Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal ABSENT: Commissioner Uhl STAFF: Planners Vasudevan &z Ungo-McCormick, Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2005. (APPROVED 6-0, WITH CORRECTIONS) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 2, 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, or ten (10) calendar days for a conditional use permit, 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. APPLICATION #OS-114 (389-13-035) PARKS, 18612 Paseo Lado; -The applicant is requesting design review approval to remodel an existing 1,468 single-story home and construct a 1,900 square foot two- story addition. The applicant proposes to remove the existing detached garage structure in the rear yard, and construct an attached two-car garage. The total floor area, including the garage, will be 3,368 square feet. The property is 10,867 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6- 0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) APPLICATION #OS-028 (503-19-117) PARMAR, 12975 Paramount Court; -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached garage is 6,032 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The project also includes a basement. The lot size is approximately 43,560 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) (APPROVED 6-0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) DIRECTORS ITEM Update on City owned property at 19848 Prospect Road COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:00 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 22, 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 Ciry Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Andrea Sandoval, Of fice Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga was posted on June 2, 2005 at the office of the Ciry 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 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 7, 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, JUNE 8, 2005 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #OS-114 - PARKS Item 1 18612 Paseo Lado 2. Application #05-028 - PARMAR Item 2 12975 Paramount Court 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. • _ n~ ,'E t CTIY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COIVIMISSION s AGENDA DATE: Wodnesday, June il, 2006 - 7:00 pm. P~t.AiCE: Council C~h~wrk Theaoer,137TT Fniitvgle Avmax, Sarttag'a, CA .' 1~rnEc : Regular Meeting ROLI. CAU.: Caenmissyo®as -Manny Cappello, Jill Hunts; Robezt Kundtz, .Linda Rodgeza- Michael Schallop, ': ; Mike Uhl, and Chair sueie N9~a1 :~ . PLEDGE OF ALt~GUNCE d iv!iA~ItTii~s: Draft MiTluOes froaa Regular C~ MOGting Of May 25, 2005. ;,.; ottAt coMMUriteanoNs - Any mailer of d~c PWblu wilt lx atlawed ro ac>~rcss tk Pbrnsg Co~rordssion fo. up w dnnc ndnuua on ~oc~ data nK~,-gty~ aKPt~nissi~~~~aa~~n~n~ ion , riK ~°laad~ Coirontssion may iro~ctst~'aoQOrdingtj- ~-'di~s oral ca~a~nu~iaatiaa iada~ Pia~bgC~mission di~ion to staff` OxAt Cot~MUNtr.~-noNS- P[ANNA+IG Cot~assioN DIRECT[ON Ta STAFF Instruc:aon to staff regarding acxio~ on current oral communiratiotis. REPORT OF PosTING AGENDA '~ Ptawanc to Govr~tnment Code 5#9543, the agenda for this meeting was pmpaiy po~+d oti June 2, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS .R you wish to appeal sny docision oar this Agenda,you may fik an "Appeal Apphcatioa" with the City Clerk within fifoan (15) cakndgr days of the. date of the ~ decision, or ten (10) calendar days for a ;conditional .use permit, pknsuant to Municipal Code 15-90.O~S0 tb). i • ColvsErrr CALENDAR - None 1C HEARINGS All interested persons may appe:ut and be heard at the abovoe time sad places. Applfeants/Appellants sad thdr rcpnsentutives ha~c a total of tea minutes m~udmum for'opg MembrRrs of the Public may c~mmeat an~.anq item for ep to throe minutes. App~snt/AppetUmot sad their have a total of five n~vtes maximuis fcc dosing statements.. APPI.ICA~'IOIV 3~0S-ll4 (389-13-033) PARKS, 18612 F,aseo t;.ado; -The applicant is requesting design: . rcviea-• approval to ranpdcl an 1,468. single-storq hex and to®sttucx a 1,91)0 squarre foot two- swt~r additivt+. The appi~smt proposes to remove the a cktachod game e.in the ram Bard, And construct sin attachtd two~tr garage. The total floor area, itichg the ~a~e, will be 3,368 square feet.; The property is 10,867 square feet and is zoned R-1-1A,000. (LATH VASIDEVi4N) ,, ~. ~, . _ ~;: ,`_'_ is ,. _ A~.'~'tt3rt SOS-028 (503-19-ll7~ PA.RM,AR, 12475 Ps~tamount Court; -The aPP ~ . ~ dal to construct a twastory, se-family residence. 'I'ht }x~ojECx ~ tie ` , ¢ "' ;~ resi~]ence. The total floor of tine pro~osad residencx and aged i$ ., ~-~ s ~ r ~ ~~ ~,~ , . ~,,'ic t of the P ~raancx #s 26 fect. The prajoct al,~o iaic~da a ~~ ~` r ~~t~ ~t ~ 1$ 43,560 sduatt ~t anal t}u afte ~ zoned R-140,OOQ (DILBaRAH ~ ~?~ ~`y, ~..~ ~ ' - . ~ . 7~ } f :a .i~~, ~ - ~ Y' R 4 y+ ~ K~ ;.. r ~ ' s ~. .~ :~ ~t'~" , ~~ ~" ` '. ~,~ 't, ,Pit; _I 1 E.~, ii:1 ~5F r ~. AD ~ ~~~'~=TEXT MEETIIJG '~V', jvae 32, 2045 at 7:00 pm. in the Council:Chambera/~ivic Theater ...137"77 ~TrAi~~nut, Saratoga, CA . In cornaa ~ t~ ~ w&h Disabllit~u Act{ADA), ,you rrocd l aa#xarrcc to!"~ ~ t~ls . contact i~he ~fiq- C~1t fit 868-~69 ar cxckrle®sar~ei;~s A~i~~ion 4Q borax prior t+~ dNC ~ rr~ mit~ic tk City toarga~~te~ha~anrants ttr arses acccsstbilii~- to d~.macti~ C18 CFR 3S.I02-35.104 ADA T1~te I~ . for' dre City of Sm ato~a, doclan that tl rc fm'cg~-ir~S ~' ~ of ~ ~~ ~~ on jurK Z 2oo~i at dre ~ ~ ~ ~' 1371T F~dtwek Ate, ti/o~r parbia• rcvitw ar dnt ~OOatian. The is also aMailabk on the Ci;y'~ c ac "" -~a glee tai"~#re the Agenda's vh a-mail, pleasradid rtymte-mail addrtas to ;_ ,. ,v.~,., . ti.~~: • • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 11, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 3. (6-0-1; Commissioner Schallop was absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 11, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 19, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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); 10 days for Conditional Use Permits. CONSENT CALENDAR 0~,~ There were no Consent Calendar items. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #05-134 (397-17-014) ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Ave.; -The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to construct a new detached 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing 637 square foot detached guest house into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 15 feet. Design review is required because the total floor azea of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 squaze feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,683 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing guesthouse into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. • Stated that the maximum height is 15 feet and would match the existing residence, which is a fairly new residence. • • Explained that the parking requirements are exceeded with four garage spaces and open parking available. • Said that no trees would be removed and that Design Review findings can be made. • Recommended approval. Comrrnssioner Hunter questioned allowing the 10 percent additional square footage, which is received as a result of deed restricting the new secondary dwelling unit as an affordable unit if it were ever to be rented, to be added to the hobby shop instead of the second dwelling unit. Director John Livingstone explained that the intent for allowing the bonus square footage is to promote affordable housing in the City of Saratoga. The extra squaze footage can be added to the main residence or as in this case to the new hobby shop and is not limited to being added to the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Hunter questioned the requirement for a pazking slot for a secondary dwelling unit and asked staff if this is a new requirement. Director John Livingstone replied that this is not a new requirement. A parking stall to serve a secondary dwelling unit has always been a requirement. Chair Nagpal asked if this unit would be deed restricted as an affordable unit. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked if the Commission is considering this application because the total square footage on site exceeds 6,000 square feet. She pointed out that it appeazs this project already exceeded the 6,000 square foot maximum even before the addition of this new hobby shop. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 3 Director John Livingstone advised that the Planning Commission did review this project site when the main house was proposed. Chair Nagpal asked staff if the project was last before the Commission because the maximum square footage would exceed 6,000 squaze feet. She suggested this question might best be answered by the applicant. Director John Livingstone said that asking the applicant would be appropriate. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that the issue is the maximum squaze footage and not the total number of structures on the property. Director John Livingstone advised that this is correct. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Dixon Anderson, Property Owner and Applicant, 19571 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he was not clear if the original application included exceeding a 6,000 squaze feet since his wife brought the new house before the Commission. • Stated his belief that the total squaze footage was just slightly under 6,000 absent this new hobby shop and no exemption for additional square footage was granted. • Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Dixon Anderson that he has a very fine looking house and that she is very proud of it whenever she passes it by. She explained that she was a member of the Planning Commission when the house was originally approved. Chair Nagpal said that it appears that this project already exceeded 6,000 squaze feet prior to adding this hobby shop. Mr. Dixon Anderson said that it was just less than 6,000 square feet before this proposed hobby shop. Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification that no exemptions were received for extra squaze footage. Mr. Dixon Anderson replied not that he is awaze of. Commissioner Kundtz questioned the reasoning for bringing this project before the Commission. Director John Livingstone explained that any residential project that exceeds 6,000 square feet must come before the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the decision of the Commission could be appealed. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Nagpal asked that the record show the arrival of Commissioner Uhl at 7:17 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Hunter said that she has no problem with this request as this is a large lot, has no view impacts, the neighbors have no objection and there is plenty of room at the back of this property to accommodate this hobby shop. She added that this is a lovely house that was built about 18 months ago. Commissioner Cappello expressed his agreement. He said he has no issue although he does generally have a concern with the idea of too many structures on a property. However, this is a large property here and it does not leave the impression that there will be too much happening on this property. Commissioner Kundtz said he has no issues with this request. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no issues except for the number of structures on a property, in this case four. She stressed the importance to ensure that the buildings blend together on this parcel. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #05-134) to allow the construction of a new hobby shop and convert an existing detached guesthouse into a secondary dwelling on property located at 19571 Farwell Avenue by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #05-024 (397-19-005), LEONARDI, 15360 Bestview Court: -The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 18 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The total floor area including the main residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit would be 7,015 square feet. The lot size is approximately 59,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH LINGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow a new single-story single- family residence and secondary dwelling unit. • Explained that a 10 percent allowance is sought in this case to result in a total of 7,015 square feet. • Described the main residence as consisting of 6,315 square feet and the secondary dwelling unit as consisting of 700 square feet. • Said that the zoning is R-1-40,000 and this lot consists of 59,000 square feet. • Said that there is an attached two-car carport proposed and afour-car garage. • Stated that this is a low profile home and a color board has been provided. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 5 • Added that the secondary dwelling unit would match the main residence and be connected by a covered breezeway. • Said that the existing pool site would be relocated and two pergolas added to either side of the new pool. • Informed that this is an irregular diamond shaped lot located at the end of a road. • Said that the total coverage would be 34.9 percent where the maximum allowed is 35 percent. • Advised that the setbacks and heights meet Code requirements. The total square footage would exceed 6,000 square feet. An affordable housing deed restriction would be recorded for the secondary dwelling unit. • Said that sufficient parking is provided on site with the garage and carport. • Said that neighborhood correspondence has been received expressing concerns over potential runoff from this site. An additional letter was received from the Kisers this morning and has been provided as a table item. Another concern raised was the potential for damage to the private road during construction. • Explained that the City does not have a requirement to repave privately owned roads during the construction process. She added that she has advised the applicant and the neighbor that they need to come to some sort of private agreement regarding this private road. • Said that there are 41 trees on site. Tree #20, a Coastal Redwood, is 80 feet tall with a 40-inch diameter trunk. According to the Arborist's report, this tree has structural defects. A neighbor had reported that the top of this tree fell on to the house when owned by a previous owner. • Added that the City's Arborist has identified impacted trees and those suitable for removal. Seventeen trees are to be removed, mostly walnuts and almonds, and the Arborist recommended removal of these 17 trees. • Pointed out that the landscape plan does not include replacement trees and she has placed a condition of approval requiring that replacement trees be incorporated into the final landscape plan and obtain approval by the Community Development Director. • Informed that the replacement value for the 17 trees totals $27,380. If Tree #4, a Redwood located on the north side of the driveway, were to be retained, that valuation amount would be reduced by $9,900. Another tree, a 48-inch diameter Redwood, has a value of $11,500. • Explained that the Arborist's replacement recommendation for that particular tree consists of either two 48-inch box Redwood trees or one 60-inch box Redwood tree. • Said that the recommended replacement for the Walnut trees would either include one 36-inch box tree or two 24-inch box trees for each Walnut tree removed. • Assured that staff would work with the applicant on an appropriate tree replacement plan. • Said that geotechnical clearance has been included in the Resolution, the parking provided is sufficient and the necessary findings for approval can be made. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked about adding a condition to require the applicant and neighbor to agree on a repair plan for any roadway damage as a result of construction. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said she would defer this question to Director John Livingstone. Director John Livingstone advised that he had consulted with the City Attorney on this issue and was informed that this is a private issue that is outside of the purview of Design Review since this is a private street. The matter of the road maintenance must be dealt with between the involved neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers asked staff to confirm that nothing can or should be done on that issue. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that she has a problem with that position since three years ago another project on Norton Road, also a private road, conditioned the requirement for repairs to the roadway following completion of construction. Director John Livingstone cautioned that this is an enforcement issue, which would require the City to get involved in a private property dispute. Commissioner Hunter urged staff to look at the previous application for the project on Norton Road. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that this issue be raised with the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers said that she just wants it to be clear whether or not this type of condition can be put into the resolution for road repairs on a private road. Commissioner Hunter questioned the recent trend to include carports on residential projects. She pointed out that there is already afour-car garage included and now atwo-car carport is also proposed. She pointed out that there is a great deal of coverage on this property. Commissioner Rodgers said that per page 46 of the staff report, there are a total of nine spaces on site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that several of these are open spaces. The covered spaces are the four garage and two carport spaces. Commissioner Kundtz said that staff report counts out the proposed parking spaces correctly. Director John Livingstone: • Said that carports are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With some previous applications, the applicants were asked to remove the proposed carport while other carports have received approval. • Stated that staff is interested in receiving Planning Commission feedback on the issue of carports. • Said that it appears that there is a site coverage issue versus carport and floor area of structures. Chair Nagpal pointed out that maximum coverage is 35 percent and asked staff to provide the total lot coverage proposed for this site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it is just below 34.9 percent. She added that the carport is counted as lot coverage but not as square footage. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that nine cazs would appear almost like a parking lot there and that there would be six roofed parking spaces here. • Recounted that about 20 yeazs ago a 48-inch diameter Redwood was destroyed and was valued at $60,000. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 7 • Questioned what message is being sent out to the community by allow the removal of a 45-inch diameter tree here. Director John Livingstone reminded that the City's Arborist as well as all other professional licensed azborists use specific standards to place a value on a tree. Commissioner Uhl stated that he has a serious problem with this Arborist's report and asked if the City's Arborist is here this evening. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no, the Arborist had another meeting scheduled and had only been asked to attend this evening's meeting at the last minute. Chair Nagpal restated that 18 trees aze impacted and Trees #4 and #20 are large Redwoods. According to Arborist Babby's report, Tree #20 poses a safety issue. She asked whether this tree would have to come down at this time even if no development were proposed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. Regazdless of what is proposed, Mr. Babby feels that damage to this tree is significant and poses some risk. Chair Nagpal asked whether the applicant had expressed willingness to work around that tree if necessary. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes they were until they saw the Arborist's report. Chair Nagpal pointed out that Arborist Babby says that it might be possible to retain Tree #4. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. Chair Nagpal asked for the reasoning behind the Arborist's recommendation to remove the one large Walnut that has a tremendous canopy. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that there aze defects or wounds on that tree that make it dangerous to retain. Commissioner Hunter said that there are other trees on this property that look more unhealthy than this and questioned whether having the Arborist view the trees on this property in February while they are baze gave a cleaz indication of the health of the trees. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick informed the Commission that Mr. Babby visited the site four times including the last time in April. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that the replacement recommendation is Olive trees at a ratio of one 36-inch box or two 24-inch box trees for every tree removed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the correct valuation is the tazget. However, the Commission asked for a more definitive number of replacement trees and the Arborist's Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 8 recommendation was for one 36-inch box or two 24-inch box trees for every tree removed. For Tree #20, the replacement must be two 48-inch box trees or one 60-inch box tree. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that a lot of tree inventory work has been done on this site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick explained that staff at this time is trying to control Arborist costs for this applicant as it is very expensive process. Staff asked the Arborist to give his latest recommendations. The Arborist went out and measured the trees on site himself. Commissioner Rodgers asked to what degree and how potential risks from a tree are calculated. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she is not sure she can answer that question. An Arborist looks at a tree and factors risks based on judgment and experience. Commissioner Rodgers questioned whether there is a percentage of risk of damage provided. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the foliage is lush and beautiful. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that a neighbor has recounted limbs falling onto the residence. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether pruning could alleviate risk. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it would have to be topped significantly per the Arborist to reduce risk. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the applicant is the one who pays to have the City's Arborist visit. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. Director John Livingstone clarified that the Arborist charges the City. The City in turn charges the applicant plus a surcharge. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that it is unusual to remove 18 Ordinance trees from one property. Commissioner Uhl said that there is no credible logic in this Arborist's report. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick again said that trees are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Uhl said the site couldn't accommodate the number of trees required for replacement. Commissioner Hunter advised that if space is not available on site, trees could be planted elsewhere in the City. Director John Livingstone agreed saying that there is a Tree Fund. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Cappello asked if the relocation of the pool and bocce ball court was based on preservation of trees and the comparable health of trees remaining or removed for each placement option. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the health and condition of trees was evaluated with the intent of preserving as many trees as possible on site. While a pool was in the initial application the bocce ball court was added later. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is concerned because it seems like the previous location of the pool and bocce ball court resulted in the removal of less desirable trees than are now recommended for removal. • Asked for the reasoning behind that. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the original location for the pool was more toward the southwest end of the property. It impacted trees of greater value and health than those trees now affected. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that two neighbors have drainage concerns and questioned whether the removal of 18 trees from this property might not increase the problem of runoff. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that impervious surface is what increases run off. Director John Livingstone said that an engineered project controls runoff more than an orchard does. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the wisdom in taking down natural shade through the removal of trees only to replace it with artificial shade by building pergolas. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that this is the applicant's request and not staff's recommendation. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Derek Van Alstine, Project Architect, 716A Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz: • Said he is available for questions. • Stated that hours have been spent putting this project together. • Informed that a number of issues were raised early on in this process for this difficult site that required mitigation. • Said that this is an odd-shaped parcel with a narrow entry. Circulation and emergency access issues had to be considered. Space for a hammerhead had to be incorporated to allow Fire access. • Said that the Arborist was involved at the beginning of the project so that as few trees as possible would be impacted by construction. • Agreed that it is well deserved that the Commission has concerns about the number of trees proposed for removal. • Advised that some trees are very structurally unsound and that he himself was amazed to learn that. Two arborists, the City's and a private one, came to the same conclusions. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 10 • Said that bifurcated trunks were a problem. Topping or cabling might be an option in some cases by Arborist Babby said it is not possible in this instance. • Assured that a lot of time has been spent on the issue of that one tree. Unfortunately, it is not a safe tree. • Added that they are willing to try to save the tree near the driveway. The driveway itself can be relocated a bit to preserve that tree as well as Tree #10, which is a Walnut located in the back yard, that can be saved by moving the pergola and bocce ball court a bit. • Stated that Mr. Babby is a highly respected arborist in his field. • Assured that they are willing to do what they are able to meet the Commission's concerns about trees including placement of new trees. • Stated that there may not be enough room to plant all replacement trees required on site. They have no problem replacing some of them off site. • Asked that Commission to take that option into consideration. • Said that site drainage has been mitigated totally using a bio-swale. No run off would occur off site. This is under all best estimates with SO and 100-year storms taken into consideration. • Assured that the site would be well presented and disturbed as little as possible. • Said that they have no problem patching the road after construction but this private road is not in great condition currently. • Pointed out that three houses on the cul de sac would be rebuilt within the next couple of years. After all construction is completed, the neighbors will all want to repave the road. • Said that a great deal of work has been done to satisfy all concerns. They have redesigned the house completely two times due to information in Arborist reports. They shifted the pool and relocated the structure. • Said that they have tried hard and are willing to keep working but that they hope to receive approval tonight with conditions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine why a carport is needed. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied that it is to provide covered parking for the secondary dwelling unit. It would result in six covered spaces on the property. He said that the carport was a necessary adjunct for the secondary dwelling unit in the event that it is ever rented out. It requires separate parking from the main house parking. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if they were proposing pavers or concrete for the driveway. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied both. Chair Nagpal restated the concerns being raised by the Commission as including who has responsibility for private road repairs, retaining Tree #4 by relocating the driveway and retaining Tree #10. She pointed out that a lot of the Walnuts slated for removal are not even on the proposed building pad and asked if they could not look at retaining those. Mr. Derek Van Alstine said that there are a lot of reasons behind removal including the fact that some trees are in the path of construction, the health of others is poor and the adverse impacts on the health and canopy of other trees would occur during construction. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 11 Chair Na al ointed out that the allowable site covera a is nearl maxed out. She asked if ervious gP P g Y P pavers could be considered for the driveway. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied certainly. No question. Mr. Brian Kiser, 19610 Three Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Said he provided a letter expressing his concern about site drainage. • Said he liked the suggestion for using pervious material on this site. • Expressed concern regarding potential damage to the private road and said he was willing to work with the other property owners on the issue of road repairs. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Brian Kiser if there are buffering trees or hedges. Mr. Brian Kiser replied very little although there is an open wrought iron fence. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if the rear neighbors from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road has signed off on this project. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied yes. He said he would be available for any questions and thanked the Commission for its consideration. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl: • Said he has big concerns regarding lot coverage and FAR. • Said that preservation of trees is important. • Expressed support for inclusion of pervious surfaces for the driveway. • Said he has a problem including six covered parking spaces on this parcel. • Supported the requirement to have an updated final landscaping plan brought back to the Commission. • Pointed out that the applicant is willing to fix the road and to save Trees #4 and #10. • Said that with lots of conditions, there are things that can be done to make this project work and the applicant seems to have neighborhood support. • Said that the project could be conditioned and moved forward. Commissioner Cappello: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Uhl. • Said he too wants to see lots of conditions and the retention of Trees #4 and #10. • Said he is generally not in favor of carports but would rather see a covered carport over exposed driveway parking. He is on the fence on this issue. • Said that the applicant has been good at working to minimize impacts on healthy trees and has expressed flexibility regarding tree preservation when possible. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that people love Saratoga because of its trees. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 12 • Stated her appreciation for this applicant's willingness to save the Red Walnut. • Declared that she can't "buy" the carport and that she is "up to here" with carports in Saratoga. • Suggested use of a pervious surface for the driveway, as there is lots of coverage on this property. • Said that she hopes that the neighbors will come to an agreement together on the repairs to the private road once all three new homes are completed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has a lot of concerns about trees. • Stated that she appreciates the efforts to save trees. • Said that it was shocking to see so many slated for removal, many of which are Ordinance sized trees. • Agreed that people do not come to Saratoga for flat surfaces but rather for its significant trees. When trees are to be removed, it must be for the right reasons. • Expressed support for saving whatever trees can be saved. • Advised that she does not like to see an obvious carport that is visible from the road as it sets bad precedent. • Added that a number of trees (four) are sacrificed for this carport and that is a lot. Trees #17, #19 and #21 are lost and Tree #40 would be relocated. • Suggested that this is a large enough lot to provide parking elsewhere where trees are not impacted. • Supported the proposal to save the tree near the rear drive. • Reiterated that she is upset by the number of trees to be affected on this property, including Tree #10 that is to be removed, Trees #9, #22 and #30 which are impacted and the removal of four trees for placement of the bocce court and pergola. • Stated her support for a condition to require pervious surface for the driveway as it is classier in appearance and drains better. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said he supports a conditional approval this evening with the requirement for the resubmittal of a final landscaping plan that includes the replacement trees, final placement of the pergola and site drainage. • Said that the applicant must do his best to maintain the private road to its current condition until all neighbors can work together to replace it once all construction on the cul de sac is done. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the recommendation is to bring this back to the Commission. Commissioner Uhl asked staff for its input on this. Director John Livingstone: • Said that the City has opted to have a City Arborist on staff providing expertise and recommendations. • Stated that this is believed to be the most objective view on trees to have a licensed professional arborist who is working on behalf of the City. • Cautioned the Commission against requiring an applicant to keep a tree that has been deemed unsafe by the City's Arborist. • Advised that the Commission can take one of three actions on this project. One, it can direct staff to work with the applicant on outstanding issues. Two, it can approve this project with the Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 13 requirement to have the landscape plan brought back to the Commission. Three, it can continue consideration of the project to a future meeting. Chair Nagpal said that the outstanding issues appear to be the impervious driveway and the carport. Commissioner Hunter said that her vote is no with inclusion of the carport. Commissioner Uhl said he feels the same. Chair Nagpal stated that the problem with this carport is its visible location. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern with the idea of the City allowing six-car garages. She declared that buildings cover this property. Chair Nagpal asked if the elimination of the carport is required to support this project. Commissioner Rodgers said she could support a carport only if it is not in a visible location. She asked if this feature should be redesigned. Chair Nagpal said that staff could be instructed to work with the applicant to either eliminate the carport outright or relocate it elsewhere on the property out of view. Commissioner Hunter suggested a straw poll of the Commission to see if this motion would pass. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is on the fence regarding the carport. • Said that there is justification to have a carport if the secondary dwelling unit is ever rented out. This carport would provide covered parking for this unit's occupant and a guest. • Stated that he would rather see cars parked under a carport instead of left out in the open. • Added that relocating the carport would not save trees. Relocating the carport might save these specific trees but would end up jeopardizing others. • Said he is inclined to support this project with a carport. • Advised that carports are not ideal and he won't approve them in too many cases. • Added that he would rather see carports hidden. Commissioner Hunter: • Said she takes issue with the concept of designating secondary dwelling units as affordable housing units when everyone knows that these units will never be rented out as affordable. It is a sham. • Stated that carports for every such unit cannot be supported. • Added that if there were to be rented out as affordable units that would be great. Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated his agreement with the comments of Commissioner Cappello. • Said that there is a potential need for renter parking with the secondary dwelling unit. • Said he expects to see a best effort to make this carport more aesthetically pleasing or relocate it elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Rodgers suggested another alternative is to reduce the squaze footage of the house itself. She said that she is unable to make the necessary findings to support the carport. Commissioner Kundtz asked Commissioner Rodgers if she prefers to see the cazs pazked without a structure. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there is a four-car gazage on this site. Commissioner Kundtz said that covered pazking would be reduced by two spaces with the removal of the carport. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that eliminating the carport outright would save trees. • Questioned having six covered pazking spaces on a site requiring the removal of 18 heritage trees from the property. • Reminded that a key Design Review finding is the preservation of natural landscaping. • Said a good compromise could be reached. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is 9,000 squaze foot in driveway azea. Commissioner Uhl said that it is fair to ask for pervious surface for such a lazge area and the applicant appears willing to go with pervious material. Chair Nagpal re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 and asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if his client is willing to remove the carport from this project. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that Trees #17 and #19 would be saved with the elimination of this carport. Mr. Derek Van Alstine: • Said that they aze willing to take a look at it. • Reminded that Tree #40 is to be moved elsewhere on the property. • Added that Tree #19 would have to be removed in any case due to the proximity to the house. • Pointed out that Tree #17 (English Walnut) has only a 25 percent ranking for integrity. • Said that the site is better off with a new box tree planted in a good location and well taken care of. • Added that sometimes there is a better canopy and/or forest with the removal of some trees. Commissioner Uhl: • Asked about the desire for less impervious surface. • Said that with the removal of the carport and adjacent parking azea the area could be planted instead. • Stated that he cannot support the carport. Chair Nagpal reiterated the question to Mr. Derek Van Alstine as to whether the applicant can live with the elimination of the proposed carport. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied that they do not like that solution but if they have to live with it they will. He compared it with "cutting off the leg to save the patient." He added that they are willing to consider pervious material for the driveway up to the front of the house but would like to use impervious surfaces from the house to the garage. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not think that all of the driveway should be required to be pervious because this material is not conducive to children living on the property doing such common activities as riding skateboards, skating or playing basketball. Said that with the elimination of the carport she would support a concrete driveway. Commissioner Uhl said that his issue is not necessarily the carport itself but more the amount of impervious surfaces and the preservation of natural landscaping. Chair Nagpal thanked Mr. Derek Van Alstine for considering this compromise. Chair Nagpal re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-024) to allow the construction of a new single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 15360 Bestview Court with the following added conditions: • Removing the carport and single space next to it; • Preserving Tree #10; • Preserving Tree #4, if possible; • Requiring pervious pavers for half the driveway with concrete allowed around the garage area; • Relocate the pergola and bocce court; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-266 (517-11-006) PRASAD, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence and detached accessory structure. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,319 square feet. The detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet 9 inches. The gross lot size is 32,049 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 20,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 16 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Condition Use Permit Approvals to allow the construction of a two-story residence and detached accessory structure. • Explained that the existing single-family residence and detached accessory structure on site would be demolished. The total square footage for the proposed residence is 4,319 square feet. The proposed detached accessory structure is 1,125 square feet. • Described the architecture as Craftsman style with sage stucco and black composition shingle roof. • Said that a Use Permit is required for the accessory structure that consists of a two-car garage and guesthouse that is not a secondary living unit. • Explained that no cooking facilities are allowed in this guesthouse. • Added that the adjacent neighbor was concerned that this unit not become a secondary living unit. • Advised that seven trees are proposed for removal. Some are in poor to moderate condition. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked about the number of trees as well as the fact that several arborist reports were done for this site. Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that there are a handful of arborist reports. At one time 18 trees were proposed for removal and now there are seven. Chair Nagpal asked about the suggestion that the proposed back door at the rear of the guesthouse be replaced with windows. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she would defer this to the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers asked about access rights to the alley. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that no record of an easement or right of access to use this alley could be found. Commissioner Hunter mentioned that a neighbor, Mrs. Simpson, had concerns about alley access and asked if staff had spoken with Mrs. Simpson. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked if four trees would be replanted. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, .four 24-inch box trees would be planted. Commissioner Hunter asked if these trees would be evergreen. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Adam Rockwood, Project Architect, Rockwood Design, 14554 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: M • Said that the initial submittal for this project was made in August 2004. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 17 • Stated that this is a 32,049 square foot lot with many trees on site. Most of these trees are retained and provide privacy to adjacent neighbors. Of the 33 trees on site, eight are to be removed. One of the eight trees is dead. Of the trees slated for removal, five are Coastal Redwood. Of those five three are in good condition and two are in poor condition. These trees are to be replaced. • Said that the original plan for a secondary dwelling unit was revised so the accessory structure would be a cabana and garage. • Said that the existing accessory unit is located on the property line. • Requested that they be allowed to use the alley for material delivery during construction. Protective fencing required to preserve trees on site would make access to the back difficult. • Said that they are willing to replace the proposed door at the back of the accessory structure with windows if required to do so by the Commission but they want those windows to be operable ones not fixed. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a history of having truck deliveries access the alley for other construction projects. Mr. Adam Rockwood: • Reported that per a 1980s map, it appears the alley had a street name. • Reminded that the garage now has access to the alley and that garbage is picked up from there. • Said that alley access is a legality issue over easement rights and they can't prove right now that they have such legal easement rights to the alley. Commissioner Hunter again asked if there has been a precedent in having other homes use the alley for truck access during remodeling projects. Mr. Adam Rockwood reported that his clients' desired contractor for this project is DeMattei Construction and they may know that answer since they did other projects in the immediate area. Chair Nagpal said that it appears someone on Aloha owns the alley and wondered who has right of use. Mr. Adam Rockwood said that at some point it appears that ownership was transferred from public street to private. The easement rights are unclear. He added that they do not want to open a can of worms for the other neighbors by asking for easement rights. He reminded that the existing accessory structure is on the property line and the new proposed accessory structure is being set back by 12 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Liquid Amber tree would be retained as it offers screening of the proposed balcony. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied yes, the Liquid Amber would be retained. He added that they have tried to address all of Mrs. Simpson's concerns. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Adam Rockwood to break down the accessory structure between garage and cabana square footage. Mr. Adam Rockwood said it was about half and half or 576 square feet each. Commissioner Cappello asked if the entry is the two sets of double doors facing the residence. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 18 Mr. Adam Rockwood replied yes, these doors face the pool. Commissioner Cappello clarified that while the applicant is willing to replace the door at the back of the accessory structure with windows, this is not their first choice. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied correct. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a great looking house with a great design. He said that the applicants have used a lot of initiative and have worked hard to show sensitivity to neighbor concerns. Commissioner Uhl agreed and said this project has been very well managed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed and said this would be an asset to the neighborhood. • Added that this project is quite lovely and very nice. • Expressed appreciation for the work with both front and back neighbors. • Stressed the importance of staying out of the issue of alley rights. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that Mrs. Simpson's concerns that the accessory structure not be a secondary dwelling unit has been handled. • Said that replacing the doors at the rear of the accessory structure with windows can be supported. • Agreed that the balcony does not result in any privacy impact issues. Commissioner Hunter said that she is fine with this project and can appreciate any project that has Julia Morgan type architecture. Chair Nagpal asked staff for input on the issue of the alley. Director John Livingstone said that Condition #3 could either be left in the Resolution or taken out. Commissioner Rodgers suggested leaving it in as it stays neutral on the issue. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for construction access. Director John Livingstone cautioned that this is a private land issue between neighbors. By removing Condition #3 the City would not be pulled into the issue. Commissioner Kundtz said he agreed with staff's recommendation to remove Condition #3 from the Resolution. Chair Nagpal extended thanks to the applicant and architect for this project. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 19 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Use Permit Approval (Application #04-266) to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure on property located at 20270 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road, with the following amendments: • Replace the door at the rear of the accessory structure with operable windows; and • Eliminate Condition #3; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that a Historic Preservation Training Workshop would be held in the City of Campbell on June 22, 2005. This program will include a tour of the Ainsley House and lunch. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Nagpal reminded of the joint session with Council on June 6`t'. She reported that a good training session was held in Mountain View on May 19"'. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD iOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ,. •:, Application NoJLoc~don: OS-114;1$612 Pasoc~ Lado Type of Application: Des#gn.Review Owner/Applicant:. John Parks, Master Stream Invcst~ts Staff Planner: Leta Vasudcvan A1CP, Associatc Platmtr o~v Date: ~ June 8, 2005. APN: 389-13-035 Departmeat Head ~. ~. 18612 Paseo Lado • • Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential M-10 (Medium Density) 4.35 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 10,867 square feet (gross and net) SLOPE: bevel IAt GRADING REQUIRED: Not Applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project involving a substantial remodel and addition to a single family residence and removal of a detached garage is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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 located within an existing developed residential subdivision served by all utilities. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The materials and colors for the remodeled home include light sand colored stucco for the main body and darker sand color for the base of the facade with white trim and gray asphalt shingle roofing. A "materials and color board" is on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. • oc~~~~~ Application No. OS-114;18612Paseo Lado PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Residence Driveway Walks TOTAL Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor Garage TOTAL Setbacks: Front Lot Line (South) Rear Lot Line (North) 1 S` story 2nd story Side (West) 1 S` story 2°d story Side (East) 1 S` story 2nd story Height: Proposal Code Requirements 44% Maximum Allowable 60% 2,620 sq. ft. 1,867 sq. ft. 261 sq. ft. 4,748 sq. ft. 6,520 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 1,917 sq. ft. 969 sq. ft. 482 sq. ft. 3,368 sq. ft. 3,370 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 25 ft. 25 ft. • 59 ft. 25 ft. 54 ft. 35 ft. 10 ft. 7 ft.-11 in. 38 ft. 12 ft.-11 in. 10 ft. 7 ft.-11 in. 13 ft. 12 ft.-11 in. Maximum Allowable 23 ft. 26 ft. • ~~ Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado . PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review to substantially remodel an existing one-story home and construct atwo-story addition. A detached garage structure at the rear of the property is proposed for removal, and the remodeled residence will have an attached two caz garage. The attached Exhibit A indicates that less than 50% of the existing exterior stud walls will be removed. This data is included to indicate that the project is categorized as a remodel and addition pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060 (a)(8). According to this code section, removal of 50% or more of the existing exterior walls is considered a new structure and processed by the Community Development Department as a new home. The total floor azea of the remodeled two-story residence will be 3,368 squaze feet. The floor area of the first floor will be 2,399 square feet and the second floor will be 969 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be 23 feet and will be similar in height with the other two-story structures that aze scattered on this street. The site is located in a subdivision of homes built approximately 50 years ago. Many of the original homes in this neighborhood have either been remodeled or demolished. The remodeled two-story home with a simple stucco exterior will not appeaz significantly different in scale and style from the other homes in the neighborhood. The second story of the home will be considerable smaller than the first floor, and its increased setbacks and smaller scale provide adequate facade articulation. The materials and colors for the remodeled home include light sand colored stucco for the main body and dazker sand color for the base of the facade with white trim and gray asphalt shingle roofing. A "materials and color boazd" will be available at the site visits and the public hearing. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided neighbor notification templates for the adjacent residential properties. No negative responses were received. Staff did receive a voice message on May 25th from Ms. Emma Wyckoff of 18660 Paseo Lado (three houses to the west of subject site). She mentioned in the voice message that she would like the Planning Commission to be aware that she is a long time resident who normally has a lot of useful comments for development in the area. Ms. Wyckoff indicated that she was leaving on vacation when she left her voice message and that she did not need a return .call from staff. She fiuher mentioned that she would be unable to attend the public hearing to voice her comments. However, Ms. Wyckoff requested that the applicant accept her comments when she is available to give them. She further indicated that she did not want to halt this proposed project. No written comments were received from her as of the writing of this staffreport. Trees There are six ordinance sized trees in proximity to the proposed project. All trees are anticipated to survive if recommendations presented in the attached Arborist Report of Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado April 1, 2005 aze followed. Although attached Exhibit A does not indicate its removal, the • City Arborist has approved the removal of tree #4 (Siberian Elm) due to its poor structure if desired by the applicant at a later time. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed project supports the findings for design review as discussed below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project vicinity has a mixture of one and two-story residences. The project site has mature trees on its periphery which provide sufficient screening. The site is not located in a hillside azea where there maybe unreasonable interference with views. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged as an existing single-story residence and detached structure will be replaced by a remodeled two-story residence. The lot is flat and minimal grading is proposed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There aze two native trees (Coast Redwoods) that are in proximity to this project. Both trees aze expected to survive and will be impacted at tolerable levels if the recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report of April 1, 2005 aze followed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulls Earth-tone colors aze used to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The smaller scale of the second floor in comparison with the first floor provides sufficient articulation and minimizes the scale of the proposed two-story home. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The front elevation is softened by using two different shades of sand- colored stucco. The colors and height aze compatible with the other homes in the azea. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (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 avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. ®d~~?f~'~?'6 Application No. OS-114;18612Paseo Lado J STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review application OS-114 by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. Arborist Report, dated April 1, 2005. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and mailing labels for project notification. 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." ~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~8• APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. OS-114 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Parks -Master Stream Investments; 18612 Paseo Lado WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to remodel an existing 1,468 single-story home and construct a 1,900 square foot two-story addition. The applicant proposes to remove the existing detached gazage structure in the reaz yazd, and construct an attached two-caz garage. The total floor azea, including the gazage, will be 3,368 squaze feet. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct additions to a single family residence, 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 azea; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project vicinity has a mixture of one and two-story residences. The project site has mature trees on its periphery which provide sufficient screening. The site is not located in a hillside azea where there maybe unreasonable interference with views. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The existing landscape will be relatively unchanged since an existing single-story residence and detached structure will be replaced by a remodeled two story residence. The lot is flat and minimal grading is proposed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There aze two native trees (Coast Redwoods) that aze in proximity to this project. Both trees aze expected to survive and will be impacted at tolerable levels if the recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report of April 1, 2005 are followed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Earth-tone colors and a variety of earth- tone materials aze used to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The smaller Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado scale of the second floor in comparison with the first floor provides sufficient articulation and minimizes the scale of the proposed two story home. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The front elevation is softened by using two different shades of sand- colored stucco. The colors and height aze compatible with the other homes in the area. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (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 avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga 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 OS-114 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated April 1, 2005 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 4. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appeazance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but aze not limited to garage doors, azchitectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks aze per the approved plans." ~;~~~~ ~ ... n, Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated April 1, 2005 shall be followed. 10. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 11. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $40,820 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 12. All proposed landscaping and approved fencing shall be installed prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 13. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees (if applicable), a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 14. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500. PUBLIC WORKS 15. An Encroachment Permit shall be issued for any improvements in the right-of- way prior to commencement of construction. • (~~~+11 Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado FIRE DEPARTMENT 16. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 17. 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 commence 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 days from the date of adoption • • ~~[*~,2 Application No. OS-114;18612 Paseo Lado PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 8th day of June 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 aclrnowledges 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 • C~~'~~,3 • Attachment 2 C~"~~~ M.4 • • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 18612 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Parks APPLICATION #: 05-114 APN #: 389-13-035 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ~ ~~~D AP R ~ 6 ?005 C/T Prepared by: ~~'~MIiN~~yDE~ o~A PMBN'* David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arboxist #399 Certified Arborist #A'E-4001A • April 1, 2005 C~'^~~~.5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION • The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the following items proposed at 18612 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: [ 1 ] a second-story addition, [2] remodel of the existing residence, [3] demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new one, and [4] modifications to the existing landscape. This report presents my fmdings and recommendations. The plans reviewed for this report include Sheets SD.1, SD.2 and A.1 by Kurt Fehlberg Architect, dated 3/29/05. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet SD.2 (Landscape Plan). FINDINGS There are six trees of Ordinance-size in proximity to the proposed project. They include two Coast Redwoods (#5, 6), one Maple (#1), one Deodar Cedar (#2), one White Birch (#3) and one Siberian Elm (#4). Specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. Tree #5' is situated on the western neighboring property and is included in this report as its root zone is exposed to potential damage during site development. It is not shown on plans reviewed and must be added. Tree #4 is a Siberian Elm that was improperly pruned some time ago. Consequently, the branches comprising its canopy are weakly attached and highly susceptible to breaking. If the tree is retained, I encourage it be pruned under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist to lessen its risk. If removed, which I recommend is permitted if applied for by the property owner, a 24-inch box size tree of native originz should be installed on site and placed at least 15 feet beyond the canopy edges of remaining trees of Ordinance-size. I anticipate all trees will survive and be impacted at tolerable levels provided the recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Per City Code, the tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $40.820.3 ~ Its trunk diameter is a rough estimate as access to fully view or measure its trunk was not available at the time of my site visit. s Trees defined by the City as being native include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. s This amount represents the combined, appraised values of trees inventoried for this report. The individual values are presented on the attached table and are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`'' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Parks Property, 18612 Paseo Lado, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department C'~ ~~'''3!._6 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 1, 2005 . RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to mitigate any foreseeable impacts to the inventoried trees. If the plans become revised, the recommendations may require modification. 1. The proposed, front lawn area should be revised to be at least ten feet from tree #2's trunk and five feet from tree #3's trunk. 2. The trunk and canopy dimension of tree #5 shall be added to Sheets SD.1, SD.2 and A.1. 3. On Sheet SD.I, the scale indicator shown on the bottom right comer of the page should be changed to read 1/8" = 1'-0". 4. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until fmal inspection. 5. All construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 6. The removal of the existing walkway and installation of the new one shall be manually performed where beneath tree #1's canopy. Great care must be taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Any motorized-wheeled equipment (including small tractors) shall not operate or travel on unpaved soil beneath the canopy. 7. Throughout the construction period during the months of May thru October, supplemental water should be provided every two to three weeks to trees #1, 3, 5 and 6. I recommend the application rate be ten gallons per inch of trunk diameter for trees #1 and 3, and five gallons per inch of trunk diameter for #5 and 6. This can be effectively applied by deep-root injection or using soaker hoses. 8. Any new underground utilities and services should be designed outside from beneath the trees' canopies. Where this is not possible, I should be consulted for alternative installation methods. 9. Any unused, existing underground utilities/services, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. Parks Property, 18612 Paseo Lado, Saratoga Page 2 of 3, City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~*A' k;!~~4f~,,~ "7 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 1, 2005 10. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 75 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 11. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trees' trunks. Irrigation trenches dug beneath the trees' canopies shall be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. Any approved trenches beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually dug. 12. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 13. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa-arbor.com. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet SD.2) • Parkr Property, 18612 Paseo Lado, Saratoga Page 3 oj3 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department It6i1 Pam lad0. S~taP ~Oeo74~ f ry d SaatY Cmsiy tle.d.pa.a Dep.rr ~ MgiAmuBa ~k RmofQiaais tia. Catt01 OaWt.. ae Opga~ta. Mq W b.s ~el.otd i e ad d a a sk ~p.01. 2003 A ~ 1 6 ~~ J ' o Meted ARBOR RESOURCES ~ ~ ~ ` t.O. as MLS . la IY.R CA Mttt ~ 1 trc W0lWdii~ d.k 1 • • • • Attachment 3 • . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, L.R~~ ~CtSG~~ I/4~ ,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 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 ersons are the owners of said ro er who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing P P P tY 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 • f*'~"~~',~1 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use AKery® TEMPLATE 5160® ROBERT FRANKOVICH(EST BENEDICT FRANKOVICH) or Current Owner 1392 S STEELING RD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 APN: 38613056 KELLY FRANCES M or Current Owner 18597 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613059 LAM NEIL or Current Owner 18661 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613062 CHAPPELL LAURA A or Cun ent Owner 18724 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4195 APN: 38913001 MUNDWYLER EDWARD G & E B or Current Owner 18676 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913004 GERHARDT JOHN L TRUSTEE or Current Owner 1126 W COUNTRY CLUB LN ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 APN: 38913007 TRAN DUC & QUYEN T or Current Owner 18564 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913010 NGUYEN TUAN & THAM T or Current Owner 12931 QUITO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3633 APN: 38913013 WILL GARY B TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18549 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4 1 1 8 APN: 38913016 TIERNEY & CO or Current Owner 505 W OLIVE AV 300 SUNNYVALE, CA 94086-7604 APN: 38913019 ~ www.avery.com ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY RADHAKRISHNAN MOHANA or Current Owner 18565 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613057 SWANSON SUSANNE ETAL or Current Owner 18629 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613060 BUDNIK PAUL P or Current Owner 555 CRESCI RD LOS GATOS, CA 95030-8512 APN: 38613063 AVERY® 5160® - CORRALES RODOLFO or Current Owner 18581 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613058 MARTIN MARLAN E & BERTHA J TRUSTEE or Cun ent Owner 18645 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613061 JAMESON ROBERT C & EILEEN D TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18693 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4107 APN: 38613064 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIRLEY MARUSIC SLAVKO & KATARINA M TRUSTEE or Current Owner or Current Owner 18692 COX AV 18708 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913003 APN: 38913002 KUNG CHING HSIANG & CHANG HUA SANBORN WILLIAM & CYNTHIA TRUSTEE ETA or Current Owner or Current Owner 18644 COX AV 18660 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913006 APN: 38913005 DOSS ROGER E & TOMOE or Current Owner 18596 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913008 BEATY MAURICE H & 1RENE M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 185,80 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913009 PARRISH BOBBY R TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18548 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913011 FINNIGAN JAMES P & BETH L or Current Owner 12965 QUITO RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3633 APN: 38913014 LIPKIS JAMES S & LORI S or Current Owner 18565 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4118 APN: 38913017 CORYSPLACE or Current Owner P.O. BOX 10452 SAN JOSE, CA 95157 APN: 38913020 SORENSEN WILDA J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18532 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-4108 APN: 38913012 VAN WINGERDEN ROBERT S TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18533 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4 1 1 8 APN: 38913015 HSIEH YEAO-NAN ETAL or Current Owner 18581 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA 95070-4118 APN: 38913018 • • PALUMBO DEBORAH ETAL or Current Owner 18629 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA 95070-'tO"~%~2 APN: 38913021 Aa3AV-09-008-L ~~~ ®09L5 3Ne4~ el =~!1!