~ I m• ~ ~° Y m I rn I~ I m _ ~6 ~~ to cP ~ p- fn ~ 2! R~ I O I -A ~- i -P -~ I W I w~ W U+ ~ w W I ~y W~ w ~_1 N N~ N _ N _~ N '_ N_~ N~ ___ 1~- P I D n~ Z ~ N z U y ~ "D N I O (4 I ~' I I L " i ~ x • v ~ I x I = ~ n -i m ~ JC ----,-- - ~_ ~ -~_~~ 6~ ~v. ~ ~w r,__ I o m to i a ~ v+ -4 .r o i I Zr ro- r I n uz ~ S- D td !a ~ i o I~ I v to I ~ o I J' N ~ m~ r v J, ~ I r: f ~ < rn I m: m . r*` ~ m m o rn m I rn __ __~ t~ -:- __}- ---~ - i ~ a,l ~I~ I ~ N, J' s' £ i I I ~ < r i~ rn ~ r j~ ~ ti 161' IT i 31 ~ S ~~ n ! D !O ,O O10 iC c,c ~ c c G c c I c t_ ~ S .~~P ~IU s? ~. ~,~ s ~ ai rI ' n I n nn n n n I~ n n O~ o I O o~ o! o Io rn i o ~ T _ I I X~ m o > n I~ y~ I n I t.----_~_.T j I I i i ~ R D NIr~NI ~~ ~ rol ~ D I I, ' I I ~~ ~ ,-~ Y r N. r, re, I .~ I~ s a n y ;~ ~ i ~ S ~? ~ ~ O I o C O w~ -A . w n~ ~ u ro ~' '. ,~ I s J` i s .n I C ~ vy . ~, I A ~ x ~ ~v .r S~.p ~ _ ~ _ S~ N IS ,1! ~P U' ff' U` ja 0 :.0 ~ ! O_I O I~ rm Div i m N I o ml ~~ I J+i ~'m 0 !~ .PlP 0 iOlp Ip '~ ~ IN N N :N I.v y j ~ :-4 ~! -e.'N vv ! I ~ ~ ~ 1"R - C~ (ii N i ~ N i ~ S~ , I -. - I , - _ V! I v-' `h - s D N I 0 O O_ O :, p I J' N. r I o I~ p ~- crt o a m ~ m i I i ~j i j c_I j o v :- I i- I_ i ~ I I i m _ I _ I - _. ._ I _ .. ' "- __- --_ o '< _ !I I I ~ ' o ' I~ o ~ I~ j •~ I i I `I ~ _ I. ~ I I ~ ~ W ro CA j ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~H;;N;~:=~~ ~~~iU~~l~~ ~oraERT Avl~~s ~~SIGN - ~ ; N ~ ~ it ~ e !' ~=~C~; iT F_~r•:~ ~p 'x"833 ~QUEL ~, o c n bQ• ~ ° ~ o y o ~ =.'P<<2~.T:~':~;:-..~ ,~;aLi'r: Soc~UEL, CALIF. 950~'~ 'J .a -~ ~ - B~J~~~'1~0- S~Ga/~ s • • • \ ~ g"a I \ 1\\L 2'~; ~ I \\ ~ a . ~. / ``yy1 ~ 1 \ .. , I _ I~ L .I, JA- .: r I 1 1 - s , - -~ i -.- '~ - -.. --' _ .._ .- Q ~ ~ F _ s 8 :~ ~ 41c 1 ~. Rnr,so~ s, 6io- g ~ ,~ ; ~,a Y , ~.,..~'~ ~r ~ , / a,l ~ I p 8 ,: y~' ~. ~ o i r6 S1S \-- i ;, gyn.. ~ -,-- ~~ 8 ~' '~// , -. a - ~/ . ~ ~ :I ~ ~--__ 675 ~ ` • , and 1 ~ - sc6 ~ R. ~ 8 t ~ ~_\ 679 Ep ~ - B~ g / ~ ~. ° ~ j \ - .Q {._. .~ 7 i0 ~D r !m ~n O s '~~~L I r- U - ~ -C ~D 7 G~ Z D ~ Z yn _; o c _n x c JO Z ' _ _ _. _v ~~l _ :,~ '1 $ ~ - Z CU l ~ T I ~I -( ~ d I Y ~ ~ ~I Z m 7 A ~ o = °~ ~ D 3i~~~/TZ\ ~ 3 D 00 ~ ~ m r1 Z i ~ to z ~D of oD .ZJ D d Z Td N D Z D fTl r Z / _ . ~ ~ ~ i O / ~ ~T. ~ b ~ ~ l~ ~ 6 ~ t~^ t O; / G C) _rD ~ OC D (n 1 D NZ~Om~ O r Z11 m :L Oy mm` ~ to fTl J O O~-i 00 ~ Y ~~? D Dr (n ~ U mD W (iO:L-i D - COOKS y y 1J (nAZ T.Z D SmOCDU _ /~ G; 7_ D IV/ ~ A Ir O~ ~ W f^ m0 0 0 G D=~ mA Z r D ~ZZ Sm r1n D <-I W yU Or D y r- ~~ m : CO D A(n Z OD Ti m< Ay°~ <D D Z m211 O A I m Z D ' y r ~OO,Z7p ~'1 L7 ^ .Y/ Y' D U ~ <y Z U O ~ Or IT~I~Z -D-ID m~ . f J 2U ~CCOA Or W D Z ArD m GZ,y Y iv ~ vx < z COO rmi ~G~ nAiSZ ~Omo OF OZ mZ y-1~~ ~ ~JW 0 Z~ztmr S ~ ~ ~G O OT z'i ~G)~ DMZ ~O O{gym WG r 0-m Oy WOC OA~1 T n0 :N _~ -0 OC ~~Iy mAm m0 ~F Dr m D {2 mD0- Cm D~mAS-i {(n ,v Wr SC A m7_V, O Or S_ O OA C• Z D Wr T,O rm DO _1~ ZmZ~ ~ Sr ~°.DD A mA { °OA D~ ~ OC ~~ . "Om ~ O C O m ym A OD rAnD D W Z~tn ~, G1 D ~ ~~A~~ ~ W Z G 7 j O~ ~p 3 ~ OO A Z DOSmz ~ ~ m O r;OZ7 ~ r A A Z m tn O O ~A r A yOZ W l r O Z DD -i W<SDZ D r y ; D ; .__ O W ~'I' O G m -y.°.W ~ m x R cn ~~ I C y + ~OZ-~_ O A N n D .=1 r<n WyD~O ~ ~ C A m O r? (n m- ~O-Off!--(nS_~n._ r (n D A ~ ~ 2O.v'-W y _ ~_ OO ~/~ ~^O~ O - A xo D D m~~ 2 Zy Z' nz O D yA ZmWDr ~ mr ~ m~1G-t- DSm DO Z W -//''~~ - ~- O I'1 ~. I D Z N r U1 r D O r A R; -< (n 2 ° y N m O ~) A= { m m m ° D _i '~ ~ O Z11 D y- VI R1 Z In U D f/1 i \~/ _ R1 i ZZZ C)WA ytZ O^' ~r2 DZ 1(","~3 Z W Tt~Z T ~< O_l X00 -mA o RlyO Cm m_c)tn Z z m 00 o OVA -c D -D -+ mfz m0 V) mO = °p 'i ;' ~ N~ O mm~v m mC z ° - Z InzvA W O ~p a0 ~~ Z W m z A~ { zc' (n ~ SN DRI-' S W y r D y W D= ~m= ~ ~ I''mj~ m mW iZ G X11 A zA A < ° I rL)U rn°< ~O UAm n Dm mD m ~mm ~ -~ D~ m i { .Z - Sol n 1 f I' 00 - DAD y ~ A Z m 3 A ON y ° CZOO N ;O fi AO a rG) Dn OOZ Z Z~ O1 i m ° Z (/1Z LOSS ni o mo StnO(nx . r'' D ~~ . al zoD ( jD m oo A ~ ~m m O ~ =zn G ~~ OZ m Z r ~ X C O W ZO N y O (n y -Di m (r'1 ~~ VJ •~ U A y mm z~(n l °OC Om D OW -1r~ D D D '1 V1 WDC' In O G ( n v' Op O ~.. D N' ~ - z ~r Om O~l OA ~ ~A D A N y~ r~-O ° m A-i mr-r Dm Z Z DO Z V1D Z• D y m r D (G.12 ~r<r,m W al;j~ S~ OOC DO OD{rr-y y °0~~~ ~~ j N 1 z.- ~ ~ - Z o OG Z D m D Obi v! Z Vl W Z. m°-- r mA O (nD D y Z O D Tl0 000 r y WO Zc. ~(,',z O O~ O D Z W~ n .Z7 y r~0 r -, -i m ~ p z ~ D Z Z y O'<m y O N y O ° -Im O Tl~ tiOmr ° r*t W G Z m O:DD-<~ O C m r, :5 T 1' v A O C A~ O-io D 2 2 00 Z (n { D~(n _I .Z7 -- C G~7 AZO OrD m Z O m '< Z Z ~ Z Z y~ ° _i yOr m~ 2< %D Z m0- A VI O ;D 1 D f'1 W ym m (+; V, D O m D VI L "D ~ Tl O 'n m Zl ~ m~~ W Dm Z l n -~ vm( A l1NA -Z Z Zm Zy D-'t ~O~1D { S m 1 fnA . ins P Z ~ 2 D ' UO ?r~=rz O =m T CA ~~Am ?3 ~o~ A Omtn~ r c= m~°O ~ my=11Z n~vl~nOO O'Tl mrA„ i a ~ O ~ ° O D Z O I 1 _ _ O p V l -<< AW r rn A<- 1 D ~ A= D a m n O 'D TIr N (nZ m n ~ Z G ZN ZD O 'UD ~r p 7: y D ~y CnA m m OmZy W D ~I ~ nV (n -< ~ I fTWI n y AI Ay c0 ~Cn y <~ t/1 Sr m.,l mr NZ AAJC ~ D O C ~ n AD D< ('' A y y< m m n J lov'o ~ = rn z A ~~ O/1W O <OO ~ -Di AW ~ y W s,:, "'OOO om w i A ~~1Y0 _ OS y y D m mVl N p A N m (7 O O Z 7y°('10 O DS m lr DD ZD D A ri 'i~-~_1 < D I I yZ O (7 -t O(nm ~J I~ '. ~~~~~ n c ti F F D D o O o D - D m m O X r C D r y O .. .. ~ J 00 V O O O O O n { { { _ ~, /' ~ ' ~ yp'Ie s I ~ ~ _ L i -1'~ .._ ~~ 1.- / ~ N'l~ \ r r /; `..' e,V .a A~ ra ~ y Z ~, ~ i D , ..~ B I F~9 VyS~ , +~ ~O ~~~~1~,~cE 0 ~ ~~~ .~~-.~M19 1. ~~- I'"~.,~~ 8 ~~ .,.._ T , ,,,g c~c e2cg t • Item 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION i~ • Applicant No./Location: App #04-039; 14407 Big Basin Way Applicant/Owner: Nextel / Dennis Cunningham Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Interim Community Development Director Application Type: Telecommunication Facility Date: March 23, 2005 APN: 503-24-079 Department Head:~~~ -~ I I Street label - ~ ~ _ :~ Q Bufrer zones arountl 14407 Bq Basin ab ri ~',, I t ' ~.JiaA' iBUNNW6CERII""'~ , _.....-_. •,`•\ ' ~WOR~I ,4407 Bg ~5~ 1`~ _ _ ` . ~ :E _ _ _ '~;: /;. loo n o-om+44o7 eg easn ~'l t g'` I •\ ; ~ •~ / ;~ Streets ~~~ • I ~ ///i~ '-' Parcels '. '~` i ~~ P°' j J s •(~~'~ / j/ /// ., -_.. I SINN 4L ~ ~ti ~~- nn ,~ ~, ;,,_, _ SPg7j fGfR AV/ 'L" ~ 4 (~~ ~ 1 . ~~ /~~• / T. // / ~•. ~~ (- /~ ~~.~ XWLLDyVOW V!Y _ G i ~] / _ III ~ i/ /~ ~~~(30 / (\~ L~RLO!