Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-2005 Planning Commission Packet• CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 25, 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, OCTOBER 26, 2005 ~~ ROLL CALL ~ZEPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #05-122 2. Application #06-007 3. Application #04-189 Klayko Item 3 15175 Via Colina 4. Application #05-179 Spitts Item 4 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Sub-Acute Item 1 13425 Sousa Lane City of Saratoga Item 5 19848 Prospect Road SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that 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 that may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. ~~- ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINiJTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 12, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regardingOral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. _~ REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 20, 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. 1. APPLICATION #04-189 (389-46-013 &t013) -SUB-ACUTE, 13425 Sousa Lane: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval to place two modular structures (one 1,440-square-feet and one 1,200-square-feet) on the parcel, construct a trash enclosure, and remove trees. The maximum height of the proposed modular is approximately 12-feet. Total site coverage will not exceed 60%. The site is zoned R-110,000. (Therese Schmidt) 2. APPLICATION #04-167 (386-44-040) - Cingular Wireless Services, Inc, Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court; -The applicant requests approval for a conditional use permit to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility. This will consist of the ~' installation of panel antennas on the existing PG~SrE tower and the installation of indoor communication equipment cabinets inside a new ground level shelter that will be approximately 12 feet by 20 feet. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2005) (Suzanne Thomas) 3. APPLICATION #06-007 (397-10-030) - KLAYKO, 15175 Via Colinas The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence including an attached second dwelling unit is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is proposed including the dwelling unit. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.5 feet. The gross lot size is 1.12 acres and the site is zoned R-140,000. (Christy Oosterhous) 4. APPLICATION #05-122 (510-06-006) SPITTS, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The Applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 140,394 square foot lot (3.223 acres) with an existing residence into two separate building sites with a remainder lot. The existing residence would be retained on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 would include a new building site. Parcel 1 is 52,272 square feet (1.200 acres) and Parcel 2 is 57,630 square feet (1.323acres). The property is zoned R-1-40,000. (Christy Oosterhous) 5. APPLICATION # 05-179 (386-26-070 &t 071) CITY OF SARATOGA,19848 Prospect Road: The applicant request a Tentative Map Subdivision, General Plan Amendment from a Quasi Public Facility to Medium Density Residential, General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, to demolish the existing church facility and replace it with 9 single family residential lots. Qohn Livingstone) DIRECTORS ITEM • None COMMUNICATIONS • None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~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, Elizabeth Runyan, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 20, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to plannin @sgL aratoga.ca.us • ~ /~•. ,~ ~: ~ ; _ v MINUTES v SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Rni i coi i Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers Absent: Commissioners Schallop and Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Shweta Bhatt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 28, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 28, 2005, were adopted with changes to page 5. (5-0-2; Commissioner Schallop and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Kathleen Casey-Coakley, Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated her opinion that the Task Force working on the memorial park is biased with sports people who want to see it developed as a soccer park. • Said she had thought the intent for this memorial park was to have a peaceful park. • Added that she does believes that a sports park is not within the memory of Kevin Moran and that it is up to the Planning Commission to convince Council of that. • Suggested that the- Planning Commission needs to contact the people who signed the survey. • Stated that the Heritage Commission believes that the Task Force has a bias for the Village. • Suggested the importance of rent control for downtown. • Said that she hopes that Saratoga does not end up looking like another Los Gatos. • Reported that she had requested from the City a list of heritage buildings and has not received it in the format she requires. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 6, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes for October 12, 2005 Page 2 J 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-285 (386-10-049) - GABILLE, 17777 Saratoga Avenue: The applicant. requests approval of a Use Permit to place a generator on the site near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The site is located in the Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) zoning district. The generator is proposed for placement at the southwest corner of the property. An eight-foot high sound barrier wall will surround the generator. (SHWETA BHATT) Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of an emergency generator near the intersection of Lawrence and Saratoga, near the border with San Jose. • Added that this generator would be used only for emergency purposes to support the Verizon Wireless antennas on site. • Reported that an eight-foot sound barrier would be constructed on the north and east sides. • Explained that the proposed placement of this generator is within the front setback. Code allows this with the issuance of a Use Permit if necessary findings can be made to support it. The finding can be made that this generator would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. • Informed that staff finds this placement is warranted in this situation and is recommending approval of this request. Commissioner Rodgers sought clarification that no findings for a Variance are required here but simply the findings in support of a Conditional Use Permit. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied that there is no Variance required but rather a variation from standards that does require a Use Permit. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Rodger Haas, Crown Castle/Verizon Representative: • Said that he was on site yesterday during the Commission's visit and said he was pleased to see the Planning Commission there, which is an unusual occurrence in his experience. Planning Commission Minutes for October 12, 2005 Page 3 • Stated his availability for any questions. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter said that there was extensive discussion on site during the visit and all questions were answered. Commissioner Cappello agreed and stated that the staff report was complete and answered all questions. This is as good a location as possible as it is sheltered and buffered so he can support placement of this generator there. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-285) to allow the placement of a generator on the site near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue on property located at 17777 Saratoga Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** • PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #06-043 (393=14-0101 -_ WINNINGHAM, 13201 Ten Oak Way: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct an 895 square foot second- story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a corner lot. The total floor area of the proposed second-story residence is 4,257 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 22.35 feet. The gross lot size is 17,424 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 -12,500. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow an 895 second story addition to an existing single-story residence for a total of 4,257 square feet. The maximum height would be 22.3 feet on a 17,500 square foot -lot within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. _ • Reported that building materials would match existing. • Said that the design of this addition minimizes the impacts to views and privacy. The second floor is stepped back and no balcony is proposed. The design also reduces the appearance of bulk. • Added that the neighbor notification templates have been provided from all neighbors. • Recommended approval. . Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing.for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Project Designer: Planning Commission Minutes for October 12, 2005 Page 4 • Advised that the current owners are the original builders of this home where they raised their four children. • Said that the structure is a tong L-shaped house on a large lot. However, there is not a lot of room to spread out and achieve the floor plan they desired so they went with a second story. • Assured that the same materials would be used for roofing, colors and windows to maintain consistency. • Reported that this neighborhood has a mix of single and two-story homes and they have placed the two-story element of this addition as far from neighbors as possible. • Stated he was available for any questions. Chair Nagpal asked if the front profile/elevation is visible from Ten Oak Way. Mr. Scott Cunningham replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked which elevation would be visible from Ten Oak Court. Mr. Scott Cunningham replied the north elevation. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kundtz said that the character of the neighborhood from Ten Oak Way is single-story. However, the second-story element of this home is only visible from Ten Oak • Court, which is a mixture of single and two-story homes. Commissioner Rodgers said that this home has been designed to minimize bulk using articulation and setbacks. It does not unreasonably interfere with views or privacy. Commissioner Cappello said he was fine with this project as it keeps with the character and feel of this neighborhood and the neighbors are in favor of this project. Commissioner Hunter said she is fine with the proposal and finds it to be very nice. Chair Nagpal said she agrees that there are two-story homes on the Court. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-043) to construct an 895 square foot second- story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence on a corner lot on property located at 13201 Ten Oak Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** • Planning Commission Minutes for October 12, 2005 - Page 5 S There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS • Chair Nagpal extended good wishes to Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous who is leaving Saratoga for a new position with the City of San Mateo. She told Christy that it has been a pleasure working with her and that she would be greatly missed. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk U • • Item 1 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Location/Application No.: 13425 Sousa Lane/Application No. 04-189; Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Arndt Trust -Byron C. Arndt, Trustee; Sub-Acute (tenant) Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner Date: October 26, 2005 APN: 389-46-012 & 013 Department Head: ~~ • t ~ ~11T ~ /J~C --- - _ ~ y ~ _ ~~~ - - -____ . _ ~ , _ ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~~~ - -~ax i j I ON ~. ~\\ .. :\ ~- 1 ~ ~ K OIA PL ~~~ 8~a /_ 1 ~ ~ ` ~tLV" ~~y 7 ,\ ~~ r I _ 1 --~ ll A ~---__ _._ __ ~ - ___-. 1 i ~ __ i ~~ i I I _ _ -_'-_ __' CA LI i$T#AOI 1~\YI' -- I I I ~ \~~ ~~~ I!I - _-_ ----__ ___ ~ .;~RD u snuLe wr NN HALIFAX DR ___~/ fMONT AV ~~ 1so w0 450 13425 Sousa Lane • '~ EXECUTIVE SUNIlViARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/10/04 10/18/05 10/12/05 10/04/05 10/20/05 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to place two modular structures (one approximately 1,440-square-feet and one approximately 1,:Z00- square-feet) on the parcel, construct a trash enclosure, remove several accessory structures and remove trees. Sub-Acute is located within the R-1-10,000 Zoning District. The Sub- Acute facility is categorized as a "nursing home and day care facilit}~' per Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-06.470 and 15-06.190. Establishment of a nursing home and day care facility within the R-1-10,000 Zoning District requires a Conditional Use Permit per DQCS 15-12.030(f). Any structure, except asingle-family dwelling or accessory structure, having a gross floor area of one thousand square feet or greater located in an R-1 Zoning District requires Design Review per MCS 15-46.020(a)(6). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. ATTACI~VIENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Literature Provide by the Applicant 3. Neighborhood Comments 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" • File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000, Single-Family Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Quasi-Public Facilities MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Parcel "A" is 1.64-acres and Parcel "B" is .36-acres. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Materials and colors to match proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of installation of two modular buildings (1,200 Sq. Ft and 1,440 Sq. Ft.), construction of a trash enclosure, and removal of trees is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . pursuant Section 15303(c), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital Facility consists of three buildings located on two parcels (parcel "A" and "B") fronting Sousa Lane. Parcel "A" 1.64-acres Parcel "B:.36-acres Existin SQ. FT Existin SQ. FT. Sub-Acute Center (Bldg. "C) 10,199. 1) Scribbles & Giggles (Bldg. 2,920 «A„) 2) Santa Clara County Office 2,852 of Education Annex (Bldg. «B„ Pro osed: SQ. FT. Pro osed: SQ. FT. Office Modular (Bldg. "D") 1,200 None Office Modular ld . "E") 1,440 A portion of Building "B," is leased to Santa Clara County Office of Education and the remainder of the building has been divided into three suites, which are utilized by family members for overnight visits with the patients. Uses surrounding the Center consist of • residential to the north, east, and west with Highway 85 to the south. The proposed File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane application would allow installation of two additional modular structures for use as administrative offices to support Sub-Acute operations. Sub Acute Saratoga Hospital (Sub Acute) Sub-Acute provides an in-patient level of care for children and adolescents who have specialized medical and nursing requirements, but who do not need to be in an Intensive Care Unit. Sub-Acute is one of only two State Certified pediatric sub-acute hospitals in Northern California. The primary focus of the facility to is actively rehabilitating the patients by weaning them off of their ventilators, tracheotomies, and IV's and returning them home as quickly as possible. The facility has 36 beds and provides care on-site 7 days a week, 24-hours a day. The facility has one full-time doctor and an additional doctor who provides consultations on a regular basis. In addition, the facility employs 25 health-care workers and administrative support. Scribbles and Giggles Pediatric Day Health Center Scribbles and Giggles Pediatric Day Health Center (Center) is the first pediatric day health center in the State of California. The Center is devoted to the care of special children with medical needs secondary to metabolic diseases, congenital abnormalities, or severe pulmonary disorders. The Center offers a variety of developmental, social, fine motor, gross motor, oral motor, art, outdoor and sensory activities through full day, half day, and after school daycare. The facility is open Monday though Friday 6:3C- a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and is currently serving 35 children. The Center has five employees. Santa Clara County Office of Education ~ • Sub-Acute has formed an alliance with the Santa Clara County Office of Education giving the children access to qualified teachers in a normal school environment on site. The program has become a model for the local school districts due to its significant cost savings to the district. There are five employees associated with this alliance. Hours of service are similar to a regular school day. Parking and Circulation Parking for the Sub-Acute Facility is predominately provided on Parcel "A." MCS 15- 35.020(d) allows a common parking facility provided, that the total number of spaces are not less than the sum of the individual requirements and provided further, that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for joint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy is filed with the City. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring the applicant to record a Parking Agreement prior to issuance of building permits. Per MCS 15-35.030(f), schools and day care facilities require one space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus such additional spaces as determined by the Planning Commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking. Under the circumstances of this proposal, staff is not recommending additional parking spaces above and beyond the minimum required; therefore, the applicant will need ten spaces associated with Buildings "A" and "B." • File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane Per MCS 15-35.030(j), a nursing home (which most closely resembles the current operations of Sub-Acute requires one space for each three beds, one space for each two doctors providing medical services on a regular basis, and one space .for each two employees. Under this section, the applicant will need 26 spaces associated with Building «C „ Per MCS 15-35.030(k), professional and administrative offices require one space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. Under this section, the applicant will need 13 spaces for the two proposed modular structures. Overall parking required for the Facility and the proposed modular structures is 49 spaces, five of which must be designated as handicapped. Of the five handicapped spaces, one must be sized to accommodate a van. The applicant is proposing a total of 50 parking spaces, five of which are designated as handicap and include accommodations for a van. Trash Enclosure The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing trash enclosure from the rear of the parcel to the front of the parcel to address concerns of noise and visual impacts to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing an 8' x 10' enclosed structure approximately 15- feet from the front property line. The applicant has shown two locations for the trash enclosure, one to the rear and one to the front of the plans and will install the enclosure in either location at the direction of the Planning Commission. MCS 15-12.090(a)(1) requires a minimum front yard setback of 25-feet, which is greater than the 15-feet currently proposed. MCS 15-55.030 allows for variations from Ordinance standards through the conditional use permit process. Staff is recommending approval of the relocation of the trash enclosure to the front of the parcel based on the impacts to the neighborhood and the fact that this parcel is located at the end of Sousa Lane, directly across the street from Highway 85's sound wall. While it is not generally sound planning practices to place a trash enclosure to the front of a property, the benefits to the community at large outweigh any aesthetic impacts to the site. Whichever location the enclosure is placed will require additional review by staff of proposed landscape screening and elevations to ensure compatibility with the site and the abutting neighbors, prior to issuance of building permits. Tree Removal An arborist report was prepared on September 5, 2005, reviewing the applicant's request to remove one tree (a Glossy Privet) regulated by City Ordinance. The arborist determined that due to its species and poor structural conditions it would be appropriate to remove the tree. At the request of the neighbors, the applicant is now requesting removal of five additional trees (three Glossy Privets, one Douglas fir, and two Silver Wattle), which are regulated by City Ordinance. The arborist determined that each of the proposed tree removals is appropriate and complies with the City's Ordinance. The applicant has shown all trees File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane proposed for removal on the plans, but would also agree to a Planning Commission recommendation to require retention of the trees with the exception of the original tree requested for removal. If all trees proposed are removed mitigation will be required including installation of new trees equivalent in value to the combined, appraised value of trees removed, which is $3,340. A bond in the amount of $12,790.00 will be required as a condition of approval to ensure recommendation presented in the arborist report are carved out. If only one tree, as originally proposed, is removed the applicant would be required to plant a 24-inch box sized tree and secure a bond in the amount of $8,850. Demolition of Existing Structures The applicant is proposing to remove the following structures from Parcel A: • Oxygen Tank and Pad • A 400 square-foot Wood Patio • A brick BBQ structure • An Arbor with Wisteria • Decorative stone water feature around the base of the gazebo • An 8' x 29' storage shed The applicant is proposing to remove the following structures from Parcel B: • Two 8' x 10' storage sheds Neighborhood Correspondence Staff has received extensive neighborhood correspondence relating to the proposal. Specific concerns include: the existing location of the trash enclosure; noise associated with garbage collection and employee parking; fence construction/repair; public ingress and egress through a hole in the fence along the western property line; parking; lighting; density; landscaping; and the proposed location of Trailer "E." Neighborhood correspondences are attached. To address the above issues the applicant has modified the original proposal in that the proposed location of Trailer "E" and the trash enclosure have been moved to the front of the parcel. The applicant has started to replace all wheels on trash receptacles with rubber to reduce the noise associated with transferring refuse from Sub-Acute to the dumpster. The applicant has already repaired a portion of the existing fence and is proposing to repair an additional section along the rear property line. Staff has incorporated a condition of approval clarifying that the rear fence must be uniform in materials and height along the entire length of Parcel "A." Generally, a fence may not exceed 6 ft. in height; however, MCS 15-21.0100(h) the Planning Director may issue a special permit to allow a fence up to 8 ft. in height where such fence is installed along a rear yard or interior side yard of a residential site which abuts a commercial district. While the proposed site is not zoned commercial the intensity of use is similar to a commercial district. The applicant is File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane requesting a 7 ft. high fence. The taller fence will provide an additional buffer, thus reducing impacts associated with noise and lights of the parking lot. Staff supports the applicants' request. Sub-Acute and the neighbor abutting the property to the west have allowed access through their properties via a pass way for local students to access the high school. Neighbors in the vicinity have voiced concerns that the access encourages crime and have requested that it be closed. The applicant has indicated his willingness to close the fence; however, the western neighbor has indicated his desire to keep the access since his high school daughter and her friends use the access. The applicant has shown the access closed on the plans, but would also agree to a Planning Commission recommendation to keep it open. The applicant is proposing 60 percent impervious coverage, which is what is allowed in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Installation of the two modular structures would meet parking requirements, height restrictions, and set backs as defined in the Code. Therefore, staff has .determined the density proposed is within the regulations of the Code. The applicant has indicated that he will install light shields and direct all light in the parking lot downward. Staffhas incorporated a condition of approval to address lighting. General Plan Compliance The parcel's Land Use Designation is Quasi Public Facilities. The Designation allows for institutional uses that provide a public service but are not controlled by a publicly elected governing board including, but not limited to, convalescent homes. The application meets the intent of the General Plan in that it provides a unique and much needed medical service to the community. Conditional Use Permit Findings Staff has determined that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and Nursing Homes and day care facilities, along with associated administrative functions, are identified as appropriate conditional uses in the R-1-10, 000 Zoning District and provide a unique service for the residents of Saratoga. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would fulfill the objectives of MSC 15-12.010(d), which is to provide space for community facilities needed to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. The peaceful atmosphere associated with a residential neighborhood provides a tranquil environment, which is ideal for care and rehabilitation of children with special needs. • File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane b) That the proposed location of the conditional use, and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and The proposed modular structures will be used to accommodate additional administrative functions for the facility, which will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of Saratoga. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to substantially improve the landscaping, parking lot, and general appearance of the parcel; therefore, the conditional use permit will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c) The proposed conditional use will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. As conditioned, the application will meet all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Design Review Findings Any structure, except asingle-family dwelling or accessory structure, having a gross floor area of one thousand square feet or greater located in an R-1 Zoning District requires Design Review per MCS 15-46.020(a)(6). 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 maximum height of proposed modular structure "D" is 12' 10" and modular structure "E" is 11 feet 9.5" inches. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Souza Lane or the privacy of abutting neighbors. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the building site is flat, no grading is proposed. Several trees in poor health will be removed and new landscaping around the parcel will be provided; thus, improving the aesthetic value to the neighborhood. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. Six trees are proposed for removal; however, the trees are not native or heritage trees, the City Arborist has determined the trees are in poor health, and new trees will be provided as a condition of approval. d) Minimize perception of excessive bulla The proposed modular structures are relatively small at 1,200 sq. ft. and 1,440 sq. ft. and are less than 12.5 feet in height. Painted colors proposed are similar to the existing structures, which will help blend the modular structures into the surrounding buildings creating a uniform campus. Modular Building "D" is proposed towards the rear of the parcel and will not be visible from Sousa Lane. Additional landscaping will be required, which will reduce and minimize the perception of excessive bulk. • File No. 04-189;13425 Sousa Lane e) Compatible bulk and height The proposed modular structures are smaller than the existing structures, which will allow them to blend into the surrounding residential neighborhood better. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL While the proposal requested meets all applicable zoning standards and regulations, the neighborhood has voiced concerns regarding intensity. of use and expansion of the rear parking lot. To address their concerns staff would recommend consideration of an alternative proposal, which is to deny approval of installation of the modular structure proposed to the front of the parcel (Building "E") and remove seven proposed parking spaces along the rear of the property (spaces 31-36). STAFF RECONIlV~NDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application 04-189 with conditions as proposed or approve the above referenced alternative by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. • • Attachment 1 ~~ ~J • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-189 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sub-Acute; 13425 Sousa Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to place two modular structures (one approximately 1,440-square-feet and one approximately 1,200-square-feet) on the parcel, construct a trash enclosure, remove several accessory structures and remove trees. Sub- Acute is located within the R-1-10,000 Zoning District. The Sub-Acute facility is categorized as a "nursing home and day care facility" per Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-06.470 and 15-06.190. Establishment of a nursing home and day care facility within the R-1-10,000 Zoning District requires a Conditional Use Permit per MCS 15-12.030(f). Any structure, except asingle-family dwelling or accessory structure, having a gross floor area of one thousand square feet or greater located in an R-1 Zoning District requires Design Review per MCS 15-46.020(a)(6); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The proposed project consisting of installation of two modular buildings (1,200 Sq. Ft and 1,440 Sq. Ft.), construction of a trash enclosure, and removal of trees is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303(c), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The existing site is tucked into a residential neighborhood and is not visible from a scenic highway or a major arterial. The proposed bulk is minimal and the proposal includes extensive improvements to the landscape, which will enhance the rural character of the community. • Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the proposal meets design review findings stated in MCS 15-14.080. Land Use Element Policy 6.2 -Proposed land uses and development proposals shall be evaluated against ordinance standards to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance.and intensity of use have limited adverse impact on the area. As conditioned, the proposal meets ordinance standards relating to required parking spaces, a significant increase in traj~c and noise is not anticipated, and lighting standards have been address; therefore, the proposal will have limited adverse impact on the area. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Conditional Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and Nursing Homes and day care facilities, along with associated administrative • functions, are identified as appropriate conditional uses in the R-1-10, 000 Zoning District and provides a unique service for the residents of Saratoga. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would fulfill the objectives of MSC 15~-12.010(d), which is to provide space for community facilities needed to complement residential areas and for institutions, which require a residential environment. The peaceful atmosphere associated with a residential neighborhood provides a tranquil environment, which is ideal for care and rehabilitation of children with special needs: b) That the proposed location of the conditional use, and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained,'will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and The proposed modular structures will be used to accommodate additional administrative functions for the facility, which will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of Saratoga. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to substantially improve the landscaping, parh-ing lot, and general appearance of the parcel; therefore, the conditional use permit will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c) The proposed conditional use will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. • As conditioned, the application will meet all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, .and the following findings have been determined: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of proposed modular structure "D" is 12' 10" and modular structure "E" is 11 feet 9.5" inches. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Souza Lane or the privacy of abutting neighbors. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the building site is flat, no grading is proposed. Several trees in poor health will be removed and new landscaping around the parcel will be provided; thus, improving the aesthetic value to the neighborhood. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. Six trees are proposed for removal; however, the trees are not native or heritage trees, the City Arborist has determined the trees are in poor health, and new trees will be provided as a condition of approval. d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The proposed modular structures are relatively small at 1,200 sq. ft. and 1,440 sq. ft. and are less than 12.5 feet in height. . Painted colors proposed are similar to the existing structures, which will help blend the modular structures into the surrounding buildings creating a uniform campus. Modular Building "D" is proposed towards the rear of the parcel and will not be visible to Sousa Lane. Additional landscaping will be required, which will reduce and minimize the perception of excessive bulk. e) Compatible bulk and height The proposed modular structures are smaller than the existing structures, which will allow them to blend into the surrounding residential neighborhood better. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and the staff report. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans • and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as showy: on Exhibit "A" date stamped October 17, 2005, incorporated by reference. All ch;rrrges to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the cr~anges and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Four sets of landscaping plans incorporating all conditions of approval and recommendations contained in the arborist report. c. Four sets of elevations illustrating the proposed trash enclosure. d. Four sets of a site plan wet signed by a licensed land surveyor verifying property lines and setbacks. 3. In the event that the two existing 8' x 10' sheds (shown north of Building "D"} or • Building "D" are determined to be located within the required side yard setback by the licensed land surveyor the structures must be relocated to an area on the site approved by the Community Development Director or removed, prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The proposed modular structures and trash enclosure shall use paint and materials to match the existing structures. 5. The proposed trash enclosure must be constructed according to the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices to avoid storm water runoff contamination associated with trash facilities. In addition, the structures shall incorporate a solid wood self-closing gate. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction. -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. • 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 9. A minimum five-foot landscape buffer along the north, east, and west, property lines shall be provided, planted, and maintained in a healthy state as illustrated on the approved plans, with the exception that athirteen-foot landscape buffer shall be provided between the rear property line and the parking lot. 10. Adequate landscaping shall be provided to screen the trash enclosure as determined by the Community Development Director. 11. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 12. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 13. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 14. The a licant shall record a deed restriction for the Parkin A Bement rior to Pp g ~' , P Building Permit issuance. 15. Applicant must remove the existing Scribbles and Giggle monument sign prior to issuance of building permits. If the applicant wishes to reinstall the sign an application for sign permit along with applicable fees must be submitted to the Planning Department. 16. Applicant shall construct a uniform seven-foot high fence along the rear property line. 17. Applicant shall provide a lighting plan with proposed specifications for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 18. Applicant must apply for, and receive, appropriate building permits for the existing 8' x 20' shed, located approximately three feet east of Building "C," prior to issuance of any other building permits on the parcel. In the event that the shed is not approved for building permits, the shed must be removed prior to issuance of any other building permits. • 19. If the opening in the fence is maintained, the applicant shall record an easement prior to issuance of building permits. 20. Applicant must resurface and stripe the existing parking lot, including the circular drive located to the front of Building "C," to building specifications on approved plans unless changed by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of occupancy of Building "E." Building "E" may not be used as a storage facility in the interim. 21. Applicant is granted temporary occupancy of Building "D" for a period of not more than 180 days (six-months) during which time the applicant is required to fulfill conditions of approval numbers: 2-19. Condition of approval No. 20 must be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for Building "E," if applicable. In the event that the conditions of approval have not been met the temporary occupancy permit may be withdrawn and Building "D" must be vacated. until such time as all conditions of approval have been met. FIRE DISTRICT 1. Applicant shall comply with-all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 1: Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including • attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. ARBORIST REPORT 1. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated September 22, 2005, shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, in the amount of $12,790.00. b. To offset the impact of removing trees #1, 8, 9 and 11-13 the applicant shall install trees, as discussed in the arborist report, to :its appraised value of $3,340.00. c. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a sep~~rate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. d. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip-line of any ordinance protected trees on the site. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. • Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of October 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • Attachment 2 r~ • SUBACUTE SARATOGA HOSPITAL In 1987, I purchased Saratoga Place, a skilled nursing facility. My goal was to provide a subacute level of care to intensive care patients admitted from surrounding acute care hospitals. Subacute care is a comprehensive, inpatient level of care for patients who have had an acute event, have acute needs or have a determined course of treatment, and, though stable, require diagnostic or invasive procedures not rising to the level of acute, intensive care procedures. In other words, subacute patients are those who no longer require the care of an Intensive Care Unit, but still require a high level of skilled nursing care. Unlike the existing subacute hospitals at that time, Subacute Saratoga Hospital's (SASH) mission was to actively rehabilitate these challenging patients. We were the first hospital to take such an approach. We focused our energy on weaning patients off of their ventilators, tracheotomies, IV's and getting them back home. Within two years, SASH had a reputation for providing excellent care and was known for it specialization in respiratory rehabilitation, traumatic brain injury and cancer pain care. In 1989, we were approached by Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and asked to provide ventilator care to a 10-month-old baby. This baby was the first pediatric patient ever to be admitted to a skilled nursing facility in the state of California. Shortly after admitting this baby, we were soon asked to admit other Medi-Cal children from hospitals all over Northern California. We requested that the California State Department of Health Services acknowledge the special needs of these children and to provide adequate reimbursement for their care. We were able to provide care for these children at a cost of at least $1,000 per day less that at the acute hospital. In 1993, after presenting our data to several state assembly and senate hearings, Assembly Bill-36, the Pediatric Subacute Legislation, was passed. However, the bill needed approval from the Department of Health Services to develop a rate schedule before the bill would be effective. Members from the Policy Division and the Rate Setting staff visited Subacute Saratoga Hospital on several occasions and the final regulations were based on the pediatric program at SASH. Several financial audits were conducted on our pediatric unit so the rate setting staff could understand the actual cost of providing pediatric intensive care services in a subacute hospital. In March of 1994, the regulations and reimbursement for the new State Medical Pediatric Subacute Program became law. However, the reimbursement rate was only $289 per day to provide the nursing and technical service necessary for a vent dependent baby in this setting. This number was approved without consideration to the fact that the State's financial audit confirmed that the costs for the subacute care were actually over $500 per day. Moreover, the state was paying between $1500 and $2000 per day for the same baby in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Finally in 1997, after numerous visits to Sacramento, DHS agreed to reimburse our costs. Today, SASH is totally dedicated to serving medically fragile children. Subacute Saratoga Hospital is one of only two state certified pediatric subacute hospitals in Northern California. Although, it admits children from UC Davis and Valley Children's Hospital, Madeira, the vast majority of the children come from the nearby Bay area hospitals (Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Packard Children's Hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital). As you can see in the accompanying literature, SASH is providing not only medical care, but is actively meeting the rehabilitation and educational needs of the children. Recently passed legislation permitted an alliance with the Santa Clara County Office of Education giving the children access to qualified teachers in a normal school environment on our site. This program has also become a model for the local school districts (Saratoga, Cambrian and Campbell Unified School Districts) due to its significant cost savings to the districts. • C7 Bff { COVER STORY ; ~s ~'; k ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - 4 ~ 4 ' ~,~ ~ ~ ~. '~'~Com~Ulnafi.on of ~Z1g~-~ i ' t~ < ' By Sayyn,ciy~I~eefe,.MSN, _ t l : a ~ ~`4.- ~ h <y i~~ ' 4 »~ Sy t1F 1 ..v'S ~• i .. .~, >, e P t~, . ~1' r~ ~ . `~ ~ . Y>., ~ ~~.~~."•~ .~~ 4i1' . u~r[rca~re.csv, t an,.~ . 't half the-cost of acute care, pedratnc subacute care is an _: Diane Unidt, ~ attractive option for both famrhes'and payers , Children: for a young gii ~1' _ 1who.are technology dependent•benefitfrom=highly indi,; .. ....:. ;. `vidualized therapy that addre§ses ouch areas.as communication;; .. Mike Zara ' feeding, swallowing and cogmtion: =~ ~'- ;. came an advp In Northam California.cluldren ages 0-21 often are transferred::.- discovered ah directly to the $ub=Acute Saratoga Hospital, in<Saratoga, from cnt-~ .options outsii ical care-units. The hosprtal•provides services to children-that com-'. efforts to esta bine high-tech and high-touch care. ~ - with officials. Many of the children at the facility have respiratory disorders < ~-== While regu secondary to genetic Syndromes, cerebral palsy, or neurodegenera-~:: =; for: nurses,_C] tive diseases such as muscular dystrophy.: Others,: are.: transferred atric. ~ populati from: acute care.: hospitals on: ventilators. aftei experiencing .a trau= .: - tional-.therapy - matic main injury (T'Bn or spinal cord injury (SCI) -_ ~ ~ WheA estal Babies with.lironchopulmonary dysphasia(BPb),:cystic fibrosis.. Limclt~MA~; and -other pulmonary conditions .also benefiti from, the technologi -: respiratory tt ~ rally- advanced care:: provided in a home like environment at Sub- ; stagtiy at risk t` cute Saratoga ~ >~ ~ ~~ ~« ,r z ~ ~.r -i :sand bad days'; d-H4-. - f.4 _ .. .. .-. . ~CCC-SLP, provides-oral-motorr~ining and.stiroulation who,is hypotonic.and;ventilator.dependent. . ,_ . ne, Phanx1D:MS, hospital president.and CEQ;,~be- ~te for pediatno subacute :care ~ California. when he t cluldrea~yvho are~technology:-dependent had:few, of thgacute:earesetting:: He supported legislative dish tfie;pediatric,~ubacute level:o~ care and worked . n the rate;setting.grocess . ~: . ~tions;establislt;minimum staffing:requirements only As and-respiratory_therapists;:he believes this.. pedi- ~n alsa~nee~ls~spe~ch;language:pathology, occupa= t u;dphysrc~l,t~erap~;services:_r~T a~:. . ~~ _._.. isliing;theFapygoals..forher.young:patie~itS;.Diane 'CG Slyl?~toy_orl<s'clasely withthe:nursing~;staff:.and . rapists al.the.fa~ility.-Medically. fragile and:con- or~respira~ ry co~iplications, the children have good tre.