}fl ...... _ ...•..... n ....r..c.e.e•..www. apide~ e6ey~5 ~;a a6eJJnoq}~ue uoissa~dwl Jam and Smudge Free Printing ~ ~ wvrw.averycom ~ AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY pRUSA JEROME F MALKIN ROBERT RADIN PETER G or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 1 77 DEVON AV 18693 DEVON AV 18709 DEVON AV TOGA, CA95070-4651 SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 :38913052 APN: 38913053 APN: 38913054 BILLINGSLEY JAMES W & FAE A SEMONES CHRISTOPHER F & STATON MERVYN A ETAL or Current Owner MICHELLE C or Current Owner 18725 DEVON AV or Current Owner 18692 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 18708 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 APN: 38913055 SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 APN: 38914003 APN: 38914002 CARVELHO LUCILLE TRUSTEE FESLER ROBERT E & WAN C GENSHEIMER JAMES A & JO A or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 6339 TUCKER DR BOX 02947451 18644 DEVON AV SAN JOSE, CA95129-3950 SIOUX FALLS, SD57186 SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 APN: 38914004 APN: 38914005 APN: 38914006 ROULEAU MICHAEL G & KAREN L YAZDI FARROKH A NGUYEN KIM NGA or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18628 DEVON AV 1671 E EVERGLADE AV 18596 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 FRESNO, CA93720 SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 APN: 38914007 APN: 38914008 APN: 38914009 BRANDY HERBERT M & TERI L LYNCH JANET & CONRAD BLOCK TINA L & ROBERT S or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18561 MC FARLAND AV 18581 MC FARLAND AV 18595 MC FARLAND AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4665 SARATOGA, CA95070-4665 SARATOGA, CA95070-4665 38914010 ~. APN: 38914011 APN: 38914012 DAVIS THOMAS R & SYLVIA D WOODARD WILLIAM L ENGEL ADNA L TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18613 MC FARLAND AV 1855 CAPISTRANO WY 18645 MC FARLAND AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4623 LOS ALTOS, CA94024-6703 SARATOGA, CA95070-4623 APN: 38914013 APN: 38914014 APN: 38914015 EBERTIN CHARLES P & AMY C GILCHRIST MARTIN & ABIGAIL A PUTMAN DAVID G & CAROLINE W or Current Owner or Current Owner or Cuaent Owner 18661 MC FARLAND AV 18677 MC FARLAND AV 18693 MC FARLAND AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4623 SARATOGA, CA95070-4623 SARATOGA, CA95070-4623 APN: 38914016 APN: 38914017 APN: 38914018 HOLMES SANDRA L TRUSTEE BONNETT DONALD L & JOYCE L DUCOTE CHRISTOPHER A & JEANNIE or Current Owner or Current Owner B 18628 MC FARLAND AV 18612 MC FARLAND AV or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA95070-4622 SARATOGA, CA95070-4622 18569 MC FARLAND AV APN: 38914027 APN: 38914028 SARATOGA, CA95070-4624 APN: 38914031 LEE HUA-MIN FALCON DERMOT & CAROLINE HERZLINGER PETER M & ANNA M or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 18565 MC FARLAND AV 18561 DEVON AV 18540 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4624 SARATOGA, CA95070-4657 SARATOGA, CA95070-4647 APN: 38914032 APN: 38914033 APN: 38914034 ~AHYARI JOHAN CHANG PO YUNG DORCICH LOUIS R TRUSTEE ETAL or ent Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner 13033 QUITO RD 13043 QUITO RD 61 BEVERLY DR SARATOGA, CA95070-4726 SARATOGA, CA95070-4726 WATSONVILLE, CA9507 f,,~ ~, "` `~''± ''~3 APN: 38914035 APN: 38914036 APN: 38914037 - 1-2l3AV-O~08-L ~.~, ®09L5 ~e9~ sl ~NN1 a e6e~noq~ue uoissa~dwi 6 d s _,,. _ _ .......,.. \VWl/~ ...w..•L•nwn•wwwwww e~ e eur eu~ ~ 3 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE s160® CRIBBS THOMAS E & OPAL V TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18645 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4 1 1 8 APN: 38913022 ESPARZA FRED J JR or Current Owner 18693 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4118 APN: 38913025 ULMER VICTOR K & BARBARA TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13004 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA, CA95070-4125 APN: 38913028 BEECHIE ANITA S or Current Owner 1409 FLORA AV SAN JOSE, CA95130-1219 APN: 38913031 JAMESON HOWARD L & LYNN C or Current Owner 18628 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913034 CLUNIE ROBERT R or Current Owner 18580 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913037 GOSCILA MARK or Current Owner 18532 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4 1 1 9 APN: 38913040 GOEL MANOJ P & SUMAN or Current Owner 18533 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4605 APN: 38913043 EVANS TERRY R ETAL or Current Owner 18581 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 APN: 38913046 ~ www.averycom ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY TELFER GORDON S or Current Owner 670 BOISE CT SUNNYVALE, CA94087-4267 APN: 3 8913023 SIMKA HARSONO S & PAULA M or Current Owner 18709 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4118 APN: 38913026 WONG WILLIAM or Current Owner 13145 MONTROSE ST SARATOGA, CA95070-4628 APN: 38913029 WYCKOFF EMMA L or Current Owner P O BOX 391338 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA94039-1338 APN: 38913032 IKEHARA JAMES K or Current Owner 18612 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913035 MOBERLY PATRICIA A or Current Owner 18564 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913038 AVERY® s~co® . NIVA GARY W & ALINKA K or Current Owner 16090 VIEWFIELD RD SERENO, CA95030-3141 APN: 38913024 ZILLMER PEGGY Y & FRED C or Current Owner PO BOX 814 SARATOGA, CA95071-0814 APN: 38913027 HUIZINGA STUART & VICKI or Current Owner 18692 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913030 ESTLER ROBERT W & ERIKA M TRUSTEE or Ctirrent Owner 18644 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913033 DE BAR ETHEL M or Current Owner 18596 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4119 APN: 38913036 BRAVO DENICE M & JOSE U or Current Owner 18548 PASEO LADO SARATOGA, CA95070-4 1 1 9 APN: 38913039 ROTHERHAM MICHAEL E & ROSE P DAVID S. KO or Current Owner or Current Owner 13005 QUITO RD 20703 GREENLEAF DR SARATOGA, CA95070-4754 CUPERTINO, CA95014-1907 APN: 38913041 APN: 38913042 CHAN BENNETT L or Current Owner 18549 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4605 APN: 38913044 EAKIN DAVID M & NITA J or Current Owner 18564 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4646 APN: 38913045 ORYSH MITCHELL T & CYNTHIA K or Current Owner 18597 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 APN: 38913047 ELIZONDO MARGARET H TRUSTEE LAM SAM & ANNIE or Current Owner or Current Owner l 8629 DEVON AV 18645 DEVON AV SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 APN: 38913049 APN: 38913050 ..nog c ,m 1~17AM I~AI J~21f3/1~tl~ Op9-MOOM8ML GREWALL SAHAJ & AMARJEET or Current Owner 508 ROXBURY LN LOS GATOS, CA95030-1136 APN: 38913048 • • UNADKAT DHIItEN J & ANANDI D • TRUSTEE or Current Owner 18661 DEVON AV ~~~~~4 SARATOGA, CA95070-4651 APN: 3 8913051 ®095 ~ege6 al Z~lfRil apide~ a6eya~s ~;a a6e~noq~ue uoissa.~dwi • • B P~'~1Q~- ~~~~ ~qy " ~ ~ ~~~~"~r~~~9 ~~~~5 ~~T (~VISIGN DInS r~r REAStiVfON. CH.FA3JA 945E8 925-1?b~1325 U z z ~ O ~ ~ ~ O z ~ ~ v-- ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q z N ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW ~ J129120G5 ~r a • • FIRE SPRINKLER NOTES A. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA STANDARD 13D-1999 EDITION AND SARATOGA dTY ORDINANCE 16-15.070. B. FAST RESPONSE FIRE SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE GARAGE AND ALL CONTIGUOUS AREAS WITHIN THE STRUCTURE UTILIZED FOR WORKSHOP OR STORAGE PURPOSES. C. A STATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSED FlRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR SHAD. PRONDE (3) COPIES OF THE WORKING DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS, A COMPLETED PERMIT APPUCA110N AND APPROPRIATE FEES TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FlRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEgNNING THEIR WORK. D. THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FlRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MUST ISSUE A PERMIT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. E. THE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR MUST HAVE A CITY BUSINESS LICENSE ANO WORKER'S COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE. F. A FLAT CEILING IS REQUIRED W AREAS INCORPORATING AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO ASSURE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE SPRINKLER HEADS. COX AVENUE ~, J PA 0 USO ? o ~1` DEVON N ~ ~' o !~ ? a F Z fir MC ARLAND AV m PROJECT N MaRTNa Av SITE ~ < w a DUNDEE AV 95 AFTON AV 85 8S SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET INDEX & FIRE SPRINKLER NOTES 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLOT PLAN WITH TOPO SD.1 PROJECT DATA & SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH GRADING SD.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN A.1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN AND DEMOLITION A.2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A.3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A.4 ROOF PLAN A.5 FRONT /SOUTH ELEVATION A.6 LEFT/ WEST ELEVATION A.7 REAR /NORTH ELEVATION A.6 RIGHT /EAST ELEVATION AND SECTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROJECT IS A TWO STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD WILL BE REMOVED. A NEW TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE WILL BE ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME HAS 1468 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE. WHEN COMPLETED THE HOME WILL HAVE 2686 SQUARE FEET OF UNNG SPACE AND 482 SQUARE FEET OF ATTACHED GARAGE SPACE. THE TOTAL BUILDING ENVELOPE INCLUDING THE GARAGE IS 3366 SQUARE FEET. THE EXISTING LOT IS NRTUALLY FLAT. THE NEIGHBOR HODD IS A MIXTURE OF ONE AND TWO STORY HOMES. TREE PROTECTION PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, MATERIAL STORAGE OR CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITY SHALL BE ALLOWED WITH IN THE DRIP LINE OF THE EXISTING TREES. PROTECT EXISTING TREES FROM DAMAGES AT ALL T1MES. SETBACK CERTIFICATION PRIOR TD FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL PRONDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SURVEY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, ELEVATIONS, TREE LOCATIONS AND DRIP LINES, BOUNDARY LINES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE OFFlCIAL SITE SURVEY AS PREPARED BY MISSION ENGINEERS, INC. THIS DRAWING IS ATTACHED TO THIS DRAWING SET FOR REFERENCE. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER APN 389-13-035 ADDRESS OF PROJECT 18612 PASEO LADO, SARATOGA CA. OWNER'S NAME JOHN PARKS MASTER STREAM INVESTMENTS 6164 CORTE SANTIAGO PLEASANTON, CA 94566-5743 925-200-1430 FAX 925-461-2496 ARCHITECT KURT FEHLBERG 5149 WILLOWNEW COURT PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925-699-3683 FAX 925-484-1874 EXISTING USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT R-1-10,000 SIZE OF LOT 10,867 SO FT+- GROSS 10,867 Sq FT NET ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 3200 SOFT +170 SOFT a 3370 SOFT ALLOWABLE NO REDUCTIONS FOR SLOPE OR HEIGHT NEW AREA TOTAL AREA 603 SQFT 1917 SQFT ~~~ 969 SQFT 969 SQFT 1572 SOFT 2886 SQFT ~~~ 482 SO FT 482 SQFT 3368 SOFT BECAUSE SOME OF THE EXISTING INTERIOR SPACE 2400 SQFT 220 SOFT 1867 SO FT 261 SOFT 4748 SOFT LEVEL ACROSS BUILDING AREA 0.1' IN 136.83' + 0.3X ESTIMATED 40 YEARS -0.75 FEET 0 SOUTH WEST CORNER -0.2 FEET 0 NORTH EAST CORNER -0.365 FEET 23.03 FEET ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL LENGTH 194 FEET EXTERIOR WALL LENGTH TO BE DEMOLISHED BO FEET LESS THEN 50% SIZE OF STRUCTURE EXISTING LIVNG SPACE GROUND FLOOR 1468 SQFT L141NG SPACE SECOND FLOOR - TOTAI LIVNG AREA 1468 SOF1 GARAGE SPACE - TOTAL AREA WITH GARAGE {'THESE LINES DO NOT ADD UP WILL BECOME GARAGE SPACE IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE FOOT PRINT MAIN STRUCTURE COVERED PATIO MAIN STRUCTURE DRIVEWAY AREA WALKS TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE AVERAGE SLOPE AT CENTER OF SITE AGE OF RESIDENCE LOWEST ELEVATION POINT AT BUILDING EDGES HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT AT BUILDING EDGES AVERAGE ELEVATION AT BUILDING TOP MOST ELEVATION RVY~ION DALES 5405 K1Rf F~ D~KG 5149WLLOVWI;WCQ1;f R.EA54NfON, GV.FG141A 94589 925~f?bi325 U Z ~C G z - ~ (~ V O Z ~- O U ~ ~ z N DESIGN REVIEW p,~ 3/2912005 COVER sr~tr a BASIS ~F-6EAR(RGS:- - - - - - MONULIENTS FOUND PER TRACT N0. 708 - I- - ELEVATION NOTE: I ELEVAININS SH01M1 HEREON HERE ASSUMED AND ARE REUIIVE TO Tiff FlNISFI FLOOR AS SHONN. • ~r 1 u LOT AREA: 1o,e67i: so. FT. .2491 ACRES /gyp UND,~~` ~~u~~ sl Na. 7 51~ ~~~ qlf DF CAItFp~ I I ,',d1Lllst - - - - - J- ~arT~~yso-E ~ _'X - - - - - - - >~ „1° I~ ~ 1 I l 32• REDMOQD ~ ,4 ~~ I (~ ~ I I ~~ ~ V ~ _ 4 ~`~ I .~ v 1 I~ I / I wArx \ 2,21' I cawc. BRh£wAr I I I I \ ~ 12• TREE /I ~ ~~ ~ ~ SCALE.• 1 "= f0" l ' I z Iz I P C` ~ ~ •~ ~ n I P / P l m I a °, PA110 ° \ 8' OAK '~ ~ I I I i ? \ ^ 5~ ~ P LOT 6 `\ N /1 ~ I~ 10T 8 I TRACT N0. 708 - ~ '" RESIDENCE ~ I TRACT N0. 708 I APN 389-13-036 ~ v APN 389-13-034 cor 7 Io,oD' 9.BD' TRACT N0, 708 ~' APN 389-13-035 ~' I I I ~ I 10.00' ~ 9b0' °~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~1/ .,m ~ I I X18• TREE PAi10 Ap ~ I >7 ~~~ ~P1~. ~ CONC.ORIIfWAY 27,00' ~ ~ I 1 ( I -~~ l" /~ V 3 I I 2D• FlR ~ ~ I ~ ` - N 8.13'00" E ~ / 1-, --t- ---------------- - -------- -- \•M--- - 79,50' -- -- ,~ I2' TREE / .>ti BACK WACK rQ l ~ r r A,~ 30,00' -~ /~ - ^ If"~ ~ _/v \ X~I PASEO LADO -~~-- -ss- - - -ss- - -ss- - - -ss- - - -ss- - -ss- - - -ss- - 30.00' --ss----ss----ss--- 12-31-OS PLMMANNING ~ IAND SUMMR1fYMlGMMCIN(~~(`L~~`ENGMMINEERING CINJSTRUC11MM0N(~~(STAKING t1UU~~~~Ol1V ~l1Vl.J~1JV~~~~9 ~11V1`7a RES N R LIA L E ULTS S1NCE 1 355 Reed St.. Santo garo, Calliornia 95050 Ph: (408) 727-8262 FAX: (408) 727-8285 E-mail: missionenaQearthlink.r TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY APN 389-13-035, LOT 7, TRACT N0. 708 18612 PASEO LADO IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA REVISIONS scALE: r.1o' DATE Y DESCRIPTION VERT• DATE: 02 04 OS DNN: di me 12 CNND: JOB N0. 04192 DWO N0. L-13788 snuff 1 OF SHEETS • • ~~~, PASEO LADO~~ v`'~ ~ RDLLCIIRB\ - LINE -0.90' FLOW UIE -2.14' PRO,ECr oESa6PnoN 1 1X15 PROECT R A iR0 5mR`r A90111011 ID AN E1a51910 59101E STORY 591GIE FAYEY RESAIEMCE. 7NE EIO5191G GARAGE SRAA;IUAE M 11E REAR YAI61 M.L ~ ROIOVED. A NEW iM) CAN ATTACHED QARAQ 9LL BE AWED / ~ ; - ~ I - - - - - .•~ ~n~ ~ 1011E FRpIT a THE EgS1810 HOIE THE E1051810 HpE NAS 1,68 SWARE FEEF a I1Nk SPACE MEN b Z WYPLEIFD 11E IIg1E MLL NA1E 1880 SOUAAE FEET a uWM6 SPACE AIR7 482 SDUAAE FEET a ATTACIED 'IO ~ E)1 NC 12' pA / aARAEE SPACE M TOTAL MALD910 ENVELOPE 9RSL0110 RE GARAGE ES 5Se8 SouARE FEEL 1HE Ez6Tn"D L01 / IS VRNALLY MT. 7NE MEIPMOR NOW 6 A YIXRRE a ONE AIM tWO STOAT NaL1ES r I ~ - \ - ,os 6c ~ ~ .- . ~ TREE PAD,ECA011 / PROTECT ALL Ep51919 TREES TO AFYAII N01f19CUlAR MAFFIC, WTERMl SIORAQ OR LCNSIMIC11C11 RElA7FD ~ ~ \ 3 „OO,EI.88~ ~ ~ u~NE~ \) AC7MTY SHALL AE ALIOMD M1N M 1NE OAP L9E a iK EX51910 TREES. PROTECT E1951910 TREES FAOY DRYADES AT ALL t6Es DD ~A ~ ~ ~l 11 i ~ i gtBAac CERT9ICATRM PRgR TD FOIRRIA7011 9AP[C1Id1 BY WE CITY, tHE LIS a REWRD SNAU FN011DE A wRIT1EN CERTEICAT9711 TWIT Au MAto91o sEteADXS ARE PER THE APPR01E0 PLANS ~ ~ ` I f J ~/ ° \ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ E70519q 517E CpgRgNS SUtYEY NEW EDGE a n ALL E10519Ai 91E CONOIWOIK, ElEVA1M1N5, TREE LOCATIONS ANO DRi lMES, BdA10ARY LINES NAVE BEEN ~ CONCRETE n \ n '~ 7AANSFERAFD iRpl iNE OFF1gAL 511E Sl81VEY' AS PREPARED BY MISSION EN098]715, AIG R95 DRANAlC W '~ pRIVEWA / ~ E%ISBNC 18' OIA ATfAC1ED TO 1195 DRAMNO SFT FOR REFERENCE. 10'-0' 22'-J 1/2' ~7'-2 1/2' ~ 1~ D' RCH TREE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER APN 3BB-1J-0.U \ RST AND ADDRESS a PROA7:T 10012 PASEO LARD, SMATIIGA CA ~ -D PUNnNG AREA NEW CONCRETE ` ~ COND F100R Y _ _ WALK S~TB OMER'S NNL JOHN PARKS YA51FA STREAM NVESfl1EN75 ¢ ~ ~RONT YARD 8164 WR1E S/9111AW ACK PLEASANION, G 84308-5747 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.75 925-100-1470 TAX 925-461-2490 ~ - . - - - _ _ ARG9IECT %uRT FT]RHERC - I ` / 3141 WLIAWWEI9 COURT I I \ y PUiASAI1TON, CA 94386 SWALE I 925-699-3607 fA% 925-464-1674 LME I EIOSi91C USE 59RiE FAYRY AE40EII71AL I PROPOSED USE 5910LE FAYRY AESRENnAL iW0 STORY I I ENO't LfVING ~M I ~ I 20NNl0 pS1RICT A-1-10.oW NOME ~ I I Di 511TH OE 5 512E a LOT 10.807 50 iT+- dt055 10,807 50 iT NET I AILOWABIE FLOOR AREA 31W SOFT 4170 SOFT • R70 SOFT ALLOWABLE ~ SNIGLE STORY NO RFDL1C110N5 FOR SLOPE OR "EIGHT 3 ~ ~ HOME SGE a STRL1C71ME Ex1stAlc NEw AREA NTAI AREA ~ ~ I I LIWNO SPACE oR0U11D FLOOR 1466 SaT eo3 SOFT 1917 SaR ~» ~ _ I I SWALE DWxa SPAa sECaa FLOOR - ~ ~T ~° ~T ~ a. I I I uNE SINGLE FAMILY ~~ ~~'~'I I"°6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ SINGLE FAMILY g I GutC rota AREA M1N GARAGE 33ee saT RESIDENTIAL I I ~ i I ` RESIDENTIAL w7NESE LAZES W Not AW UP BECAUSE SOME a THE EIOSnNC INTERIOR SPACE Z I I NAPERNOUS 511E COYEAAOEMC011E GARAGE SPACE o I I ~ nBNIFU ~MI, ~ I fWT PRINT YA91 51RUCIURE 2400 SaT n V/ EiOSTING SDIA COVERED PAIp YAN STRUCTURE 220 SaT I I L I I I 81RCH TREE pMWAY AREA 1667 50 R I WAlK3 261 SOFT ~- \ TOTAL RiFRWWS AREA 4746 SOFT < SLOPE AT BUEDNIO SITE LEVEL ACROSS BIEDWC AREA r ~ '~ ~ AVERAGE SLOPE AT CENTER a 9TE 0.1' M1 tk.eY + O.3R ~ -0.4 AGE a RESIDENCE EstMATm 4D 1EAR5 E%ISTINC ROOD I I Kt(p{N / EXISTING 8' DIA \ IOREST fLEVA1KR1 PONIT AT BULD9k E06ES -0.75 FEET A SW1N REST CORNER FENCE '-11 3/ I o o OAK TREE FNOIEST ELEYA710N POMT AT BUILdNO EWES -0.2 FEET 0 NORTH EAST CORNER AVERAGE ELEVATION AT e11A091c -0.365 FEET ~ I I _~_ L r. \ 111P MOST ElFVA7gN 27.0.1 FEET ABOVE AVERAGE OItADE ° 4 FIRSSE7BACN I I _ FPAR.Y ~17M J r - - - ~ 'O ~ \/ E10S79q E%1Eltl0R WALL LENDTN 194 FEET 5 EXTERIOR wALL LENGTH ro eE DEYOUSIED w fEET LESS ,ZEN sox ~ </ SECOND FLOOR I / EfOS71NC ~ \ SEiBACN ~ I ~ / I AREA I 7' 11 J/B' I \ I 5 LASE I \ ~ ~ 12'-„ 8 I y I ` -0.2 `- .2 / I) EXISnNG 1Y DIA ~ 1 I 2' 11 3/8' SIBERIAN I1M I I ~ \~ I FIRST FLOOR ~ 15~ 1 EA15nNG MOOD 10'-0' 21'-3 8" I 28'-9V/8" I 1 ' SETBA~ J I r/ FENCE \ EXIS7IN 32' DIA 1 I ~1'-4 I/4' \ \ ` COAST EDWOOD 12'-11 B' I I) SECOND FLOOR / ~ ~ 1 SETBACK / 1 SINGLE STORY GARAGE I I E%ISnNG 4' EUCALYPTUS I I i -----------~-- ,~ ~- ~-' r PRIOR TO \ ~ J ~ ~ /'" FOUNDATION NEW LAWN AREA I ~ ~ N~AfjGC~ I~ INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE ~ _ ~ J __ ~ LLS OF RECORD ~---------- --- j ~ I SHALL PROVIDE A / J \ WRITTEN EXISTING LEMON E%ISnNG ORANGE CERTIFICATION E%ISnNC 14'DIA ~~ ~ 1REE / ~ c FIRST FLOOR THAT ALL APPLE TREE '~ „ SE(BACI( BUILDING / ~ EXISnNG 32' DIA SETBACKS ARE ~ ~ ! 0 1 J COAST REDNOOD PER THE t _ N _ \_ APPROVED PLANS ----- -- ---- - I EXISTING WOOD FENCE < o ~ E%ISBNC e I ~ EXISnNC CRAOE I GRADE -0.70' 0.36 ~ I EgSnNC CRAOE -D.80' r `\ ~^ 79.50' ~ ~1 wsnNC s' DIA EXISnNG WOOD SINGLE FAMILY 10' PUBLIC UBUTY EASEMENT ~ TREE EX1sn"cGA~RAG~E RESIDE ~ SITE DEVELOPMENT PLL~-1~--~~ EEVgON DATES 5405 NA` I I I. W NA 5N9WYlOWv1rWCQRf R.EASNJfRJ. ULPG~IA 945 925~476~3'15 V '~ V L z_ 0 O ~ Q O O O `~ V ]1_. O z N DESIGN REVIEW H11[ON Dn>~ 3!2912005 SD.I ~T TREE PROTECTION PLAN Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, surface scraping, constn~ction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted oneight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undi.~turbed and be maintained throughout the c~nstttlction process until final inspection. All construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. The removal of the existing walkway and installation of the new one shall be manually performed where beneath tree #1's canopy. Great care must be taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Any motorized-wheeled equipment (including small tractors) shall not operate or travel on unpaved soil beneath the canopy. Throughout tbe construction period during the months of May thru October, supplemental water should be provided every two to three weeks to trees #1, 3, 5 and 6. I recommend the application rate be ten gallons per inch of tnmk diameter for trees #1 and 3, and five gallons per inch of trunk diameter for #S and 6. This can be effectively applied bydeep-root injection or using soaker hoses. Any new underground utilities and services should be designed outside from beneath the trees' canopies. Where this is not possible, I should be consulted for alternative installation methods. Any unused, existing underground utilitieslservices, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath cmwpies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 75 feet of the trees' minks (unless on the street). Irrigation should not spray w~thm five feet from the trees' trunks. Irrigation trenches dug beneath the trees' canopies shall be in a radial direction to the tnmlcs and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. Any approved trenches beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually dug. ,Herbicides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labels for safe use near trees. ,Any tree pruning must be perfomuxl under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists intheareacan beobtained at bitp:llwww. isa-arbor. corn. / ~ Y ~ \ Eros ~~ r / 1 ~ -~ 1- ~_ DasnNC ~ / CItOUND CDEN AND ~ SHRUBS --._ ;~ i rt ~ \~ y /~~~'~ \ I uWN AREA `` HEDGE 1 Ck10N BDXWOOOS a ~•o.c. ANNUAL caaR ...., ~~ 1 - - Z - EwsnNC 20' < DEGDAR CEDAR I `~' < ~~ ~ DRDUND SHRUBS r REYUN ~ ~(~ ..