\C\AV~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ macaws ao- ~ ' ~~,~~K:. _... _ \\`.% /'c ~'~ / `~j,Y)(~• ~ ~,,;ar ~ '~`~~ ~, ~\ \~, ~ ~l ~ \ ~~.~ ~w/ ~~ I aso boo ~ son i . a. ~ __ 14407 Big Basin Way ®~~~~1 ExECVT~ SvlvrnzARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3/01/04 2/01/05 3/09/05 3/08/05 3/17/05 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless antenna system on the roof of the existing office building. The system is comprised of 12 new antennas mounted on a new roof screen designed to match the existing building. The equipment cabinets will be located inside the building in an existing office space. The screened area will be 16'X 18'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 3. RF Exposure Report. 4. Photosimulations. 5. Applicant's Project Description, Plans, Photo simulations (Exhibit "A") • C7 1....J ~~~~~i~ File No. 04-039; 14407 Big Basin Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1, Historic Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR, Retail-Commercial MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Not Applicable AVERAGE .SITE .SLOPE: < 3% GRADING REQUIRED: Not Applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed antenna and screen wall will be painted to match the existing building. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless antenna system on the roof of the existing office building. The system is comprised of 12 new antennas mounted on a new roof screen designed to match the existing building. The equipment cabinets will be located inside the building in an existing office space. The screened area will be 16'X 18'. Aesthetics Staff fmds that this site is an appropriate location for a telecommunication antenna facility. The proposed antennas are unobtrusive as viewed from the street. Staff worked with the applicant on several alternative designs and found the proposed design to match the existing structure the best when standing nearby and that it blends in well with the background as viewed from Big Basin Way. Public Health and Safety As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. According to a report by William F. Hammett of Hammett & Edison, Inc., supplied by the applicant, it has been determined that the proposed facilities comply with the prevailing standards- for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. Their findings are based ®®~~.~ File No. 04-039;14407 Big Basin Way - on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Noise As a condition of project approval the applicant will be required to provide documentation . that the proposed equipment cabinet meets all City noise standards. Use Permit Findings- The proposed project supports the findings for use permit approval; therefore, staff recommends the planning .commission approve of the .proposed project -based on -the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is aconditionally-permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. .. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it .would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the -FCC. to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each. of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size-and use° proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site will be painted. to match the building and the other equipment. CONCLUSION The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code: 'The antennas and associated equipment are not expected ~to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or: improvements iri the vicinity:. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. ~ - STAFF RECOMIV~NDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application.with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. f ~®®~~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~®~~~ RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-039 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION . STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nextel; 14407 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval Permit to locate a wireless antenna system on the roof of the existing office building. The system is comprised of 12 new antennas mounted on a new roof screen designed to match the existing building. The equipment cabinets will be located inside the building in an existing office space. -The screened area will be 16'X 18'. ;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes the installation of panel antennas and. equipment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption- applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met .the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Mumcipal Code Section 15-55.070: a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive -and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant: b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious. to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under-the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect : to limiting human exposure to -radio frequency energy. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with -each of the applicable -- provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site akeady accommodates several other antenna facilities .and the new fixtures will be .painted to match the building and the other equipment. • ®®~~~ NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04- 075 for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1: The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as-shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 3. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 4. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 5. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (10) days from the date of adoption. • ~®~~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of March 2005 by the following roll call vote: • i AYES: NOES: 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 • ®~~~~ • Attachment 2 • ~~®~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES ~, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly. sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, -over the age of 18 years; .that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 8th day of March, 2005, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown; to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made. part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property-who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance s and their addresses are those shown on the- of the City of Saratoga in that said person most recent equalized-roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500-.feet of the propertyto be affected-by the application 14407 Big Basin Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. f 1 John F. Livingsto ICP Interim Community Development Director • ~®®:~~® City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 23rd day of March 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the Ciry theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Ciry Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the Ciry web site at wz~~~.v.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION #04-039 (503-24-079) Nexte1,14407 Big Basin Way; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless facility on the roof of the existing office building at the above location. The proposed facility includes GPS and panel antennas, and a screen wall to mount the antennas. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you. challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses -the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Interim Community Development Director 408.868.1231 • LONG, JOSEPH P JR & SUSAN D Or Current Owner, APN 39733001 P O BOX 2095 SARATOGA, CA 95.070-0095 HUYNH, M1NH Q & _ PHUONGKHANH VAN Or Current Owner, APN 39733004 14349 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5949 CUSTODIO, JAMES Or Current Owner, APN 39733007- 14351 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 PENNELL, AYLENE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner; APN 39733010 14353 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5964 PONTIER, LENA N TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733013. 14353 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5965 CANNIZZARO, ANTHONY J & MARGARET Or Current Owner, APN 39733016. 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS, CA 95030-2931 WARRINER, HARWOOD TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733019 PO BOX 217 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0217 DICKERSON, LAUREL. Or Current Owner, APN 39733022 14359 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5947 OSTERMAN, JAMES W TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739002 268 APTOS BEACH DR APTOS, CA 95003-3027 SILVEIRA; LUCILLE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739005 14345 SARATOGA AV 15 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 KENT,-MARGARET E Or Current Owner, APN 39733002 261 HARTZ AV DANVILLE, CA 94526-3309 MATSUMOTO, KAZUYO ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733005 14349 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5949 KING, DENNIS W & SHIULIEN KUO Or Current Owner, APN 39733008 14351 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 KATHARY, WANDA G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733011 14353 SARATOGA AV D SARATOGA, CA 95070=5965 MANN, MORTON S & GERALDINE E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner; APN 39733014 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4437 BURGNER, KAREN E : Or Current Owner, APN 39733017 14355 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5951 -LEY, GERALD M & DOLLIE S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733020 1944 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 BUENROSTRO, MARJORIE M TRUSTEE: Or Current Owrier, APN 39733023 14359 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5947 CHASE, GERALDINE I Or Current Owner, APN 39739.003 14345 SARATOGA AV 13 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 CHUNG, JOO H & WON J Or Current Owner, APN 39739006 14345 SARATOGA AV 16 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 HSU, GRACE S Or Current Owner, APN 39733003 14347 SARATOGA AV B SARATOGA, CA 95070-5945 LINDSAY, NOEL P JR ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733006 1270 S WINCHESTER BL SAN JOSE, CA 95128-3911 BURGNER, ROBERT T KAREN E Or Current Owner, APN 39733009 14351 SARATOGA AV C SARATOGA, CA 95070-5950 PIERCE, ROBERT B TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39733012 23500 CRISTO REY DR.SOIG CUPERTINO, CA 95014-6534 BONNET, GWENDOLYN TRUSTEE` Or Current Owner, APN 397.33015 14355. SARATOGA AV D SARATOGA, CA -95070-5951 ~ PERSICO, JOSEPHINE J ~ Or Current Owner, APN 39733018_ 14357 SARATOGA AV A SARATOGA, CA 95070-5952 HENRY; RUTH M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39733021 P O BOX 798 SARATOGA, CA 95070 BILLINGTON, JULIE R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739001 14345 SARATOGA AV 1.1 SARATOGA,. CA 95070-5942 HUBER, KARL & SHIRLEY J TRUSTEE . Or Current Owner, APN 39739004 14345 SARATOGA AV 14 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 KRAMER, ALYCE M TRUSTE~ ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739007 14345 SARATOGA AV 17 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5942 ~®~~'~~ CRAMER, ADELE Or Current Owner, APN 39739008 14345 SARATOGA AV 18 TOGA, CA 95070-5942 PALAIMA, MARK & SHARON Or Current Owner, APN 39739011 14345 SARATOGA AV 23 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 SEIPEL, ROBERT S & JOAN V TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739014. 