~oted~~-~~-li. s~, -~ it ~ .... rY'4~ may. ~ . /- - "It's important to know how the child is doing`on a.particular day, how he slept the night before, and whether the staff has made adjustments to the ventilator settings," Linick said. "If a child has a high fever, congestion or increased secretions, I wouldn't go ahead with stimulation or feeding trials until the respiratory issue is ad- dressed or has resolved." - Out of a census of 31 children at the hospital, l l.are on ventila- tors-and 90 percent. are trached, according to Christy Pybrum, CRT, RCP, director of respiratory therapy. "Some children come in on ventilators; and we're.able to wean them off completely. Some are off during the day for school and other activities -but when go back on the ventilator at night." y~ . ' ::When ~workin wiflt-a child who is ventilator•de ndent; Linick- ,., g ~, Pe "collaborates closely with-.the respiratory therapy staff ~:`,:In the•early-part of [he tiach/vbntweaning process; certain chil- ~•~ dren niayybe ableao tolerate a one way "speaking valve which, opens-on-inhalation and closes when the.chtld exhales,".::she said. ~- r 1'll work with the-child to see if~he can make some noiseswith the ~' "` waive or if rt is not well -tolerated dui~ng internuttent-finger plug- ` gang of the trach" - •:: ;~. ~;~ ,;~ ~x ~ She considers whether the child can make spontaneous or imitative sounds and verbalize basic~sounds or words to convey basic needs. .. `As-the child progressively tolerates wearing the valve for longer - periods or even advances to trach plugging; I'll work further on oral and voiced communication,"•Linick explained. Preventive measures help minimize oral=motor complications in children on ventilators.' :."Some :of these children have significant oral-motor issues `sec- . ondary to intrusive procedures such as suctioning;" she said: "I -try to'edui';ate'the-staff that oral aversions are very easily established -and can be quite persistent: Once a child becomes orilly defensive, ' itbecomes extremely difficult to eliminate-these responses, so I-en- 'courage gentle-oral care and gentle suctioning at all times: ' Speech and language therapy is highly individualized for the - pediatric population at Sub=Acute Saratoga,,Linick noted. "I try to establish basic communication with each child;.-and that takes experience, patience, and specific assessment of a variety of abil- . ities that impact receptive and expressive communication.". .These abilities include vision, hearing, cognition and behavior, as ', well as fine and gross motor skills. "We work with children at all levels, and it can be tough to deter- mine a child's communication potential in light of significant phys- ical impairments, medical problems, respiratory complications, cognitive deficits, perceptual issues, and visual and hearing impair- ments," she said. Linick may start with two familiar toys to see if the child has the cognitive ability to indicate a preference by either looking at the ,..,, object or pointing fowaM the desired.toy. - '. "From there, I might move on to object identification, as ' e child to look'at or.show me the requested item, such as a.b said: "I expand the -field of-objects before moving on to see e` • child can associate and then match the object with a picture:' Some children cans successfully use low-tech communication boards that~incorporate pictures, words or both. ` . - . ' "I see if they can point or look at an`item to correctly identify an object," she_said: "We move. from a binary choice. to however many :options they can accurateiy. manage on one page:' =Her goal-i8 toaeacli the-young patients to indicate what they want `in some manner Slgii language and gestures can.be used effectively with some children: While some may not be able to sign exactly ..due to physical iitpairments; she helps them approximate amean- `ingful `sign." ".Selected children are able to benefit from augmentative com- munication devices, from simple switches to high-tech speech-gen- erating .computer: devices," said Linick. However, "even: with -our longer term,`patientS, it.can;be difficulEto establish a consistent cognihve`level because of then physical-and perceptual limitations 'and`fiuctuations" -Oral commurucatioir is a vrable goal--for some children of"St11- Acute Saratoga~'~ r : - _ ' . "Many >;ecome;gmte~adept at'working':~around`their liaiita tiorls," she ,fated "Some"can use an m-line speaking valve ~tliat goes into the ventilator tubing, while others are successful at := Y „~~,~~~ x i ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~` , ~~ Aspeech-language pathologist at Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital per- forms ,blue dye bottle feeding assessment on an infant with an NG tube who istrach-dependent. voicing around the trach even without., valve when they're on the ventilator. They learn to time their voicing along with - cle of inhalation and exhalation established by the ven Their drive to communicate-and participate as a part of the d is compelling:' -• Diane Ltnick, MA, 000-SLP, and Kristen M feeding andswallowing treatment for ana~ •Some~ ~eluldren~ attend a ;county-i-u ands d '. the day ~ ~ '. R ~'~` .,, "~'1. ~'6 t ~~,}i -~` '~yy[[u~~yF,, 2 r~at ~ ~. 1~ ~ ~-~ ;~.iy ~.: 1~Ji.~'-~at~f'F F. ~ ,~, .~ , d. ~~.. n initial e~valuation.pliase, Linick works In tandem with Dunrig Elie ~ " areas of oral-mo- Maryani Nejadrasool;~OTR%I,,particularly~in'the tor,swallowmg~andfeedingskills -, =.. --. "Most children have' oral aversions and poor :oral motor skills," ~'' Nejadrasool stated "'We use dfferent~techiiiques and modalities, ~' - .t; such as facial muscle stretching and infra-oral stimulation, to facil- ~ ~; ~. - ~ ;._.: itate mouth closure, brushing or'cuig ,, = .: > .• : .. ~' 1" Once children are. able to adequately manage their secretions and : ~ _ _ , . demonstrate some potential for oral'feeding, Linick and Nejadra- ' . ~ c~:., - ~ ,sool begin.to; assess their swallp~ymg abity_~...~~ :~, :, ::_ .~.~. • "Even if that eating will be largely for pleasure and_not necessarily . " { ° ~ ;' adequate. for nutrition, we .still begin swallowing and feeding work, - "~ . said:Linick:>`•`--Eating is::asocial--activity?andcan:be very.enjoyalile, ' r ~ ' even for children w"ho-deed supplemental nutrition through a tube: the appreciates the~second-set,of.eyesthat Nejadrasool bringsto sr°' the evalua6on.process::: . "Aiot of:our work is' jointproblem=solving, talking about the pa-. . tients, •and. bouncing ; ideas :off.".one :another; ' Liniek aaid. "For ex- ample_when-we're tryug differentfood consistencies-with a child, collaborate on 'it's Helpful-to.have~uggestions:~bout how tq=posihon?a~utensil±in tj 3.~,n,;. -the mouth~~vrtirsauss#whatftextures~orpos~nonmgYiechniques~ght ~>;: _ work~mosteffeotively~osaparticularpatient"nc ,_, nc„-::,~nr ~~icr:~., t,~ rsxhe~~hosprtal , She.contir~ueslo collaborate~rith~theirespi>;atory therapystaff ~ r~ ,, tee; '° whileassessmg~_ahil~s~bihty~io s~vallowdovd~and liquidstar*r_ ~ t l~ uring -- ~ tin rounds, ,~- "Weincludethe school personnelan.routantcrjdLficip _ary', and I:share information with ahem from a speeich,language perspec- >tive;'§hesaid:' `l receive~nfomatiionfmm~hd?scF~ota'1~s;~bout au child's cognitive function and commumeattG~lis-thd,ciass ; room:'setting 'They have different modes ~fivvortr xvith~he child, ;; 'offer different`achvities, and have a computbi'-~+a}1~ie',t = ~a".~ ,'= - • When conducting swallowing and :feeding"~yaiuations lanick collaborates .closely with the respiratory ttierapy'staff_ , ;~ :: - "A child's.ability to swallow and.perform other oral=motor.funo- tions.is very much based on?respiratory, resiliency,"ahe empha- .sized. "Some children at a lower level `can't even manage'their-own. secretions and ace constandy'aspirating~ven with f~ieir trach Duffs } "Mien i fustassessr$~htld's~wallo$nng,~il~~ntroduce-,=aCmuumal amoiunthfbluefood coloring~ato themouth~tas~ how.'<he_child is managing secretions; ~~nick~aid,~If .ire;don'~rgei.:anyrdye:orut. around:therracfi=~or~~uring suctiomng;~yer ihe.neict;q?F~hours~nd there is.no€decline in ov~rall:respiratoiiy-stability; we~move~ forward to..triais of•blue=dyedfofld:or3iquid At`~very_:pointalong:the way; the:feeding:process is ti_ghly~.dependenton.•the~overall.respiratory status of the•child andtlie;atiility.;xo~anage secretions:' ^ :: ~~ •.: SandyKeefe•.is:the health:careimanager..atCamp Costanoan; a special needs camp in Cupernnn -CA r 3 - - _.:,~; Upper Airway Obstructions in Children = `` = ~ ` ~ ~ ~' ` ` .' ~ ' ~~.. team of pediatric ENT specialists at the University ,of North Carolina tUNC) ,demonstrated, e stone basket was,usedrwith two~atierrts,;a.2-year-Did girl lfeurosciences Hospital, in Chapel Hill;: recently used: arWire'urologicatstone with:a,history of aspiration and a3-year-old_.boy,wlih-a:history~af.choking` ~~basket in conjunction with the rigid bronchoscope to remove airway foodstufif. ,episodes. The foreign body In each case was determined. to be a peanut, Which foreign bodies. ~, ~ '. . • '. • vras removed inane operating raom,wrthout, ipcldent.,:-f a ~, , ~,s Airway foreign. bodies most commonly are seen in children` under age 5,° - Atthough materials that obstruct the airway are firm,;and drfficult to swat- Foodstuffs, particularly nuts, are usually the offeriffiri~'objects. Signs and low when dry and hard, they become,}~ifficutt o grasp_~rhen,Uiiey,come into "symptoms range from vague, such as wheezing, to specific, such as cough- contact with oral and tracheobronchial secretions. As,airesuft.. they tend to " ing and gagging. These cases require immediate medical attention, usually fragment when rigid graspers are" applied...:.. , . ~: . , involving specialty physicians. The use of wire snares for airway foreign body removal is not a novel idea; A rigid bronchoscopdtypically rs;used to remove aspirated foreign bodies. but urological stone baskets have been used primarily in conjunction with the This instrument provides ample working room to insert grasping forceps and flexible bronchoscope: allows for ventilation of the patientand suction of secretions through separate Utilizing the stone basket passed through the suction port of the rigid bron- ports while the procedure is performed. However, rigid instruments tend to choscope is a superior technique for extraction; reported study leader Brian fragment organic matter, complicit+ng its removal Downs, MD; who presented the findings at the anntjal meetirig of the Ameri- The pediatric ENT team at UNC'Neuroscierices Hospital conducted a hvo- can Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology earlier this year in Las Vegas, NV: The phase study of its approach. A preliminary feasibility study used the selected bronchoscope allows for ultimate control of the airway, and Video with rigid stone basket and various foreign bodies. Af#er efficacy of the technique was endoscopes is superior to that of flexible ones.- - i __ 8 . advance "for Speech-language Pathologists & Audiologists I July a 1`; `2005. ~ www.edvencewebcom `11, V _ UB=ACUTE SARATOGA HOSPITAL"IS DEDICATED :' to caring for acutely ill children in a.home-like envi- ronment that combines the best of high technology : j -- wrth'high-touch loving care. Hospitals across North- ern Galifomia transfer technology-dependent children .: to. Sub-Acute Saratoga, often directly from their critical care units. At half the"-cost of acute hospitalization, pediatric sub- _. acute care.for children from-birth to 21 years of age is an attrac- -~ive option forboth families and payors. Mariy of the children at the facility have respiratory disorders • secondary to genetic'syndromes,`cerebral palsy or neurodegen= erative diseases such as muscular dystrophy. Others are-trans- ferred from acute-care hospitals on ventilators after experiencing a traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury. Babies with bron- cfiopulmonary dysplasia; cystic fibrosis or other pulmonary condi- tions also.benefit from the technologically advanced, cost-effective care that is the.hallmazk ofSub-Acute Saratoga. Mike Zarcone; PharmD, MS, -CEO and president of the facility, is dedicated to providing ahome-like atmosphere for the children in hrscaze. Virtually every wall in the hospital is covered with fan- tastic paintings of `flowers, cartoon character§, beach scenes and even a large .yellow submarine. Rooms have lazge sliding glass doors that open to sun-drenched gardens, winding concrete walk- ways, awooden gazebo and picnic tables for families to enjoy. Skylights, fish tanks and play equipment brighten the patient rooms and living areas. Barbecues, outdoor movies and seasonal events enrich the lives of the youngsters who depend on the skilled nurs- ing care provided. Recently, the Santa Clara County Office of Edu- cation opened a school for orthopedically impaired children on the hospital grounds, providing the patients with a classroom designed to meet their special needs. . Collaborative Gare Dr Zarcone became an advocate for pediatric sub-acute care in California when he realized technology-dependent children had few options outside of the acute-care hospital setting. He supported legrslative`efforts to establish the pediatric sub-acute level of care, • ~ and then worked with officials on the rate-setting process, While regulations establish minimum staffing requirements, Sub-Acute Saratoga offers services above acid beyond that basic level. ~rt beat checked by a "tloctor in "Staffing requirements under pediatric sub-acute licensure are 5 hours;of nursing time per patient per day, plus 4 hours of CNA time per.pafient per day: We've developed a staffing-grid from this requirement, but we often provide even more hours than -:are required. In addition, we have PT, OT, speech and other.services that aren't required; but which _we believe are important- for the kids,'° Dr.-:Zazcone explained. Dr. Zarcone cited'the.workingrelationship between respiratory therapy and nursing as a key factor in providing-care in a cost-effec- tive-manner:`.`I carne-from" [a hospital] where everything was sea menfed -there was a nurse forLVs, another for patient care, respi- ratory therapists had their-role and so on. It seemed inefficient to me and there•was no way we could do that in a small private hospital." Today nurses and-respiratory therapists at'Sub-Acute Saratoga work" collaboratively under a staffing.model:in which the respira, fory therapists .train the musing staff on ventilators and tracks, with everyone working together on suctioning; track changes and patient monitorir~. Laura Ibragimoya, RN, a part-time resource nurse at the hospital, described the teamwork that occurs when one of the medically frag- ile children has a pulmonary complication. "If a patient's oxygen sat- uration rs way-down or the child is in respiratory distress, the nurse at the bedstde will put on the patient's call light. Respiratory ther- apy-and the charge.nurse will respond immediately, of course, but so will the GNAs-.and anyone else who's available to help. These children. aze' our family, and we take very good care of them." 34 adVdflCB FOR NURSES • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND RENO,. NV • AUGUST 8, 2005 www.edvanceweb.com ~. Home Away from Home rsing Assessment Ninety percent of the children at the facility have tracheostomies, about 1/3 are ventilator- . dependent, and all of them have gastrostomy tubes. Ibragimova emphasized the importance of nursing assessment when caring for these youngsters. "These children are living here because they need this technology, and this level of nursing care. When I make founds in the morning, I'm always paying attention to the tiny details -whether the child is smiling and active, or quiet and pale. Because we know our little ones so well, we can notice very subtle changes before a problem develops." Case Manager Demi Laupati, BSBM, works closely with the nursing staff, coordi-, ,"' nating admissions, discharges and any trans- - fers to acute-care facilities: "Recently; foi• example, we-had a baby at Good Samaritan Hospital for a fundoplication. He came back to us_the same day.ofsurgery; because we cane provide the level of nursing care he needs postoperatively,-and because we're he experts- in managing his respiratory needs..".In her ` many roles, Laupati also coordinates the 'weekly family support group. king a Di#ferEnce Nursing care at Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospi- tal is intense, with many of the patients:totally dependent on the nursing-staff for every aspect of daily life. "We provide a lot of direct patient care -medications, gastrostomy tube feed- ings, treatments, track and ventilator care,".said Lachong Tran, BSN, RN a resource nurse oii the day shift, "-But my co-workers -- nurse"s and CNAs, respiratory and rehabilitation they- apists -all work as a team and try to help one another. We all want what's- best for-the: chil- dren, and that makes- our work-go. well: I feel right when I go home every night becaiase.I've ~_ - ~__ °~ ~- _ :~ - '~ ~ ~ - ~I~~~. -- ,~ - 9 - z • ... ..~.? - ~. ~~ ,.,: .; ,, ,:. t \I~ •• ~n.~~ ~ ; ~ , ~;- , t.~-~ ~ ~~ k 1 E --- ~--~-,--- 1 &" ~~ _ -- r- -~~ ~ ~. - ~~, .~,~ ,.~ t z HIGH TECHNOLOGY, HIGH TOUCH Laura Ibragim`ova; RN, adm done good things for the children and '.I've made adifference in their lives!" Staff Nurse Cristeta Santos, BSN,.'RN, affirmed the loving atmosphere at Sub:=Acute Saratoga `It can be difficult for family:mem- bers to visit, the children; because they: have other children at home and many live far. away. We love the-kids; and we are part- of their family every day.'' When family members come to visit; they are welcome to use one of the family suites on the hospital-grounds:. "There's a,.great,deal of family teaching, depending on .the individual needs: of the child;" Tran explained: "-We-enjoy the company of the families when they come to visit their children, we listen to-their concerns, try to solve their problems and support them. We're here for them, we're here fortheir chil- dren -that's our. job!" The average length of stay at Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital is well over a year, said Dr. Zarcone. "There are basically two factors that serve as barriers for our children going home. The first is-lack of family supports We -see a lot TOTAL PATIENT CARE:A-nurse asse§ses the heart rate of a of young, single mothers, broken families or patient who has a NG iube:ahd i5trach~ependerrt:::= r _ parents with-drug-related problems, and they are unable to care for the child :around the clock. The second factor is the severe nursing shortage facing families who need to provide 24-hour direct patient care to get their children home: This is an incredible hardship, which few families can manage. Half of the kids even- - tually could go home -with nursing: And then there are a:small number: of kids. who aren't ever going to go home; they're on vents, med- ically fragile,-maybe :with heart and-lung prob- lems, and the families can't provide that level of care:" No-matter how long-the-child stays at Stib- -Acute Saratoga Hospital; the nurses remain upbeat and totally committed to providing pro- fessional nursing care, vigilant patient assess- ment and unconditional love to their small charges. Rather than focusing on -the cats- -strophic events that brought the children to the facility, they ook at the bright side; as epito- mized by the hospital's motto: "What the cater- pillar-calls the end of the world ... the master calls a butterfly." ! . Sandy Keefe is. a regular contributor to ADVANCE. .........._.~..__-..~...eti ~„m AUGUST 8,.2005 • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ANO~RENO, Nv • adVaFIGBF.OR-NURSES 3J <~ 9 . ~ ~ ~ Ys late morning in the sunny San Jose~suburb of Saratoga, and Creative Problem-Solving ~ . {Y the sounds of ~aaughteri drift .over the fence .of: a converted One young clie~tt at the day care :center had lost a few reach-.house At. first glance, Scribbles acid Giggles looks like pounds and was gagging and coughing during his feedings. ~ ` any other-day care center >-> -~ i ~ ~ . - : ~ . Acting on repeated recommendations from center staff, the •, -A close= look, however, reveals a number.of telling differences. mother finally, toolk the could to the: pnmary.care physician. . ,: • ;.: Scrabbles and Giggles is a;licensed :pediatric-day .health -center `::The boy was admitted the same day;to the hospital for reloca- "'` YdevQtetl"to~ the care-of special chiliirenr~vit}r rriedical needs'sec- ~tion of the astrostum tube..and a re at. fundo hcation siar- . 1 g Y Pe P ' r'-ondas~to-metabolic.diseases;:congenital=abnorhiahties,~or se= gery to reduce gasf~oesophageal reflux). Today, the child has ~%ere~pu-lmonary disorders. ':Seizures and~~eedmg~d~sordersare.. regained his lost weight~nd is:tolerating-his feedings with ~ ` -constant=risks.that have often resulted infailureao thnve.:- a lomb. '- P. :, ,. ' Another Scribbles and Giggles: toddler was losing weigh x ~ Improving ,Quality of Life ~ --- : ~ ` :. -cause his parents. often fell asleep before hooking him upa ~~, -Scribbles .and Giggles was conceived after owner Mike Zanconi overnight continuous gastrostomy tube feeding. Realizing that ~.. ;.. ~~ identified the:need for: community=based care in children who the parents were. exhausted, one of the nurses suggested that ~,; :: were tracheostomy and ventilator-dependent:- "As the ~owrier of the parents give a bolus feed before bedtime. In addition, staff at ~;`r ` neighboring Saratoga Sub-Acute Hospital; Mike was dismayed at Scribbles and Giggles supplemented the child's intake with an- -~' the number of children who couldn't go home because there was other bolus feeding when he arrived at the center in the morn- ~,; no health care available for them in the,community,'' related Anne - ing. The child's nutritional status.stabilized, and the parents can ~- ~ Proctor, OTR/L, program director.:'Although these children now rest more easily. ' - could benefit tremendously from anenriched-day care environ- :went to maximize their development arid:: function, no established ~., ~ ~ '.centers were equipped to deal with their medical needs." 1. - -Family Involvement . - -:::Everyone at Scribbles and Giggles -respects-the parent-child rela- 1 ..~tionship and understands the importance Hof including family mein ': -bars in medical and developmental issues:''We have a number of . family events; like our. holiday parties and:barbecues.