- L~~/ EnsnNC le• aA ~ ~ IRCN TREE ,. , , ~ 1 ~~ 7 0 .~ ~d !_~ i e I I ~~ r NEW UWN AREA / 0 0 ~, r J r ~° N~ ~-~ - - I I ~ J~~ ~ I }"` J ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ). ~\ \ ~ `~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' J RROTECn~E1 _ ~ l ~` r' EMISnNG 5'DIA BIRCH TREE . \ f EXISTING 8' aA \ GAN TREE \ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ L ~ l , • aA EIOSiING 22 SIBERIAN ELY TREE ~) ~ 1 { //l\ COAST WDOD I EwsnNC ~• YPTUS / EUG ~ - l ~ f ~ r r ~N~M'S~ /` EENaNC u ~~ ExlsnNC AooD / i J ~ EDGER / STING 11'DIA E%ISnNC LEMON E%IS11NC ORANGE EE TREE ~ / J E%I 7R ~~ / APPLE EE ~ / ~ E%ISRNC J2• DIA / COAST REDWOOD \ ` ~ J ~ ~ I ~ `, I ~ I a ~ I r / ~~ ` ~ ' IGSnNC 6 DIA TREE / ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN ~~`--~ ~VISIRJ D/~ES 5405 Klpf F~ f~~G ~I~9wuawv[wcaRr a~, ~F~ ~~ 925~4?6-I'l15 z_ O O ~ Q O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U ~- ~ O z N ~ (~ V 1 DESIGN REVIEW ~ 312912005 SD.2 slEEr a • ~~ • / ~ ~ / 1 ~ I ----- ~ ~ ------- ~ 1 I ~ ~,~1 7 I ~ , ~ / ~ GRD~ ~ I ~ E>aSTNIG , / FENaNC ` I ~ DRIVEWAY 10 ~RENANI ~ ~- I ~ ~~~ ePoac \ \ ~ L _ _ _ "' C REUO~ PaRa covER ~ xx'-/ / \ AND r+osTS ~ l' ~ ~ ` ~~ J /,,\ 1 REMOVE CONCRETE \I I I ENTRY PATIO \/~ O l/~ REMOVE L_ r1--~- ---~----~ j \ 1 CONCRETE - - ----- ~ REY01f ku. `/ \ VEWAY AS I I ~EfUSTINCI OUIREDNE~w I I r______T ~~ \ r FOUNDATIONS I ~~~ ` S( I I I I ~~~ REMOVE INTERIOR REMOVE WINDOW I I WALLS AN SND WALL REMOVE RAFTER I REMOVE BRICK _ _ _ _ TAILS ~ I FlRPUCE AND ~~~ ---k ~ c- HEARTH I \ / I I~ rn I \ \ /// EMOVE ~ I - '1 I Y ~NOOw ~ I r EMOYE l REMOVE ROOF I ~~ KI ~~' 10'-J' ~ DINSTOAY I / 7 ~ \ CABINE I / ~ '~R~ I I / \~ \EOUIPME T l ` ~~I IT REMOVE / // j II ~IIIIrwNOOw~~ ~J ~ // I I'\r~l }^{ ~I~I ~I ~I I D~oaRS II '`r I ~~-REMOVE 101LET FIxN~S, \ I II REMOYA WALLS / I II I ~ ~ L \ I ------~- ----~--- f ~ I \\p I I I ---- ~~ I ~ / ~ I \\\ I \ REMOVE ROOF I I \\\ PAT10 COVER /T REMOVE I TREE ~-/ I 0 I ANO CONCRETE I CONCRETE PROTECTION \\ I PATIO I I PAi10 I FENCING j \\,L ~ AND ~____~- r wooD -- - --- i --' TRELLIS ~ J~ 1 REMOVE wood I I ~ ~ ~ ` J < ~ FENCE I I I REMOVE I I I CONCRETE I I 1 \ DRIVE AOdiION I / \ \ 1 / I I I ~ \ J REMOVE 1REW5 I \ \ /~ AND CONCRETE I I SIDEWALK r-- ~~ ~ MOVE ----- EWALK ° ! --------I---~ ~rrrr 1 I ~----- 1 I I I~ F"__~iI i i ^ i // I I~ III' II I~I~' \~ ~ ~ ~r I II DEMO ExlsnNC II I I f ~( I II ACCESSORY II II I I ~ / J ~ I II BUILDING II I~ I I DEMO PORCH I I I II AND ROOF JI I I I I , \ I II R ~I I I ~------~------ --- ------I-III J S ~------- ----\--- ` 1 \ `, ~ I ~ < Il ~ ~ ~ ,aox r ~ DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN ~VI51pN WGES 5405 Kl,~f FE DES r 5N9WlLONVEWCGIRf PlEA54J(ON, CHfG~ 995 ny~+avar~ ~ 1 V , z_ 0 O ~ Q O O O ~ ~ z N ~ DESIGN REVIEW PNE 31 A.I ~~ DABS 5405 • • N~,, eaD urn Is tNE ~~~~ EXISTING HOPE GARAGE SPACE FOOT PRINT 1188 J32 SOFT SOFT EXISTING UNNG SPACE THAT snAn uvrc~c .~ SPACE 1318 SOFT E>asnNC uNNc SPACE CONVERTED TO GARAGE ~ SPACE ,s „ ; 150 •. x - iY~,{,r. >,. ` ° ' NEW SOFT . r. : ~>; J`~ ti,~; ~ :7~' < UNNG SPACE 803 ~~r::......t :~`~ SGFT AREA CALCULATION PLAN 2&3.84 FT 198.6 FT GARAGE GARAGE 11'-9 /B' 10'-2 1/8' e n i 5 a r 4J5.3 FT N 334.u FT J'-4 1/4• 1234. 50 F~ 8'-4 7/8' I 10'-2 /8' 8'-8 1 B' m b 'ml 83.05 SO FT 1 n I n 1 I I N I I ~,_, ,~. m I rv s5o.27 so FT GARAGE AREA 482.44 SQ LIVING AREA 1917 SQ FT N N ~ ~ i N N 0 01 N N Y! 0 ~, N ~~ T d ~AMI~Y BOOM NOOK 21-5 1 /1 I I i I 2 C!K INY~/YiA~ I I I I I I ~ -- I I I I L Nb I J I r- II I I I ~ KIrc~N si -z 1/1. O I F- --- -----------------------------------------~ I I I I I I n~ STUnY 0~ f~~00M 5 ~ ~NT~Y ~IUI G X00 I a__ O I ~ r ^ ~ o I a I I I L~ __ 3'-4 1 /4" A, 2 4'-7 1/2" 3 '-8 1/8" FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ NEW 2%4 STUD WALL E%ISTINC 2%1 STUD WALL 0 N H.L110N 14" = I'-0" ~, rx~~ 915 925~?b1325 U z ~C G z ~ ~ Q O z O ~ ~ 1 ^ O O z N g ~ ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW oae 3!2912005 A.2 • m ,~~ 16.125 SQFT n ~ 521.72 50 FT IJHNC AREA 868.815 SQ FT b n 16'-n 1p' m Ile so ~7 i h 2Y-3 7/8' n~ C I v 4LL LINE OF ' RST FLOOR i i i NEW 2%4 5N0 WALL E%ISTINC 2%4 SND WALL ~vlsloNnal~s 5405 I I Kl~( 5199WI.lOWVEWCG1Rf ~.~ns4NrcN, rx~c~la 94588 925~r7ba515 U z 1U G z O ~ Q ~ ~ z O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v O z N ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW [: H1HON vaE 3!29/2005 A.3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN • •~ SECOND FLOOR WALL LINE SECOND FLOOR OGEE GUTTER FIRST FLOOR OGEE GUTTER SECOND FLOOR OGEE GUTTER FIRST STORY WALL LINE SECOND STORY WALL LINE NEW ATTIC VENTS PAINT TO MATCH SHINGLES FIRST FLOOR OGEE GUTTER FIRST FLOOR WALL LINE FIRST FLOOR OGEE GUTTER FIRST FLOOR WALL LINE REPLACE EXISTING ROOF WITH NEW CLASS A, 40 N - - YEAR ASPHALT - - - - - - - - - COMP SHINGLES _ - 5:12 5:12 ~ o/ 30 # FELT ~4 0 5:12 F} ~ DOWN SPOUT AND RAIN ~ N LEADER ~i ® ~\e ® ® 5:12 _ RIDGE 5~ 12 ~ NEW ATTIC ® ® VENTS PAINT TO MATCH RDOF N y~Q ® ® ~ CRICKET W/ NEW CHIMNEY TORCH DOWN W/ SPARK o ROOFING ARRESTOR CAP ~ - ~y ~~ ~P _N ~i ~~Q RIDGE ~~Q 5:12 ®~ NEW CLASS A, 40 RE SHINGLE tiiA YEAR ASPHALT EXISTING PORCH COMP SHINGLES )/ ROOF .-- ----- 30#FELT SECOND FLOOR N WALL LINES ~i SECOND FLOOR OGEE GUTTER ~v~ou nrns I I I KIRt vl~nswroN, av,-c~ 945 ny~2~•I~5 v z ~ O ~ Q O `~ O ~ Q U ~ ~ ~ z N ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW • ROOF PLAN ~uaox onn 3129/2005 A.4 qtr a • • ~f i ~ n a i ± Z H mO O N AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE 0 -O.J85' LOYA:ST EgSDNG GRADE ANO FINISHED GRADE 0 -0.75' NEW CHWNEY MTH CAP /~ ~ b n n n ~ i N N n O O ATTN: VENTS PuNr To MATCH ROOF TYPICAL b YEAR CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF DYER 30LBS FELT OR EOIHYELENT OGEE ANN CUTLER q"TE vnln MINDOMS TYPICAL J CDAT 7/8' CEMENT PLASTER pYE.R GALVANIZED MIRE MESH OVER 2-LA1fRS TYPE 0 PARER OR EWIYELENT FOAM TRIM SHAPES KITH SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER FlNISH FNISHED GRADE AND E%ISTING GRADE -0.J' AT CORNER MEEP SCREED TYPICAL OR EWIVELENT SECTION PASEO LADO E%ISiING ASPHALT SHINClES E%ISiING ALUMINUM YANOOWS E%IS11NG SNCCO E%ISiING WOOD SIDING KEY PLAN Et:VI51pJDl~ES 5405 I I K1~f R.~A~`LT~, ~~ 945 925.47b-1925 U z ~CC C , V z_ o O ~ Q z ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ Q 9- ~ O z N ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW Pere Sl2912005 A.5 3 EXISTING FRONT /SOUTH ELEVATION A.s ~ • • I~ ~ ~ > !5 ~ ~~j ~'~^~ ' 23.03 ABOVE NATURAL AGERACE GRADE ^ - t `' „'~ _, ~» f "~ ~ N ~ ~ .,'; rn z x rn z^ ~ rn i -< <s ~~~.~ ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ .1 rn s,:..~ F F' ~ ~' i"5 { } ~ Y~ 'E ~-~ ~ rn ~ : t u ., v~ •. ,~if~ ~~~ rn ~~ ~ ~,u, i ~~f `D~/~ V' I r r ~~;y~,,;~ ~~ ~k.~ ~~~ ~ 3 ; ~ ~r I ~ rn 1 i ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~. ~r.~~f, rn ~ D v\. J. /? ~ v ~~~ ~ ~ ~e r' I . ~. k4~ ! rd ~~ ~ ~@ ..~ a .~=: , ,rf ~ .~~ . ;. I ~, ~:f ? 11 ~ 11 1 I dN O X X X O _ Z X IA N Z Z N 2 +1 T 'G.-G. L) ~ C) N ~ L7 N _ 22 -7 3/4 rn o z s > ~ 23-4 3/t' o ~ ZO u l Z ~m ~ v ~Z b~ o > mo Asso sOsw _ ~~ m5o:il~ ~ ~ o ~ C S m ~ ~~ `" ~ oonA ~~ g ~~ Nc ~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~ S ND ~ >L '~ NI!! Z `~ Z Am tiNN~ ~ O ~ ~ (~ mss' ~ ~ > S~ N~ ~?EZ ~~ ~ ',~~ ~ O mX AIA = ~ ~ 9 m~ ~ .... y D N m O ~ r D fTl O f- D Z u O J ~ ° D N o~ o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 0 m N JOHN pA~?K5, MA51~p SCAM INV~51'M~N1'S I.I.C 18612 pA5~0 ~An0 SAp~A1'OGA, CAI.I~Ot?NIA 9500 • • as AO YEAR CLASS A ASPHALT SHNIGLE ROOP DYER 30185 FAT A OA EIXAVELENT OGEE RAIN CUTTER 7DP PL MMTE VAiri MINDOWS TYPICAL RIAIN LEADERS '...~.. - 3 COAT 7/A" CEMENT PLASTER `;:..4:~:r` OVER CALVANI2ED PARE MESH {~ OR EpUVEI.ENT TYPE 0 PARER C 1 5" ~ ~i zn . ., . :. '„ . 4i,, ~~. ' ~~ , o . h; fF ~.~`'a':. R'lt~ t i ,a TOP PL n i' '~^T' l ~v . ~t n ~ F7AIN LEADERS ; ' .Yi~~ ~ < ti ~ ~ hM ~tM~ ~ t \ ~ '~~~ AIUR GRADE ay ~~ ~ >. ~~r ri$~'`. 'S' {an/y~5~ . HNiHEST fTNISHED GRADE AND WHITE NNri SLIDING DOORS WOOD POST AND BEAM FlNISHED GRADE AND EfOS11NC ~ E1tlSTINC GRADE -0.2' A GRADE -Q49' AT CORNER CORNER 2 A.8 ~ NEW REAR /NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING REAR /NORTH ELEVATION PASEO LADO 1 KEYAPLAN ifmaN DATES 5 4 05 I~l.ll II. ~F1A 1 5149 WALOAVEW CARE RthWlJffON, C1LfG~lA 94589 925-+wan5 ~ ` T z )~ I~ '~ I, z O , O v~ Q ~ ~ z O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ 9- ~ O z N ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW p,~ 3129/2005 A.7 ~T !t • RIAN LEADERS - AYERACE NATURAL CRADE 0 -O.J85' E%ISTINC GRADE AND FlNISHED- LXiADE 0 -O.}' IG11 I / tA5 I tLtVA I IUN 114" - I' -0" WOOD TRUSS SYSTEM-~ ~-ATTIC 4ENT5 SECTION 114" = I'-0" IGlES EXISTING RIGHT /EAST ELEVATION 1~4u _ IL AO TEAK CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGIF ROOF OVER }0185 FELT OR EQUIYELENT OGEE RARI CUTTER IMIITE NNn LxNDOws Trncu 3 COAT 7/8' CflIENT PLASTER OVER CALVAl1jEp MIRE 11E91 mER z-uYERS T19E D PARER OR EQlA1ELEMT FOAM TRIM SHAPES KITH SAIOOIH CEMENT PLASTER FINISH FlNISHED GRADE AND E>aSTklG CRADE -0.2' AT CORNER KEEP SCREED TYPICAL A,e KEY PLAN PASEO LADO ~° iEVISI(M DNES 5405 NI.F I I I. W k.1 51A9WL10WVEWCGRf PLEASMJfGN, pIFGEfIA 94588 425~47b~'S25 V .~ ~ \ r z z 0 ~ Q z ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ Q ~- Q ~ ~ O z N ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGN REVIEW n,~ 3/2912005 A.8 AEEr a ~, :~~,,. fi .~ 1 I • ~' ~' 1: ,'3~. ., , . . m ~; ~: ,. era ~,~,~ :;,~ Application No./Locatfon: o5ro3813975 Fusmo~mt cc ' ?ype of Appl#t~fon: Design Revicw Ownrc: ~~Y ~ Mira Pcrmar, Y Phmer: Deboxafi Unga-McCormick, AICP, Contnrt Plxm~r Datc June 8, ~t105 APN: 503-81.003 t Heed. ~1 ~y ~ wNt.w .Mr.~.. ~,Y~ ' v ~ ~ I L ~ ,~'_'_~-- '"~~ `'~ ~_ r ~ ~ ; r _ . ___ !-- i---~ _~ ._ f r j , ~ L_~ r ~ ~ j l- r. L J ,! C - J -~, / /J]' \ ~ /\\ / / ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~' ~ 1275 Paramourx Ct. ~~ ' " PcreM w llhh 500 ft ,r-- 1 1 4.. \~•' ti . OQ4 R - ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •' 8~ed: 01/'25/05 ~gr+e~e: OS~'10/OS , ~~: 03125/05 .~ e ~~~~N~: OS/'2bJ05 ~e~pla~ed: Pte' D~A~'ttolr: OS/26JOS • • Application No. OS-028; 12975ParamountGourt ST AFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43.560 gross and net square feet SLOPE: 9.8% average site slope; 0.5% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: 1,211 cubic yards cut (site work). 810 cubic yards (basement) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include a light tan stucco exterior, a "Mission" the roof in earth tone colors, precast concrete columns with Travertine finish and wood frame windows and doors. • ~~0~~ Application No. OS-028; 1297SParamount Coutt PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot 25.1% Maximum Allowable 35% Coverage: Buildings 4,061.00 sq. ft. Porch, landing, light wells 532.00 sq. ft. Driveway 2,730.00 sq. ft. Uncovered patios & 1,540.00 sq. ft. walkways Swimming pool 2,100.00 sq. ft. w/decking 10,963.00 sq. ft. 15,246.00 sq. ft. TOTAL Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 3,323.00 sq. ft. Second Floor 1,971.00 sq. ft. Garage 738.00 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,032.00 sq. ft. 6,080.00 sq. ft. <Basement*> <1,911 sq. ft.> *not counted in floor area calculations. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 78 ft. 30 ft. Rear 60 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 20 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 56 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable 26.0 ft. 26 ft. Lowest elevation pt. 390.00 Highest elevation pt. 397.50 Average 393.75 At the topmost point of 419.75 the structure ~~0~~~ Application No. OS-028; 12975PazamountCoum PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence and basement. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed single-family residence and gazage is 6,032 squaze feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. T'he lot size is approximately 43,560 squaze feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. The proposed residence is a Mediterranean architectural style which includes varying rooflines, stucco walls, Travertine finish pre-cast concrete columns, wrought iron railing, and wood frame windows and doors. Identifying features of the proposed residence include gable rooflines over azched windows along the front facade and an entry feature with arch and pre-cast concrete columns. Architectural styles in the neighborhood vary. Lot sizes along Pazamount typically aze one acre or more. The average slope of the property is 9.8%. The existing residence is a two-story residence with access from a driveway off Paramount Court. The proposed two-story home will utilize the same access driveway. The design of the proposed residence utilizes the slope of the lot to minimize mass and bulk, and incorporates most of the existing trees on the site. The height of the new residence at the two-story element meets the maximum required of 26 ft, however, it also includes single story elements at different heights. This helps reduce the sense of bulk and provides azchitectural interest on all sides of the building. The profile of the proposed house is generally the same as the existing house, except that on the west side the existing profile is higher by approximately one foot. The footprint of the proposed two-story residence is located in proximity of the footprint of the existing home, except that the location of the existing house is at more of an angle to the street. By moving the house more parallel to the street, the rear yazd is enlazged and the owner can re-landscape it in a manner that relates better to the proposed residence. The property also currently contains a swimming pool along the south side of the property, which the owner will retain and incorporate into the landscape plan for the reaz yard. Some improvements aze proposed azound the pool, including new decking and a spa. The new residence includes an attached 3 car garage on the west side and perpendiculaz to the residence, and a basement. The basement area, which is not included in the floor azea calculations, covers approximately two thirds the footprint of the main level. The proposed grading plan results in approximately 1,211 cubic yazds of cut, which includes foundation work, driveway and site work for the new residence. Grading of the site is primarily associated with shifting the footprint of the house to be more pazallel with the street and re-landscaping the reaz yazd. In addition, the basement requires 810 cubic yards of cut. • a~c~~~ Application No. OS-028;12975Paramount Court Trees The project site contains a number of lazge, mature trees in the front azea as well as along the entire perimeter of the site, and along the existing access driveway. The Arborist Report prepared on February 21, 2005, identified 43 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that aze located in close proximity to the proposed project. Of these, two were identified as being in direct conflict and/or adversely impacted by the proposed project. Tree #39 is a multi-trunk Norway Spruce and is located where the new garage is proposed. It is considered in Fair condition with Moderate suitability for preservation. The Arborist concluded that this tree met the findings for removal as per the City Tree Ordinance, and replacements aze suggested to mitigate the loss of this tree. Tree #23 is a 20-inch Coast Live Oak and is located in close proximity to the existing house and walkway. This tree is also considered in Fair overall condition and with Moderate suitability for preservation. The Arborist Report concluded that modifications to the grading plan would be required to achieve a reasonably high assurance for survival for Tree #23. The applicant subsequently revised the project plans in response to staff and azborist comments. As part of this revision, the applicant is proposing to remove Tree #23 with a replacement Oak tree in a more suitable location. To support this request, the applicant provided an independent azborist Tree Survey prepared by John McClenahan, Certified Arborist. The Tree Survey concludes that the tree is in poor to fair condition, and that regardless of any construction, the tree is declining and in five to ten years will contribute little to the site and will require removal. The applicant's azborist recommends removal of the tree in accordance with the City's required mitigation. The City Arborist reviewed the Tree Survey provided by the applicant and agreed with its conclusions finding that this is most likely caused from roots dying due to the its relatively poor growing environment and that the possibility of recovery is highly questionable. Thus, Tree #23 meets the Tree Ordinance findings for removal. The landscape plan for the project has been revised to incorporate 6 replacement trees for the loss of these two trees, as follows: one 48-inch box tree (replacement for Tree #23) in the south east corner of the lot, and five 24-inch box trees (replacement for Tree #39), four in the front azea and one in the reaz yard (next to Oak #15). The Arborist also identified three trees (#4, 8 and 24) on the site that, because of their extremely poor condition and vulnerability to failure, present a significant risk to public safety and should be removed regazdless of the proposed project. Trees #4 and #8 aze Silk Oaks and are located adjacent to the existing driveway, and Tree #24 is a California Peppertree that is located adjacent to the south boundary of the site. The applicant is proposing removal of these trees and no replacements are required for these trees. In his review letter of April 22, 2005, the City Arborist also recommends revisions to the grading plan regarding the design of the driveway to promote survival and longevity of trees being retained along the driveway, and to the proposed storm drain along the east side of the property to minimize conflict with trees #7, #11, #16 and one eight-inch Oak situated near the front of the property. These recommendations have been added as conditions of approval of the project. ~ ~~o~~~ Application No. OS-028; 12975ParamountCoum A tree bond is required for the project equal to 100% of appraised value of trees planned for retention, or $93,330. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for the adjacent properties. No negative comments have been received regarding this project. Geotechnical Clearance The application requires geotechnical review. Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions. The geotechnical conditions have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. 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 footprint of the proposed two-story residence is located in proximity of the footprint of the existing two-story home; therefore, there is little change in the impacts to views and privacy in comparison to the existing conditions. The placement of the home meets or exceeds minimum required setbacks and windows on the second floor are placed to ensure privacy for adjacent properties. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the front area and periphery of the site, which serves to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate most of the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of earth- tone stucco and the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site contains many mature trees, including several native and heritage trees. The project plans have been designed to incorporate and maintain existing vegetation and to minimize removal of protected trees. Two protected trees, one Spruce Pine (#39), one Coast Live Oak (#23) are proposed for removal to accommodate the new residence. The arborist concluded that the removal of these trees would be appropriate and would have minor affects on the overall landscape for the project. Two Sillc Oaks (#4 and #8) and one California Peppertree (#24) are proposed for removal. The arborist identified these as poor specimens which present conditions that could cause potential damage to property. Six replacement Oak trees are proposed to mitigate the loss of these two trees, in accordance with recommendation of the Arborist Report. A tree bond is Q~~~~~ Application No. OS-028; 12975Paramovnt Court required for the project equal to 100% of appraised value of trees planned for retention, or $93,330. In addition, all azborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all new trees and those retained on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied building heights and recessed wall planes, arched windows, precast concrete columns and guard railing, wood sectional gazage doors and wood frame windows and doors serve to break up building lines, create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height The location of the proposed house is located in general proximity of the existing residence. The proposed residence is set back approximately 78 feet from Paramount Court and is not visible from the street. The proposed residence has a similaz profile as the existing residence and has been designed with varying heights and wall planes to reduce the sense of bulk and height. The proposed project minimizes changes to the existing conditions through the retention of most trees and will be in keeping with the general appeazance of the existing site conditions and the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. 11 (g) Design policces and techniques. The proposed project conforms to a 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 as detailed in the findings above and staffreport. Conclusion Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. City Arborist Review, dated February 21, 2005 and Apri122, 2005 3. Tree Survey by John H. McClenahan, Certified Arborist dated Mazch 19, 2005 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. '~ ~ 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." Q~~i~Q • Attachment 1 • ~~~~9 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.05-0_ Application No. 05-028 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Parmar;12975 Paramount Court WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for new 6,032 square foot, two-story home with basement and with a maximum height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: • (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The footprint of the proposed two-story residence is located in proximity of the footprint of the existing two-story home; therefore, there is little change in the impacts to views and privacy in comparison to the existing conditions. The placement of the home meets or exceeds minimum required setbacks and windows on the second floor are placed to ensure privacy for adjacent properties. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the front area and periphery of the site, which serves to enhance privacy for adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate most of the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of earth- tone stucco and the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site contains many mature trees, including several native and heritage trees. The project plans have been designed to incorporate and maintain existing vegetation and to minimize removal of protected trees. Two protected trees, one Spruce Pine (#39), one Coast Live Oak (#23) are proposed for removal to accommodate the new residence. The arborist concluded that the removal of these trees would be appropriate and would ~~~~~~ ha~'e minor aflects an the oti~erall landscape t'aF the pm~ect. ~l wa ~lll~: Ualts ~~~ aul #8) and car C.`'allf~a~nna k'pa~rtrt~ (#~~) are pn~po;I fixr rcrrxac~al, "1" l~ arlic~ri~~t: tl~'itif~tl the as poor sm~r~, t~hi~h print cc>rsditons that. enuld muse potenti~) damage to p~!r". ~i,~: replacement C)ak tries attie pt~opased to m~t~ue t#te lt~s Af thc~e t1~~11 t5„ ttl ~Mrda~. 1~'tth r+~cumrnendat~on. ~Jt the .Aitwrist Report. A t k~and is re~uir~ for tha project dual to 100°,/e of appraised value of trees planned far retentian, or 93,330, In addition„ all artwrist rrpcxrt r~c~r~tn.+t+ans live t~ znacie COtldit~.ons t7t~appr€>~~a1. t~t'tI~ l~,jert [O ensure a high degree of~unzral for all. new trees and. those retz~ined on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. ,4r~:ltitc~tural tletaila~ such as t"arlt{l rna~~lines, varied building heights and :recessed wall planes, arched window's. pre. cast cacrcrete Nwnrm and. g~ ~aili~g, w~cx?d sc~ctla.l gage d+~ar;~ and wood fraane ~~iru~orvs itnci doors sere trr k~real- up building lints, crraike z~rcliitec:tural interest, and. reduce mass a~ ltiulk. (e) Compatible bulk and lfeighl.'"'].he design. oaf the proposcii is l+aeat+~ in gencxal proximity of the existing residence. The proposed residence is set back approximately 78 feet from Paramount Court and is not visible from the street. The proposed residence has a similar profile as the existing residence and has been designed with varying heights and wall planes to reduce sense of bulk and height. The proposed project minimizes changes to the existing conditions through the retention of most trees and will be in keeping with the general appearance of the existing site conditions and the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (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 as detailed in the findings above and staff report. 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. 05-028 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped May 31, 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. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated February 21, 2005 and Arborist Review Letter dated April, 22, 2005 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 6. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The final landscape plans shall show the required replacement trees. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. 7. The owner/applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of-way including demolition of existing driveway approach, new driveway approach, construction and curb, gutter and street repair, if needed. 9. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated February 21, 2005 and Arborist Comment Letter dated Apri122, 2005 shall be followed, 11. The location of driveway and storm drain shall be revised in accordance with recommendations #6 and #7 of the Arborist Review Letter dated April 22, 2005 ~+~~~.i2 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 8th day of June 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 Ciry Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~~C~~~3 to promote the survival of trees being retained along the driveway and near the proposed storm drain. 12. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of Ciry Permits. 13. The submitted final landscape and irrigation plan shall be consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Sheets (L-2 thru L-4), and preservation recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report and Arborist Review Letter. 14. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $93,330 to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 15. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Ciry Arborist, and the payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 16. Geotechnical Clearance: a. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The consultant shall verify that crushed rock to be placed beneath basement slabs is durable and clean (without significant fines) in final plans and specifications. Substitution of Class II Aggregate Base would not be appropriate for capillary break construction largely because of excess fines content. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. b. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 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 Project Approval. c. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. FIRE DISTRICT 17. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 18. 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 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 Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 2 • fl~~8~ b • ARBOR RESOURCES Item 2 Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree C A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 12975 PARAMOUNT COURT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Parmar APPLICATION #: 05-028 APN #: 503-81-003 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A February 21, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~~~~~ David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 SUMMARY • Forty-three trees were inventoried for this report. Of these, one, #39, is in direct conflict and another, #23, would be adversely impacted. Replacements are suggested to mitigate the loss of #39. Plan revisions to the grading design are necessary to achieve a reasonably high assurance of survival for tree #23. Trees #4, 8 and 24 present a significant risk to public safety and should be removed regardless of the proposed project. Mitigation for their removal is not necessary. I also find that #26, a lazge Eucalyptus located on the neighboring southern property, presents a high risk of large limb failure and its removal should also occur. All trees anticipated to be retained aze expected to survive provided each recommendation presented in this report is cazefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The tree protection bond amount for retained trees is calculated to be $93,330 and the replacement tree amount is determined to be $3,120. 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 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets 1 and 4, dated January 2005 by TDH Design, Saratoga, CA. The locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions of trees inventoried for this report aze presented on an attached copy of Sheet 1 (Site Plan). Please note the canopy dimensions shown on the plans aze not accurate; all references to canopy size should be derived from the attached table. For identification purposes, round metallic tags corresponding to numbers presented within this report were attached to the trunks of each inventoried tree located on site. FINDINGS There are 43 trees of Ordinance-size located in close proximity to the proposed project. They include tlu'rt~ur Coast Live Oaks (#1-3, 5-7, 9-20, 22, 23, 28-38, 41-43), two Silk- Oaks (#4, 8), one Flowering Plum (#21), one California Pepper Tree (#24), one Chinese Elm (#25), one Red-Ironbazk Eucalyptus (#26), one Monterey Pine (#27), one Spruce (#39) and one Olive Tree (#40). Specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga 1'ag~ 1r~.o„~',6 , City of Saratoga Community Development Department (r, t~J~'~.g David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 Tree #39, a multi-trunk Spruce, is in direct conflict with the proposed garage. Given its species and only fair condition, I find its removal will be insignificant. Mitigation for its loss shall include replacements equivalent to its appraised value. The proposed grading design will adversely impact tree #23's health and I recommend the plans aze revised to show no grading or trenching (including for the retaining wall) within 20 feet of the tree's trunk. The exception to this involves soil placed to fill in any void created by the removal of the existing foundation, brick walkway and/or hazdscape beneath its canopy. Trees #4, 8 and 24 aze in extremely poor condition and vulnerable to failure. As such, I recommend they be removed regazdless of the proposed project. Tree #26, a large 31-inch diameter Eucalyptus, is situated on the southern neighboring property. This tree was severely reduced in height (`topped') some time ago and has resulted in weakly attached branches growing from the cut areas. Consequently, the lazge, overhead branches present a significant risk to public safety as they are highly vulnerable to breaking from the tree. When considering the potential damage, injury or catastrophe that could result if one or more of the branches broke, I find the tree should be removed regazdless of the proposed project. There aze additional trees of Ordinance-size located throughout the site but are not inventoried for this report due to their location well away from the project components. However, they must also be protected throughout site development and can be achieved through the installation of protective fencing shown on the attached map. Trees #5, 6,11, 18, 26 and 40 aze not shown on plans reviewed; their trunk locations have been plotted on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. There are numerous additional trees of Ordinance-size located on site and neighboring properties that aze not shown on the Site Plan. Their trunks should also be surveyed and shown on all site related maps, including those with canopies overhanging the subject site. The proposed Site Plan does not show all existing hazdscape, brick walkways, retaining walls, sheds or lawn areas. I recommend a plan be designed that shows these features and identifies which will remain, remove and/or improved. Soil fill is covering the root collaz~ of tree #32 and, consequently, exposes the tree to infection by harmful organisms. The root collaz should be cleazed to minimize the risk of infection. ~ Defined as the area where the main trunk and scaffold roots merge, often identified as a distinct swelling at the trunk's base. Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga Pale 2 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~©(~~g David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS • All recommendations presented below are based on the proposed plans. Should the plans be revised or encompass additional features, the recommendations may require modification. 1. The locations of all Ordinance-sized trees located on site, whether inventoried or not inventoried for this report, must be surveyed and shown on all site related plans (to also include #3-5 and 26). The numbers assigned to each inventoried tree should also be shown. 2. Revise the proposed grading design so no soil excavation or fill occurs within 20 feet of tree #23's trunk. The exception to this involves any soil placed to fill in the void created after the existing walkway, foundation and/or handscape aze removed beneath its canopy, which must have a percolation rate of approximately 0.5 inches per hour. 3. Any retaining wall designed within 20 feet from tree #23's trunk should be established on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no-dig design). 4. A plan should be prepazed that shows all existing handscape, brick walkways, retaining walls, sheds and lawn azeas throughout the site. Additionally, the retention, removal or improvement of each feature must be identified. 5. The sections of future drivewa ro sed beneath the trees' canopies must not exceed • Y P Po the depth or width of the existing. 6. The distance specified on Sheet 1 between the trunks of trees #16, 32, 34 and 35 should read 8, 9, 11 and 11 feet, respectively. 7. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape plans: a. Trenches for irrigation and lighting should be designed to be at least 12 times the diameter from the trunks of retained trees. If inside this distance, the trenches should be dug in a radial direction to the trunks and be no closer than five times the diameter of the neazest trunk. b. Lawn or plant material requiring regular watering should comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. Plant material installed beneath an Oak's canopy should bedrought-tolerant. c. Irrigation should not spray beneath an Oak's canopy or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. Please note this requires converting the existing irrigation system. d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. e. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided. 8. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 3 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ``~R; `., O~'U~~iQ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Please note fencing is specified on the attached map for all City regulated trees, whether inventoried or not. 9. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced azeas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 10. The following, existing components shall remain intact throughout construction and removed just prior to landscaping commencing: [1] the section of driveway within 10 feet of trees #2, 3 and 9; [2] the portion of concrete walkway within eight feet of tree #32's trunk; and [3] the portion of existing brick walkway within 20 feet of tree #23's trunk. The removal of the hazdscape must be manually performed and any motorized- wheeled equipment providing assistance shall remain on pavement at all times and off exposed soil and roots. Within one hour after hazdscape removal, afour-inch layer of clean sand or coarse wood chips from a tree company shall be spread over the exposed azeas and remain moist until the overlaying materials are installed; the placement and removal of the chips or sand must be by hand. 11. Prior to construction, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the canopies of trees #16, 23, 32, 34 and 35. This shall include the azeas inside and outside the designated protective fencing. The mulch should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 12. The rock and landscape fabric currently beneath tree #23's canopy must be manually removed. After its removal, Irecommend afour-inch layer of wood chips is placed on the exposed soil area (as specified in the previous recommendation). 13. Prior to excavating soil within 20 feet of tree #16's trunk, aone-foot wide trench shall be manually dug with shovels one-foot east from where the basement wall is proposed. The depth of the trench should be at least three-and-a-half feet below existing soil grade. All visible roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed at the soil cut line (on the tree side of the trench). The freshly cut ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be immediately wrapped in a clear sandwich bag and tightly sealed with a rubber band or electrical tape. 14. Prior to excavating soil within 20 feet of tree #32's trunk, aone-foot wide trench shall be manually dug with shovels one-foot northwest from where the foundation is proposed. The trench should be dug to the required foundation depth and all visible roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed at the soil cut line (on Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 4 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ®®~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 the tree side of the trench). The freshly cut ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be immediately wrapped as specified for the roots of tree # 16. 15. Special construction measures must be employed by the owner to ensure that soil excavation for the portion of foundation or basement within 20 feet of tree #16's trunk is not overcut beyond 12 to 18 inches from the foundation or basement wall. This also includes any trenching for drainage or utilities. 16. The removal of the smaller of the two sheds beneath tree #37's canopy (only the larger of the two is shown on the Site Plan) shall be manually removed. Great care must be taken to avoid existing soil during the process. 17. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 18. Soil fill placed against the home's perimeter for drainage purposes should not extend beyond two feet where beneath the trees' canopies. 19. Throughout construction during the months of April thru November, water should be supplied every two weeks to trees #16, 23, 27, 32, 34 and 35. I suggest 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is applied using soaker hoses placed beneath the trees' mid- to outer-canopies. 20. Upon availability, plans showing all existing conditions, underground utilities and services, and landscaping (both planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 21. Trenches for any new drainage features or underground utilities must be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. 22. Downspouts shall be situated at least 15 feet to the side and directed away from the trunks of retained trees. 23. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 24. Any tree pruning or removals must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: //www. isa-arbor. com. The pruning should be limited to the removal of dead branches one-inch and greater in diameter, establishing sufficient clearances from the home and over the driveway, and reducing any heavy limb weight. The stubs from tree #27 shall also be removed. • • Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page S ~~~2~i City ojSaratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 21, 2005 25. The root collar of tree #32 must be cleared and inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist. Any recommendations prescribed by the aborist should be employed by the property owner, including possible treatment(s) for root rot. 26. Trees #4, 8 and 24 present a significant risk to public safety and should be removed as soon as possible. Mitigation for their loss is not necessary. 27. The tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $93330.2 This amount presumes that the recommended plan revisions will be implemented and that all trees but #39 will be retained and adequately protected. 28. Mitigation for the loss of tree #39 shall include the installation of new trees equal to its appraised value of $3.120, which is equivalent to two trees of 36-inch box size and one of 24-inch box size. Other replacement tree combinations can be used and their values are presented on the bottom of the table. The proposed location and sizes of new trees should be shown on the landscape plans and be at least 15 feet apart and 15 feet outside from beneath the actual canopies of retained trees. They must be installed prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support, bedouble-staked with rubber tree ties. Irrigation must be a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet 1) 2 This value represents the sum of the appraised tree values shown on the attached table for trees anticipated to be retained. The values are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboricultwe, 2000. Parmar Property, 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga Page 6 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ . ~ o 3 ~ o ~ bb ~ S ~ ~'' ~ ~ ,~ ~ v a b ~ ~ ~v `3C. o '~ ~ F, w q ~ p II a~ ~ ~ p,~ ~ o b^ Q > A~ i-. a ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ Q TREE ~ $ ''~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~' ~ NO. TREE NAME -- ~ -- ~ Coast Live Oak 12.5 Q ~ (Ouerrus aftrilolia) 3' 30 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - S1,950 Coast Live Oak 2 ( uet+cus a 'olio) 10 25 30 75% 75% GNi Hi 3 - 51,598 Coast Live Oak 3 ( encus a 'olio) 15, 7 30 30 l00% 75% C,ood Hi 3 - X 54,760 Sills-Oak 4 (Grevillea tnbttsta) 17 2' 35 25 25% 0% Poor REMOVE - - X SO Coast Live Oak 11.5 Q g ( etcus a 'olio) 1' 10 20 75% 50% Fair Hi 4 - X X S1,660 Silk-Oak 8 (Grevillea robusia 14 35 25 50% 0% Poor REMOVE - - SO Coast Live Oak 9 ( encus a 'olio 10.5 25 25 75% 75% Good Hi 3 - S1,750 Coast Live Oak 5.5, 5.5, 10 ( ercus a 'olio 5 20 20 100% 25% Fair Moderate 5 - S920 Coast Live Oak 11 arras a 'olio) 6 15 l S 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - X 5500 Coast Live Oak 12 ( emus a 'olio) 20 35 50 100% l00% Good Hi 5 - S9,200 Coast Live Oak 13 ( arras o 'olio) ]2 35 35 100% 75% Good Hi 4 - S2,560 Coast Live Oak 14 ( arras a ' olio 15, 15 40 45 75% 25% Fair Hi 4 - 55,000 Coast Live Oak 15 ( et>^us a 'olio 8.5 30 30 100% 50% Good Hi 3 - S1,310 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 lion ~ 5120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 315000 Site: 11973 Poanor+a Corot, Soratogo p-gw-e+ja: e5[y ojSor~ogo Cwnmwniry vevd~morr Depms Aryare! by: Darid L Bobby. RCA 1 oj3 ~~®24 2rZlrloos • ARBOR RESOURCES ' Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ e ~ .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~$ ~g ~ ~ w~ n ~~ off' & w o ~ Q ~ ~ :~ TREE '~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~... c NO. TREE NAME ~ -~ ~ r- ~ Coast Live Oak 16 uertivs a 'olio IS 3' 25 25 75% 75% Good Hi 2 - 53,900 Coast Live Oak 17 er+cus a 'olio 9.5 25 10 100% 75% Good Hi 4 - 51,630 Coast Live Oak 18 erruJ a 'olio 7 25 30 50% 75% Fav Moderate 4 - X S580 Coast Live Oak 19 encua o 'olio 8 25 15 25% SO% Poor Low 4 - 5400 Coast Live Oak 16.5 Q 211 er+cws a 'olio 3' 30 30 75% 50% Fav Hi 3 - 53,760 Coast Live Oak 23 errua a ri olio 20 25 40 SO% SO% Farr Moderate 2 - 54,090 California Pepperlree 19.5, 24 Schirrus molle 10.5 25 30 50% 0% Poor REMOVE - - 50 Chinese Elm 25 (Ulmua rvi olio 9.5 2' 25 30 50% 50% Fair Low 4 - 5360 Red-Ironberk Z6 (Euca tus side lon) 31 80 50 50% 25% Poor Low 4 - X X S730 Monterey Pine 27 (Punts radiata 29 60 45 50'/0 75% Fair Moderate 5 - S2,080 Coast Live Oak 28 ( ercus a 'olio 18.5 40 40 75% 75% Good Hi 4 - 54,950 Coast Live Oak 29 ( emus a 'olio 14.5 40 35 75% 75% Good Hi 4 - 53,070 Coast Live Oak -uerrus agrijolia) 9 30 I S 75% 509/o Fair 4 - 5980 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES oalloa = 5120 24-inch box °5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 53,000 32-inch box =57,000 72-inch bco~ = 513,0 Sitt• l197S Pwanww~t Covert, Sorotoga Prepared jam: GRy of Sararo8n Comnuu~ai! Ik~'ebp~a~r Depart Prepared by: Darid L Bobby, RCA 1 oj3 b®0025 Tl1LZ093 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~' ' ~ ~ g ~ ~ .~ .. ~•~ ~ a ~$ b ~'~ c ~ o ~, a ~~ , a o a > A~ ~ ~ ° ~r~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a TREE > ~ ~ .