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 NATER, CHARLES & LEONORA Or Current Owner, APN 39739017 14345 SARATOGA AV 31 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 REED, GLENN C Or Current Owner, APN 39739020 14345 SARATOGA AV 34 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 IMI, BAHRAM R Or Current Owner, APN 39739023 14345 SARATOGA AV 37 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 MICHELI STEVEN L AND FRANCIS CYNTHIA R Or Current Owner, APN 51709064 14465 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 LAGERSTROM, DONALD F TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739009 14345 SARATOGA AV 21 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 SMITH, LANI R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739012 14345 SARATOGA AV 24 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 VON HELLENS, C R Or Current Owner, APN 39739015 2141 E HIGHLAND AV 155 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 REES, LEANNE Or Current Owner, APN 39739018 8701 BELLWOOD RD BETHESDA, MD 20817-3032 TAFARELLA, PETER A ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39739021 14345 SARATOGA AV 35 SARATOGA; CA 95070-5944 YOUNG, PHIL Z & JEAN L Or Current Owner, APN 39739024 14345 SARATOGA AV 38 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 MC KIBBEN TED JR AND PEGGY L Or Current Owner, APN 51709065 14463 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 VICK, GARY J & PATRICIA A Or Current Owner, APN 39739010 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5417 CRITCHFIELD, RUTHANN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739013 14345 SARATOGA AV 25 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 LEVY, RITA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739016 14345 SARATOGA AV 28 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5943 ABINGTON, ROBERT B & MARY R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39739019 14345 SARATOGA AV 33 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 BRUCE, KEVIN R & PAULINE A Or Current Owner, APN 39739022 14345 SARATOGA AV 36 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5944 DALTON PETER J TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner, APN 51709063 14467 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 BUSSE ROBERT K AND LISA C Or Current Owner, APN 51709066 14461 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 ®®~~~~ COX FLORA M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722011 20465 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5909 FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709044 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 JAMES KENNEDY Or Current Owner, APN 51709025 540 SANTA CRUZ 215 LOS GATOS, CA 95030 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH Or Current Owner, APN 39722023 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA, CA 95070 OSTROWSKI JOHN L & M. CLAIRE ETAL - Or Current Owner, APN 39722045 12750 IONE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3804 3D PROPERTIES Or Current Owner, APN 39727028 P O BOX 234 SARATOGA, OR 95071-0234 GUNN SONJA A ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 3.9731008 PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA, CA 95070 ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC Or Current Owner, APN 39731020 P:O. BOX 25 SARATOGA, CA - 95071-0025 SEAGRAVES MARGARET TRUSTEE . Or Current Owner, APN 50323017 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4535 TSAO CHICH-HSING & HSIAO- JEN Or Current Owner, APN 50323020 20567 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5868 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST Or Current Owner, APN 39722012 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS'; RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 FITZINIMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709043 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 SORENSEN DAVID L Or Current Owner, APN 51709024 14493 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-6025 FITZSINIMONS MICHAEL D TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709021 165 SUMMERFIELD ST DANVILLE, CA 94506 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Or Current Owner, APN 39722046 14376 SARATOGA AV SA:RATOGA, CA 95070-5953 JAVANMARD GHOLAMRBZA & EZAT~ Or Current Owner, APN 39727029 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA; CA 95070-5439 G & G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC - Or Current Owner, APN 39731011- 545 MIDDLEFIELD RD 130 MENLO PARK, CA 95025 CUNNINGHAM SUSAN K Or Current Owner, APN 50324078 P O BOX 2230 CUPERTINO, CA 95015-2230_ SEAGRAVES MARGARET TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323018 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4535 LAVELLE THOMAS R & GAYT,E S Or Current Owner, APN 50323021 20571 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA; CA 95070-5868 FRANK L BURELL III = Or Current Owner, APN 51709046 - 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 KIM JOUNG S & YOUNG H TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709042. 7221 SILVER LODE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95.120-3356 SARATOGAFEDERATED CHURCH INC Or Current Owner, APN 39722021 14370 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5953 FRANK L BURELL III Or Current Owner, APN 51709047 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL; CA 95008 ELLENIKIOTIS ANTHONY J & GEORGIA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709020 14451 CHESTER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5624 1VIORRISON DAVID J & TERRI TRUSTEE- - Or Current Owner, APN 39727030 4100 MOORPARK AV 201 SAN JOSE, CA 95117-1708 MASEK JOSEPH C & MICHELLE Or Current Owner, APN 50324066 14467 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6093 CUNNINGHAM DENNIS M - Or Current Owner, APN 50324079 14407 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-6080 DUNCAN GORDON A & HELEN J Or Current Owner, APN 50323019 20531 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5868 KAHLE JOHN R & HELEN P TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323022 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 ~~~~.