-It's difficult for s most people to understand exactly what life islike with a chronically ill child,'so the parent-to-parent support here ~ crucial;' Proctor said In order to give parents a special break; tie facility hosts a monthly.Date Night, caring for the children with special needs and their siblings to give Mom and Dad a chance to go out~on the town. Proactive Problem-Solving Christy Pybrum, CRT; is the director of respiratory therapy at Saratoga Sub-Acute Hospital, and supervises the RTs who provide services to. the clients at Scribbles and Giggles. "When a new kid - comes in, we'll do an evaluation and help adapt equipment so the child can work down on the mats or go outdoors to the play area;' Pybrum said. Using their creativity to modify equipment configura- bons and protect fragile respiratory machinery, the respiratory ther- d apists free the children to enjoy a normal day of play and learning. Daycare for medically involved youngsters.can still be creative By Sandy Keefe Developmental Interventions While.many of the children at the center are typically-developing, others have sensory processing- issues. A wheelchair swing in-the yard provides vestibular and .proprioceptive input, while a water table offers tactile input in a fun way. Aspecially-designed sensory room within. the.facility offers meaningful sensory input in a con- trolled manner. Proctor emphasiu~d the importance of family teaching for -her frail charges..:'We share a lot of information about normal devel- opment, as well as recommendations to enhance development in a child with delays." Many of the clients at Scribbles and Giggles are too ill to at- tend school in a traditional setting, so the day care center hosts home teachers from the child's school district. Still others come to the center for before or after-school care. Proctor's staff inter- act frequently with school officials, sharing information to en- hance the child's health and well-being. "The key is to know each child as an individual, inside out, and then to develop a program that works for him. That's what, we're here for," Proctor concluded. Sandy Keefe, iZIV, MSN, is a nurse consultant for RNs Healthcare Con- sultants Inc., Sacramento, CA. :www.edvenaaweb.com November 29, 2004 1 advance for Occupational Therapy Practitioners 15 } • -More Than Fun & Games Scribbles and Giggles pediatric day health center provides quality care for special children with medical needs BY SANDY KEEFE, MSN, RN is late morning in the sunny San Jose suburb of Saratoga and the sounds of laughter drift over the fence of a converted ranch house. Entering the front gate, visitors glimpse sturdy play equipment set in the middle of an inviting expanse of child-friendly lawn. -The front door opens to reveal colorful murals, plush floor mats, spotless white cribs and intriguing piles of stimulating toys. Staff members laugh and infants peek coyly from behind laced fingers. At first glance, Scribbles and Giggles looks like any other day care center. A closer look, however, reveals a number of telling differences. Scrib- bles and Giggles is a licensed pediatric day health center devoted to the care of special children with medical needs secondary to metabolic dis- eases, congenital abnormalities or severe pulmonary disorders. Seizures and feeding disorders are constant risks, often resulting in a child's fail- ure to thrive. The nurses at the center are specialists in the technologies required to maintain or sustain life in these frail little ones. Gastrostomy and naso- gastric tubes are commonplace, and enteral feedings are a daily part of life. For children with tracheostomies andJor ventilators, nursing staff provides suctioning, oxygen therapy and respiratory monitoring in a . rich and stimulating environment. Improving Quality of Li#e This unique facility was conceived after owner Mike Zarconi identi- fied the need for home nursing care in children who were tracheostomy- and ventilator-dependent. "As the owner of neighboring Sazatoga Sub-Acute Hospital, Zazconi was dismayed at the number of children who couldn't go ' home because there was no nursing care available for them in the community. He developed Scribbles and Giggles so the kids could .. come in during the day while their pazents worked, went to school or cared for their other children, and then go home to be with their fam- ilies at night and on the weekends," explained Anne Proctor, OTR/I-, ' program director. Mired in the day-to-day care of a child with special needs, these par- ' ents often appreciate a new perspective and an extra set of hands. "The parents see us as an advice system for their child, so we're often the first place they turn when they see a change in their child," Proctor related. "'They feel comfortable with us and know their child is in good hands: ' Expert in the care of medically frail children, Proctor's nurses are able to offer suggestions to make life simpler for the family. "For example, we had a new child come in with feedings, medications and treatment scheduled for literally every single hour of the waking day. We worked with [the parents] and came up with a consolidated schedule that gives them a break so they can catch their breath - so they have time to enjoy their child." Family Involvement Everyone at Scribbles and Giggles respects the parent-child relation- ship and understands the importance of including family members in medical and developmental issues. "We have a number of family events, like our holiday parties and barbecues. We even put a big screen outside in the yard and watched a family movie. It's difficult for most people to understand exactly what life is like with a chronically ill child, so the parent-to-parent support here is crucial," Proctor shared. Open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, as well as 3:00-10:00 p.m. one Saturday a month, Scribbles and Giggles is a haven for families of technology-dependent children. And to giveparents a spe- cial break, the facility hosts a mont}tly "Date Night," caring for the chil- dren with special needs and their siblings to give mom and dad a chance to go out on the town. Proactive Interventions Cristeta Santos, BSN, RN, pointed out the benefits of having nurse< involved with technology-dependent children on a daily basis. "We have one little girl with multiple congenital abnormalities who Can'I verbalize at all. Sometimes, I'll notice she's a little fussy, her eyes are www.aGvenceweb.com 3O ad~/erl[~ FOR NURSES • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND RENO, NV • JULY 11, 2005 A IAUGH A DAY: Srxlbbles and Giggles is a haven for tamlues wim Teraxioioyr-uc~wa„ children, providing quardy medical care and aeatiive fiterventions to help the chfldren thrive • • • lroopy and her arms are banging together stiffly. I'll check her temper- ~ture, try to assess what's going on with her and give prn medications o make her more comfortable. ff she responds to those interventions, hen I know my nursing care plan worked for her. I'll let mom know what recurred, so she can keep a close eye on her at home as well." Lily Yeh, LVN, agreed. "Because I know these children so well, I can ee subtle signs that may indicate a new problem. That gives us time to ntervene, consult with the respiratory therapists or let the parents know he child needs to be evaluated by the primary care physician right away." "We know each and every child as a person, an individual with spe- ific health issues and concerns," Santos remarked. Proctor agreed her staff members don't ovetTeact to findings that vould seem abnormal to other healthcare professionals. "Someone who is unfa- tiliarwith our kids might Wink there's something :rribly wrong with an ~fant's breathing, or be ery concerned about the repaired swallowing in ne of our older kids. [owever, we're aware rose findings are typical ~r this kid, and we can go bout the business of play red learning here at the ay care center," Proctor included. "Because we know and lve these children, we :arn their triggers and now when they might .' • ,t into trouble;" Santos :serted. "One little boy, rr example, tends to ork harder to breath ¢ - hen he goes outdoors in the heat and dust. It's not right to keep him side a" of his life, so we anticipate his responses. I'll increase his cygen from 1 to 1-1/2L, suction him right before he goes out and then :crease him back to his baseline oxygenation. I can repeat the whole tervention out in the yard if he gets into trouble. We always bring the :ygel: ~Nith us, make sure the suction machine is mounted on his wheel- iair and keep a very, very close eye on him." ~eative Pr%~!em-Solving The nurses at Scribbles and Giggles realize very clearly that each ild is a unique individual, acid interventions need to be carefully afted to accommodate the needs of the child and the realities of family e. For instance, many of the youngsters have feeding difficulties, yet solutions are different in each situation. nTiP vnrtno rliPnt at tftP iiati rarw rs+ntor~ fnr nvomnln 1,11 Incr o F .,. advance Pediatrics/Neonatal ~Cra. to the hospital for relocation of the gastrostomy tube and a repeat fun- doplication (surgery to reduce gastrcesophageal reflux). Today, the child has regained his lost weight and is tolerating his feedings with aplomb. On the other hand, another Scribbles and Giggles toddler was losing weight because his parents often fell asleep before hooking him up to his overnight continuous gastrostomy tube feeding. Realizing the parents were exhausted, the nurses at tl'ie center suggested they give a bolus feed before bedtime. In addition, the nurses supplemented the child's intake with another bolus feeding when he arrived at the center in the morn- ing. The child's nutritional stahls stabilized, and the parents now can rest more easily. Emergency Situations Although the atmosphere at Scribbles and Giggles is playful and child-centered, staff members know all too well how quickly these children can deteriorate throughout the course of a day. One little one had a severe heart defect in addition to other special needs. When his mother dropped the child off in the morning, she remarked that he had a little cough. Throughout the. day, the child began coughing more and more, and the nursing staff noticed a decrease in air exchange. They placed a call to the child's mother, who took him to the ED imme- diately where he was admitted to the hospital. The child's doctor was pleased the staff caught the child's pneumonia in the very early stages, noting early intervention undoubtedly made a differ- ence in the outcome. i)eVe~Opli'lellta~ ~llterVent10n5 Many of the children at Scribbles and Giggles have sensory pro- cessing issues because of their underlying disorders, or because their physical and cognitive impairments limit the amount of mean- . ingful sensory input in their lives. "Some of the children like Playdough, while others avoid this type of stimulation. I caress them, massage their feet and give them warm hugs," Santos remazked. A wheelchair swing in the yard provides vestibulaz and propri- oceptive input, while a water gable offers tactile input in a fun way. Plush animals, textured fabrics and toys, and thick mats for play time ensure the environment offers needed stimulation. Many of the clients at the facility are too ill to attend school in a tra- ditional setting, so the day care center hosts home teachers from the chil- dren's school districts. Still, others come to the center for before- or after- school care, arriving in specially designed school buses with a health aide in attendance. The nurses interact frequently with school officials, shaz- ing information to enhance the child's health and well-being. "The nursing care here is not easy," Santos said. "We lift, transfer, change diapers, provide feedings and suctioning, and are always vigi- lantbecause these children are so fragile. T}tey're so innocent and they really need so much care. Still, when you work with love, you don't think how hard you're working. Even if they can't talk, the children show you ...:rl.., e...:lo ~l.o.. 1....e .... 1.....1. ++ ~ • ~- ...~:~- - ..~ ~_ ~~~~ ~. - s - --v R_-~, .~ ~ -~~- ~ ~'~' `w 'ten'^` ~ ~ ~ V ~A ,` _ ~i n~ ~ ~ j ca ~:..~ `~- ~~ ~~ ,-~: ~ ~. S. O7 +~ L L ~ o :~ ~ ~~ In ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~'' '~ N ~ HWY 17 ~ ~ ~C~ QeS ~, ~, o to `' - ~ ~ o i ~ o a"a ~, ~ v ,a ~ O ~ 8J ~ a~ °o o +~ o +~ ca L ~ L~ N ~ ¢~ u~~ ~~ ±, o ~, L = J~~of a'~Cai x v X v ~ a~ua~Me~ o3in~ to p U dJ ~ ~ o~ „ `Z o '~ °`Z o ~ ~ ~ ° m c~ ~ O O ~ ~ ,~ ` ~ ~' O _~ 3 ~ o _ ~.* ~ - .i vs o ~~"'nL ~ ~ ~ ° Q ~"? iV -- L ~ ~ _ .- O ~ c ~~ •--3 i ~ ~ O S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~' _ L `V O ~ i ~ ~ i S ca S U ~~ -6~ ~ lB +~ - - ? . _ _ . U1 S U U xt k r L ~ ~ c6 ~ ~ o +~ a Zr.: 0 .L ~- U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~~,--^,t ' ~ ~--w~' N i N N .i ~ L i U U ~ ._ S i-~ ~ C ~ ° _ J - ~ ~_, U ~ -v o, ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ I ~ DL ~ J O -. `~ Q~ L / O 0 ~ ~ V 3 O._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O7 O O r ' ~' O O ~ N O ~ N ~.i~a~ vhf tQ .~ •_ '~ = max.. ~ _ ~ o o ~ m c6 "Q ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~' 6 O N_ s~T ,_ ~ ~. ~y ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ +4 3 ~. ~ ~" ~ L s ..: ~...~ ~ i ~ i-~ ~ ~~x,~~a' _ V N O `~-?' ~ ,.~ ~ ~.~.R.Y~~g~ t ,,^~^ - L `< VJ ~ - tL Y ~~ .i ~ ~ L ~ r: ~ ~ ~ y 9 w i ~ 1"_' z {~ 4 %3 ,~~~~~~ ~ O ^ U O ~ O_ L O O .~ Q O ~ U _~ ~ O ~. ~ ^ ^ 1 U (a L N O O Q1 O ^ ~ U ~_ •~ fl- ~o O ~ O ~ ~ ~ U "Q ~ A Cl U ~, 0] U H o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ i-~ ~ m o ~L ~ ~ O 0 SL ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ~~ r ~ ~r u. °~; ~' - Sa t V ~ ~ t~ ' ~ \ ~ 1 S ~ i ~ ~ . -~ - .e r t~ .. t ~ 3 , ~ -~ .~~} ~} ~ J . _. ,.- ~ ;, _ _ _ - _ t In ~- SR7 S ~_ ~ ~ %~ ~ U ~ ~? > ~ ~ ` } ~~ - _O F,. ~~ , ,X~~~ ~ <°'~ ~. O c` ~6- C4 Yl ~~ ~cs~ v - ~ . ~ fem. Z~ f •.~-r.~~sc :. ~~ (~J $awa - ~-~ ~ ~ ~~ !,V\ L V ~ 3 f~ 4- ~. ~ ~ ~ 0~ _ '~ - ~ ~ ~ O -i ~. ~ _ ~ 61 S U N i-~ .~ ii ^ L L N ~ N N "Q p ~ In Cl +~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ • ~ ~ ~. ~ L ~ j ~ ~ V ~ 0 L U L1 L F - l~ [L1 m L O ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ O ~ j L ( 6 ~ ) ~ ~ N ~ C'~ 'U '~ Z cn ~ -:J ~ L ~:~ '~ J O }? S (6 41 s O _~ ~_ S U O 67 O ^ • _~ U i~ N O S v +4~ O N .~ O 0 i O L m L i ca s +~ 0 ~? O U ~~ L S O t6 • Attachment 3 • summary-0905 To: Mike zarcone, owner of sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital and Saratoga city officers Re: Issues, Concerns and Need Resolutions From: Hackie gee, home owner on Emanuel Court gate: 09/20/05 I am requesting this letter be included on file regarding permits for sub-Acute Saratoga hospital. I share over 150 linear feet of property line with the sub-Acute hospital, and my family struggled for over 3 years to get a bad section of the fence replaced. I The efforts started with my request to repair damaged fence, but no actions for a couple years,; decisions from a meeting-and many phone calls were not carried out. when condition became unrepairable and my attempts to work with hospital authorities to replace it were also ignored and I had got several very rude comments from the hospital representatives. the hospital workers got to my backyard by removing fence boards At one time , without notification, they removed the top section fence which were built by the previous home owner. and installed from my side. They left the torned down boards with long nails scattered in my backyard, code enforcement officer at the time nd with more h ' l em a p to stop t were not helpful at: all and I had to get legal he efforts and struggles the fence finally got replaced. It took more than 3 years and the new fence was not straight, because the hospital did not cut down the wild trivets as the fence company requested and I beleive the new fence is on my property instead, of on the property line. As of today, there dare still open issues I have been bringing up and trying to hted below and I look forward hli hi h g g ey are get a resolution with the hospital. T to a complete resolution within a reasonable time after the meeting on 9/20/05. A few hedges and plants are pushing the fence, such as the trivets and bamboo, 1 . the bamboo even sprouted on my side. Mike zarcone confirmed on 9/19/05 that they will be removed. I would like a date be set to remove them and grind the roots. The older section of the shared fence which I build with the hospital about 2 . 8 years ago are in 'very bad condition due to water damage. The water came from b d s to e unattended garden hose on the hospital property and the watering nee controlled to a proper level. I request to repair the damaged section by replacing f all the posts with 4"x6" osts and any damaged base boards and face boards. I watering cannot be 'controlled then we need to look into building a brick fence. The height of the fence around the hospital should be the same, and I agree to bring the existing fence to the new height. According to theiusage permit issued by the City of-.Saratoga, the hospital is 3 . required to build and maintain secured fence around its premise. The fence opening to Emanuel court ha's allowed the hospital employees to take 'their smoking and meal breaks on private property and it was also used as an escape route in a recent theft in the neighborhood;. The opening needs to be closed up completely and the hospital authorities need to maintain and work with adjacent home owners on future repairs and replacements d - an in a professional and timely manner. If or when disagreement between the owners officers are needed to mediate, reach a decision and help from Cit i l i y se, ar ta hosp complete the necessary actions within a reasonable time. Page 1 • .7 June 8, 2005 Mayor Kathleen King Teresa Mills 13365 McCulloch Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Ms. King, J ~- Enclosed you will find a letter addressed to you and the City Council signed by neighbors of the Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital at 13425 Sousa Lane. Over the last year, we have been dealing with the planning committee and the hospital, trying to get the hospital to move or remove the trailer that they delivered without a permit and trying to get the hospital to address our other complaints with regards to this facility. This trailer was a "replacement" for another trailer which also did riot have a permit and which the neighbors were told was temporary. Without repeating too much of the enclosed information, we would like to point out that the neighbors would like you and the City Council to put pressure on the hospital to comply with Saratoga's city codes. They now have two trailers on the property which do not have permits. The use permit for that facility requires it to have a secure fence around its perimeter so as to not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The hospital has not secured the fence on Emanuel Court but has left a permanent gap in the fence. This is not acceptable because it not only affects the properties on Emanuel Court, but on Sterling Oak Court and McCulloch Avenue as well. We have enclosed photos of the trailer plus photos of trash piles that the hospital had next to my fence for over a month. Complaints were filed with Steve Prosser, Ann Welsh and Jana Rinaldi with no results. The hospital has not been required to meet any deadlines on submitting a completed application to the planning committee and is actively using this most recently added non- permitted trailer. Other complaints and issues which need to be addressed and remedied before approving any renewal.of the use permit for this hospital are outlined in the enclosed letter. We would like to meet with you next week to further discuss this situation. We encourage you to closely examine the enclosed documents and photos to fully understand what kind of facility is being operated in your city. Sincerely, , ~f ~~~~ Teresa Mills (408) 866-2431 Carol Walker L_~r~-~-'~' ~'t/ (408) 374-6753 • ~~ P!' ~ 9 We, the neighbors of the Sub-Acute Saratoga Children's Hospital at 13425 Sousa Lane, Saratoga, CA, are. petitioning the Saratoga Planning Committee to .reject the hospital's application for ~a permit for an office structure that they delivered and fixed in place without prior approval and permits from the city of Saratoga. This structure is too tall for residential property yards which blocks the skyline of at least three neighboring properties, has two HVAC units which will contribute to noise pollution from the hospital, and will adversely affect our neighborhood's property values. Furthermore, the structure's windows overlook the neighboring properties, causing a loss of privacy to those owners. i 5 ~r~c~a Name '; Address Phone Number Si tur ,: ' ~inj~e/ IVIi'~-~l 3355 /YJcCu.,l/ocfi . 37h- 3~F _ r~ ~ I ~' ~ [ ~ ~~ n ~i " - ; 3 .~ ~~~~~ .c3 w~ic.KS; 37~ Y7~ ~. .~ "-0 '' ~~r~i k '~ ' " ~ k ~ 1 a n- e l.l~t~i-f.~ ' IS r 33b McG,,./'i ~ ~~,~. ~'~6-,~ 3 ,'i ~ 2 ~- 8 - 3'v f U `"~f • ~ ~ Q,Z, We, the neighbors of the Sub-Acute Saratoga Children's Hospital at 13425 Sousa Lane, Saratoga, CA, are petitioning the Saratoga Planning Committee to reject the hospital's application for a permit for an office structure that they delivered and fixed in place without prior approval and permits from the city of Saratoga. This structure is too tall for residential property yards which blocks the skyline of at least three neighboring properties, has-two HVAC units which will contribute to noise pollution from the hospital, and will adversely affect our neighborhood's property values. Furthermore, the structure's windows overlook the neighboring properties, causing a loss of privacy to those owners. • Name Address Phone Number S' afore 1 ~ r ~/ ~ r _ /~ /: -3 ASS i2 ~ 3 yo 9' Slrr /• a ., e ~ 8'~~ / 7 / G Cj.~~ . C/a~q~~ 2, c57`o 33 S ~ G ~ l ~ c ~ ~ u-e 370 -- Coq 3 ~ S ~ 3 ~.~ Z ~. -3. r• v A • • May 25, 2005 Mayor Kathleen King City Council Neighbors of Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital Teresa Mills 13365 McCulloch Ave Sazatoga, CA 95070 Ms. King and City Council, Exactly one year ago today the Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital at 13425 Sousa Lane delivered to their property a 24' by 60' trailer without a permit from the city to do so. The neighbors complained to City Hall's code Enforcement Officer who referred the issue to the Planning Committee. For a year we have waited for the hospital to cooperate with the city and submit complete plans for their permit application. The hospital has been stalling while actively using the non-permitted trailer. This is not the only non-permitted trailer on the property. The hospital is in violation of their use permit for many reasons, all of which were submitted to Am~i Welsh of the Planning Committee and to the Code Enforcement Officer. Since the city has not put any pressure on the hospital to comply with their use permit; the hospital has no incentive to cooperate and no progress is being made. The neighbors of the Sub-Acute Sazatoga Hospital feel it is time to put an end to the delay tactics of the hospital and reconsider the approval of a use permit for this facility. The enclosed documents detail the issues with the hospital which include: • non-permitted trailers • dumpster noise • accumulation of trash piles outside of dumpsters • smoking adjacent to the neighboring fences at all hours • trespassing to smoke on neighboring properties • an incomplete fence between the hospital and Emanuel Count • shopping carts left on the property and at the end of Sterling Oak Court • parking lot lights that shine directly into neighboring properties • lack of a five foot strip of maintained landscaping azound the property • damage to fences due to improperly maintained or installed landscaping and sprinklers • parking by staff and visitors on Emanuel Court and Sterling Oak Court • loss of privacy due to the most recently added non-permitted trailer • noise pollution due to car alarms and air conditioning of current non-permitted office trailer and potential noise from air conditioning for the most recently added • u • ~ non-permitted trailer as well as employee conversations in the parking lot at 3 AM • overuse of the facility by overbuilding per sq. ft. of land • increased traffic on Sousa Lane and Emanuel Court and speeding by employees and visitors to the hospital • employees loitering in Sterling Oak Court We believe that the hospital is adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhood. It is noncompliant with its use permit. The trailers need to be removed. All of these issues need to be addressed and remedied or the hospital should be moved to a different location. Their use permit clearly indicates that they are supposed to have a secure fence around the property, 47 parking spaces, and five foot landscaped strips along the rear and side fences. We are all concerned about the adverse effects the presence of the hospital is having on our safety, our security, and our property value. Sincerely • Neighbors of Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital Name Address Phone Number Si ature C~~~,S ~~ i~tS ` ~3~b51~C~„ilc~.~~~~,-Z. `1C~'66~-~`131 ~~ ;' ;; ,~..,. ~ ides ~~- t~ -1~ ~ ~331,S~-tc C,.