~ ~' ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a cg ' c NO. TREE NAME -~ ~- I Coast Live Oak 31 (Quercus agrifolia) 15 35 35 100% 75% Good High 4 - Coast Live Oak 32 ( er+cus a 'olio 16 30 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - ,720 Coast Live Oak 33 ( ercus a 'olio) 9 35 20 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - S1,230 Coast Live Oak 34 uerrus a 'olio 9.5, 8.5 30 30 75% 75% Fair Hi 3 - S2,120 Coast Live Oak 35 ( emus a 'olio 11.5 35 25 100% 75% Good Hi 3 - S2,220 Coast Live Oak 36 ( encus a 'olio 14 1' 35 30 100% 75% Good Hi 4 - 53,2 Coast Live Oak 8, 7.5, 37 ( emus a 'olio 6.5, 4 30 25 100'/0 50% Good Hi 3 - S2 640 Coast Live Oak 38 emus a 'olio 15 35 25 100% 75% Good Hi 4 - S3,950 Norway Spruce 39 (Picea abies 13, 12.5 35 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate - X 53,120 Olive Tree 40 (Oleo euro ea 8, 3.5 20 20 75% 50'/o Fair Moderate 4 - X 5630 Coast Live Oak 41 er+cus a 'olio 12.5 35 30 75% 75% Good Hi 3 - S2,300 Coast Live Oak q2 ( er+cws a 'olio 6.5 25 10 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - 5540 Coast Live Oak 43 encus a 'olio 7, 6 30 20 100% 50% Good Hi 4 - S1,230 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 13 Ilon = SI20 24-inch boa =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = SS 000 52-inch box = T7 000 72-inch box - 513 000 Sits: 12973 Paro-nowt Cowx Sorotoga p-eporsd f~: (:dy ofSer~ogo Cwnmrwiry DevsJop~nent Depart 3 of 3 Pr~ by: Dorid L Bobby, RCA ~~O®26 7121/2003 ~~ ~~ ,• , ~~~~Y ~ ~~~ ~~~~~R A.P.N. 503-81-003 " 12978 PARAMOUNT COURT, SARATOGA, CA. 8070 $~f.e~Yi: 12FT5 rf,..f.I c0.1. s•°ba , 6moltor• cry.rs..y.c0.l.l.llTnffelOF.frnfF.u.ol ' ~: ~F ar.dea u.fTf Oraar.Kf flls. 2Ay w 1M/ Ifdifd i. the fr if .el to teak. ~: FfM~y 21, 2005 ~ 32 ~ ~~ 2S 263 erres,d w 27 ~- '1 # £ ~ ~~ tnu ., 1 J' I. r ~ AM{~01lb -NOO6 MI { // / l i ,, _ .•~~ I I Fl -RO,IIR ADDIO~k ~~ w' .~'" I I FROKRTY OYMO! ~ . l.,1~ •., ~ o i~ ~~ ,~`" ~ ~ ~ r ~ r / '' Fllo,xcT stoFS a rv¢ 23•~ /_ , PROTECTIVE FENCING ~ I ° ~ • 1 ~ / ~ o1lsTUO zoewal ~• • r- ~ 9 ! ~ i ollsr.fo IMSr 19 • I I ~• ~/ I .Im-osco Ilea // I IOT.m, II 1 rraMewf -\ -- - °'~~ l ~~ - M.OF[ TA sTlolxnllsr ~• 1 ~ • ~ urr-.. . t / It / P -RO-O!!D FLOOR ARL ~~ ~• ~ nn Mf.fs y ~ ffiLf~6E~[.d~~ 1 ~ ` ml s+°n. i /,31. ~) w..~ rolwewa uea uca !1[Lm001~.f~i~01 17 16 ~ .. .......t 3 '' .~' ~~ J n°'ALwoswcTU~w `M~ / Iwlcr nwcRVlals oov 1S,• 1 ~4 /~' ~~ . / wAfRww»Afo .T°.f MM , /~,, ~k odL °14 'PROTECTI~'EFENCING ~~ 7~~~,38° ~ / e~uv~T~iown ~*- TO-MOC-f0i1M110N- •fe4 •~~ ~ iJ _ _ :13'~~;li. •~ ~ n.~ ~ • ~~ "~/• /~• ~alw>s's"wn'» a '~l ~i10 ~ -~• :.. ~ ~~•o TRQ R610VA4 w i 1~ ~ 4bi ~ ~,~ ~ ~• r` es:s:malel.rlamu ~ j sl~loal MTORCISI 41y, ~ / ~'~ i walwo~ swRAn ~ .sawn Asfiln~ r fAMT00A. G ffOTf r J ~ FAi, Ifffl°°+-ifil feo ' ~ 6 'i~ ~ ~ aa: 1:-al.a ~f rfa-eer , M YI'rD'OO~M 1 1.4~ 4` Z 11fTS -ARAM°1AfT .000fT S e,` ~ sAMTOCA, GurOfrIA .~ ~ ~~ 1, 1~ ~ / ~ O.OSllf t I x L < \ . f . ................ A i ... C°RlVllt SItT°AVAt L • • • TOTAL LOIOTq CT KATJ71f A ... A1G 1:8 ACW1 •rT f ... AVGAOL fLCK 129'5 PARAMOUNT CT:` . ° °"'° •''•'r•°~ ,~ ..--------------•--- . ,.. , X00©2'a' I.°° rnpaTCa ey: ARBOR RESOURCES .; /nJwrNM! ANMnIr•nl Cewnluq i Tnr Cor ~~ F.O.lar tit!! . fw fflfl0. CA • 1MOT ... EM~171N0 FYec I{MI tlfJ731 • Fai: nYarr~tli~aq ii ~ _ f ARBOR RESOURCES Pro/•essional Arhoricultural Consulting & Tree Care Apri122, 2005 Deborah Ungo-McCormick Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS for the Proposed Residence at the Parmar Property; 12975 Paramount Court, Saratoga; Application #: OS-028 Dear Deborah: In connection with the proposed new residence at the above-referenced site, I have reviewed [ 1 ] the most recent set of revised plans and [2] the report by Mr. John H. McClenahan of McClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated 3/19/05. I also visited the site on April 18, 2005 and my comments aze presented below. Tree #23 is being proposed for removal per reasons specified in Mr. McClenahan's report. I concur with his conclusion that the tree is declining. I find the most likely cause involves roots dying due to its relatively poor growing environment. The possibility of its recovery, even with the most aggressive care, is highly questionable. Given this information, I find its removal complies with the City's Ordinance and its loss shall be mitigated with the installation of one tree of 48-inch box size; the size and location of the new tree should be shown on the landscape plans. 2. Tree #19 has declined even further than what was observed during my initial observation in February of this year. The tree appeazs nearly dead and in such poor health that its recovery is unlikely. As such, I suggest its removal be permitted if requested by the owner. Given its condition, mitigation is not suggested. 3. Trees #5, 6, 11, 18, 26 and 40 should be shown on Sheet G-1. 4. The numbers assigned to each tree should also be shown on Sheets 1 and G-1. 5. The proposed pool addition must be revised to avoid jeopardizing the survival and stability of tree #27, as well as the unnumbered Monterey Pine situated to its immediate west. In doing so, the pool should not require soil cuts/excavation south of the existing retaining wall where within 25 feet of tree #27's trunk and 20 feet of the trunk of the neighboring Pine. P.O. f3ox 25295, San Mateo Californi - a 94402 Email: arborresources(_a'earthl~nk.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor n796763 ~.1®~0~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care Apri122, 2005 12975 Paramount Court page 2 6. On Sheet G-1, the existing driveway is proposed for expansion on both sides. To promote the survival and longevity of trees being retained along the driveway, I recommend the following is incorporated into the plans: a. The driveway should not expand beyond the existing where within seven feet of tree #9's trunk. In doing so, I suggest the distance of the proposed driveway to tree #41's trunk is maintained. b. Sheet G-1 and/or Sheet I should indicate that sections of the future driveway (including any curb or edging) established beneath the trees' canopies shall be established entirely on top of existing grade and require no soils cuts or excavation (i.e. a no-dig design). If necessary, soil fill can be used to slope the top of the edging down to original grade, however, it should be minimized where in proximity to the trees' trunks. 7. The location of the proposed storm drain along the east side of the property requires revision as it conflicts with trees #11, 16, and one eight-inch Oak situated near the road (not shown on the project plans but indicated on the map attached to my original report). This involves the line being redesigned to be at least six feet from tree #11's trunk, six feet from tree # 16's trunk and eight feet from the trunk of the eight-inch Oak. In doing so, a minimum distance of 10 feet should be maintained from tree #7's trunk. All digging shall be carefully performed using a shovel. All roots encountered during the process that are one-inch and greater in diameter should be retained. 8. Protective fencing shown on Sheet 1 along the northwest portion of the property (at the lower lawn area) should be modified to be 10 feet further northwest to encompass the entire canopies of trees in that area (refer to the map attached to my original report). 9. Item #16, page 5, of my original report should be specified on Sheet 1 and/or Sheet G- 1. The use of soil nailing and shotcrete for excavation of the basement wall should be considered to achieve compliance with that item. Sincerely, ~~ David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • P.O. 13ox 25295. San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources(a~earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 b®0029 • Attachment 3 ~~®~~o • MAR 23 2005 5t14RM P~MRR FRMILY TREr SURVEY ~~ubmitted To: Mr. ands Mrs. VIJay Parmar 8Z7 t'senevieve Place Pleasanton, CA 94566 Project Location: • 12975 Paramount Court Saratoga, California 925485-9475 p. l Item 3 S~~bmitted By: McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC John H. McClanahan Certified ~4rboriat, WE-1478A member, American Society of Consulting Arborists March 19, ZOOS ®Copyright McCLE:NAHAN CONSULTINC3, LLC 2005 ~~~~~~~~ APR 1 S 2005 CIT~Y~OFyS~AgRA~TO~GA ^~eee- `JVV~~' MRR 23 2005 5:14RM P~MRR FRMILY 92565-9475 p.2 McCLENp,HAN CONSULTING, LLC ~ March 19, 2005 Mr. and Mrs. VI)ay Parmar 827 Genevieve Place Pleasanton, CA 94566 RE: 12975 Paramount Court Saratoga, California Asslonment As requested, I inspected one Coast lire oak to determine condition and provide recommendations relating to construction impacts. Summary Due to a sparse canopy, lack of vigor ~md low limb dieback,this tree's site contribution and value are declining with its health. Should site development be approved, t recommend removal and replacement to insure healthier canopy coverage on the lot for the long term (1- to 100 years), The rei~iacement tree should be selected in accordance with City of Saratoga's required mitigation. Methodolos~v No root crown exploration, climbing or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of this survey. In determining Tree Condition severa" fiactors have been considered which indude: Rate of growth over several seasons; Structural decays c~r weaknesses; Presence of disease or insects; and Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0 - 5 Years == Poor 5 - 10 Years == Poor to Fair 10 - 15 Years K Fair 15 - 20 Years ~= Fair to Good 20 + Years ~ Good 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, c;A 8402&8012 • TEL (350) 326-8781 • FAx (650) 854-1287 YYMY.9PM CCIENAFIMI.CWA ®~®~~ MRR 23 2005 5:14RM P$RMRR FRMILY 9285-9475 p.3 Mr. and Mrs. Vijay Parmar Page 2 March t 9, 2U05 Tree Qescriotlo~/Observation #1: Coast I Iva oak (Quercus agNfc>!la) 19.9" DSH (diameter standard height) Hoight:25' Spraad:40' Condition: Poor to Falr Location: In raised planter left of existing house Obasrvatlon: The foliar canopy is very sparse with some low limb diieback. Foliar canopy exhibits less than average new growth and lacks ~i~~or. Trunk curvature is a result of a slight phototropic lean, The existing chimney is 2-1/2 feet from the root flare. Existing house foundation and crawl space is five Beef from trunk and at least 12 to 18 inches below root flare. Existing sidewalk is at least six inches below the root flare at 6 feet from trunk. Cor~luaion Regardless of any proposed construction, this tree is declining. In five to ten years this tree will contribute little to the sfte and ~ikeiy require removal. I recommend removal of this tree in ao~ordanoe with the City of Saratoga's required mitigation. Should tree retention be do::iced, modifications to the grading plan are necessary. We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concems. Should you have any questbns, or if wc; may be of further assistance in these concems, kindly contact our office at any time. Very tNly jrC~Urs, McCLEN / NS/ULTt , L/LC ~/ ~/~ (/~ By: hn H. McClanahan Certified Arborist, WE-1476A meml:~er, American Society of Consulting Arborlsts JHMc: pm • dOOQ~3 MRR 23 2005 5:14RM ~RMRR FRMILY 9285-9475 p.4 ' McCLEN~~HAN CONSULTING, LLC aRBORfST D~:~CLOSURE STaTEMENT Arborists are tree speaalists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near tress. GJlsnts may choose to acceptor disregard the recommendations of the arborlst, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living or'9a,~isrns th2t fail In ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within ireE:s and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safie uncler all circumstances, or for a specified period of time, Likewise, remedial treatments, lice a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and rernov~rl of tress may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such ;as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, I;~rdlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborlsts cannot take such issues into account unless caR~piete and accurate information is given to the arborlst. The person hiring the arborlst accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial maasures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way tG eliminate al! risks is to eliminate alt trees. .~i Arborlst: J H. McCle ahan ..__ Date: arch 79, 2005 1 ARASTRADERO ROAp, PORTOLA VALLEY. C.A 940268017 • TEL {650)326.8?E+ ~ FAX (SSOi 854•-y67 WNNV.9P~MCCIE W W+VdCDM V OU®t•~~ • Attachment 4 • ~~~~~~ Item 4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTIC.r~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Deborah Ungo-McCormick, 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 Department on the 26th day of May, 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 250 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. . ~ - ~C_ Signed • ~3®~©3~- City of Sazatoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Sazatoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 8~h day of June 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details aze available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 12975 PARAMOUNT APN: 503-81-002; PARMAR, property owner APPLICATION: #05-022 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single- family residence and attached garage. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached garage is 6,032 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The project also includes a basement. The lot size is approximately 43,560 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. All interested persons may appeaz 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 for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, May 31, 2005. 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. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP Contract Planner 408-868-1232 OOOQ~3'r ~j ' ~~ t I '~ ~ r._ ~ _ . ;' i --, ~, I '`- ~ l ~Il _~_~~ RPMIIN ' +~Q On.~ou~uo - 1 .,..__ ~' ~r -- i ~_'_- -~` 1--- --' --_ -~ -,~ ~~. ; ~. i -- .~, --- -- - ___ .~_ :~ r ..,,.~, _..,,:..~ ..~..~_ - --- ! +~~ ~~ ~- ~ ~~ I~ _ ~ ; ~ _ j - •.IL^fb MI1~~oq~w~ M111D / ~~ ' ~ ~ - ;, i I .~' ~ .. I ` I~ -~ ~ ~ .---~«,-~. -. _...~.~.. a - . _ ;`y ...,,~.,,..,.v.,« ,., - ~. - -- - 12975 PARAMOUNT CT. • • OHO®~~ GARLAND THOMAS C JR TRUSTEE ETAL Current Owner of APN: 50316038 ~0 PIERCE RD TOGA, CA 95070-4212 SHEWCHUK ROBERT P or Current Owner of APN: 50316042 13030 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 ZHU JIEMING TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50316045 12950 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3739 CLAWSON MARILYN T TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50316060 13110 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 HSI DON & PHEBE or Current Owner of APN: 50316064 13138 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 REDS & SHERRY L ]AUNRUBENIS AND or Current Owner of APN: 50318014 12969 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 MARKLEY DEAN or Current Owner of APN: 50318062 3350 SCOTT BL 45 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054-3121 PIERCE, WILBUR R. III & KRISTINA L or Current Owner of APN: 50381001 12936 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 HIGGINS, ROGER & PRISCILLA, TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50381004 13015 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 ~AIE, BARRY AND TERESA urrent Owner of APN: 50381007 12960 PARAMOUNT CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 WIRE CHRIS A & JENNIFER L or Current Owner of APN: 50316040 13040 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTIONS INC or Current Owner of APN: 50316043 2490 CLUB DR GILROY, CA 95020-0000 MCWEENEY ROBERT J or Current Owner of APN: 50316046 12940 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3739 OSTLE TERESA B or Current Owner of APN: 50316061 13044 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 BULLOCK MICHAEL & CATHERINE C TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50318009 12901 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 CARSON, ARTHUR AND B.L. TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50318109 3424 CRESCENT BEACH RD PORT ANGELESWA, 98363-9736 MOURNING STEVEN L & ELIZABETH A or Current Owner of APN: 50318069 12929 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 PARMAR, VIJAY AND MIRA or Current Owner of APN: 50381002 12975 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 GREEN, DOUGLAS E & BRANDY W or Current Owner of APN: 50381005 12891 LANTANA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 LEI, JONATHAN AND WENDY or Current Owner of APN: 50381008 12930 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MATHEW TERRY L & DEBORAH A or Current Owner of APN: 50316041 13036 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4204 EDLER PETER A & KRISTEN C TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50316044 12970 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3739 BICKENBACH WILLIAM K & SYLVIA M TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50316059 13100 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 ATHERTON STEPHEN C & ROBIN L or Current Owner of APN: 50316062 13050 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-4212 STELLMAN DAVID K & MICHELLE A TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50318013 12955 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 INGRAHAM DARRELL P & MARGEAUX or Current Owner of APN: 50318060 12973 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3752 MARKLEY DEAN or Current Owner of APN: 50318107 3350 SCOTT BL 45 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 TSAI, CHAU-CHAD AND LI WEI- HUNG or Current Owner of APN: 50381003 12999 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 VALENTINE, RICHARD & MARGARET or Current Owner of APN: 50381006 12980 PARAMOUNT CT. SARATOGA, CA 95070 BAY, TERRENCE AND HOLLISTER TERRI or Current Owner of APN: 50381009 12916 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 .000®:~~! YEUNG, FRANCIS & AURORA TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50381029 12971 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARUP, VINOD TRUSTEE ET AL or Current Owner of APN: 50381010 P.O. BOX 2221 SARATOGA, CA 95070 LEE, JONG HWAN AND YOUNG or Current Owner of APN: 50381012 12900 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 KEEZER LAVERNE M TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50382017 13013 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4236 GOLDFARB CHARLES F & LINDA T or Current Owner of APN: 50382026 13075 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4209 HOUGH, DOROTHY H. TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50381028 12981 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA, CA 95070 BARRIE-SODERTROM, KATHLEEN or Current Owner of APN: 50381011 12908 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 TAM, JOHANN or Current Owner of APN: 50381015 12894 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 VIEIRA RICHARD J ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50382018 13035 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-4236 SHARMA RAGHAV TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50382027 11724 RIDGE CREEK CT CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5154 TSAI LIANG C AND HWEI K or Current Owner of APN: 50381027 12991 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA, CA 95070 SODERSTROM, ERNEST ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50381013 12908 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 SCVWD or Current Owner of APN: 50382016 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 WARMINGTON RICHARD JR & CAROLYN TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50382025 13045 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4209 SHARMA RAGHAV TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner of APN: 50382028 11724 RIDGE CREEK CT CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5154 CHANG CHIH-WEI & HENG-CHUM SHIMIZU KENNETH A & LAURIE J PANONTIN MARINA M TRUSTEE or Current Owner of APN: 50382029 or Current Owner of APN: 50382030 ETAL 13090 PARAMOUNT CT 13060 PARAMOUNT CT or Current Owner of APN: 50382031 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4210 SARATOGA, CA 95070-4210 13040 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4210 AZZI RAYMOND L & KAREN V or Current Owner of APN: 50382032 13020 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-4210 00~~`~~ APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 50316038 GARLAND THOMAS C JR TRUSTEE ETAL 13090 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4212 50316040 WIRE CHRIS A 8 JENNIFER L 13040 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4204 50316041 MATHEW TERRY L & DEBORAH A 13036 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4204 50316042 SHEWCHUK ROBERT P 13030 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4204 50316043 BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTIONS INC 2490 CLUB DR GILROY CA 95020-0000 50316044 EDLER PETER A 8~ KRISTEN C TRUSTEE 12970 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3739 50316045 ZHU JIEMING TRUSTEE ETAL 12950 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3739 50316046 MCWEENEY ROBERT J 12940 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3739 50316059 BICKENBACH WILLIAM K & SYLVIA M TRUS 13100 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4212 50316060 CLAWSON MARILYN T TRUSTEE ETAL 13110 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4212 50316061 OSTLE TERESA B 13044 HOUSTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4204 50316062 ATHERTON STEPHEN C & ROBIN L 13050 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4212 50316064 HSI DON & PHEBE 13138 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4212 50318009 BULLOCK MICHAEL & CATHERINE C TRUST 12901 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3752 50318013 STELLMAN DAVID K & MICHELLE A TRUSTE 12955 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3752 50318014 JAUNRUBENIS ANDREJS & SHERRY L 12969 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3752 50318109 CARSON, ARTHUR AND B.L. TRUSTEE 3424 CRESCENT BEACH RD PORT ANGELESWA 98363-9736 50318060 INGRAHAM DARRELL P 8~ MARGEAUX 12973 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3752 50318062 MARKLEY DEAN 3350 SCOTT BL 45 SANTA CLARA CA 95054-3121 50318069 MOURNING STEVEN L 8~ ELIZABETH A 12929 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 50318107 MARKLEY DEAN 3350 SCOTT BL 45 SANTA CLARA CA 95054 50381001 PIERCE, WILBUR R. III 8 KRISTINA L 12936 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 50381002 PARMAR, VIJAY AND MIRA 12975 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 50381003 TSAI, CHAU-CHAD AND LI WEI-HUNG 12999 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 50381004 HIGGINS, ROGER 8~ PRISCILLA, TRUSTEE 13015 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 50381005 GREEN, DOUGLAS E & BRANDY W 12891 LANTANA AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381006 VALENTINE, RICHARD & MARGARET 12980 PARAMOUNT CT. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381007 SAFFAIE, BARRY AND TERESA 12960 PARAMOUNT CT. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381008 LEI, JONATHAN AND WENDY 12930 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381009 BAY, TERRENCE AND HOLLISTER TERRI 12916 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381029 YEUNG, FRANCIS & AURORA TRUSTEE 12971 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA CA 95070 50381028 HOUGH, DOROTHY H. TRUSTEE 12981 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA CA 95070 50381027 TSAI LIANG C AND HWEI K 12991 BRANDYWINE SARATOGA CA 95070 50381010 SARUP, VINOD TRUSTEE ET AL P.O. BOX 2221 SARATOGA CA 95070 50381011 BARRIE-SODERTROM, KATHLEEN 12908 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381013 SODERSTROM, ERNEST ET AL 12908 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA CA 95070 Q • • • • 50381012 LEE, JONG HWAN AND YOUNG 12900 PIERCE RD. SARATOGA CA 95070 50381015 TAM, JOHANN 12894 PIERCE RO. SARATOGA CA 95070 50382016 S C V W D BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 50382017 KEEZER LAVERNE M TRUSTEE 13013 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4236 50382018 VIEIRA RICHARD J ETAL 13035 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4236 50382025 WARMINGTON RICHARD JR & CAROLYN T 13045 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4209 50382026 GOLDFARB CHARLES F ~ LINDA T 13075 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4209 50382027 SHARMA RAGHAV TRUSTEE ETAL 11724 RIDGE CREEK CT CUPERTINO CA 95014-5154 50382028 SHARMA RAGHAV TRUSTEE ETAL 11724 RIDGE CREEK CT CUPERTINO CA 95014-5154 50382029 CHANG CHIH-WEI 8 HENG-CHUN 13090 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4210 50382030 SHIMIZU KENNETH A & LAURIE J 13060 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4210 50382031 PANONTIN MARINA M TRU STEE ETAL 13040 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4210 50382032 AZZI RAYMOND L & KAREN V 13020 PARAMOUNT CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4210 ,~ 0 O 'y~ `MOOlr11r! 'lili'10~ 1NAOYIIr11V~1 ~~B$~ i!~'rf '~i~t ~ ri~~, ~~ c~orw i~a-) ~N~ r ': s~r~+ wow ~i~ E i Q ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ o ~~ ~ "' 1~ N p ~ ~ ~ <<<~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~8~ ~ 3 ~ ~ W ~ NI r ~ ~ M: R ~~~~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ °A 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~! ( ~ ! ~ ~ k` ~ ~~ ~ ~. Sid c ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` Q ~~ g, ~ ~:~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ; ~~ e~?~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 4t ~~ ~ 9J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~rv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !! ~ ~ 33~ ~ ; w ~ ~ 5 ~ l ~ 1^[ ~5^ ~1~t~4E~~~FEQas~~~~~~ j~ ~~~e^[9 ~~~~~li~ F ~ 4p6e YF~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~•4mm ~2 ~U'[ t 3 .. 3 ~~e o~ ~3~= mY ~~~ •9 <~ ~~ ~~ M O O N V O w ^ O ZV d Z O z .~ w ~~ z ~ w ~~q ~~~~ ~~~ W ~~~. ;~~ ~~n ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~g ~~ ~ ~ ~ al a r Z N JV J f~ ; ~~ m (u as d,-nw K;~ ~iJY. ~ ~~~~ a K .., o. on~ L .v N u~ ...) ~[ w n .l OL~~I / ~r 0 {~ o~.f~ U Z 0 a Q a ti 0 ~ o o RRn p S 5~ ~ a 4q k= ~~i '~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~•~ ~~~~ ~8~~~~~ .<~~g~ ~~ ~~ u n C u. > o~ ~- v v~ ~ • • •. • - -_- --- -1 LEGEND PROPERLY LINE ---~eo IOFOOT CONPWRS 2 F00T CONTOURS ------- ---- FENCE -.-_..____. _~. FDGE OF PAYE _---.-.--_. •- EXBT. SPOT F.LEY. Wa '" - __ I ~~~ {I ~q e~ e /i a ' r Qy ~ \\ x ~.o~~ i~ ~ ~ .. ~, e e.~~ <\`ti~\...~\.5J 7 el* .y' ~19 ° Jy~~ ~ CTM _ 3e5 95 ~~ Jdo m~ '- ~ ~ a p ~ ~ w Y ~.~ oq ey `~ a°5.to D5. ~e . t ~T~ a, A B^e+e ~ ~ ~ ~IJS~°: E `k ~o~i ~~q. J ~\~~e .ee .v . 1"'~a ~~' I ' Je3'2? a~~\ ~ je~ 5v z ~ < , ^~ a - TMs. °+ a ~~,' J sF % e , t q~ ~rr Js ~ . n9 m ~ ~ \ \v'S be[o°~ ~Jl6 J~ JeJ,ex \ --Jex ' y°. u~' of Ae ,y. r~R ~s ~aea t ~ ~ \~~-- - i• 'JEJ/.. °v -"I- -~ ~ 9 JJ e \ '~ ~ e'.. N !'.. '\C 55 ~;5 Z8A.9Z x. \. \ \ ~ek.~9 .. p3F ll ( i 2 - \\ \ r r,r; `-. 5S a ~e ~ ~a-om' ieo-'B 1 v. ~J\ \ a a~,~ C r ~ ue ;~lz> ~ ~ a ~ ~.eo- ~ ~~ ~~ V ~ '~ti' ~A ~ ' ~ +' l k ~AV 1 ~ e \ -\ / ~ ~~ I .z~eoAA ~ $~ 02 ~9 .'^ \E sl.'6 r .W ^~e ~ ~e{j~'9 'z ~ t I~ ae. ~" e.3. ~ ~ . z•oAx ~ c e i ~. Q 1F~ ~` 9 'J yam)". 1,16.et ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ \2 a 1A y ~ ~O .S. / ! ~~ ' y~vE M4'l .~o~ C ~ T ,3E a9 n ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~10 JJe9 ~9 ~ /~ ~J 2~ I - . ... ~~ ~" 6. 6.J' `1 ~~.o -~~~ p2 ~ ~ ~ ~ R~ ^~Tu 1 3 t .n - ~."0 - 9~ - ~ ~ / / ~ ~/ I L IJ;b ~ /...{{{- M %r i ~. e_ e ~.a5 ~Qar = ~ ~ t.o deb. ~ -~e.a" ~m ~ ,~ °° a ny. 4~. L.. L z2o N, i ---~ --_- _ _ -r ~l er µ^C ~v 6a9y, \ 110 ~ Epic 17!!W6 .A ..OB NC. NO,~ ~' DA E REJI "J -_- _ u .:{'E A "::. ufv ::< '/j.. i / ..,,._ ., i --- - -- - - - - - ~ - sf" ~EF. ~ ~!~ ~/1\ WESTFALL ENG I NEERS F I NC . TOPOGRAPHIC MAP S„EF,~,F - --- D r+P ~, s _.; 12975 PARAMWN~ CT., SARATOGA DF ~~i y__ ~ _.__ -_..- --- ---. ---- - - --- I.,q, c fiA<,^, '.A f. iARAIOGA, CA 95070 (AOB1867-024f FA e r A JA.E 9`. _• •. 8 L' • __~ -,.385=' _ % ~ • • ~~. Z.5 ~~ ~ \ E5 \Et. 55. 1 ~~ ``__.__~_ ~ _~~.,~/l/. \ ,3~6 - \\ • \ EARTHWORM VOLUMES ~r----_--~ ~~,~~.- i-, aS `\~ • ~ -, CUT FILL ~-,E BACKYARD 394 C.Y. 0 {-'~ \j~a RESIDENCE 767 C.Y. 1 C.Y. 1 ~ E~\\`k - ~ \"~,3yt.63 \ ''F~\\3~' S \ SCALE l~ -~O/ BASEMENT 610 C.Y. 0 • DRIVEWAY 50 C.Y. 4 C.Y. I ~ ~ r ~'~ -- ~ \ s' ~>i `~ti ~ - ~' ` \ ~ TOTAL 2021 C.Y. 5 C.Y. ~-'~. ,i ~V A • ~ v rte; . s~~5 , , , \ ~~ i t , ~ 7 - 78~ \ A 9, \ ` y, \, ,py ~ \ •F ~~(( \ ,1 \ 1 `e'PIHE % ~ >~ a 'S6 C~~ti.O `.t ~ ~-~~ a5, ,, ~9 ~ ~gt 53 ~, bra 3 4, ~ a, ~\ •~ ~ ~ ~ 4 `\ .y 041' . -" 386 ?9 r \ • • 383. 32 r ~ ~ 75 ~4~ ~ \\ ~,5a ~, Zv ~ ~~a II ~F.. ~ ~~ `tt s t9 c ~, ~~\ ~ N - n a N ~ 3y~. 04 ~ f \ tttt~yyy ~~ 1~ ~ { J9)7 1/ ~' ~ ~ '~7~•0 \~`1 \`' ~ A ~~ ~ _ ~~. 365 q5 ~ ", • • ~~b ~ ~3 ~ _~ ~q ~' ~~.,_. f~ ~ ~ P'IIIPK ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ \-' ,SDI ~ 854 ~ I \ „`.o ~ - ''R0~6- 1 3~5. b ~ 38`. 15 ,/~ ~'_,` u ` z o `iy CD a` y6, 07 ~ 5e \ 4k \ J \ • "'~l~ / 397, ~7 w ~ I ~ V ~ \ O~P Gpp ~\ i7 SNo I A.,, ~ - o \ 3 ~ ~ p ~ , 1 I ~ ~, - ~ ` \ ~ ~\ el ~ ~ { ~~ J~o 3 ;.79 7 ';~ ~ ~` ~kf' ~ a39~n ~ ~yes.?i ~. ~e5. v ~.-. ) ~ ~. e9• ~ ro ~ ~ A / y ~ ,~, ~ Kok ~~i3~0~av<' "4 ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~s' •; ~ ,; - pN.~~ ~ ~e ~~ / ~ /\ Ap ~~04 ?~ ~ ~v ~.' ~ 13Et~'' ~ \ • A // , R \ ~ . 4 ~1I , 397. E / w a9i E9 / ~ ;g6~5 41. \ ~ . J \ / S,E,,S ' Bi. \ - E'r. • \ E2.:; / '\ • _ / ' ~ 9J 'St I ~ _ ~ i a sP~a 3 / / ~ ~~ G \ boo oa ~ ay = ~ ~~ - v 3EZ t9~ -_ - % s~. on ~ 1 \ ~ t5 ~ Y V ~ of ~ J ~ '7 ~+i~B, P ~ ` - 8J ~. npt DRY. ~ -- 2 ~ • / 'J r' ~ I i ~ ~, 7~~ ~ `off ., oyc f \ ~ ~ / \ • ,: rp e / f _ ~-:- ~pt2 ~ ~: 4 k ~ >` I402. t ~ B ~-,_~ / F.F.0.39S ~~ ~\ ~ ~\ dp~55 -5 `. / ' \K t ~ .\ ~ \ n E9 ~5, \ 3 ~~ ~%. 397. ~ ~ PAD 390.2 ~ '\ d0 3E 4 5 ". 021 9 `~ \~\ •78- r i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I / -' 3 pSEO RESDENCE ~ ~ A / 3 1.'A% A .. ~' C /~O ~ Nyl ,. ~'~~J.~-~ I~ EF.EL395.75 ~ \ ~`~ ~ :r ~~ ,j 3EE'og ~` /N ~ l ,~ / PAD 390.75 \ 1"< / ~ 0.("~~,6 ~ 3~g. 56 ~ i ~ ~ GARAGE - \ ~~... ~ ~ ~ ~~ !~ ~ 60 I \ ` / V ~~ ~ / ) 93 23 ~ r~C QAK ~ 3p0. 78 ~~`~~" \ ~ 9~ Oc ' ~ I ~ Jy F.F2€L 393.751 1I PAD 39115'7 ~~ . _,~. bE ''.r ^ ~Aµ ~ ry I h, 1 ~ ~ y 5. 6S ).` P,Np 390.75 ~ ~ ~ /D~ 5 PPP •~ a ~ ~ ry 395.65 _ ~ ~ / [1 v - Lf x402.29 )~ ~"7 ''~J .p .R ~~~ ~~ BASEMENT ~ J/ 0 - ~ d) :ASS ~ ~,- •T ~ i ~ ~~~ \ '~ / f.F. JB3.75 ~ 75 ~ ' ~ ~ ~. ~ 1 off ~ ~ 5 t~ ~ ~ dAD 38275 -". (~~~393 ~ ( n 67 - P -r ~~ ~~ i. "9 Jc rF II ~ ~ e ,35 ~ ~\ ~. I A 39 , •Y ~ aOP., /, ~ r-JCC~ ~ ~ (J•~7 ~"~~_i-i 1 .97 ~ ~ ,. lap /° ~-.~ / ~ I I V F f iJ93.25 ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ _ / I ~ '~ PAD J90.15.~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~a'1F,E+~ 5 I Ip9 °' / ~'1r 3 00 .D 8~0 •:t,'0lrb _ ~ ~~,i ~ ~ (^~- ~ Q ~ ~ ~~~ ~ , ~). 80 ,.\ ~ ~~i Ip ,R ' -~"- 9 tl f T G1uNa PiAW ~ BASE OL -•1_ `.. ~, l ~1 ~B.J ~ ~J ~ ~ A-:.. ! ~ j~ ~ ~C n[ SIE-5 03~y. 3 1 , 09 aNM 2 7?p \ ~ ~'~. 1 A ~ ~ y ,n ~1 `~-. d ~ Y ~ ~1 ~ o g9 4 ~ , ~ : 9c -- ~ 5q ~ T ~ ~ . < 0'<bMa - I - a'~. ~2 +;' ~ ~ o e W ^; j ~ ` ~ ~ r it " y~" ~ "~ ~ ~ a 3s ~ ~ L~AY~ ~' _sJg+ _ ~[ ra r ~ I~ J3 ~' ' y:. 7? 'o°o 11 b 59"~ ~,°~ ~ - ~ ar ~a~ ~ .~ as ~ ~~ /6$ , ~5 'car - ~~ ~~1 II \ f. C° N .6 a ~ ` p8 n - Q$ ~ 174 _fi.P i 1 ~nb 3s }~ _- J m~ ~ _ Q~/ -~ o ~ - as,.` 9s s~o.m - - ~' r a ~ ~ 4r - ~ ' , - a$ - Q$ -~ , ~ S a1 r 9.'. 3 % Ip c9/ 'CS ~~ OS ~ ~/ 4' ~ '~ INV 380.68 ~~ ~ 4r a'r TEg •, ~ O '~.~ Fr -' ~ 1 mN , I C pp , ~t i ~ -1-~ ~ ~ ~~ 5 ~ 1 z G ~'' hi ~ T - - NOS' 49' 3~',~ X20 81- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' ~ J 0 NO. Br -ATE REVISION BY DATE DATES March 2005 JOB N0. $CALE~ ~R. I•=1D' ., p. EE ,~ ~ WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. GRAD I NG AND DRAINAGE PLAN 2004-139 VERT. DE$IGNE°~ J< BYE KARfL LVMBAJ, RLE 3453 PARMAR RESIDENCE $NEET CMECKfD~ KC GATE, 14583 BIG BASIN YAY, SARATOGA, LA 95070 M08)887-0244 ~(~-~ P J. ENGR~ JL 12975 PARAMOUNT LOURT, $pRATO A ~ • cRAaNC NOTES 1. STAPES OF 2x OA CREA7ER AWAY FP.OM THE FOIRIDA7ICN SHALL MNNTAW PLONG THE ENTIRE PERHAETER FOR A DISTANCE OF 5 FEET NIMMUM. 2 ALL ROOFS DRAINS TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO AN ADEWAIE SPLASH BLOCKS. DIRECTED AWAY FROM THE Fp1NDA710N INTO THE UND$CAPE AREAS. 1 W51ALL SUB-DRAIN ARWND THE PERIMETER FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL W ACCORDANCE W17H SgLS ENGINEER'S RECONMENDAOON AND UNDER HIS DIRECDON. IHE SJBDRMN AND DRAINS FR014 THE UGHT WF1LS AND LOWERPA710 AREA W THE BACK YARD wILL BE COLLECTED WTO THE CLOSED CONOIHT SYSTEM AND DISCHARGED NEAR THE Ngt1HEST CORNER O< TiE DROPERTY. 4. FINAL SURFACE DRAINAGE GRADIENT SHALL BE DLANNED ANO BUILT $0 AS TO GIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE BUILDWG$ AND FOUNDADON$. 5. SLABS LAST ADJACENT TO FWNOADON$ SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM 7HE FOUNOAPONS STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES • 1. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the Dermittee shall arrange apre-constructor meeting. The meel'mg shall Include the City of Saratoga Grading Inspector at (408) 868-1201, the grading contractor and tha project Soils Engineer. The permitlee or representative shall arrange the GRADING SECT I GNS pro-aonatruation meeting at least 46 t,oDrs prior to the Start of any earthwork/grading octlvities. VERTICAL SCALEI I (f1Ch = 10 P2P$ 2. Approval 01 this plan applies only to the e>'covation, placement, and H~RIZ~NTAL SCALEI 1 inch = 10 fPP~ compaction of noturol earth. This approval does not confer any rights of entry to either public property or the private property of others. Approval of this pbn also does not constitute approval of any improvements. Any proposed improvements ore subject to review and approval by the responsible vuthorities and all other required permits/approvals shall be ohtained. 3. It shall be the responsibility of the permitlee to identify, locate and protect all underground tocilities. 4. The permitlee shall mainlaln the streets, sidewalks and other public - rights-of-way in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed from the public property. All adpcent property, bath publk and private, shall be maintained in o clean, safe and usable condition. 5. All grading and earthwork activities shall be performed in such a manner as to comply with the standards estoblishad by the Bay Areo Air Quality Management District for airborne particulates. 6. All known water well locations on the site shall be maintained ar o0ondoned according to current regulations administered by the Santa Clara Volley Water District. Coll (408) 265-2600 EAt. 2660 to orange for District observation of all weN obondonment. 7. This pion does not approve the removal of any trees. Appropriate tree removal permlte shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. Any required tree protection measures shall be maintained throughout construction. 8. The project Civil Engineer, WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC., has designed this project to comply with the grading recommendations in the project geotechnical report prepared by 9. All groding and earthwork activities shall conform to the approved plans and specifications. All groding and earthwork activities shall be observed and approved by the Soils Engineer. The Soils Engineer shall be notified at least 48 hours pr!or to any grading or earthwork activities. Unobserved or unoDDroved work shall be removed and replaced under observation of the project soil engineer. 10. All construction sites are to be winterized with appropriate erosion control measures in place from October 15th to April 15th of each year. 11. Grading activilles are only allowed Monday through Friday 7:30 am to 6: Dm. • ND. BY DATE REVISION BY DATE DATE: M~r~N 2005 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. .AB SCALE, NOR. 1.=1D' GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 2004'139 PERT '`'°- PARMAR RESIDENCE DESIGNED JC BY~KAREL CYMBAL, RCE 3453a SHEET LHECNED~ KL DA1E~ 1a583 BIG BASIN YAY, SARA70GA, CA 95070 (408)867-0244 ~i~2 PR J. N R~ 12975 PARAMOUNT COURT, SARATDGA t •vo 'vooivav~ 'ltIAOJ 1MIAOIAIrMVeI liLazL ~n-s~nt~rt ~r~t ~t .z~rrs,r- i~O.i QEOS6 'Y~ '~flOlMl1~5 • AYM 1~10~IGi tSObl t~0-Kt 1 for 1 ~' 0 ~d~ ~ q.3 ~ S3WOH WOlSf~ 3NId ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ BpA~a~aB# ~~~cs°"p~RRca ~~ ~ c~~ . ..Q. a q x ~ •`~paa~ap~,•p sp••~•~a•• ap p~' ..r~rr°rall'Mp~,li~efMifigi ~p .Wr• ~. ® m m d I Z Q d ® ® ~ 0 ~ m a 0 Y ® Y • " ~ ~ '^ W Ll.. ~ 0 N x °~ 'I l~ lJ .I `E ~ ~ yy ll o~•Ibl II 'I I IIO•IL ~. ~ pp ~.,. W .~ ~ O J ~Q 4 _ _ . _.. f ~ J ~ . ~ o_ ~ _ __ ..~ __ 0 ~ a ~ c o , ! ~ = r r. .. . . ~' L 1 U I 1 t Q ~ ~ ~ a _. ~ . ~ v '~`~ ~ S U O J , ~ Y , ~ + '4 ~ _ ~ , p ~ ^` ~ d ~~ i d ~ ~ 0 o ., U ~1.~ u.1 •I I nc'lyl .I~a,, II~'ILL ~ • ~ n 11 no'IL a •~QI IIaJ'I' pq •iS4 _0 Q ~ 0 .. ~ 0 ~ X ~ .n i~ \ , ~ .. f ~' ~ x ~ Q 3 ~ ~~M !~ _ ~ _ 0 Q < .._ ` _~. _ ~ : _. _ _ ~ _ , _ .._ _. __. _. .. .. _ . . _ .... Q 6 ~' -- a ~ _...._ ._ _ . i .. _ _. 0 ~ A ~ II •~ _ IIO~I I x0 ~~oL _ O ss 1~~. 3~ ~ ~ 4sl r+`+F>ti 1 _ _ _ J _ ~_,__ ~_. _ _ ~ ~ ' " ~~ ~ 8 J _ I 3 o _ d o s- Q p ~ ~ __ . __ K p ~7 a Q~ 0 ~ ~ J • • • a i; i ' ~ r ~. ~~ Fro. O --r ~ r ~ 4~ ~ z ~ ~.. ~ i n A ( 0 y ~ ~ ---- - --! ~ ~~~ 4 I D ? 4 1 ~ ~\ D -i: ~ ~% ~ 1~ ~ ti yY II t -~ I ' F \ S ~J f yp~ ~QC Nx c i A r `~ y f a LSti u z x~F ~ Z ~q q ~ n ~T $g ~~F ~L r, ~ P~ ~ 36~-0" ~ ~- ~- y~ z D ' a ~ .., _ -I o - - z D o ~ r - o Q Q ~ F ~ S ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ D P ~ ~~ I ~ ~ Z d _ o ' s a_ t ° c i Q ___ ._ __ _.,~ 0 y ~(* ~r iq~• 4" a ~ $°~ RIME CW?OM MOME$ t +a l t»~soea eowwtt virRr • a~-wto~ar,; c~. seom ~~Z 12975 PARAMQt1NiT COt1RT~ sARATQOA, CA. • • uueoa ~x~x.6wwwv N~nr a a4om I ~o.~ we7. ~oue~ n~~r LEFT SIDE.. ELEVATION - EAST w _ a F f V ~s p~p N m P 2 < u IL! W C 2 • 1FO. 8 REAR E=LEVATION , - SOUTH crr~e ~ ~ y p. a' EXTEI FAAtERLkL5 • s'~ ~ 9i1JCk:0 Ek~fl~Ult • 91UCC011tlA13 6 Sll5 • DECORAiNE WkOUGFIf MtON fi11ARGRAtNfi • FRfCA3f f,OrldCF7E GIb11mIdM]NG • PREGA3T CaNd~FTE COUIIMI5 • WDOD 5ECTIOW4L C~IRAGE WfiRS • N/OODFIGCAIEWNPOfk$;1dip,U00RS owwr Tiu N eMxm ,yN ~7ao5 .~.,. py I ~.~. 121- ,'.d4 w., .»..,. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION = WEST FRONT ELEVATION - NORTH 440d~ ~ I/b° . ll• ON 5s>It. y~~ , li_pp 4 g ~: • • • • • • I ?_ l"~+I-,~CrL r i `~ ~~ ~ f ~~~ ~~o ~Fj ~typ~ a ~ti • 1 ~ , ~ ~•1 ~ ~` ti CFA ~ _ ~ r w' ~.~ N a i ~~ ~ ~ ; a 1 ~ W~ - t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ es L-•-+sr ;• g. ~~ / ~~ ~ /~ G1 W ~~ ~ _.~ ~ ,(, r +~ J ~ u i r ~+ I (' ~' j ~ r N 4~ M r J rr C~ ~ [ I~ !•-, r ' i r r I,] ~ j rrr r 1 r,f ' ~ r , ~ r ., r, .i r ~ ~ , 11 ~ f i tF 1 , ; i I r ~ ~ f ~ R ~ ~. ~ 1. ir"~. "~ i ~;~ ~1II'11~~~f~ ~J tl ~rlu ~li'~' 1~~,_ ~,~rl{1~~{a1 I~a ,I I:ll~ ~ , ,i ... 114 ~ ,~~ ~~ .,a~ .~~, .C~~~l; i.~l r ~ ~It. ~~C'~, ~ -I i ~i}~f~I:~CI ~~~~I { I ,} rf r 1 r lJ f. fti r~ r~ r I~'r ~Ii~I Ilr~i~~~~'rir.~~~~~~'r~ir'~'-, ~ I,~111~~1{'LC[i~~: ~ i ~ ~ Ir31~~ ~~r~J~},.,}i ~ "t ~,t~ff~~~l~i~~l ~f~ f fi~ ~ ~ .1 \ ;~ , ~r '1i f' 'III' : i 'r' { ,~~, i , 1~ 1 ~ii } Ft`'~~ ~ •.[r ,~ r„ I i li ~ ~}~~ , d,..t ~~ ,,:~ {~~ ~I r~.{~ ;r~ i,l~i1,1~~;~~I1~i~1~'l II;~ ~~ r, C~` ~~ _,-. ,! 9 ~~k~ir(,'~j,r I,;f~ f~' ;y, ..----;;r,i~,.:', rt1~r,~~~i,l 1 I,~{~ lii~ 1a ~l~f~ 11i~,.j , a ~ ~ r, ~.. ,~ . .~ 11~ ~ ~' ~~• r,~.f~ ~,+~-~ t 1 , r~~~~~ •rr~' 1 r ~ j~lia~~ii ~ „~-.• a~ `~' ~ ~~ ~~~~'rr~'~i ~il~~~ ~,~~} ~~, {~';~:ff~ I~~~f~lll- ,,., T~f~ 1J ~ II r i_}II ~ 1 i r ~~ 1 ~ I 1 ~r .~~.[ ~". 1 •~ -, N L~~r t i-I i tli r jl;l~ ril, ~ l~S.l ~i. f~# f-.I ~{ fll,: 1~I' ~I~ .G~i:'11,I, ti•~.~I ,r, li' ~~~ ~ •F 'g'; 1rrl~: r:!~f'I ~ 1,;~I , ,,~~i~ ~f / :F 1~ ~~ n ~ ~ t ~ r~ r: r 1~ ,li ~ ~tl i~ I r i i~}r~,~!. 1' 'i'nn i' r;.; ~`~ ~ rv s ;. u s ~ ~~ ti ~~ ljj~lal ,ll flail ~lill~i' I i, ~+ili 1 f ti r J.. \ ~~ ~\ o ~. O ~` / w y, flrih i~~jrlri1~lli~l.i ~ L~~ ~{ll I~rf_ "\ ~~ ~~ a /`~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~J, ~--„\ '~ f;17TY1, '~ i t rll ~;_~i i ~: I L r 1 r 1 ~ + ~ L.; i-~ ~'';~,•, ~`\ 1~\~` ~\ a 8 1 ~~ `fifl~~l'r~f~ii'Ii ~ 1:`ll~ ill ~ N\ _ •111.~i ~ ~' N 1:.w o ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~~ I ~ ~~ ~"" Z F ~ s J -~-~TI~ L •~ • ~3' ~' ~ . ~ i Y~ N N N N ; , W P O O C r ~ ~ ~Y ..~ m ~ a ;~ .> v r cr ~ ~, _ ®®®6~1r3a ~'•~mo~mD m nnuu-om~~ffi!',•Yuu~~a'm^'i~d'Uauu om ~m~,e m~mm.uu C \ ~ ~ ' ~ 'F`og N O m 5 ~ OpO~m ~ A ~Zm9- n <~O V SC ~mD p noNs ibLi;~OAmyyytipnr ~t~v~m N= znnpO ~• Z ~~ ~ ~~~. m ~ y ~~ p~C~~ 2~~ y2)~~~pC~•~-2~A~p C~C S2 DOD~~+4Zi~~~~mi ~IFtl N~ ~T~ A A t7 y y pA~ - ~5~jc+ C m (/1 2 N C m Z~ ~ oy r~ ~1 DDD y ~ a = y ~ ~ s ~ ~ I~11 ~ ~ s> N ~ ~ ~ ~ S S ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ Dgg ~ g ~ ~ D y ~ = p m S y ? S m D ~ D N 2 t=tl 2 k ~'/ ~ 1~:•. ~ ~ ~ ~~y ~~u~miu9im~; °-~~~~~ ~g~~~ Aisms¢~~~~~5~a~ ~~~~m~Ay~~ c Fr v9\_ N m C Ny Q}' p y O N C N T. Cjyi O D O ~ _ f ~~1 F ~ ~ a rrI Z 4i ~ ~ ~ ~y y~y ~ A~n 8 <~~ A ~!n ~ 2 ~CI ~ ~C~92; ~fiy ~ m g DC ~ tv ~ {\,71. AA g m ITOAAA~R In A22~i ~x_A~nzr ~~=r~y~-• D~n`~m D~z zd~"~~D`~ <z~ 0 'R N ti m'S"fnCS•S ~ Nya nmNyms~ rz~s m~m m ~~Y r4i €iDi ~m m m m /~ ,,, _ W y °y ~ m ap~ ~ =~g w ~ = Ov'z m$m ym z Dv, ti ~~~~ 0 C1 ~ / ~ \ ~ ~~~ 6 < ~m N pA„ N m y~ m ^ m ~ N ~'~ y D y m rTCS ~ DD;i :: 2 j~ y D p ~ S N ~~~ ~~~ \~ O A O m S $$yy Opm <rymD D m Tma y g$•C~ N<,- $ J z v~ (00 F pA Z ~ N Os 44 ~ j j~ ~ ;m D C N ~ ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ p~ yF p ti p Z ~ ~ N 5 S C Z ~ y2 3 A 2bD+ y yL ~ 3_ = Z !11 S fD) %m' ~ ~ ~ R ~ , n G ymy ~ < Z_~ (il ~ -1 s = H mm yn1 ~ ~ D p N Rj T T ~ fpil ~ T Sy<. p2 2 D ~ O' 7 m O m ` T.2 ~ < 1 N S -~ .T ~ [p] A - O it O A Q ri 4~ [[$~} ~z~~~~~LC Z m ~mSF T~~T IZT E mmZ~ y~fi~ZFS mlOtl ~ STS ti pyr P}mmyZ>D<Z~ mF,'Q$QA?T. ~1yI~ t p $ A m ~'O"p RI SS ~~C m~ AY~~p~1 ym~~s~j CC~~C ~Z<Y'A A p~;~Opp~Z Dlymi ~~" m~y"y Oyp ppO A; r' ys ~. A 2 ~~~~Dm~ Z mmmp~Z-1~ sO Z/C ~S ~T~~ C.~ _. pyN m~yST.Zm~mD~~~ ~eNlmy~~~DO~ ~Oe ~ y ~ ~ A IDT mp X ~;~I*Zi s Amm ~ m PD AD D~-FV ~ FDD Nmypnp20 £ ~ p n m ~ $ VV m ~ ~ < < S c C+ x 9c p S ~ z i w m '2 y m~ ~ m S ~ ~ r F ~ ~3~Cr. N D ; O \~ ~ t` n i~ ~ y ~bo~~m~i~~i~i ~ni,i~~5c`Sc~i~~i~i~~~i~5~ic~~~~i~5nc~i~~,~i~~i~i~,~ic~~i~ic~~i~ii~c~i~c~~ic~~i~i~i~i ~ I ~SFV` „• '6` 8 'd' .. u~..NN» e„"Su~S~U ~,_ ~,mm u N,-w~~_ m mym ,ion, ~o mm o ;~ \ a • .S z ~ ~ti . ~ ~F ~ f ,, a ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ u RO[31N .ATHERTON pARMAR RESIDENCE ~' LANDSCAPE DESIGN \ 70050 PIERCE ROAD ~ ~ 2975 PARAMOUNT COURT f1 ~ it -SANAfOGA. CA 95070 - - ~ ~ (108) 867-5690 SARATOGA, CALI~ORAIIA • • ~ :7 ~a i3 rl~ ~ / ~y ~ / %9 !~ w ~Pa ~ i I ~ ..... czNer~ oF~; ', FF~ 1rauN ~ 2~~snoH 0~ y\'~ ~ z ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~-:. • • ,~~ _~ .. ~. IRRIGATION KEY "~' 16 "~~ ® Rainbird 360 full ° ~~`P rff ® Rainbird 180 half 8 Rainbird 270 '/e wi :1 51° B Rainbird 90 qtr ~ uw~ 0 Pepco quadrabubGer Wilkens anti-syphon valve 5 d0. _ class 200 pvc pipe Sch 40 pvc under concrete ` Ib "/P ^ . ~ PEf~o No.of Heads °~P Gallons per minute Type of Head {fit - ATlO 0 ~ b !1 h TE5 a g z 0 c~ -~ ~. ~ Y ~O~RNbac: wct locclip+d vo1w4 FM1. and Made Ywl G. nawlW,IirtMlo•ho oampnlandi wtw• ¢~ o 2 ~ ~aMponchp oY _ 7 w ~ ^ ~~ s~y~ M lak M ~ MS ' ~ a_ wpronrowWiq~wuiondtlathark d0 w aNA~N ~~ CaM~aC10rlAOYflpdf OtlydOtpQa fO ywly#1NOtMOwf Q ~ ~ x 9. kirNt and 9awtt M bo hAWG utler poArp YMf D• 7CIgtl.N A] ' w z PcvMh IB nirhuntar. ~ aA7oYOnAdNn wwdelp~ad Porortgdrunal r4 GPMm }5 p~ = o hakYgpa~r•~ anaocta rowiryiipppr~two Ico~snuctianof ~ °~•I1b16Cp orOM•CIfa WNO prnNpJofar. ewpMYq ~ a..••iaw Ran as /3 tonlt Iontllttpa arCfY•cM. ~ a B~•wmrarpfaar DtlSk a Z 2 a ~.~ AowbYaN~abadclbwpnwriM«~~Mpq h6cdWa te ' waa ~ Cl a aRae~.rnsaamoowuioooranar«a~cramr Ewa Q wr«~.goaw..caRwctan wr,o»aNOO~,... 1 mwumb.a..oraraumaor~orremowe~. k MbD tlor`wpply owrxMwlaicaikalrlvA Ond monlocM«1 aodct ?. aCdaktalMdmWfolav4awdrpnmigcooecm IQ 1M wlpgi°q MMIII N'O 4~ p gO~pR oM Aoatl dlDONf Io ~oql dYyD onEtrM. n ~axwKwpwn~hm.ocrwa••~rhppa•«i,aRao.nrm•a x MNdgIMN iA llR h ~p Mt conu y arauyt • Y~~ ~~~ .~„ ~. ~~ •a ..m phye~ "+pr~/~ .•r•. ~' • ~ • ~~ ~~ ~~ P T l LF ~€ ~ t~ f ~ ~ ~` L I ,, ~~9 ~~~ ~~~ ~°~ ~~® iS~a ~ F ~ ,_; -~ ~ ~~ ~_ j ~ ~~ i m P ``a ge O t m ~~~ ~ t7 va (t~t~ ~ { ~ fl a a , ~-E ~ a$~~ ~ 0 ~,. ~ ~ ~~f~~~ ~`~~q~ E ~~~ L N _; ~i ~a ~ 9 ~~~~ ~ I ~4~~ ~~i i ~ __R__ P TQ8t ~6 0 t ~~ ~ PRaECt: RO[31N ATHERTON LANDSCAPE DESIGN 13050RERCE ROAD IRRIGA'T'ION SPECIFICATIONS SAflAT00A. CA 95070 (40B) 867-5690 ,~u~J~~~ x X09 r- -°~ ,~ ~~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~ _~ w x ~' 'o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ OVOr iJ1iW IYOtt , , .. ~~ , ;.:, 3ri0 l~IUNd ~ a m ~ ~,~ s ,~ ~~~ ~~ •~~ ~_~ ~• ~~ ~ ll s ~~ ~~ Via. ~ ~ ~~ ~$~~~~~ i ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ i - '~e 1 t ~• ~ s~ la r ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~b_ ~a~r8 ~$ s•}i b ~ 1t# ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~~ ~ g ~ ~ 7 1 ~. ~6 !~ 1 m~ g• by ~ .i! Ep.g • ~ ~ ~ E y ' g~~ • • ~~ g ~~a ~~ 77 Ali ~.~.r~ ~b~ ~ ~ S ~ A ~ Fl ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !! ~a~ 1a d '~ = s r y J #o ~. ~ i ~ jb. ; ;°i' 'Ib i ~ e ~ '~'~•~ g.a a Y~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a _ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ i_y y ~ ~~• i ~ s.a a~ '~,~ ~~'~1 ~'! I!1 ~" ~= :~i'~~rs~~~ r~~ ~' "~~'~~ ~~8. ~ ~9~c ~ ~~ ~ ~.rE ~JI aEi xi ~ b,; ~y. = s;b b i ~~~b '~ ~ 1 • ~~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~~i Yii~• ~$ i ~ ~i ~vj f ~ a a. i :~ ~ _ ##s r ~{{b rr bJ ~ •~ i ~y ~ ~~ ~$,~ r ~ib ~~T~ '~ ~ b~ ~b j ~ 1 9~ ~• ~ ';~~ ~~, {~ ~y} ~y yi ~y~J~~~~~F~~•~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ •E ~~ ~y b{~ .P ~9i7ti ay6.~ ~ ~ 9p~~y ~ ~ l~~t~ ~~ ~ Y F~~~ ~b~.r i8 <~~ F~ F! Fr ~I J d J f-~ ~~ •1 ~Si~~~ ~~ ~~ F~~Y ~•i~~~•8~L ~1'~~ ~~~ ~JIF~•~~ ~O f ~ ~ .9 b ~~~ iQ 5,~~'~ a ~~~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~~~1.~1 ,~~t ~~~ i$ f( i Y ~ D~~qq A ~ 888 ;~ ,r ~~ ~ ~ ~ p 7 ~~~ j a ~ e ~ ~a ~~ ~ e,~ 1 ~ 3$~ ~~ I j,a ~ ~ ~b ~~~ ~y ~ ~ ~i ~~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ay' e 3 ~ ~ ! ~ x~ j ~. ~ ~ . i~ a" as 1 ~~ 1 ~ ~~ E g~ ~ 1~~j ~; ~~ ~!` ~i~y ~ i~~ i~ ~ B;Y ~hi• ~ ~.ss ~ 1. it ~~~i1 ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~t l~~f ~~ ~~ ~~o l~~E-a ~~ ~lf~~~ ~a ~ ~~~ ~~R~.~ ~~ l~~~a~ I ~i i ~ ~ { ~~ Y :V~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ t • i ~. t Y1 7 a .gW=w ; e ~ oo a c ~ ~; °° ~ ° ~ ~ yY 7 3 ~UJ, z ~ ' 3 ' ~ ~ 'Q eoe M n .. ~p ^ yi} a r ~r. ~ g ~, sp Y Y O 2 .QT+ m ~ G w c8~ E ~~ ~ C $ ~y~ z° ~ P ss~ ~s 2 ~ ~ • •