~ JOHNSTON MICHAEL R ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 50323023 2 11 BROOKWOOD LN TOGA, CA 95070-5831 JACOBS HUGH A & GLORIA M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323029 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 FRANK L BURELL III Or Current Owner, APN 51709015 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIRLEY TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324008 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6018 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324061 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ABONNE YVES G & ANNETTE E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324051 P O BOX 247 EL VERANO, CA 95433-0247 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324058 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 • HIGGINS WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50323027 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 BROCKETT PATRICK J Or Current Owner, APN 50323052 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 KLEAR ELIZABETH P TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 51709017 20387 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4946 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIRLEY TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324009 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-6018 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324049 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032-0000 CRAWFORD OTTO M & BETTS R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324054 12471 GREENMEADOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-3032 SULLIVAN L M & LOUELLA M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 50324059 20570 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-5876 HIGGINS WILLIAM L & VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner; APN 50323028 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5800 JOHNSTON DAVID S Or Current Owner, APN 50323053 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5831 FITZSIlVIl~~ONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 51709018 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 TOSCO MARKETING CO DC17 Or Current Owner, APN 50324034 P.O. BOX 52085 PHOENIX, AZ 85072 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 50324050 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032-0000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Or Current Owner, APN 50324057 PO BOX 6000 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658- 6000 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP Or Current Owner, APN 50324060 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 ®~~~~ • Attachment 3 • • Nextel Communications • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2401 K) 14407 Big Basin Way • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett 8~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Nextel Communications, awireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CA-2401 K) proposed to be located at 14407 Big Basin Way in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15; 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimi several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Apnrox. Freyuenc~ Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz Cellular Telephone 870 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 ted duration to radio r Occupational Limit 5.00 mW/cm2 2.90 2.85 1.00 frequency energy for Public Limit 1.00 mW/cm2 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct pads: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for . wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward .~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. a CONSUi.TfNG F.NGfNF.F.RS 'ill satvFxnxc7sm NX2401596 Page 1 of 4 ~~~~~.`~ • .Nextel Communications • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2401 Kj 14407 Big Basin Way • Saratoga, California the horizon, with very little energy wasted. toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach -the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting -the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" erect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases-with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for.evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon. information provided by Nextel, including zoning drawings by Advanced Design Consultants, LLC, dated December 23, 2003, it is proposed to mount six Celwave directional antennas. within a new equipment shelter to be installed .above the roof of the two-story office building located at 14407 Big Basin Way in Saratoga. The antennas would be mounted at an ertecnve neignt or anout 31 feet above ground, 9 feet. above the roof, and would be oriented in three groups of three, with six Model ALE866513 antennas oriented toward 130°T and 320°T, ,and three Model ALE859012 antennas oriented toward 200°T.: The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 320 watts, representing four channels operating simultaneously at 80 watts each. Presently located at least 300 feet away are similar antennas for use by Sprint PCS, Cingular Wireless, AT&T Wireless, and Verizon Wireless, other telecommunications .carriers. Transmitting facilities previously reported by those carriers are as follows: Comer Antenna Model Height Above Ground Maximum ERP Sprint (3) EMS RR9017-02DP 29 feet 3,150 watts Cingular (3) Dapa 58200 - 29 360 AT&T ~ (9) Swedcom CTY1051ON 37 - -1,000 Verizon (9) Swedcom CTYlO510N 37 400 Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the proposed Nextel operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0080 mW/cm2, which is 1.4% of the applicable public exposure limit; the `,~~ HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. NX2401596 ~. ~? CONSUI.TTNG FNGfNF.RRS ~ . ~ sarrr~nrrcrsco - Page 2 of 4 ~~~~~ • Nextel Communications • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2401 K) 14407 Big Basin Way • Saratoga, California maximum calculated level due to Nextel by itself at any of the nearby homes' is 0.45% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Due to the separation of the Nextel antennas from those of the other carriers, their additive effects near the. Nextel site are not significant. Areas on the roof of the subject building near the Nextel antennas may exceed the applicable exposure limit. Recommended Mitigation Measures It is recommended that the roof of the building be kept locked, so that the Nextel antennas are not accessible to the general public. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 5 feet in front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during building maintenance activities, should be allowed while the site is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signst at roof access location(s) and at each transmitting antenna, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Nextel Communications at 14407 Big Basin- Way in Saratoga, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. i Located about 187 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Maps a la carte, Inc. t Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. •`,~~~~' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. '~ CONSiJ1.TfNG FNGtNFRRS NX2401596 Y ~ snrrrx~xc~sco Page 3 of4 ~ ~~~~~ Nextel Communications • Proposed Base Station (Site No. GA-2407 K) 14407 Big Basin Way • Saratoga, California Authorship ~~ . The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration-Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, ~ where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. February 13, 2004 • .~~ HAMMEI'I' & EDISON, INC. ~`~` C ONSLTI_TING F.NGINF.FRS ~~ SANFRANC7SC0 NX2401596 Page 4 of 4 ~~~~~ r • FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. • As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHzI Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) . (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 - 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f . 100 180/f 3.0 - 30 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ f 180/ 30 - 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300- 1,500 3.54ff 1.59fJ' ff/106 ff/238 f/300 f/1500 1,500- 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 ,~. ~N J N ~ GOi 3 ~~ a° °' ~ A ~ ..~ c; f sue: 100 10 1 0.1 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell ~ FM ~` ~ ~~~~~ f •~ Public%xposure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. COXSULTINGINGINEfiRS FCC Guidelines snrr Fwwcrsco Figure 1 ®~~rGr~ . • • RFR.CALC"~ Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure. Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, -have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time,. such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction- methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The -near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, .far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing Duntil-some or all of three conditions have been met: ' 2 1) D > 2~ 2) D > Sh 3) D > 1.6~. where h =aperture height of the antenna; in meters, and ~, =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The.FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula- for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 180 0.1 x- P~ power density- S = 18 x ~ x D x h , in mW/~2~ • • where 8Bw =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This -formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density s = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP 4x nx D2 in mW/cm2, where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient. of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56).. The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula- has been built into a proprietary program that calculates; at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. • , HAMMETT & EDISON, INC: • s''~ CONSULTINGEI~GINEERS !~ r+ "`.. SA1C FRANCISCO Methodology Figure 2 1ss ill®'~/ ~~ . • • r-`= -- - ------ _- NEXTEL Photosimulation by Applied Imagination 510 914-0500 • • LJ 4 N LJ _ Y ~ ~ o, q C Y O ^ C a v ut e 0 m ~~~ O N 0~ N~ C c °~ v t°n 4 ~ ~ Q Z °i O N b~ O~ ~ w 4 y tl ' C J Nun Y O QU ~ 0 0 w o ~ "m C n ~ U O U U Q R' 01 = ~• Z° W C ~ ~ Q O Q H a Y ~t~ a C m _ ~ o p~c a'~ 0 U mQ~ N ~ ¢ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ^ ~ U m w ~ N fD ~ U U U O ~ N ~ N ~ W -~ m < ~ a v h'~ o a ~ O ~j ~ ~S U QN~I Vf O Q ~ ' Z } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ai ~ ` ~~ v V a Z ~ m O O ~ ~ p r ~ Z ~ O] U I~ m R fn ~ ~ 3 U O .- N N ~ a e N ~ O N~_ ~ Q ari ari N U Z 'O U 3 d l~ ~ K = ~~~~ W W V Q d O U ~' ~' ~~ N N rn N ~ -F~~ U~ -- ,~ U ~ --~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ o .~ ~ Q p O c~ ~ J ~v o ~J~ 0 0 ~, w N X I~ J Q ~ ~ v z W W Z (6 W z a ~ ~ '~ w ~ O z ~" N ~ Q ~ U Q X W Z O a f-' W w W ° _ Z I I I I I I I ' /^~ VJ N VJ ~.~..~ Q I I N ~ . .. .. . .. W W W W W Z W O H H H H h O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Z d rr^^ vJ Q Q f J O O ¢ > zO O Q Gl O f1/ 1. L fY ^ I L Z ~ j ~ ~ Z to toil /^..~ LL Z Z N ON ¢ U ~ Q Z Q J ^ LL z N Q ~ 0 ~ W Z o J 3 ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z~ ~ Z O~ O ¢ ~ O chi Z ~ O N Z M N U U O N mU O rn c7 ~z^ W c~ ~ ~ ~ U a .- I ~ Q Q Z U v O Y mt, ~ c~i~ n o _ r,IW n °° I ~ C C L O ~ f O O FQ O nH to ' Z N_m 1 ~ Z ~ x I"'~N Z I N c~ I _ w 1~ > C G O ~ Q J ~ ~'I a' w R N aY QQ N U ~(/1 O op ~Y Z > Z Q N J~ ~ 2 ~^ l1 N3 W O i 4J O o F ' ~./J O „ O J tt~~ ta1~~2 II//~~ W~2 O~y . ~ Q ~ ~O, ~ ~ ~ U ~`~ ~ W O O W U ~ W ~ k" ~ ~ ~a o o ~ gv i g ~ ~ z c ~ ~ N pw e- N .. w ~~ a O ~ O F¢-Z ~ _ ~~ ~, ~ ~, 3 3 a ~ w a ~ a O ~ Z ~ ? Z ? o tL N N to O ~ W JV1 d U y ( (~~ y O F /'1 ~ QI N O M < z w v o ,.~ 7 U ? U J g C7 z ~ ^ M Q W ° o ~ a~ 7~ Z N N N D ~ M O ~ J Z QN w ?ON~fO F- I - ~ W U~ M K~ ~ V Z _ Z O H~ O W O C 7 N~ m W ~ F~v_~~o~ oQUav ~' ~ ' =SZ MO D=Z ~ O) ~ ~// ~~ V/ ~~~ U N U 3~ O N r7 Z QOWQ Z Y~`-~ ~ O ~N f Ov n ~ f.7 V U Q f /1dW v d m V h O Z C.7 Q a Qi W _~ a zo ~ o0 7 ~ U x O W cy U > ~ °Na~m rWZ~ln U U U O Z U O Z al''~ Z Z ~w~¢O OQd'H W Z OU ~ ~ N O ~ Q Z Q N Z=tnZW O Z O J ~ p ~ ~ ~ O ~Q~ca~Na U m O ~ ~ U ~i~3aw ~ Z ~ I ~~f/1 W Z U~ ~oW3o ~ <O X ~ j yH W tNOZ O Z(a/l Q \ X U N t n ~ ~ } ~I1~c~~ awQ m3 y W U 0 Q~ 3 w Q U Z ¢03~ J~nOZC9 min O ~ m ~ ~ WON m O H O N Q Z a Q W 3 m~ O O U~~ N U m OZ Z (N OWDW I O W n HOB-I~Qr0 m0 yNt1 ~-OU~Z w~ O~t/fOOm O~O Q•l ~ ~ Z Z Z r ~= Q 0 0~ 0= w~ Q ww~cw7~~~wZ~>_ YY m YD-' ~ ~ww w Fr¢-O~~ I ~~F Vai¢ I I ~ I I I I I I I I • • • SI.J @ co ~ O dam' } O} ~ ~ z ~ Z ~. W = Z 2 2 M I ~ Nc'P^ W O V e~ '^mm ~1.~N ~GQ 1hM W ` O O O U~ tmD ~~~ Z~~ W " ~ O Q Q U J Z ~ Q N m N of mI t2 G ' 1t o •- K O ~ I..LI ~ C- nl ~ ~ N ~tu~ E~aa ~ / U/~o JYI~~j Q4 Q (n I ~~ N 0 U I ~ I ~I I v ! 