~1~. ~ ~~. `!og- ~~~,_~3:~,3 t--~~. ~ ~: o~ct~ ~1l~s /~-~v3 ~i~e~l ~ o~ ~G ~iS'3 ~~s ,~.7 l v~ .~~v- ~ ~s ~ ~ ¢ b1 , n ,ra.\ 0 ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢- 3 ~' ~ v /~ I ~ z~ ~~,[ ~o~ 3 ~ - r~~zl iL ~ D "L ~(h~~„ ,3~l~ ~, ~ / ~J ' .. • • ~~ ~~ ~.,. Date: 7!:e, '_9 fitzr r.+ ~~: SF':~ , s"= ....,., .. , from: `[o^y vt.~" <i.,':yv~-. r" ;yaheo.~c~+~~~ ,~. UbjECL: ~Od2 ~')~6Yt?It*:E1L i9!' CIri dt; llCr v~v.^, tiZF'B ~QQc, =~0 7~ViQ TO: dyfGl~h,~G,'.58,^.,-i.O~~.c,:cin Ms. Ann Welsh Planning Commitiee b; Saratoc~. Uih' Dear Ms. Ann Welsh Print -Close V>find~ My name is Tony V~ , I am resident at :18573 Wmarue? CbUtf , 5afatooa , :;a g5v70 am sending you this ernai . aski„g if;r yc>,.rr ;;e.<~ is en?nfee ,he Cifif Codes ~~Ihich have teen VlDlated trolTt ~'~~ pLbrlie ;.i:^= t`'.E !Jth~?i Si:l~ ^~ ; ~v_ It@iUit}vrhC3. G;:, in this Emanuel Cc~.~It afeU, the f~;rce ,2:a•ar~c^: ~s anL next ~~~r -has been fcsrced down iaz order for the people o#tt-e other side- . easy access in anfi o~, trbYf dI58 Sif'e iu 'c.iia :ii~'.i:` S~u~. Since people shr~-; ;:~;..ii~5~i x!:rc::=?~ '€~!:.....,.... They creatA a lot.cf prohie:~r4 such a.~ -Glgarett tautts, ?faSISL~'S.'.`~8f Cctrl5,t'[C„z!!'Qf!r?{: L±1fi' c r~rs.. - My family car has reef: scrncher; a ~~E. -One time nesgttf?or r~r hav Len Lsrc;<en is; Saraiaya nev~~s) -Mai1 missing.. Dear N15. A;,n Welsh, i arr; insisting ycu to enieree the .,;t• ~:~*;ts i crrie:r ;c ke-Wr, otrr City the v~ay it should be, and help Iny nesgtzberheofi safe ane ,.! d,r; r°; d::filc'ifiCir`; i+1e fien~.e to be put back up 3ike it Should be. Thank y,:u ~tery mach `:if }~f±Ur u;:; ~rerr~. . Sincerely yours Tony Vu Tony Yu Direct.{4d8y 5~9-s438 Fax. {4fl8) 86fi-091£d Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yal~ocr! ;"rive€:. Dior c;':e i3~u ~:Rid~~s! ' j l t ~; ~c~z ~{;A ;~a'z 1 ~~ ma ? ~~ ~ti _ i tp:.• . z us. . ...,.., , . ;., ~:. . _~...., : c i 1 i _~....,~~_..._ .. -__. C ~~~G __73i -~~ .-- -b .._ .... ... 4,19r~..)~_ • • ~ ~~~~s 2 Aril 15 2005 ~~" P Carol and Don Walker 13345 McCulloch Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Committee, Attn: Ann Welsh Ann, We have been residents on McCulloch Ave since September of 1972. At that time, the facilit;~ behir!d our property was a very quiet rest home. Once tl,e facility beca~nc a hospital, the noise gradually increased so that now it is adversely impacting the neighborhood. The property is now overcrowded and overbuilt per sq. ft.. We have excess noise due to the dumpster, staff parties, car alarms and horns, and staff smoking in the back of the facility. Access from Emanuel Ct is not acceptable, is a safety hazard and security concern, and does not service the community. With oxygen storage tanks and drugs at the hospital, the public should not have access to the facility. We were never notified of the addition of a day health center, Scribbles & Giggles, storage sheds and two mobile homes. We feel this is a residential neighbor, not a trailer park, and should not be a trailer park. Our lovely backyard now views an unsightly trailer. We question whether the hospital has permits for its existing trailers, sheds, gazebo, oxygen tanks, and school at this facility. We don't believe the hospital is even serving this community but has patients from all over California.- We have concerns about the maintenance of the facility because we have had issues with our backyard being flooded because the hospital did not turn. off their sprinklers. Sincerely, Carol and Don Walk _ ~~ ~~%~~~ ~` • r February 27, 2005 Attn: Ann Welsh: Planning Committee Re: Sub Acute Saratoga Hospital and its application for a permit for a trailer Ann, I am enclosing photos of the trailer that was brought in to the Saratoga Sub Acute Hospital property on the morning of May 25th, 2004, photos as seen from our yard, family room and master bedroom and a petition signed by Saratoga residents opposed to the trailer. I am.also enclosing a letter I wrote to Steve Prosser protesting the trailer and outlining our complaints about noise and light pollution from the hospital itself and what I believe are applicable codes which are being violated. In 1961, this site was approved for building a convalescent home based on the fact that it would be essential to the city because many of its residents require or will require the use of such establishments. The objections of noise and deterioration of the neighbourhood for residential purposes were overruled. • At the time, the use permit called for five foot landscaping strips around the perimeter of the property and six foot board fences around rear and side yards. In spite of the fact that the use permit was renewed with the new owners of the property in 1975 and was reviewed in 1992 when the hospital applied for approval of Scribbles and Giggles (a day health center for children), there • is still no five foot strip of landscaping around the property. The landscaping is intended to be planted and permanently maintained with plant materials suitable for ensuring privacy, screening unsightliness and insulating adjacent properties against noise. What landscaping that does exist has been allowed to grow out of control so that our fence is being pushed down and our house endangered by an acacia tree. Also, as of April, 2003, there has not been a complete fence on the west side of the property. According to the use permit, there is supposed to be a secure fence at least six feet in height along the property lines adjacent to residential properties. The last I heard, the hospital was planning on building a fence which includes a gate. I believe that a fence with a gate is not a secure fence. If you take a look at the property line, you will see that there is a gap in the oleander where people, including teenagers, pass through the property, right past oxygen tanks. I object to a gate n that part of the fence due to security and safety reasons. The original use permit in 1961 was approved because it was thought that the convalescent home would not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighbourhood. I object to that assumption because the hospital has brought in oxygen tanks which impose a safety hazard to the neighbourhood and is piling garbage up near our property line. This pile of refuse is within twenty-five feet of our property line in violation of 15-19.020 (3). I also believe it imposes a health risk as it is composed of mattresses, toys, full garbage bags, what appear to be roofing materials, and who knows what else. With all the rain we've been having, this pile could be adversely polluting the soil and groundwater. There is a French drain in that corner of the property so all the water run-off from the rear parking lot drains into that section of the property. As far as safety concerns over the oxygen tanks, please read the enclosed article about the evacuation of a neighbourhood in Redwood City due to a valve breaking on an oxygen tank outside of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Redwood City. I would like to point out that the neighbours of the hospital were never notified that these oxygen tanks were being added to the hospital facility. 1 r ` • 1 r • Although the objections to noise and deterioration of the neighbourhood were overruled, I believe that the current state of affairs at the hospital give weight to the original complaints of those residents. The hospital is noncompliant with the use permit granted by the City of Saratoga. The hospital is bringing in and removing trailers without the proper permits from the city. The increased usage of the property due to the loss of off-site office space and the addition of Scribbles and Giggles has increased the number of cars parking at the facility whilst decreasing the number of parking spaces. Therefore, cars are double parking and are parking in front of the dumpster and the cardboard recycling bins. Furthermore, the cardboard recycling bin has been located in between the trailer and a storage locker and is blocking the exit path from the hospital for those confined to wheelchairs. The dumpster is emptied at least three times a week. The noise from the garbage pickup truck, the noise from the dumpster lid being slammed at all hours of the day and night, and the noise from car alarms and cars honking as people lock their cars is disruptive and adversely impacts the neighbourhood. The lack of proper maintenance for the landscaping is impacting our property by not only breaking our fence but by shifting our property line by pushing the entire fence in towards our yard. Because of the lack of a fence on the west side of the property, there is also the constant aggravation of people using the facility as a shortcut from grocery stores, leaving behind shopping carts at the end of Sterling Oak Court and near the garbage dumpster by our property line. If you look at the pictures I've enclosed, you will see proof of double parking, illegal parking (in front of dumpsters), and the pile of garbage and refuse that has been there since at least January 20, 2005 and is still there as of Feburary 25, 2005. Please note that according to exhibit A for file number UP-285 shows that the facility is supposed to have a minimum of 43 parking spaces, 21 in the front of the facility and 22 along the side and in the rear of the facility. I believe there are also supposed to be 4 other parking spaces as shown by exhibit B for file number UP-285. From the photos, you will also see that the new trailer is 20 feet longer than the old trailer and that a tree which would have provided some privacy to us and our neighbours was removed. You can also see that the new trailer is taller than the old trailer and that it has two very ugly and, most likely, loud air conditioning units on our end of the trailer. Please note that the "old trailer" refers to a construction trailer which was also brought on to the property with no permits. Jenny Chamberlain and her husband complained to the hospital about the old trailer and that trailer was moved further away from their property line and they were told that the trailer was supposed to be temporary. That was about 18 years ago. Carol and- Don Walker also believed that the old trailer was temporary as it was a construction trailer. When my husband and I bought our home, we believed that the trailer was temporary for that same reason and also thought that it was not too adversely impacting our home. However, the new trailer is longer and taller, with two very large air conditioning units right outside our master bedroom and the trailer can now be seen from our family room as well which is on the other side of our house! Please also note that garbage bags are left in front of the garbage dumpster, the wood frame built to keep the dumpster in place has broken, and that the dumpster is not always closed. Furthermore, my husband has witnessed a hospital employee jumping up and down in the garbage dumpster to compact the garbage! I would also like to point out that although we were told that the trailer was not to be used until the permit had been approved, the hospital has already completely filled it with medical supplies as evidenced by the enclosed photos. These photos also show another trailer which was brought in without a permit and is being used for office space. They also show two very large storage units. We believe the overall square footage that the hospital's buildings and trailers cover is exceeding the limits of the property. We believe the way the hospital is being used and maintained is adversely impacting the neighbours and the property value of the neighbourhood. We think the City of Saratoga should enforce the use permit, forcing the hospital to fix the light pollution, the garbage situation, the overuse of the facility, the lack of proper fencing, the noise r, '_ from car alarms and dumpster pick-up, the continued destruction of the fence on our property line, and the lack of maintained landscaping. We do not see any reason why the dumpsters cannot be located at the front of the facility by the sound wall or why the lights can't be shaded so they don't illuminate our entire house and yard. We want the damage to our fence repaired and the landscaping strip planted and maintained. We want the acacia tree to be cut back and cropped. We want the most recent trailer to be removed and believe that the planning committee should consider the removal of the other trailer of equivalent size' that was also brought on to the facility without a permit. We also believe that the foot traffic through the property due to the lack of a fence along one section of the property should be stopped by the building of a complete fence with no gate. We believe the modification in use of this facility from a quiet convalescent home to a busy children's hospital and daycare facility deserves a reexamination on the part of the planning committee as to its adverse impact on the neighbourhood. This is supposed to be a hospital, not a trailer park and garbage dump! Sincerely ~' 9~~'_'" ,..~ !~ Chris and eresa Mill ~~ f~ • • REDWOOD CITY /Block evac ated after leak /Liquid oxygen valve br~cs at Kaiser Page 1 of 2 Quick Search ~~'ttl ~rtltttisfp (~jralttirlr REDWOOD CITY Block evacuated after leak ` Liquid oxygen valve breaks at Kaiser Chronicle Staff Report Tuesday. January 78, 2005 • Printable Version Firefighters evacuated aone-block • Email This Article area of Redwood City on Monday night for nearly three hours after a ~ ~~~ valve broke on a large tank of liquid ~~ oxygen at the Kaiser Permanente Bacl< to Healtn Medical Center, authorities said. About 30 office workers were ordered to leave the area and the hospital emergency room was closed, Redwood City Fire Chief Gerry Kohlmann said. The leak began at 6:54 p.m. when the valve snapped while workers were performing routine maintenance on the 6,000-gallon tank, which was nearly half full. There were no injuries. Hospital patients and staff remained inside the building while firefighters allowed the gas to vent into the atmosphere. Ambulances were diverted to other facilities. Kohlmann said the leaking gas could have caused any open flame to flare dangerously. Firefighters summoned PG&E workers and asked them to turn off furnace pilot lights in the area. - About 50 firefighters were on the scene at the west side of the hospital complex, at Marshall and Walnut streets. Page- B - 3 Donate your car to Habitat for Humanity Your car donation helps build homes with families in need Habitat for Humanity Cars for Homes Bay Area Place an OnSale ad About OnSale View All OnSale Ads ,, ~.. ,,., ;- -. ,~ ~~ ~. ~! .- • SFGATE HOME BUSINESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT CLASSIFIEDS [Advanced Sea T i J)n1 ~~n r~tM~ r~i ,.: ~>~- -.. -.. ff77 ~~ ., ~ ). • ~~~ ~~z.,1e~ ne.r'~.rm~~-'I-~ n!~_r:; I,l-+-~''1~'~-may `' . ~ .. _- ~- . 'J ~: ~ ;~~ . -. ..-r_-~-i. ': ~_ ~ _ ~r''-' C - 4 -~ . • y •t.' t-# ~ J. r ~. ~ -~~ ~ 4 ~: ~ :L. n _ }. ~ ~`.~_ . L- t r. ~ :- r .: {+~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ti 4 _.._ _ -_-- -.. 1\~ --- - .. _- - i ~ 1/ .. ~ .: ~- _ ~'..~. i Y .. • ~ ~~ 7i, • • • i~ • • A'~ - ~ ~~- z } ~ o. << _ & - - < ~~ ,R; a m . ~ + `~ I C ~ ~ _ . ~ , fi I t„ ~ 4 ':~~,-. -. • • • • ~; ~c" ~n S ,. ~ __ C` ~X ;1 ~ ~.~ ~ (n ~ (/ ~o c ~ ~ ~ J °p' C ~a G .x 1 't..~ c ~. .~ O 6- • X G ., 0 '~' L • i • ~i • j 0 r N ;~ ~~ _, ~_ ~. -. ~Y fi s Q -, ,` ~../ . ~:~ l~1 ~~: r7 _: 1 _-. f ~. ~ ~11 .~.. v. ~~~, l ~~ v ~~:,: ~- ~ ~"=K- "~'' .. *- .~ s:~i _'~ aa3~~' _ r-s~ _ a .~u-~ ,. ,i "°~, . ._ , r .. _ .a_ _ ~ ~ _ '. vim, Fr -i3 .. xM- ~~' -'+ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' !~ If ~ ' .t- •M;y ~ 3 i 3 ~ .F ,. _ __ N .. ~ 7 V L , _. __ v. ~ .. __ .. CJ '~ _ <. ~' ' ~. ~~ - ~ _ V r,., ~, ~~ . • • • ~~ :~ tC b ~~ V~ N n l^ W .~rl . • .t ii /fir >• ~~ V' L r • August 3; 2004 M Dear Anne Welch, We have tried to work with the hospital on the trailer which they have placed in the back yard. Unfortunately, they have not addressed our concerns about noise from the air conditioning units. We are not convinced that the lights in the trailer will be turned off at night. Also, we discussed ways of obscuring the trailer from sight. However, the hospital was unwilling to agree to plant trees that were already at least 10 feet tall. It is our opinion that even if there are plants there to obscure the trailer, we would have blocked light coming in to our back yard. We do not believe we can come to an agreement with the hospital on these issues. We are still opposed to the approval of a permit for this trailer and respectfully request that the planning commission deny the permit. Sincerely, ~. Chris and Teresa Mills iu) ~6[~~I~[~ r~ AUG 0 3 2004 U CITY OF SARATOGA • ,~ u 07/06/2004 14:27 FA% 408 369 8~ Rebecca Cohn Assembly Member, 2+4i6 District 9q1 Campisi Way, Suite 300 Campbell, CA 95408 04/08/04 ASSEMBLYMEbiBER CORN ~ 003 [a pie) Fa,>,,.J~ ~e 12E: tlssistarice on getting a municipal code enforced Dear Ms. Cohn. This letter is written to request your help to coxltact Saratoga City officials to enforra the usage perrt~It, have Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital build a secure fence as rcquixed by law alone the property lines adjacent to residential properties oz: Emanuel Court. Home owners on the street have~coatacted Saratoga Cliy officers regarding fence around the Sub-Acute lIospit~il multiple tames duziag tho last couple of years, A lettex to the city requesting tv enforco the law was put together and signed by 6 neighbors ui October oP 2003. Vic were told by the city officers is December of 2003 that s contract has beets signed and a fence will be built as weather permits. However, nothing has been built aS of today and the city officials we contacted became very icupatieat wk~en we bring the issue to them again. • There has been no fence over 3 years between the Sub-Acute Saratoga )Hospital and Emanuel Court. The once quiet cul de sac syrca leas been used by hospital employees to take breaks and visitors of the hospital also go through Emanuel Court to the hospital instead of using Sousa Lane. If oily has laws on fence around the hospital, it need to be enforced at ail times, This hospital can stay out of the law for a long time and city officials do not e~nfoi~ce the law even when requostcd by muldple residents, then to protect the rights or Saratoga residents, Che hospital should not be allowed to operate in the city, Your help ore getting this matter to the Saratoga City officials and see to It gets resolved wi!! be greatly appreciated, if more Information is needed, please feel free to contact us. ice ly ; • r Ja fkte ~` ~ncl, Copies of municipal code vsolation notlee from Stuatoga Clly to Sub-Acute hospital dated on 4/l4/03 and letter to Saratoga Community director on 10/23/03 • 10 'd 'ON XOd W~ 9Z:ti NOW ~ooa-lz-Nnr Yahoo! Mail - mills_teresa~a,~oo.com ~~I-j~(~~ MAIL Date: Sat, 3 ]ul 2004 18:34:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Teresa Mills" <mills_teresa@yahoo.com> Subject: our concerns/complaints To: "Steve Prosser" <sprosser@saratoga.ca.us> Dear Steve, Page 1 of 4 Print -Close Window Outlined in this letter are our complaints to the Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital about the trailer as well as our other concerns. We have included sections of code which we think may or may not apply. We are concerned about noise from the air conditioning units, loss of privacy from the windows overlooking our yard and master bedroom, extra foot traffic contributing to more noise, light pollution from the lights shining into our yard and our master bedroom, loss of skyline, garbage ending up in our back yard due to the dumpster being too close to our fence, and loss of property value as a result of the loss of skyline. With regards to the HVAC (air conditioning) units on the end of the trailer, we are concerned there will be noise pollution. There are two units which, as well as being an eyesore, will most likely affect our ability to sleep with the windows open as they are located close to our master bedroom. Applicable code: 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. We believe that the trailer is too tall and is located too close to our fences. The windows clear the fence causing a loss of privacy in our back yard as well as in our master bedroom. As it is going to be used for rehab as well as office and meeting space, we are concerned about extra foot traffic contributing to more loss of privacy and noise. Applicable code: 15-20.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yards, 15-12.100 Height of structures, and 15- 80.030(d)(1)and (2). This is a residential zone but considering that it is a commercial property, they should at least have to abide by the standards set for commercial properties that border residential zones which include: 15-19.020 General regulations (e) which states that no required yard shall be used for a loading area or for storage. We believe there are several violations under 15-19.020 (f) which include not planting landscaping to ensure privacy, screen unsightliness and insulate adjacent properties against noise. Also under 15-19.020(f)(3), all outdoor trash containers and garbage areas shall be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufficient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage containers shall be placed or kept within twenty-five feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit. . We believe that the dumpster should be placed at least 25 feet from our fence and enclosed in a walled enclosure. This would prevent garbage from the hospital, which may be considered biohazardous waste from ending up in our back yard. Even if there is an argument that this facility does not need to abide by the commercial code, there are codes covering off street parking facilities such as what abuts our back yard. Code 15-35.040 Design standards for off- street parking facilities clearly states that if the parking area is illuminated, lighting shall not exceed one hundred foot lamberts and shall be deflected away from adjoining residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare. We suffer from lights illuminating onto the parking facility which shine into our bedroom window at night causing an annoying glare. The lights also light up our back yard. Also, 15-35.040 (i) states that there should be a five foot strip of landscaping maintained along the property line. The hospital has clearly not done this. We have pointed out that there is a tree that has grown too large too close to our fence so that it is breaking our fence and bowing the fence so that the property line is affected. To this date, nothing has been done to rectify the problem with the tree or the dumpster. There are also car alarms being set off at all hours of the day and night. Yahoo! Mail -mills teresa(a~v~ioo.com • Page 2 of 4 We are concerned about loss of property value due to extra noise, loss of view, and loss of privacy. I have included the sections of code to which I referred. Sincerely, Chris and Teresa Mills 13365 McCulloch Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 7-30.070 Exhaust fans. All exhaust fans and mechanical equipment shall be enclosed for the purpose of soundproofing, subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. Exhaust fans lawfully constructed prior to August 2, 1991, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Director no later than two years from the date of notice from the City to the owner. (Ord. 71.92 § 1 (part), 1991) Article 15-12 R-1: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 15-12.