0=m~ 3 cq ~ZE ~UN~ (a~Y ~QQ Z Nw ~ ~ o } a n v W ~ / ` V ; ~I ~ o o e ~¢V~U16 v^ F N N ~O ~OW~ Z ~U NJZJO v ~ p O~ p~ C7 U ~N ~Q a' I OQF- w C ~ ~ ~ SI o 0 wO p ~ z U W O ~ ~ m W o 0 _ ~ ~ N ~ M n nI •- o ri N ~ t= (~ O Z I I m N I ~ m N i;i Q x N a= Q 3 a W Q Q ~~ Z fn U~ cn cn U ~ , a + ~ O W = U O Z - N n v ~ I W (/7 W rn LJ N : W I~ (g~ b ` Y < ~ W ~ ~aaO .. d'~~~N Wr WW W VIO WO 2 7 ~ I .. ia~ ZWO U yl 300 ~~ "-KOO Mm ~ OZ ¢pOZOMIZO ~p ~~F-~~O~M O °° 1 vt p7N~ s3° Nf W a N ¢ ~ g ~ K NZ I Z lr O^ gZ< 3 O~IDW Zp~N~ b vOOVONNW`mN n ~ 1 z > y 3WU O< o~=~ Q N U' gwm ~~ ~~^ WU~ g~o~ aN~KN O ' I~ IA z i;oJy 0o zx WWr~~yOj~WOaZ N~ ZOa QF NN NN~SUW V aa zzF O N '(`' ZWU ~~F a O a 4Sa~GUy O Nr2~.W KQjA ••ZZ ~~m'l0~ N ~ FF- ~VJI p O Q~N ~~<a y~y~ 22 ~ 1 I `, M~/~"~( n~ ~ X 3~~ 4< O ~N pW O W v ~~ ?W Na aOIV < W O Or 4 Z O ZZOOWW ] 2Z 1' z I d 16 p0 ~y 6 tioz wi~i °j~ m0 H~ ~`ZU'~iZ= VWU7;~ iZ N~mm~WWNV YW 1'<4VIN0~2~ ZQ 03 3a ~~v mmmQW~ Z iO~I~>><{y-pp3v~i O W ~ tJ' i I.J~ I 0 ~~ O ~1 ~. 6~ PV O 1 A Q~" I g ~W2 WWO U ~ 2000 ~;.~zoo ~O mOO UOpU° v ~~zo z 4N °~ r U ra ~NOOi ~ ro~a ~°zzz~l'O JI I ~ Z ~ s S P oy ~~ ~ p 7 J O ~~M ~O4 WM < ~Y ~ Hf 40 NNUW JOZ ~ a °O =~O~W aWN Q.f~1221rmj~2Y1~4 =OW ._ ..O N W ay°ja ZIf1 ~ Q N_WNQ4 Z ?~ WZ °NWOWG U W°O WN f ~ ~~ Py < 4 ac a40 0~0 ~°~ vi.iF ~ ~o ?? O i3~g z~~vtOi v''nw ~ 3o3ouFim aa~ os~ ~~"° ao 2°~a ~~°~~cQ3 z ko~ wZ~~oF I ~ ~ P ~' Z~ ~ ° ~ w~ ~cWi? z~Q Grua = aoNin a~o~~ ~ ~ W xry ~ o W~.i__Nw~ v ~ vi W 3 a- °~ ~ 3 S w ~oWOZ = 4Fzm = 3AY 31VMNNf15 tl001tlLYS i ~ F 3~ YOB W~ NN~mZ 4 4W ( / ~ ~y°j~GNW ~NZN~ ~ ~Sm ~N W~ O~ON {S~ S v O~' W W V 2?V .. ~c~< 3 fn y KW~OOW ZKa~1=- ~ioo ~3'W~ ZV O~W 00~ On N• ~Z W 4 ~o o ~ W3"~ S2 ~`n° NF} FZa~N~W ~a WO~~~W3 z~~ ~zaO.3 Z O ~~y ,ay. ~ ~B fT 'b ~ i60 ~3< ~ zed =z C3 ~ oc°.~~ao U o<°°°cW.7N~cwizci ~ ~ azF ~ °WF <W=4W ,~~j 3~' ~~ a ~ O O v~ 4 ~ ~~o~ ~cii 0=0 W ~ N1'$ ~ ~zymc~ ~^V ^? O ~4lZ ~°noF~u~nin-Frzz ~ p N SVI~~_.Z ..OO Q~y l O W a ~vEi ~R'OW O y0 0~ r%7m^ ~°3w ~ ~O~ W m ~~~W 040 ~ m ZO V ~ p ~„ dJ ° W V ~ 3 J~Z V ~~ ~ ~ W O° ~ V ~ ~? W O Z OO~~YO Wa JN~'~7U W N m W6p VmV1 ~_t°V<a4 f0 O `r ' ~ ` ~ WUY QO as ~ ~ pa a ~Q N~ ~pU Wy0 2~~ <ZUC7GZ O~Z_p O ~= ~ ~ J Q Z© } 7 <O C Q V N 3 ^ y rd W =m ~ ~ ~ W~Oa r] U~ W 1 LL U 2 O J r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z WNm ~..~N W O~ W~ p n ° F- N R o~ °d ~~ r 3 W a Z 2 W. r M ~ U~ 2 ~ O m N m~ g ~~ ~ So zc7 _ ~v 4 OZ W O _ a 1fl Z O a Z ie F W _I Q O LL] Zm ~ W _v] _ ro [U r ~ W 4 N W U('~ ~ C N 2U~< V 0~4W ~ O w 3 d 3Q° hm~ ~ ~ ~ W~ZFZ Q~^ WrZ_ O 3 4-( ON O °U OZa~Z!'~~a ~7~. QO Zmu1W0~ WS W \2U'O ~ Z !V ~Wm <OZZO aO 2Z Vf~~f7 ZO ON~ O 0034a R' V4~ Ja,3 ~N~ ;Fag1g' 4 ~J Y < yj W ~' Q U ~A 2 ~ O OY O~Z l; = Or Oq J Z Lt, LL N• < w g Q ~ 002 ZZO ZZr-W~' aW ZWO Z.- €j44Z 7m m~Wm W~ ~°~ V < ~ ~ m DO n~a ~40~0 y ZS~ ~.W Z_F Z ~W QrQ = ~ Q Z 0 Q9 ZO Z~ \m ~ ~ O C`~N ~Li~ Gt71~~ ~ Nr ' ~~ ~ ~ X0 F~~ F Sf/l~ O W O N°°WaaN O ~ ~ 3 -VIi CQ2CQ JKQ ~ a~j U Q ~ Q ~ ~ < ~~ UUY12~W W WQy°j:'F bOm W p5~ 007}4Np~200 rO WCµrC1°V~:'zzUO~ ~ O~ ~ O W~ O N °~z ~~N~ 6~ OZ y~WZF ~UOW °~1' 22CF CZ~OW~.~ V F-JF- N ~ U 2 ~ ~ Z 47 ~ ~ Z L . C-' ~Qy w Z V "~Q p 0 V:U ~/] y~y~ ~'" v>J U W W4 ~ ~ Uc7 C Z fb mwKO ~L facia O ppO VUfAO~~ O ~ pWa DN ~1 UU144~771 ~N0~ZN 1i 5~N `/ ~ I W!~ ~N Q ~ ~ kQ G( Q3Z~ 1 °JW g~(16 = ... ON ~aF - ~ / / ///~~~ , / / / / ~ / / ' W I / /, // // / // I ~ \ ~ JZ / / / / / / ' ~ O ~n tn.- - - - - - - - JN y li ,/~ / / /, a~ox ~~~n~NUns-~~os~vxds \ ` ~ -- ----- ----- ~ ,~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~~_/~~ ~ 128.z2~ I ~~ I ~ I I ,o33e, I ~\ ~ ~ \\~\\ ~'6. \ ~ i/ ~ i/ ~ ~ I I I I I \~\\ ~ \` ~ Y / \ I I I I \ \ ~ \\ r~ \ /I /J I ~ I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . \ d~. \ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~~ ` I 2061 L 0 fLL Lad 1N3Y135tl3 0 M A 0 S I ~,\ \ or \\ ~r ~ I / / ~~,. \\ ~ ~Fy a~ g ~ / ~ I " " ' ' \ \ \ I / 5 ~ z / / ~~ I 496 L 0 L84 LY3 3SY3 SS3L03 S53L'JNI I ~ \ / ~ I \ i ~ I ° ~ / J ~ I ~ \\ / I =W ~ ~ K / ~ , ~ I F \ ~ I i / ~ ~ p/ , ~ \ I ~ I ~i ~ ~ ~ \ \ / / i / / / ~ / a~~i ~ ~ ~~~~, ~ / / NOQ70' ~ _ - 001N _ _ \ ~\, _ yN00'10'001N /J L~ J / / m ~ // \ ~~ Y, ~ ~ ~ / / 62.3 3' \ c ~ 104.69' __ ~ ~ // \ W ~ ~~~ ~ \ ~~-~~ ~~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ Q vz~ ~ ; ;/ . ~ 1 \ w ~ \ \ ~ ~ /// N ~\ W , , ~ ab'Ob 3~b'A.l NNf1S-d`JOlb'2J'dS U° I I I ~ 3~'r$e\, i// j I ~ ' ` I ~ I WI \ ~~, a I m ° ~I~~= I// /~ ~ l 11 ~ // / ~ 11 ~ I o I ° m ~ I ~ I I I I~ ~(/ l ~ / // ~ ~// ~. ~ I C I N ~ I I I I ~~ / // , N / // ~ ~ 1U \ O / I ~ \ \ ~ 00 ~ / ~ 1 / / Q ~ I I 8~p ~ W I ~ ~~ ~ / 1 ° , S I 1 I/ p \ ~, ~y ' L w H ~, 1 ~ I C ' w l 8 /j ~ J~/// ~ a l r ~~ ~/ / J // N Q ~ ~ o INI ° a. ~ p I /. 11 ~ I~ ~ ~ ~~° /// I / z > c.i I l o N I I I~ I ~ J I // w ~ / /J / ~ N ~ ~ .J 0 I ~ i Q J I - ~ I \ '4~e- ''g+~'~' \ -_ ~ I z w I a ~ ~~ i 1 pry ~. ~ ~ i~,~ls . ' '~1p~ \ n / I ~ U ~ Q ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~o . n ~ .8. ~ " " °~ '~~O ,n\ ~~ ~ ~ d ~ I 1 bo ~ , ~ • • • ^ N ti {>y~ a ! °n e4 ~ U C T O~ Q ~ Z Y I p ~ O O N~~ S m~ :S m 0 <O 3 in O ~ Y O ~ N O 'A 'y ..U oq w C~ N~OnM ~~U U Q d' m~~~ ~Z oa ~E r o .° W~ j~`jN ` [ ~ N~mQ~ ~ o00o D \ JQ 1 YI 4 ~y 3 •: Y U mwNN U U~mp V ~/f O Y ~ N O D a m 4 Q O i ~ v i°.im ~< ~ ` '' u O •~ ~cJ~N ~ p~F F ~ j ~ ~~~ ~ \ O ~ Z Q Q7 U ~ w ~ 'n ~~ z ^ N Q W Z Y O ~- N N 7 ~ ~ + e O m ~ o N ~ o tq '~ 3 U ri ri N Z ~ U •- 3 a~ d w O U K~~~ (n N N ~ e "°~ ~Qx ~~~n~~Nns-~~os~x~s _; , .~ ~ \ \\ . ~~ 7~ ~ . ~f ~~ ~~ ~~ \\ \\ . ~~ ~~~ . ~~ ~ ~ `~0 ~~~ \\\ \\\ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ \\ ~\~ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~\ ~\!~ \\~ \ \ \ ~ ~\\ \~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ \,r _\\ ~` ~ ~ ~ `~ \ \\~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ \~ ~ I ~~ ~~ )~; ~ ~ . I i ~~ i ~ ~~ ~~~ , ~ /~~ I ~i i ~ ~~ .~~~ . ~ i' ~~, ,~, ~. --- ' -~,'~ m / ,'~~ ', ,~ ,~, ,, .~ ,~ ~. ~ ~~~ / ~, <~ ,~ , . ~ , ~, -/~ ~' j .~, ,,; ,, / wO ° `\„ / / o a 1 ~/ I w, t=~ / / /, ~ ~ li, ; m JY 1 / / // // n `/ / ~ ~ III 1 ~ / // // // ~ / / ~ 1 I ~ // // // // ^ I ~/ / ~~\ ~~ 1 I ~ ~~.~ .Ll_ 11. --LJ // l ~ I ~ I / ,/, 1 I I/ /J ~ a w 'L I h ~ ~" I r-~ I I ~' / i ~ i/I ~z o '1 I / w ' 1 I I / CJ /~ !~W I z o o I I I I I /L/ S © L J ~j7 °w N~ I it ~I '/ ~~ I aaom ~ '1 I ' ! d / I II I~ ~ __ a// ~ x~ `~~~~ pNl ~ ~~ I ~ \ ~~ \ ~ / I ~ ~~ ~ ~ti _ r 1 W ~ y O ~`~ ~~, ` , I ~ ~ ~ m 2~, v~ , ''~~:'~dod' Q /~ Z~Zv i ~ NO ~ w U ~~ ' \\\ ~' n\ \11 V- o ,\ ~ i ~ awQ~ ~ , \\\ \\\ \1\ \\ \\ \1 \\ 1\ I `\\ \\ \\ \Y•~Y • J a ~ d\ \\ \\ \Y•- E ~,. • - PREP / ~ Q >o~ ~' 1 %~ JwZ W J I Q /\ Q I I % WNmZ O 41 I I ZC~~U i OZIW/1Z t / Z Y 7 2 ~ r I K U vdmFw- 1 / • • • G N ~ Y ~ ~ Q J _°_~~ e E~ ' C ~ '° Q O Z O = o0o O N N N N 6~° a ~ h S m 6 C 4 `'.