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yards. (a) The minimum yard requirements for all lots in the R-1 district, are as follows: (5) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R-1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table: District First floor Rear Yard Second floor Rear Yard R-1-10,000 25 ft. 35 ft. R-1-12,500 25 ft. 35 ft. R-1-15,000 30 ft. 40 ft. R-1-20,000 35 ft. 45 ft. R-1-40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. 15-12.100 Height of structures. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed fifteen feet in height; provided, however, the Planning Commission may approve of an accessory structure extending up to twenty feet in height if the Commission finds and determines that: (1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and (2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Yahoo! Mail -mills teresa~a,~oo.com ~ Page 3 of 4 This is a residential zone but considering that it is a commercial property, they should at least have to abide by the standards set for commercial properties which include: Article 15-19 C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 15-19.020 General regulations. The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Section 15-05.055(a) of this Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts: (2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance, detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard of fire or explosion. (e) Yards. No use shall occupy any required yard, except fences, walls, hedges, landscaped areas, walks, driveways and parking areas. No required yard shall be used for a loading area or for storage. (f) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) Where a site is adjacent to an A, R-1, HR, R-M or P-A district, a solid wall or fence six feet in height shall be located along the property line between the two districts, except in a required front yard, and an area five feet in depth adjoining such property line shall be landscaped and permanently maintained with plant materials suitable for ensuring privacy, screening unsightliness and insulating adjacent properties against noise. (2) Open storage of materials and equipment shall be permitted only within an area surrounded and screened by a solid wall or fence (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall or fence. (3) All outdoor trash containers and garbage areas shall be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufFcient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage containers shall be placed or kept within twenty-five feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit. An owner or occupant of a commercial establishment shall comply with the requirements of this subsection within sixty days after receiving a directive from the City to do so. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this subsection (f), the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission may require the installation of a solid fence or wall up to eight feet in height along any property line that abuts a residential district, upon a determination that such fence or wall is necessary to mitigate noise or other adverse impacts of the commercial activity upon the residential use. In the case of an existing commercial development, such fence or wall shall be installed within sixty days after the requirement is imposed by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, unless a longer period of time is allowed by the Director or the Commission by reason of extenuating circumstances, including, but not limited to, the installation cost of the new fence or wall, or the value of any existing fence or wall to be demolished, or the cost of removing any existing fence or wall. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, based upon a finding that the design, color and materials of the fence or wall will not adversely affect contiguous properties. Yahoo! Mail - mills_teresa cr,~oo.com • Page 4 of 4 15-35.040 Design standards for off-street parking facilities. Off-street parking facilities shall comply with the following standards: (h) If the parking area is illuminated, lighting shall not exceed one hundred foot lamberts and shall be deflected away from adjoining residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare. (i) Where a parking area is located adjacent to, or directly across a street or alley from, an A, R-1, HR or R-M district, a landscaped strip not less than five feet in depth shall be planted and permanently maintained along the property line with plant materials not less than five feet in height; except, that within fifty feet from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, the plant materials shall not exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. 15-80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. The following special rules shall apply to certain accessory uses and structures in any A, R-1, HR, R-OS or R-M district: (d) Enclosed accessory structures. No enclosed accessory structures shall be located in any required yard of any lot, except as follows: (1) Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15-55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. (2) Subject to approval by the Community Development Director, garden sheds, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and other enclosed structures of a similar nature, not exceeding two hundred fifty square feet in gross floor area, may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed six feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. This subsection shall not apply to any structure intended or used for the keeping of animals. Do you Yahoo!? New and Imeroved Yahoo! Mail - 100M6 free storage! • • 13J5~'~cCulloch Ave Sa~ra/~toga, Ca. 95070 t:~f 1rV~ Subacute Saratoga Hospital 13425 Souza. Lane Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mr. Zarcone • 1 have reviewed the project plans and I feel the proposed structure invades the privacy of adjacent property owners. It should be removed or relocated to another location on your property where the windows do not look dawn into the backyards of your neighbors. A possible new location could be on the front of the prapert3 next to the highway $5 sound wall. Thank you M.r. & R4rs. James P. Chamberlain. • .7 07/06/2004 14:27 FA% 408 a69 8174• ASSEMBLYMEMBER CORN • City of Saratoga ~lltention: Mr. Tom Sullivan Director of Community Development 13777 Fruitvalc Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 10/23/03 RE: Fence around Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital hear Tom: • This letter is written to request your help to enforce the usage permit and enable Sub- Acute Saratoga Hospital to build a secure fence alone the property lines adjacent to re9idential properties on Emanuel Court. Thcrc has been no fence over the past 3 years between tlia Snb-Acute Saratoga Hospital and Emanuel Co~ufi. Tho onto quiet cul de sac area has been Used by hospital employees to take breaks and vlsltors of the hospital also. go through Eu~anuel Court to the hospital instead of using Sousa Lane. It also has Uecame a busy thoroughFare for• students going to and fxoaxt school. • We look forward to seeing the hospital comply with the City code and a proper fence be built ilt the near future. If we can provide more information about the situation, please feel free to Contact us. 5incci~cly, cc: Mayor Streit f~ 004 EO 'd 'ON X~~ I,>Ei 9Z:1j NOW b00Z-IZ-Nflf . o~ ' ~Tefgtebur NatilYication Template 1'or [ / ~eveiopment Applfcatious Uate: ~ . f O~ DIiFSS: ~~~°~~ ~GY~tSa ~~~. p1tOJEC , ~f O ,p B Applicant ~1'ame: ~Gt,f> ~` C~ ;Application Nuzxtber: LQQratnga' plnnni~g Commission req~+ires applicants t ~iootk~sw rio to he evening o, f The address issues and mncerns regarding development ~P ~ Comm~sinn does not look the public hearing oTt the proposed protect. The planning avorably uppri neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by f tic hearing. Staff and ~ Planning Commission prefer. that applicants p?or ~ ~P''b Tess an concerns or issues they may have directly neiglZbo~'s nuke this o,pportunfty to exp y to the appl= . ple~e z'E t7ae signature on t3Zts document is represeniative of ali ,~j7especrive of the opinion e~cpressed below you resid~tis residing vet yuitr property may reser-ve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to e City of Sararogd. I havc rcvicwod the InOJ°Gt P1tun5;1 ^My Si~ature below certifies the following rand the sco a ot'work• and I do NOT Gave and' Concerns °r issues wbicdh noel d s ublic hc~ssng an rho prapv p J. to be address by the apgiict;ut prior to rho City' p I haYC rcvicwcd flit project playas; Y My signature below oortxfxes the following wbieln ai'ter discussion _--, ~ _~ °= ---pe of work; and I have issues or cco Cc~ are the following (p]caso with the ap~icant, have not been addressed. My attach additional sheets if necessary)' f j~~ ~~ ~~~~///¢Q.-.~_,.~ G~ :~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ f l~~/~~ N~,~bor N ~ Neigxiba~r A~dzess: • d ' ~(,,~ ~~ .~`~' ~~~ Qi~bor Phone #: '/'~' . prinlcx7,: .3~y - yi~~ sq~+.t.tuc: ' ~ ~ L~~~~ ~ od j ~" f ~" , ~l~"JL _ ~////{{~~ ~ ~7 ~ n : ing;,Departrrzent . City of Saratoga (~~' ~~ Neig>t~bur No~I~icatfion Template for Development Appllcatious . Applicant S~l'ame: ~G(~j mod" -e ~q I~~ l0 ~C ~ ~ /~~ ~.,Cli''1~.~~~- d~ App~,catian Number: . . ~7se Saratng~z Plnnning Commission reg~ires crpplieants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior ro the evening o• f the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission dc~P.s not look favorably ttpan neighbors who jail to voice their concerns and rssues when solicfred by applicants prior to the public hearing, Stafj'and the Flanning Commission prefer. that - • neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is r'eprasentutzve ofctll residcvzts residing oic your property. Irrespective of the opinion expresseu! below, you ~ . may reserve the right to amend' your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the L~fy of .Saratoga.. ^My sig~atuY•e below eErtifies the following: I bavo xcvicrvod the pxojcct lans• I P s understand the scope of ~t-ork; and Y do NOT have any conce~'7gS or issues wb~Ch need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed yroject. • ^lk(y sx~ture below eeati~es the following; I have reviewed the project plans; Y understand the scope of work; and X have issues or concenus, wlr-ch after ~iiscussian with fhc applicant, bawc not been addressed.- My concerns arc the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): • Neighbor I~amc- ' L ~+' ~ ~ ~ - ~'•~~ .~ ~" Neighbor Addiess: -~' '~'- ~ • G!.~._-_.! ~,C~.•-- Neighbor Phone #: ~~ r ~ o ~ 1 . ~ ~i Sil;nnltac: ~ ~- ~ Pziulccl: ~~~ ,~~ --~ uc rtif ~~ t' /~ City o, f Saratoga Planning pepartmer~t :. • 1~reigLbur Natlflcation Template 1'or ' Development Applications ' Dom: ~ 1 o y~ , PROJLC'1' ADDRESS:~3S/~S_ S'ol~Sa ~-rn-Q __ AppYicant ~1'ame: ~G~ ~ ~r~ 2~S ~T /~'l /CiP ~~rcoa~e. A.pp~ication I~iumber: , The SaratngaPlanning Commission requires applicants to ~ti~ork with thew neigl:boys to address issues and Concerns regarding development applications prior is the evening- of the public hearing on the proposed project. The planntng Commission rXces not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearir~. Stafjr'and the Planning Commissions prefer. that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the upplicatst. Please ensure the signatclr~e on this document is represe~stative of all ,~sid~~:s residing uic your pTOperty. ~rrespeCtzve of the opinion expressed below. you mc{y reserve the right to amend your opinion at a lacer date and cornrntsnicate rt co Ilse Cky of Saratoga. • OMy si~at~re heIow oertifi~ the following: I have rcr>iewcd the project plans; I understand the scu~e of work; and X do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address~by the applicang prior to the City's pub2xo hc~ing on the proposed project. ~My sigiature below certifies the following: I have reviewed floc project plans; I understand the scoge of v~-or - and Y Gave issues or concerns, which after discussion ~vitb the app)~i~tat, har-e not been addressed: My coacesas arc the follawing (please ~ttaah additional sheets if necessary): Ncig~bor Name: d o's~~ s ~- .a ~ ~Qt-t.~e ~ •~•~4. ~e ~G ~ •- Neighbor Address: 1335s" ~ ~c,~-~a~~ ~~~r ,~~~ ~~ ~ ~SrO 20. Neighbor Phone #: ~4 `~ `3 ~ ~ `"~ 3 ~ • • ~~ ~ rf l a ~~GOe u~c ~tl` ~ r`te'- /Ul~c.~?ael ~~Zam~~LL//Z~ ~~dc~c, ~f~9'1n .Planning Department Si~~srC: princcd: ... 13355 McCulloch Ave Saratoga, Ca. 95070 7n~o4 Subacute Saratoga hospital 13425 Souza Lane Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mr. Zarcone I have reviewed the project plans and I feel the proposed structure invades the privacy of adjacent property owners. lt.should be removed or relocated to another location on your property where the windows do not look down into the backyards of your neighbors. A possible new location could be on the front of the property ngxt to the highway 85 sound wall. Thank you Mr. 8Z Mrs. James P. Chamberlain. 1 r • • • NeigLUur llto~tit3cation Template for ~3eveIopment .Applications t Uate: / Lsc PRO.IE ADDRESS: 3 ~r~~ 5`~u,s~ ~,~n ~ r} Applicant :~tiame: 1 ,~ s~z ~. /c-P~,;~. ~~'t'~t Application Nurrtber. ?7te $amtoga 7'tn~ning Commission requires rrp,Filicanu to work with their neiglihc»'s ro address issues and concerns regarding development applietttiorts prior to the evening o}' the public hearing on the proposed project. The PIanning Commiesi~n r.'oP.s not look favorably upon neighbors -who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicitedvy applicants prior tv the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission. prefer. that neighbor`s-take this opportunity to express any eoncer~s ar issues rl:ey mciy have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the s oanatnre on this document is representative ofult ret=dents resia'irtg vn your praperry. Irrespective o, f the opinion exnrassect below,-you may-reserve the right to amend your opinion at u later date and cornsunicate it to the Cr1ji of Sirratoga. LlMy signature below certifies the following: I have rcvicrvcd the projcet plans; I understand the-scope of work; and Z do NOT have ans~ concerns or issues wlxich-need to- be address by the applicant prior to the City`s public hcariag on the proposed project; C!;M si . elute below certifies the following: I have reviewed tlic project plans; ~ Y ~' understand the scope of work; and T Lave issues or concerns, wbeb after discussion tivith the applicant; have not been addressed. My concerns are the following {please attach additional sheets. if necessaryy): 1 i rs t ~~,'1 Z r. +? j(! ~!~ C,r3't ~ (~~t ~'T• {4_ 7 ~'~' S ~4 ~ /~ ~ ' ~ ~f -t-'1 • ~,.. r=~ < ~ i`, f,~ ~ ~ 't1~v j,~zc~/', ~C ~C;; fir/-~'LJI,~~~ 'lC ;~,, o,~. ~~ Neir~hLor?vame: '" . Neighbor Address: ~; ~ 1 ~..~ _ ...... ~. Neighbor Phone ~: t-i~~i 4~~6_ ~~~~~ ~ ' $ignaturC: 1'rir~ictl: ,• .. .~ ~{~~ ,.~ ~ - ~ ~~ City o f,~•atoga Planrtiri e~r~~ 0 JUL 0 6 2004. CITY OF SARATOGA ~, •r~-rn~tTY DEVELOPMFr!~ • • ` - Neighbor Notif~catSon ~'empiate for - - AeveIopment Applications Date: ~ ! !? ~ P~or~c Dxl?ss: ~3 Y~.S SotirsR ~~ ~ Applicant Name: ~. - ~ti(-P m Application Nurrcaber: Tfte Saratoga Plrt~ning Commission requires applicants to svor)r with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commicsinn r?nes not leak favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer. that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may Izave directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing urc your property. Irrespecttve of the opinion expressed below, you .may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. - ^My signature below certifies tine following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ndersta d the scope of work; and Y do NOT have any concerAS or issues wbieh need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~1VIy sigmature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I erstand the sco a of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion and U with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns arc the folloving (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~~ ?~ ~: Neighbor Name: _ JUL ;~ ~ ~~Q$ Neighbor Address: CITY 0~ 3n,;~:; yt;~; i $ _. o l6~ Nei bor Phone #: `- "~ ~ ~~ Prit~lC~l: • Planning Department City of Saratoga ~' • ~. Sub-Acute Saratoga 13425 Sousa Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Michael Zarcone, Outlined in this letter are our complaints to the Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital about the trailer as well as ow other concerns. We are concerned about noise from the air conditioning units, loss of privacy from the windows overlooking our yard and master bedroom, extra foot traffic contributing to more noise, light pollution from the lights shining into ow yard and ow master bedroom, loss of skyline, and loss of property value as a result of the loss of skyline. With regards to the HVAC (air conditioning) units on the end of the trailer, we are concerned there will be noise pollution. There are two units which, as well as being an eyesore, will most likely affect ow ability to sleep with the windows open as they are located close to ow master bedroom. We believe that the trailer is too tall and is located too close to ow fences. The windows clear the fence causing a loss of privacy in our back yard as well as in ow master bedroom. The trailer blocks our skyline and is made more intrusive by the color scheme. As it is going to be used for rehab as well as office and meeting space, we are concerned about extra foot traffic contributing to more loss of privacy and noise. In addition to our objections to the trailer, there are other issues we would like addressed. There is excessive noise and light pollution from the parking facility. Car alarms are being set off at all hours of the day and night, people have conversations at three in the morning, and there is glare from the parking lot lights which cause an annoying glare in ow back yard and master bedroom. Furthermore, we often find garbage from the dumpsters in ow back yard. The dumpster should be placed at least 25 feet from our fence and enclosed in a walled enclosure to prevent garbage from ending up in ow yard and to mitigate noise from garbage collection. There should be a five foot strip of landscaping maintained along the property line. The hospital has clearly not done this. We have pointed out that there is a tree that has grown too large too close to ow fence so that it is breaking our fence and bowing the fence so that the property line is affected. To this date, nothing has been done to rectify the problem with the tree or the dumpster. We are concerned about loss of property value due to extra noise, loss of view, and loss of privacy. Sincerely, Chris and Teresa Mills 13365 McCulloch Ave Saratoga, CA , 95070 .~ ~O D V L _ s £ ~~ .~ A °E ;•~~ ! u l E ~ z ~ as a C/~ ~" ~ `~ ~ ~ ru.n ~ d ~ a a -~ c - G p ~ a. ~ ~ ~ n, ~ ~s~ O ~ ~ ~ N I."j .. v ~ "z "z t ~ ~ = € ~~ ~~'= ~ c ~~ 5 5 5 5 5 - ~~ ~;- z ~< -I ~ U ~° ~ .. ~ L o ~ L E L _. L ~ z , ~q~~~~ ^J ~ a ~ _ ~ 2 ~r ~ ~ i F U ~ ~ }' .'~ e c - '. - - ~~S<<'~~~>u ~ Vii ll- ~ U L" ~r~~~~~5~ W cl f ° S ~ E [er-~~u~_ Z G o C °s?a~~: E - x t;;c F~ N ~ u: N~ ~~ 5 5 G N~~ ~~~ arr ' n C' A ~ w 7C~ . ~ `r. C ~ w ~ ~ a~ ~c,~~c cS,z ~z x U ~ N~ ~4az ~~ ~~ a ~ ~ [-w I Sy ~ a .~C ` yam' O W x y s Z { w F-<€ ~ u. CC G O < CC $ ~ W < oL Iwil ~ y C<~ ~ C j k~ G ~c ~ ° ~' C ~ L ~ y • ~ C z C w $Q 0` ' yy f-~ <<; c-c5x O<~~© ~p z ;'i~ ~ ~'u~Z v_']<L=~aF ~ ~w z ro ~°,~~^ ~ ~ ~ ..~w " w p. m~ Cd \ XC 2J(' _~j (+ C o< wF nvi ~ Ly (~ ~N., r U ~ ar" S 7 P^+a`z m ~w ~ ; ~^ ; a . . Zvi v ~ x wv, ~ C~c ~~a~ zC< ~ f= x ~ L 2 f-"c"z b « CN V ~7 7 ~ c.. ^C .~`u~ ~v:w y-c. ... ,.G C < < c~Wr a5 w° ern w~~ z ~ Z T ~ ~G ~. n' ^ 5:a. .~.r SC x xw x x~ ~ iG . <v ... F V ~ NNOGu; cS 7 .~g1Cm'cC:~ d "c ~ ' + ~ ~-+ O "'CSC (n ¢N5 w° ~wr O ~ z~ ~ w Ca .~.~ zw F G,°c ~N 4 EZVE w~ Gi X zm ag ~C ggw `~~wF < ~ w r^ V ; ~ yyo ~ z c ~ UGC ~tC ~C ~ ~~w u: '1 z ~ z ~_ was .~ NE w wy ~ °' ~ ac °: wrd a w r 2 U ~ ° z S i. rv v <~ ~ ~ ~••~ .7 x 1"; z z c O - ~61 S~w 5 ~ ,/ z~ow x CT: y~ ~ rr--~~ tiJ ~ C C~z < _ °e _ .-. o x wS wN Ar ~o~ 5~C< wF x ZF<<- .-~. ^ n`i~pN~" ~ F~ Oa CZ ~ ~ N ~ u: .. 0 < C < < pe C U oc v<`i~ < ~N c.C'O- ~~r v-~r x< .•.`~ v Nca. :.. (<-N G ~vf"i S C" C a`" ~ ~'w Cw z`w ~- C << S r~ ~ ~ C ^ ~... _~ ~~~, CCCC ~c r[w ~~aC~Gt~iC<x ~ ccc ! ' ~ W ~ Cwv, u. c.7r GL k'~,., ~v' C% ( C Ww < v. 7 K C C Cw rC' ~x a FS~ ~ ' ~ ~ v x w . Y C~ Z. Z Zt- Z x is Z ~ Z w.. ''_ °~ ~~" zy xz~' « ~w j~ .,C 7 ~~:^C.-i " ' t C ~C CCZ C ~ c J w2 wc- z ~~E " ~ FC wF k- . ~- `C w~ w~ w~U~4cU .~ y x rY• ~ F F ~ DSO ae p at r ~ rare^ oXC cacCG[ c'S~ L~ <~ ~`S" <C~z <~~ <~ <~ [- ~ ' < ` ` ~ ~.`<'~ S , Z Z .v - 1 ~~~~v~Fi ~_~_~~< ' ~~F < Z~ <59~~ r~ ~ i _zw r ~z 7 N L J FN .;c .., ~Fw 6t%G ... NN p ^ w ! ^,~C p ' ~ c. ^.t w cw c ^ C < w F< F C C w FC C rX ~ zSc ~ x~ x wwww caw F 7 NCu° F mc , ... . . .. - v~ . -. ~~~/jC( I I 1 1 Z I ~ ~ C " 1 ~F 1 <~ y ~ llx~ ,zc ' ~~ r„ ~1 ?•~ d h~ G Yf: § ~, o O •"r' "~ c" ~ I a~ ~ x_G~,..~5 1 .y2 ~ ~ i-Q ~ ~ ~ ~~p~t9i1C PROS ~ ~ ~ i ~` ~ _ 1 J ~ '~. ~ ~ ~' te," s ~ l ~„ ~ r U - - V j - - ~ J N - "E 16:18 ~ ~ _ - 1~ ' § 4AOYERN 1 ~ ~~ ~ ° r ~ ' c~ ~ ~ d ~ y - ~ 0 - o r LDG „D~~ bo'a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GQ Z ~' G ~ (n . Z (~ ~ ~ A ° N c+1 cl .~ ~ - ~11nG 20oFftCFS 1l' ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ° w~ ~sw° F7C15 t ,, s dODti7AA '~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ (~ ~ Q ~ `..), ~ p Sy ~ ` ~ ' y~i ~ ~ 1 49 1 ZOC S.F. 47 4S ~ Q ~ ~ ~A N ,, ~ . W ~~ar z :fig • ~, y _ f -If- ~< ` D P G e , q.~ q. b. 46 7 ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ W = - ~._.~- 1 ° ' K_ . 4 65 P O ~ xz -- Z. PL . n ~ ~~ F ~ - ., ~ a: c' ~ ~ e tta oea 50 . A ~5-- !~~ e b~ ~~J i -- I . b rn ~~- 4 ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - N AFB' ~ ZC F°~a' _ 1 ~I ~ !i - :": -1 _~__ y aG <~, ~ U? x ~ i _ ma r ~ry.~0 sF zz `~ ~ ` 7 1 1 ~ma us "' F z i-i1ZS~ Of 6Z 8Z Lb 9Z SZ bZ ~ i U g 14 fI ~.,.~ 1 y_~. -I ~ ~I i F ~ rT, I~ •y ~` 6 ~ " ~ I '^ I`V~~I M I w ~ w 1~' ~ C ~ O d¢ tld 00 ~ W Q ~ ~¢ ~ ~c ~ U I i~ la7cci~x ,-.~ "' A y ~ tip CJ ~ s a `a .jy`` ~ F ~1 ~ aF rl ' o ` ~ W w ~ ` s ° ~ c c z ~ I o ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ¢ 1' I c saa.siY ~ ~ ap U ~ o i '~ L ~~ .~ c Q ~I :~J~ r--~ Cn a~, I z °1 ~ I ~ c ~ ~ ~ `°- ~_ Gw~ Zz W 4 ~~~Qt W ~I b Z:~' ++ qr O v ~ ~f 6~ ~ j W Z LL61 b L~ v U ~ c~ ua: ~ ~ .1 F F a Ld. b ` 1 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 e `" 3` t' ~ x w b _ r ~ O yR y h ~ _ r ee----~~ v `~ ...:'f:::::i::::i::::i't..::.:~:.t ~ :.:: ......::.Y:::i:::::::::::::::i.: C ~ S Y` % . ~ ~ ~ x ~ 1 ~ L =g~ 1~ ¢ a,s B z~ l ~~~~~~~ z~ ~ w i'~y~ S I .~ ~~y ~ x I S ~_ _ ~ Z<Y!<- Q ~ S PaOPE ~ i :J T ~Z § § ~ a ~~ u ~ ~ .: GG Y ~ `' a~7 %9 ~~' z ~~ ~G ~~ =' ~ ~ y r¢ S ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ ~ ~„ ~c< ' ~ F -. N j~!J <~ '^~ g~ a~ = x ti^ ~ g c ~ m z4J ~:. ~ 7'$`<_~-"'~~`.~ ?7L'7 ~+7. xt ~4t. ~ ~ t ^ z ~r~ F~ u~'.f"V c ~aa ~~ ~ - - -- C ~~4 ' . air Z: ~ w~ c~cz~ ~ .a F~<z }R'd ;e3~y ' ' ~~ ~ ~~~F ~'3 m~ G ~~zC~<r~ "snr^ :2 yv r'3y~y~u~ ~ ~t r.6 Q~P r~lL "~~ Y~ U Z ~Fc ~<~ s :~_5 Od ay<'S w'r~ j ~ ' 2 1 C 1 X ~L4 ._ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ci C G ~ ~ ~9~ z £ r s w p ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ < ~ y a sr ~ e S ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ v O ` E < E 5 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ,. F.~ ~ .. 