~ 7 m Na„~~m c~ ~ O Y OO (Qj O ~ U Q d' B~ 6~ Of ~ 0 0 Q N ~ Ci y= N O ¢¢ N ~ ~ ~Q F Q ~ d ~ ~' ~ In LL Y y $ ~+ 4 ° ~y C 3 ~ o U ~ N U O mYNa' v QI Q Q u-CI O ~ O ~ ~ O O O O \ G O W CO ~ W W m ~ ` Q FQ _ O ~i ~4 n H U WNN p ~C ~KN~ r U U Qm ~r¢Q Z } m _ N N ~~~~ W J ~ ~ F N ~ ~hg3 ~ ~ ~vo~v p~~~ ~- m o p~~o ~ ~ z m m v v~ G: ~ OW V~QQ ~ W Z Y O'- N N ~ Q ~ 7 ~ 7G C " m a° o N~s~ Z ~ U ~ 3a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ = Z z y c ~ ~ . d O U i i K ~' ~~ N W N N ~ /~KW .wavYll N z3 00 J_ W ~ m m N W d F ~WO UZ~ ~O~ J N maw v~ O as 0 O M N M O H ~ "' U W~ .~ ~' w ~ =o ~ ~- ~o xzz jpW~ •-FS-.~ J F U' J W Q X = X C~~ Z ~ H Z W W OVO O~ WO W Z N J ~ N ~ O OQW 00~ Oaf O~U K~O ~w0 ^.QU dHJ .' I ` ~ Z J O J I ~ I ', ~ IF ~I ~. ~ ~ ~ ! ' OW3 ~ .• . ~ ~ w w C] - ~ ~ p j I n .............\ :........ '~_ ~ ................................_.._ -- ZOO=~ N z ~ o O rIIr U Q J J ~ X o ~av 3sva~ X w WO .9L wJ Z ~ Z Q ~ Z O U ~O NJ OW OU a ~ ~O a_ ~ ~ d~ w a> awo--F ~~ z O~zw~i¢ aQCnza • • • N 4 u ~ e y° h C E U C } O~ Q a Z Y ~ f d' p p 0 O N N N C : h ~ c _ ~ C J ~ ~ O Y~ Q O (~~ ~ ' ~ ~ E~ b~ D O O J ~.JJ nn ~ 1.i. O 4 m i io ~, °0 (V~MM O Lu y N~ (/1 OOQU~ d Q d Of ~<~ i[1 O O O O Q O Z ~ 1 Y ~`` ey ~ v o m~n~' ~ ¢~~3~g U ~ } ~m rn~ Z ~ w Q a a ~ o ~ m e n ~ Ry ~ ~ .C F w ~n ~ ~ ~Uv U O m Q Z m N N o\\o W W ~Q ~ ~ ~ U n m ~_ v~~ ~ O F Z m e ~ ~= Z ~ N y ~ Z Y O .- N N Q N y ~ fn e z O E z v v `:' 3 a~ ~ ga x ~i ~i ~i ~i i = m c ~ d O U ~~~~ p ~ N ~ F: ~ I_ w W L W" I.: o N M M ~x O F ~. F ~ r. W ~ z3 p O 7 m m W vJ O O Z wpm J W m O U J w w wa ac~ ac~.~~ >r zW p< p~ W ~ W O OW Ox~X Om O¢O :rte i ~.~.. Q Z Q J Q Z Z w z Q 4 w U N • • • N 4 ~ V n ^ a ^" c4 ~ ci C } o ~ ~~ j Y ~ ~ O ~ O p M e O C a C °i am ~ co O ~ ¢ Z O U ~ 6~° O p p Z r~ m tl ° ~ a ~ o~¢U~ a a a a In t- Y ~ Lu ~~ = O ~Vpi ~j V m¢ 0 0 0 0 Q ~ ~ /~ ~ m U N wv U U Qro O m N N m ~ J ~ ~ ~ a .. ~ ~ ~ i r F o r .- o W ~ z U ' ~ ~ e a" a~ E I-~w°= x o E N o ~¢z oval U ~ 3 w cYi - ° . N N ~ W ~ m voi ? ~ a Z ~ U ~~ d~ ~ ~ 2 > > > > W W W W 2 2 N C ~ d O U ~ ~ ~ ~ V) v! N ~ a r~ x~ w¢ Z Z J Z ~ r H oQ0 a N maw aoo 0 J J W J I- 3 x wz zW pw w~ ~ U O v) a= 0 ~~ ax J 3 Z w U W Z _l w ~j o d a o Z 0 _ ao _ ..__ _. __ _ Q H ~ Z ? J ~Od Z X~ U ~ J Z W W ZF3 p~ apW OOD J ~ ~ O a W 0 X N ww= zvio OM= W V) ~ O 0~3~ - ... ~ww¢ ~ ~- _ ;; ..; I _... , ~- I ' I ~~ I III. I i. ~.. ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ._~. _._.. .-,; ~~.. :• ~, .,<-;. ,. ' ' -- -.- ._. I I. 1 r I ~ ~ ~ i - - - .. _ ._ ___ _ . -~ '~ ' : " , ~ ~ ~ `,~ _ _.. _- .... _ _ -= . - , , .. ,~ I I ~ - - .. ' __. _ •; '..-, ;. -, ~;.~ t i t ~ i i i ' ` _.. _ _.c-- - .. ' °-' ,.. , . .. . . .. ' "' . ,; .~ %: , . i i i i i ,. , ~ ~ ~ _ ..__ - -- _ -_- - , ,; .. ~,.•; , : -._-: ,~, ' .~; :~ =: i \ \\ ~ - \` \ .,...... ¢ z J W J ~ 3 J w ~- li ~ o a ~ Z J J W W U W U O J Q a w _ W W Q O N O N z __ a _~ a _~ U M ~ N ~ N W °a 0 p J W 2 (j y) Q Z Z LO r \Q W J W 2 F- Z r~ a iL ¢ U v! I J ¢ Z ~ U Z ~ _ ¢ W U ~ a~ O W O aN~~ z_ W M ~ ¢ ~C~za ZOZJ pwo3 NN W z aw~w ~°"o~ a.t~w J H O N ~ N O w W O W J ~ ¢ Wa x3 z~ Zw w or a= ~z °~~ a¢ ax J 3 Z W U N rW- x Z 0 a O U' Q n U' Z J_ 7 W ~~~ ~ ~\ \\ \\\ ~~ _~ I _ _ ,, ;... ,, . ~,: ~ ~ .... .I _.. ~. _ _... -I -~ J ,\ ~ -- ~ _.. --- . ~. N a Q 4J _. _.~ :a _._ .._. _ - _ .. ~ d' _a 3 .~ .._.:~ .i _~. ..' _.. ~' w -~ - . ~ .. .. -.: _ W d ~ ~ _.. 0 Zw I .-t o Or w Z o_ -~ _.t, i i - 00 _ t t ao _._ I _L. _.- .. _.__. _.._. ...___. .. _-, - -_ L. ~~ . 1-4__. ___ _. _ . . - . i i _ -l" .~. __ :. _. - _ _ . - 4-r.:f: - 1 I - -- .__,r --- -- - - . ... .. ..... ... _ - i _ i - ... .... _ _. . ,_ . - ... ._ J ..4..1.. i ~ r. ..... _.-- ... _ '. ~ _ i I. .. 1 f t.. t ,.~:. -_ _: _ _ _- - ... _- ._.. __ .: - ~ - - ~ { i:. t:: t': - - .... _ .._ ~ ' , _t -- --. t r ~._J..: _._ . _ _-- _ ,.. ;:~; ;' . . j~ ~ ~ Q Z Z a J W X Z O w z U Q w Q J w C7 W f J Q wo' wo` Q N f _ a_~ a_ "~ ~ N ~ f C7 O J ~ U z¢ ~ o ~o Z O f \Q W J W 2 O 4 J U v) i .s ~ • • ti e N > r~: } ~ Y I ~ W O o u°i ~i ~ ~~a ~e~ C ~ Q O Z ~wO O ~ ~ N N ~ NM 6~^~° d~ Z C a y 4mu t c ~ O in c J Nm °o n Q Z °' O YUyVU N U ¢ ~ 3~° O p p rn ~ O o ~ 1^ m a q ~ O tl ~ite eE ~ „ C ¢ .~ W N C 7~ N p O J ~ I Q ~ R O m Q N~ C~g ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 \\\ \ _ ~ Q ~ V/ ~ ~ J Y Ly~c"3 A U ~mw.N..~ w ,n N ~ ' U QQ UU U m F- ~ ~n O Z } m _ mmm N N W ~ W m ~ Q ¢ ~ ¢ °a N ~ aVi rv~ ri ~ N p O C 0 N~ ~~ ~ O o~v I~QQ pv Q Z U } m w \\\\ p .- .- O J F Z m m U ~' : c N ~ ~ i ~ Z " ~ (n Q O W ~ Z Y U O ~ N N rr w r O t/1 N ~ C O N D O J Z v U ~ 3 a l ~ 2' 3 ~ _ [ J ~~ W W 2 yl j = N N d O U m K ~' Q' N N C N E J N 3 Z ~ z z r ¢ 3 _ ~'' w - - z Q -- ~ - - -- - - - U J f/7 ~ Q w X Z d K w Z W W J J U W U J O J Q Q W U (r U w s we O Q w Q O N O N a _ z _ a .l a_I ~ M U _ M ~ N ~ N Ja ~~ x~ w¢ Z Z J ~ ~ H OQO maw ac~o O J J W ¢ x3 wz Z W O W w~ ~ U ON d = 0 ~ c? dx /," j: /~ . ~~' ~,~ \ \\\ _ - ~: I i . I I .. _ - _ _" _ .__ .. - _. :. :i I ~I II iI ~ _. _ - __ _ _ ._.. ~, I ~ I I \ I ~ ~ `. ' ' -. \ J ,. t iI i - ¢ I .._. Z Or H -._ I I ... - . -_ - ... ... -. _.. - . -. - ... ' _._ '~ Ul ~ Z _ J c. - ~M 3 a ~ - .. " ' x ~ z _ zo z~ - - -_==1 _. _....-- -- - _. - - - - -~ UOQ ow 03 ~n w Z awZw °~ao~ a v ~cn C 'u u F U u L C 'u u U u . • • • w Q (.~ O J 2 ~j _N Q Z _ w ,O W '•t:., ~_ " Q 2 O Z H Z 2Q N ~ ~ _U ~ ~ ¢ O U- ~ W O N ,': ; _, .~.. J a W F- Z J W M 3a - • ~ 41 Z Z Z %:', . . ZJ Z¢ owe F... J Up¢ OW ~ j .. --- r- -_ _. _ .,~'.`:.., ..• oar o ~w { _: ~ 1 `,,,• ; :' ~ -~ o rn aw oa~~ o -- 1 _- .. ; , . ,. . ~ m ~ o - ; , . , .< ,. `: ;: :. _.... r -_. _ _ _ , :% ' ---_.... F - - _ _ _ ,.•. :. ~.~ .. .~ - / ~ _ - iii ~ \\ \ ,~.. . ,'" • ' l i - ~ ~~`~ . - -_ _ '~ II -, i I ~ --.. i ...~; : ~,I : .. I I -:::. .; . ` - ~ ~ I I I LII 7=7 _ ~ _ ` ~I i ~i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ W J I I _ ` ~3 I :. . • w i ' . : . N N O __.. ~ _::- - ; ~: a Ox - '~ \ II I U J ~ JwQ Q Z m ~ Q v 3 z J J Uao z ~ Q 3 x~r w w U z d ¢}o U~Z N J J W X Q K w O J Q wJa 0 . Z d ~ w J ~ J J U Z U W Z J O J W (.7 W Q O Q 3 O Q O , W O C7 ¢ ~ W U' ¢ w O _ w N O N ~ 1 C7 d W W ~ a F " z _ d _I d _I - O F O]~ Z Q ~ ~'7 U _ rl ~ N ~ N d d' m ~` O