3 I 2 ~ ~r (~ c s e e ~ E c a = ~~~z °~ r- iF a ~ ~ i a 2 4 c c _ Ex l ~ ~ f ~~i d~~~~ Vi S ~ s ~ ~I l c =1 d _ ~~~_<~j ~ e ~: ~ ? ~ 8 f ^3 f ~ 6 3 ~ ~ _ ~30 ~~c ~~o z~de "zf~ ~?ee~ _ ai~3 mz~3 YPOO CCZ.. Fc<~ ZV°O CKZ .. F~<m Zv°G v..CZ.. F~<m Z¢P2 OKZo F~<~ _ _ c ~ m~ -~__ ___ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _~.~m~--_.. ~' - _ _ ____ - _ _ _ ~ c _ ~ _ _. _ _ ~_~~.m.c-._ ' -_ ---_ a¢ ~e~ ~ os ~ ~o= '+°a~ 3~~°I ~foc 3~fm ~ c€ 3~~ ~ e€ 3~~ ~~9 a=o €9 g~4 # =s 006 ;aR oo~ oo~ r ~ V n ~ c U r ~ U ~ c U 9HIYId dO161 .'c'.8 3?7lnY QL 3OY7[iJ 7YUfLLYN .~U~l I 191YId dO1 Ol .r~..8 ~1YId dOi Ol ~Z'~8 .Z•.E SHLY7d dO1 01 .Z•.8 .Z•.L ~]OIY O13QVNO 7YNRLVN ~,I I 4dLYId dO1 QL .>~ [ i HOOIiI QL9OYHO 7V71fllYN .OI~,ZI ~IY7d dO1 Ol .>~ [ 1 99mHQL81QYN0'IV7IfI1YN .OI-dI fJ 4 j k J W ~ 9 f /--~ A A . ~ f~ ~ o a o a o A - o ~ ww y ®~ j V 3 _ 3 ~ ~' zm~ ~ 5~ 3 ~ ~ ~ m= 5 ~ ~ ~ m y~o E" v~ o ~ ~ ~~o 1- - I :.~ ' ~&~ -«~ m5:~~ ~ y 1 ~ L~z~ <8<c =S<m Fcim Fcis ~%~%e_c m:J N I ~ mS ~~~J ~~mc J a~cc Ix :J trl o~ 2 m~orv ,. ctmp~ ~~°~ 3~Fm ° - - c~ 3~€p - <~tls 3~C <eo°~ 3., rFm <C 7 ~ °°° ~ ® x C ¢ ~ L Gc~. _ ZCZ~C m - ~ oc - z ZO~° a ~ o'o: - ' _ _ u - ~ c ° U ® ~ ~ U } 7 6 ~IY7d dO1 O1 .Z'.8 SSLY7d dO1 O1 .Z•.e 9HLV'1d dO1 OS ,Z'~8 ,Z'. C 4ILY7d dO1 OS .Z'.B d'~f HS7O11U Oi HUY7I91YUfliYN .~6'.l [ 8t9.OIIH Ol HQYY9 7YNNLYN .{b.I I S81Y'fd d61 O1 .Y.[ [ HOOI8 O188MI91Y8RLYN .0. ~ZI ~IYId dOi Ol .>:[ 1 H9mN O1 HOVY!]7VL(l1YN .01-~II i3, ._ . ~ ~ ~ _ • Item ~ ~- City of Saratoga Community Development Depaztment MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner DATE: October 26, 2005 RE: CUP 04-167, AT&tT/Cingular Wireless Service BACKGROUND On September 28, 2005, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission requesting a conditional use permit to construct a small, unmanned telecommunications facility. The item was continued to October 26, 2005. The Planning Commission had concerns over the extent of the coverage, Cingular's proposed coverage build outs, and whether Congress Springs Park was a viable site that could be used as an alternative to the proposed site. There was also a request for confirmation from PG~E regarding its requirement for athree-foot concrete apron. These concerns have been addressed as follows: o The applicant has provided a letter confirming that there are Cingular antennas on the Congress Springs Park tower. Although they cover an area with an approximate radius of 0.5 miles, there is still a gap in coverage between that tower and site SF0502, which is located at 1340 De Anza Boulevard, north of Congress Springs Park. This results in poor .connectivity and coverage deficiency in the Cox Avenue area (Attachment 6). o The applicant has provided dated coverage maps (September 2005), which show "fair to fringe" coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site (SF2061), despite the "good" coverage provided in the vicinity of the Congress Springs tower. Coverage near the proposed site shows improvement with the inclusion of site SF2061. Applicant has also provided drive data results, dated February 19, 2005 that correspond to the coverage maps (Attachment 10). o Cingular uses numerous outside firms, in addition to VeloCitel, to provide expansion services. The applicant has provided a letter stating that VeloCitel is unable to provide proposed coverage/builds out by these other firms because this is proprietary information (Attachment 7). o The applicant has provided a letter from PG~¢E, dated September 29, 2005, confirming that they require athree-foot concrete apron as a grounding requirement designed to act as protection from electrical surge or shock (Attachment 8). I have attached the September 28, 2005 staff report (Attachment 1). I have also attached _~ additional neighbor notification letters that were inadvertently left out of that report (Attachment 9). With the exception of the letter of concern from Charles and Dana Walker of 19947 Garnett Court, there were no comments. The Walkers submitted a second letter on Planning Commission Memo RE: CUP 04-167 October 26, 2005 Paget Au~ust 23, 2005, which was in support of the project. Public notices announcing the October 26` meeting were sent to seventy-four neighbors, and staff received no response. Other than the items described above, there have been no modifications or additions to the report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Use Permit application number 04-167 by adopting the attached resolution of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. September 28, 2005 staff report. 2. Resolution of Approval. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 4. RF Exposure Report. 5. Photo simulations. 6. Letter from VeloCitel describing Congress Springs Park existing coverage. 7. Letter from VeloCitel explaining why they are unable to provide proposed coverage information for all Cingular sites. 8. Letter from PG~stE regarding concrete apron. • 9. Neighbor letters. 10. Coverage Analysis (Color maps and alternative candidate analysis). 11. Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • Attachment 1 • C REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: CUP 04-167; Cox Avenue at RR tracks, east of Garnett Court Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: A. T. ~ T./Cingular Wireless Service Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Planning Intern Date: September 28, 2005 APN: 386-44-040 Department Head: I ~` ~` ~IDOa(VY •` .~ i i ~_• • \- yr\ ' •:', f, ~--~ ~ ', ~ I i r,A ~~~ ~- ~ N~)10 C~A~ ~-L_ I ~ ~ \ -K~R1~S,.CL ~'• '•~ ~ ~' 7 ~ '-i .ice- ("'~l ~ `\ ~• ~ E .~\ ~ ~_; ~ 1 ~. ~E~fERI~!(~k331 RAG AR ~ -' ~• _-~' , ft CC\ ` ~ i ~ EA~ULtr W.Y ~•. •+c.~Y~T l1 ~ ~ ;' ~"S ti KITJM • E1(SR ~ ~~ \~ }~- `-=~~ pl c ~ ~g ~: 1~ HEt;I~'__" -T. ` GDR 1,~ __~`' RE T l_.,.~ ~ Y`= - 1 '~ ~ s ~ ~; ~ FftEbERI~IC~SBU)?G DR:.'" KA E R r-~ S A GUL ~ \ ~~ , I r F~tEf~ERIt:K~l1RG DQ.- 1-.~-'-- i ` EA, U -. ~ FREDE CKSBI~G~CT~ - -}--,- ~ tZtMS~R~-6N-.-.*~. ~ ,J,Y~.v ~ + I I ~ t"'~,~ . { ~ l -CiJ~ ~1t~ i- ' } i ~ SOX-AV'-~--~ ~,-C E Ul~~_ I__ i I '~ i \~f-. 1f~A ~ -tO~IE GL~~ ~ i _ -- - t i ( ~ ~ t--~ r---G CU BE ND ---~--- -7- I ~ yVOODM~NT R_ ~"-•--~__.• f 1 I ~ I I ~--tpLEV~O,t7tYtMF--j \ '?-~'--,~~-~' -- -~---L-I---'--- ' _-rl--__J L__L__-.~ `~ j C BE ~\N BRAS D~ '-L /~, -~ --g~~'~ I"'-I IERIC-E-~Q-~' i i - j-P1•=R6~-R0.,, ,IERGE-~ I 1 ~ .,_•~ ~~\ ~\/\A ER~CT~ -a-~ i I I `.~----fir--~-,-._~ ' I ~ i `'~~lflEt'I~-lNCeffl i _ I ~ ~ ~ -T- r-~ i i r ~ ~ ~- I ERCE_GT (_ _ _~ • ~\~ •---- i I I ~ ~ ~ -'--,... I ! ~ VtIOOgMONi~R 1 I I ND DR I ~'K=11SGY!~_ _ li~j _._~ ~_ i ~t ~ i ` I CLTiv1SEf2L~ND R ~~ Q 500 ft buffer around Cox Ave site ~ ~` ~ ' ~ ~ I ~ ILA VISTA-D~t ~ =- _ ~ _ Cox Ave, RR tracks east of Garnett Ct A[Y"DR ~--- `.it~IACLDRY Et`IO 150 300 450 1600 750 ft [~ Parcels w ithin 500 ft of Cox Ave site 1 `•-`` ~ L.____._-.._ _ ~ ~ ~ _, 1. I Cox Avenue at RR tracks, east of Garnett Court • • • • CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05/28/04 09/07/05 09/14/05 09/07/05 09/22/05 The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility. This will consist of the installation of six panel antennas and one GPS antenna on the existing P. G. &r E. tower and the installation of indoor communication equipment cabinets inside a new 240 square-foot shelter. The shelter will be approximately 12 by 20 feet and the hip roof will peak at 14 feet. The project will be located on Cox Road, adjacent to the rai]road tracks east of Garnett Court, and will not include a generator. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: MEASURE G: PARCEL SIZE: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: GRADING REQUIRED: STAFF ANALYSIS R-1-12,500 Medium Density Residential Not applicable 14,950.73 square feet Not applicable None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: All antennas will be painted to match the existing P. G. and E. lattice tower and antennas. The roof of the proposed new structure will be tiled inreddish-brown and the structure will be painted a neutral color to match the existing Nextel fence. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation of equipment cabinets, a new 240 square-foot structure, and panel antennas, 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 new construction of limited small new facilities, installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. • • • Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests use permit approval to install six panel antennas and one GPS antenna at the site of an existing lattice tower located at Cox Avenue, adjacent to the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court. Another wireless carrier, Nextel, is already located at this site. The equipment cabinets are to be located in a 240 squaze-foot enclosure with a peaked roof that will be screened by landscaping. The enclosure will be situated adjacent to the tower and in front of the Nextel shelter. The height of the existing P. G. c~ E. lattice is 143.1 feet. The Nextel antennas are located between 73.7 and 81.5 feet in height on the tower and the applicant requests approval to place the six panel antennas below them, situated between 60 and 62.2 feet. The dimensions of each of the six panel antennas are approximately 55.4 inches in length, 10.3 inches in width, and 5.5 inches in depth. The GPS antenna will be mounted at the 20-foot height and will consist of a small cone (approx. 2-3" in diameter) that will be attached to a pipe, holding it three feet away from the tower structure. A 12-foot by 20-foot equipment enclosure with a 14-foot high peaked roof is proposed and will be painted to blend with the existing Nextel wall. The roof will be covered with reddish-brown tile. Drought resistant native landscaping screening is proposed to screen the surrounding residential properties from the project. The applicant has provided existing and proposed photo simulations. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report, which evaluates both the proposed and existing wireless facilities. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both carriers is 1.7% of the public exposure limit; the maximum calculated level at the second floor elevation of any nearby home (located at least 65 feet away) is 2.0% of the public exposure limit. Revisions The following revisions were incorporated into the plans at staff's request: The equipment cabinets were contained within the enclosure rather than behind a Wall. The file was changed from red to reddish-brown. Conditional Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for use permit approval; therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve of the proposed project based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of " the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the i visual impact of the facility will be less than significant. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site aheady accommodates another antenna facility and the new fixtures will be painted to match the existing equipment and fence enclosures. CONCLUSION The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor aze they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the conditional use permit application number 04-167 by adopting the attached resolution of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of mailing notices, public notice, and mailing labels. 3. RF Exposure Report. 4. Coverage Map. 5. Photo simulations. 6. Neighbor letters 7. Plans, Exhibit °A." ~~ ~~:~ ,~ p.J~( ~ ti'1 _ s IZC~ • ~~1aQ ~ U ~ • • RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-167 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA A. T. ~ T./Cingular Wireless Services; Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks, east of Garnett WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for the installation of 6 panel antennas and 1 GPS antenna on an existing lattice tower and equipment cabinets in a 240 square-foot peaked roof enclosure located near the tower; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which includes the installation of panel antennas, equipment, and a 240 square-foot structure, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive and that the visual and audible impact of the facility will be less than significant. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size, and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. The site already accommodates another antenna facility and the new fixtures will be painted to match the equipment and fence enclosures. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-167 for Use Permit approval and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The enclosure shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A°, incorporated by reference. The file roof color will be brown-based All building materials and colors shall be subject to Planning Department approval prior to construction. 2. The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 3. Applicant shall provide a final landscape plan that is subject to the approval of the Planning Depax~nent. The Planning Department has requested the following: • Landscape buffering along all exposed sides of the building consisting of a single row of oleanders (15 gallon) and a 15-foot mulch buffer. • One tree, which will grow to a maximum height of approximately twenty feet. • An irrigation plan. . 4. The applicant shall execute and record a Landscape Maintenance Agreement satisfactory to the Ciry Attorney for perpetual maintenance of the landscaping prior to issuance of a building permit. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement may, in the City Attorney's sole discretion, require Applicant to agree to security by bond, cash deposit and/or otherwise, and to agree to allow the City (after reasonable notice to Applicant) to perform maintenance which has not been done as required (as determined by the Community Development Director) and to have the cost thereof constitute a lien and encumbrance upon the property, collectible in a civil action or as a special assessment for nuisance abatement at the same time and in the same manner as real property taxes. 5. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all antennas and related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation. 6. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department for Building permits. 7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 8. 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 Application No. 04-167, Cox Avenue at railroad tracks, east of Garnett 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. 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. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless- appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of October 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 complywith said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • C7 • Attachment 3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Suzanne Thomas ,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 11th day of October , 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~- Signed. c • • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 26th day of October 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding office closures on alternate Fridays. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #04-167 -Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2005) APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. APN: 386-44-040 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval for a conditional use permit to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility. This will consist of the installation of panel antennas on the existing PG&E tower and the installation of indoor communication equipment cabinets inside a new ground level shelter that will be approximately 12 feet by 20 feet. (THOMAS) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Corrunission 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, October 18, 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. uzanne Thomas S 408-868-1212 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® JONES DOUGLAS C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20023 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 APN 38639001 ~ vrww.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY BAKER THOMAS S JR & ABBY P OR CURRENT OWNER 20045 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 APN 38639002 KITELEY RAYMOND C & INEZ M SIDHU INDER S & DEEPNA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20079 GLEN ARBOR CT :19842 SEAGULL WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3940 APN 38639004 APN 38644008 GOMERSALL JOAN S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19817 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3946 APN 38644010 SCHILD KURT O & HANNA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19829 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3946 APN 38644011 1vIONROE GEORGE A & PHILIPPA A 'TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19824 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644013 ROSE FRANK T & HELEN F OR CURRENT OWNER P O BOX 633 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0633 APN 38644016 STAFFORD FRED & LORI OR CURRENT OWNER 12655 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 APN 38644019 RUDRAKSHI CHARUDATTA M & ANJALI C OR CURRENT OWNER 12634 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644029 CHU CHI-KUANG & CHAN-CHING OR CURRENT OWNER 12790 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310029 WALKER CHARLES S & DANA D OR CURRENT OWNER 19947 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316001 KIM YOUNG C & CONNIE H OR CURRENT OWNER 1.9976 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316004 RICHES KENNETH W & KATHERINE R OR CURRENT OWNER 19812 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644014 SAADAT VAHID & MOJGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12679 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3922 APN 38644017 LIAO YIH-MING & JUO-PING OR CURRENT OWNER 19848 KANE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3921 APN 38644020 RUTTER LUPE L & PAUL D OR CURRENT OWNER 12646 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644030 TIMBROOK DALE N & EDNA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12770 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310030 HUMPHRIES ALISON H & CURT E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19969 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316002 ANDRESON FRANCIS E & PATRICIA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19952 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316005 a AVEIZIf® s16o® LIPTON ROGER H & MICHELE A OR CURRENT OWNER 20057 GLEN ARBOR CT • SARATOGA, CA 95070-3840 APN 38639003 DUNBAR HORACE E & ANN M OR CURRENT OWNER 19830 SEAGULL WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-3940 APN 38644009 SISLEY DANIEL W & MARGIE E OR CURRENT OWNER 19836 VERONICA DR . SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644012 TOPHAM LYLE C 8c KATHIE J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19800 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644015 -WEBER CLARENCE L & LOTS D. OR CURRENT OWNER 12667 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3922 APN 38644018 ROSENQUIST RICHARD & GERMAINE L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19836 KANE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3921 APN 38644021 EBEJER EDWARD & MARY TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12658 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644031 LIN DANNY T C & JILLIAN E W OR CURRENT OWNER 12750 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310031 ZECHER MARILYN P OR CURRENT OWNER 19981 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316003 "SCHAFFER DONALD R & DORO D TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19930 GARNETT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3801 APN 39316006 Jam and Smudge Fn~e Printing Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® CHAN KAI Y & LISA M TRUSTEE CURRENT OWNER ~99 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-3824 APN 38644043 GO5WAMI ISHTTA & DIPANKAR OR CURRENT OWNER 12663 K:INMAN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 APN 38649025 'TIEN BOU NIN & NORA MING TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12674 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649029 CHUM KATHLEEN K & STANLEY K OR CURRENT OWNER 12677 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649032 CHUEH RICHARD J & IVY L. TRUSTEE CURRENT OWNER 84 KARN CL TOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38649035 CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DIST OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38901001 STEWART ROBERT E & CATHERINE M OR CURRENT OWNER 12751 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310026 ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT OR CURRENT OWNER 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1502 APN 39317002 HOUL NANPING & JOIE M OR CURRENT OWNER 12660 KANE DR TOGA, CA 95070-3923 8644032 WOOD GARY W & DOROTHY C OR CURRENT OWNER 19862 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644035 ® www.averycom , ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY KISPERSKY STEPHEN F & CLAUDIA M OR CURRENT OWNER 12687 KINMAN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 APN 38649023 KHARE MANOJ & REENA OR CURRENT OWNER 12650 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649027 BAUDOUIN FLORE L OR CURRENT OWNER 12686 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649030 TSENG HUEY-HUA D & HSIAOHUA OR CURRENT OWNER 12665 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649033 . SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38653017 SCHOEN LEWIS L & BEATRICE B TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20089 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3808 APN 39310019 PETERSON RONALD J & SANDRA L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12771 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310027 _ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO OR CURRENT OWNER COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 39317003 BARNES JOHN J ETAL OR CURRENT OWNER 12672 KANE DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3923 APN 38644033 LEMAN JACK R & HARRIET M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19850 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644036 a AVERY® 5160® CHAN STARRY S & SUNNY H OR CURRENT OWNER 12675 KINMAN CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3926 APN 38649024 STEVENS GEORGE W & SUZANNE C OR CURRENT OWNER :12662 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649028 SNYDER CHARLES A . OR CURRENT OWNER 12689 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649031 DOHNER CLARK V & NANCY A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12653 ORELLA CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3931 APN 38649034 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38653018 HOLMES PORTIA S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20095 PIERC3 RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3808 APN 39310020 SPIRAKIS GREGORY S & KERRI J :TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12791 GLEN ARBOR CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3802 APN 39310028 MCBRIDE ROBERT & MARILYN :TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER :20015 COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-3824 ; ' APN 38644042 MAROLDA FRANK C & MARY E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19884 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644034 GAN WEN-SEN S & JIMMY N OR CURRENT OWNER 19848 VERONICA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3947 APN 38644037 Jam and Smudge Fnae Prirrting Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® KOCHHAR RAJEEV & SUNSET OR CURRENT OWNER 12845 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3817 APN 39316007 KUO EDITH Y OR CURRENT OWNER 19963 WELLINGTON CT SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 APN 39316010 TSZTOO GARY R & MAY T OR CURRENT OWNER 12866 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 APN 39316043 NGUYEN TEDDY & CHRISTINE OR CURRENT OWNER 12800 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 APN 39316046 SOtJTHERIV PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO OR CURRENT OWNER COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 APN 38644038 ~ vrww.averycom ~ ~ A~/E~® 5160® ~' 1-800-GO-AVERY FASANG PATRICK P 8c KAZUKO K WII,BURN WII.LIAIVI K TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER ORCURRENT OWNER 19937 WELLINGTON CT 19915 WELLINGTON CT ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-3 8 1 3 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 APN 39316009 APN 39316008 POLLARD HOWARD E & MARY T NISHIMURA JOSEPH & ROSE TRUSTEE `: TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER ` ~ OR CURRENT OWNER :19975 WELLINGTON CT ~ 12888 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3813 ~ ' ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 APN 39316011 ~ ~ ~ APN 39316042 -SINGER WALTER H & MARY K ~ ~ ~CHEN BILL J & JENG-PY'NG OR CURRENT OWNER ; ~ OR CURRENT OWNER 12844 CUMBERLAND ' i 12822 CUMBERLAND DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 APN 39316044 ~ ~ ' APN 39316045 MOKCHARLES S &-ANNIE Y ACCOUNTING-DEPARTMENT OR CURRENT OWNER ~ OR CURRENT OWNER 12778 CUMBERLAND 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-3818 ~ SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1502 APN 39316047 ' ' APN 39317002 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO ~ ; ; _ .. OR CURRENT OWNER COX AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 • APN 38644040 • Attachment 4 • ' L~~~~ HAMME'I°T & EDISON, INC. Wn.t.IAM F. HAMI~Tr, P.E. DANE E. EiucxsEN. P.E. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS STANLEY S,al.nc, P.E. RADIO AND TELEVISION ROSEtrr D. WELLER, P.E. MAtttc D. NEUMANN, P.E. RossRT P. ScaTx, Jtt RAIAT MP.THUR RosERT L. HAtinv>i:~rr. P.E. lszazovz EnWARD EDLSON, P.$. BY E-MAIL M.CONVERSE rQVELOCITEL.NET August 23, 2005 Ms. Marsha Converse Cingulaz Wireless 651 Gateway Boulevard Suite 1500 South San Francisco, California 94080 Deaz Marsha: As you requested, we have updated our study of the RF exposure conditions neaz the Cingulaz Wireless base station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) proposed to be located at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga, California. An electronic copy of our revised report is enclosed, . reflecting the change in power level. Fields in publicly accessible azeas at the site are still calculated to be well below the applicable limits. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions on this material. Please let me know if we may be of additional assistance. Sincerely yours, William F. Hammett tm Enclosure e-mail: bhammett@h-e.com US Mail: Box 280068 • San Francisco. California 94128 Delivery: 470 Third Street West • Sonoma, California 95976 Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisrn • 707/996-5280 Facsimile • 202/396-5200 D.C. ' Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) ` Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, Cali#ornia Statement of Hammett >~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingular Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station .(Site No. SNFCCA2061C) proposed to be located at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC's evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx Frequency Occuvational Limit Public Limit_ Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range) 30-300 1.00 0.20 Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standards, and there is considered to be no compounding effect from simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields. General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CGAT2061596.1 ~ corrsv~.~ruac Errcn~r~xs s~ ~~ Page 1 of 3 ` Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, California transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully fonmed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law's. The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests., Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Cingular, including zoning drawings by Velocitel, dated August 3, 2005, it is proposed to mount six existing dualband Kathrein Scala Model AP14/17-880-1940-065D directional panel antennas on an existing 143-foot PG&E lattice tower located north of the intersection of Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 60 feet above ground and would be oriented in pairs with up to 2° downtilt at 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 2,566 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 1990 watts for PCS and 576 watts for cellular service. Presently located higher on the same tower are similar antennas for use by Nextel SMR, another wireless telecommunications carrier. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Nextel has installed Andrew Model DB882 directional panel antennas and operates with a maximum effective radiated power in any direction of 1,500 watts. Study Results • • The maximum ambient lZF level anywhere at ground due to proposed Cingular operation by itself is calculated to be 0.0061 mW/cm2, which is 0.78% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of :both carriers is 1.7% of the HAMMETT & EDI$ON, INC. CGAT2061596.1 ~ coNSUL'[TNG INGINEEERS Page 2 of 3 snra FxnNC~sm • Cingular Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SNFCCA2061C) Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive • Saratoga, California public exposure limit; the maximum calculated cumulative level at the second floor elevation of any nearby home' is 2.0% of the public exposwe limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures Since they are to be mounted on a PG&E tower, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measwes are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposwe guidelines. It is presumed that PG&E already takes adequate precautions to ensure that there is no unauthorized access to its tower. To prevent exposwes in excess of the occupational limit by authorized PG&E workers, it is expected that they will adhere to appropriate safety protocols adopted by that company. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Cingular Wireless at Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive in Saratoga, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2007. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. August 23, 2005 ' Located at least 65 feet away, based on serial photographs from Maps a la carte, Inc. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CGAT2061596.1 i ~prtst7[,'rnvc IIvc~ri~s Page 3 of 3 SAN FRANCISC'D FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC's to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally .chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate .limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30- 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 1000 100 3 •~ ~ 10 a° A ~ 1 v 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power' Density (V/m) (A!m) (mWlcm2) 614 614 1842/f 61.4 3.54~f 137 614 823.8/] 823.8/f 27.5 l.s~fj 61.4 1.63 1.63 4.89/ f 0.163 ff/106 0.364 1.63 2.19/f 2.19/f 0.0729 ~j/238 0.163 100 100 900/ f 1.0 f/300 5.0 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell FM ~` ~ ~~~~~ f ~~ Public E/x osure 0.1 1 10 100 103 1.04 105 Frequency (NII3z) 100 180/f 18v1 0.2 f/1 S00 1.0 Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. • • HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. FCC Guidelines i aotJS[rt,TU.rc iNC~ Figure 1 snta r~wwcsm •~ • ~ RFR.CALCTM' Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The neaz field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the neaz field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 1) D>~ 2) D> Sh 3) D> 1.6~. where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~. =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 199'n gives this formula for • calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 180 0.1 x Pnet power density S= A~w x a x D x h' m mW~~2' where 9Bw =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet =net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational 1units. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the faz field of an individual RF source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x 1tFF2 x ERP power density S= 4 x n x D2 m mW~~n2' where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefricient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangulaz grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC f mNS~n~rc ar~nv~ Methodology syty Fxnric~soo Figure 2 • Attachment 5 • • r ~ ~~ AT&T 8/~ S/n5 R Proposed equipment enclosure ~, ~. P-,smon ty n~rea rnag~ebon s,o e,a~osoo r~ ~J • • • • • ~ ~ ~~n eim~daMrl eYOesed aaariaate finish using forth liner (227Dc1704X24b jpeg) • Ca8292 pier ave. pitched roof.l.mvo-0141(1024x788~d4b lpea) • • • • Attachment 6 • ~/elociTel ~ October 11, 2005 Suzanne Thomas Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 Re: Application: #04-167 / Cox Avenue at Cumberland, by RR tracks / APN: 386-44-040 Supplemental Filing to Application for Unmanned Wireless Communications Facility. Applicant: Cingular Wireless, Inc. Dear Ms. Thomas: Coverage Analysis. Please refer to coverage maps showing Cingular site numbers on existing and proposed coverage for Saratoga submitted in previous mailing. The closest site to our proposed site SNFCCA2061 on the PG&E tower on Cox Ave. is Congress Park, SNFCCA0585 located at 13000 Glen Brae Dr, Saratoga, 95057. According to records, it is a 100' lattice tower with Cingular antennas at 65'. It covers an area with approximate radius of 0.5 mi; however, it does not connect to existing Cingular site SNFCCA0502 at 1340 De Anza Blvd, which is North of Congress Park SNFCCA0585. This creates a gap on Cox Ave. a busy corridor. There is poor connectivity and coverage deficiency in the Cox Ave area. Sincerely, Marsha Converse 510.207.9519 m.converse@velocitel.net • 4160-B Hacienda Drive. • Pleasanton CA 94588 • 925-734-6631 • Fax 925-737-0237 • • Attachment 7 VelociTel FED X October 11, 2005 Suzanne Thomas Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 lication: #04167 / Cox Avenue at Cumberland, by RR tracks / APN: 386-44-040 Re: APP Supplemental Filing to Application for Unmanned Wireless Communications Faci ity. Applicant: Cingular Wireless, Inc. Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed for hearing Oct. 26 for this continued item. Revised Coverage maps/Drive Map Coverage Analysis. Coverage maps showing Cingular site numbers on existing and proposed coverage for Saratoga. I am unable to provide propo f drmation. gHowever~ I will attempt to'secure C ngular representativeato been told this is proprietary n attend October 26~' hearing to afor the Saratoga regionlanning commission may have regarding netwo coverage and. proposed growth Sincerely, ~~~~~~~ Marsha Converse 510.207.9519 m.converse@velocitel. net Enclosures: (15) Sets Coverage Analysis Reports • • a 160-8 Hacienda Drive • Pleasanton CA 94588 • 925-734631 • Fax 925-737-0237 • • Attachment 8 ~~ ~J Pacific Gas and :~. Electric Company.. WE DELIVER ENERGY.~° Telecommuniptions US Mail: Business Development Mail Code B26L Pacific Gas and Electric Company PO Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 Overnight Mail: Mail Code B26L Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, 26th Floor San Francsco, CA 94105-1814 415.972.5490 Fax: 415.973.3884 September 29, 2005 Marsha Converse VelociTel, Inc. for CINGULAR WIRELESS Subject: Cingular Site SNFCCA2061C HWY 85 & Northampton Dear Ms. Converse: This letter serves as confirmation the PG&E is requiring a 3' concrete apron around the perimeter of the proposed shelter referenced above. Furthermore, the apron shall extend 3' from any metallic attachment protruding from the shelter. This required measure is a grounding requirement of PG&E to protect any person(s) working in or in close proximity to the facility in the case of an electrical surge or shock. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (415) 972-5490. Sincerely, Andrew Grove Project Manager PG&E Telecom Business Development • LJ • • Attachment 9 C~ • LETTERS FROM CHARLES AND DANA WALKER 8/23/05 10/15/04 10/21/04 • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~'{~ "dS ?ROJECT ADDRESS: 1~' ~ ~ ~ cO~C ANA Applicant Name: ~I G~X'S~- CD1JJ ~ac~~~T~ Application Number: D ~ " ~ Co"7 - The Saratoga Planning Commission reguires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning. Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity.to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of ratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. • ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): _ ~~ ~-~-~-( Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ d~-r~t r r ~ (. Q Cc Q Neighbor Phone #: ~t ©!1 - / ~ - ((~ ~ • 'gnature: ~ fed: .,~ W Planning Department ~~ ~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-CZ Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior io the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be addr the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: (~,~ ~ -t ~(4- ~- ~ ~ _ v~ Neighbor Address: ~~ ~ _~ ~~- ~ 4 C `~1 - Neighbor Phone #: 0~ ~ / (~ Signature Printed City of Saratoga Planning Department C7 • L` 1 ~T • ~~ Charles S. and Dana D. Walker 19947 Garnett Court Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741-1140 10/25/04 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070151 Re; ATBT Wireless /Site SNFCCA2061-C Cox and Cumberland Project Dear Helper: We live in the house located on the Southwest corner of the Cox and Cumberland "T" junction. We have some concerns about this project and are submitting this attachment to your "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applicants". We did discuss this project with David M. Minger, Zoning Specialist, Velocitel. He was very attentive, courteous, and helpful. He recommended we make our comments in writing via~your template. Our concerns are: We would like to see the ATBT equipment structure front wall -the wall facing Cox Avenue -high enough to hide the Nextel equipment cabinet that sticks up over the Nextel equipment structure. 1 do not recall that it was supposed to be the way it is in this regard. The Nextel installation would be more kindly viewed, if the equipment cabinet did not show above the walls enclosing it. Mr. Minger told us that ATBT would not object to building the ATBT structure with the front wall - facing Cox Avenue -high enough to hide the Nextel equipment cabinet. That would be an improvement over the existing situation. We would like to see a stronger commitment to having shrubs /bushes /trees around the Nextel and ATBT structures that would essentially hide both of the equipment ground structures. While there are a tree and some bushes sketched in some of the views provided, it is difficult to tell from such information, if there is a commitment to have shrubs /bushes /trees around the structure to hide the structure or not. Certainly the current installation of such shrubs /bushes /trees is unsatisfactory. In our opinion, the current Nextel ground structure installation is ugly, especially with the equipment box showing above the Nextel structure walls, and especially with the very limited effort made thus far to landscape the Nextel structure to take it essentially from view. Mr. Minger said the landscape plan for this project was not yet finalized, and that we should let you know what we think in writing. Thank you for your help on this. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Very respectfully submitted, W~ Charles S. Walker ,~~~?,~~ Dana D. Walker Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application Date: / ~~ os~ PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless /Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive: The notification documents include: • • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site cleazly mazked; . • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: J /~ Neighbor Address: / ~~7 ~ l% ~1~ ~'r T ~ ~ ~ .~ Neighbor Phone #: ~©8 7y~ /~~~ ^ ~ ~ q J ! 4 Signature: ~ , ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Return to City of Saratoga Planning Department • OTHER LETTERS • ~~-/~~ ~ - -os Date: ,l` ~ p Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors. to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors why fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. l.~ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: s~~~ ~ ~1 ~ -1- 7~h ~M ~ ~'h Neighbor Address: ~ 2 ~ ~~ t%1 ~~ ~ ~1'~~D ~ ~- , 5~~~ a ~SL~ Neighbor Phone #: a'ture • ~111'~nLily ~~~U~ Printed J JAN 2 6 2005 U CITY OF SARATOGA City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~u~~ Neighbor Notification Template for II Development Applications ~ JAN 2 5 2005 ~=•' Date: ~ l R ~fT6 ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: QI C [~~ A /t l~ G'J-{ L.J ~ N Neighbor Address: 1 R R ~ ~ ~~~'-~ Lc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'lU ~ CA- fit' Sul ~ ~~ ~z Neighbor Phone #: ZS'3 -Ll ZO / ~ ~ Signature L 2te+~e~D J. CN t1 ~N Printed City of Saratoga Planning Department • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland fbv RR tracksl Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless /,Site SNFCCA2061-C1 Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ® My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): j Z ~ ~ y D r~~ c~ ~ , 5~.~,~~ u . Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Signature City of Saratoga • • J Printed II i, .t~;t~ 2 ~ 2005 CITY OF SAkATOGA. Planning Department ~ r ~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower, Cox Avenue at Cumberland lbv RR tracks Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the. City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): '~ Neighbor Name: r ~ ~V~~ ~ f 1~I ~ 1 ~ 1~ Neighbor Address: ~ 2 ~-~- ~ d2 L LL~ Neighbor Phone #: `F~ ~ - 7 b b ~' I I Signature City of Saratoga ~pu- N t N 1 Printed (~ ~ ~ U 1 ~ L 6 JAS, 2 2005 Plann~~~ ~~ff~rct Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C~ Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ._ _ r; ~,:•- ~~ t~: !~ - ~: p"rtA COCA -~-Y-O~ _.._, Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address Neighbor Phone #: ~!d/ Seaau-E ~/o~- ~ly6-~~ E ~ __ Signature City of Saratoga ~C 7-,~ou?A-S c_ f ~ ~ f ~s- Printed Planning Department • L_J • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications - =~~ o~ Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C~ Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ' My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: /~~~~~ ~ ~~~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: ~ 7 ` S ~/ Si afore >~ City of Saratoga u~~ ~~~ Printed Planning Department ~ ~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~~~u~~. ~u JAN 2 5 2005 Cl1'Y OF SARATOGA Date: J c', » I ~. LD ~ ~ _ PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by .applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I nderstand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: LJ Neighbor Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~" ~- ~ ff ~. Neighbor Phone #: t 4~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~f ~ 3 ~ (.~ Signa e ~~ K ~' G~'L~ ~ C~j~(f Printed • City of Saratoga Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application v /,z ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower. Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. ~,~5~ _ ~ Neighbor Name~~Ti9- l~ ~ _~~~ ..J /~ ~ S~~ Neighbor Address: ~~~ ~~r~1/rte Neighbor Phone #: Signature: ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Return to City ofSarato~a Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application Date: ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; i • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: •~~ A ~ Ecv' Gi ,i~ ~ K H A~~ Neighbor Address: % Z ~ ~1 S~ ~~ r~ ~ ~ %~- L /~/ ~ ~~ -l S ~ ~ ~G, A Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ ` f ~ b ~ J ~ 7C 7 Signature: ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Return to City of Saratoga Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application 6 ' ~i v PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E~tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-CL Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: Signature: ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Return to City of Saratoga Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application Date: ~~ /-'Z o PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland fbv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: ~~-[ /Z7 ~~wa~hi~-/mss Neighbor Address: l ~ ~G `7 ~'° ~~ ~ ~<,~ C z Neighbor Phone #: Signature: `J~C / h here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Return to City of Saratoga Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application 'a PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless /SSite SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: ©~ ~ ~ k. Neighbor Address: r Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~ ~b~ -~~Z-2 := _~ , -_ Signature: - - ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. Ratvrn t~ ~'tt„ nf.Caratnua Planning Department Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application Date: ~6. - ~- G6~ PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / (Site SNFCCA2061-C) Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor Name: `' ~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~ GU `7 °r G~,r"~/~~'-~~6~`' ~' ~r`~~G Ct~ ~- Neighbor Phone #: ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~' I ~L G ° - Signature: ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. • Receipt for Neighbor Notification of Development Application Applicant Name: AT&T Wireless / Site SNFCCA2061-C1 Application Number: 04-167 I received from AT&T Wireless a notification package describing the antenna and radio cabinet installation proposed for the PG&E transmission tower, located on Cox Avenue at Cumberland Drive. The notification documents include: • A written description of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • Photo simulations of the proposed antennae and equipment enclosure; • A site map with the proposed antenna site clearly marked; • Answers to commonly asked questions; • A site plan & elevation drawing; and, • The City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications. Neighbor N Neighbor A ~T_•.LL _~ 711.....e ~• Rntvirn to ('itv nf.4aratoQa Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: PG&E tower Cox Avenue at Cumberland (bv RR tracks) ^ Check here if the notification package is signed for by a person under 16 years of age. Telephone message from concerned neighbor: September 15, 2005 Robin Arthur of 19937 Wellington Court was concerned about the appearance of the facility. She was very interested in the existence of landscaping to soften the appearance of the project. ~ ~ LJ r~ ~~ • • • Attachment 10 • • .~ c Q a~ r~ L 0 U 0 N (/') • • ~J ~1 ,1 u ~. ~ ~'- 1 ~..~ L ~ _ "~~Y~ lei- I 'y~,(~ -r~- ~~ ~-'~ • * • ~ (f - [- ~ - -~ f (~~ ~ ri 1~ l ``~~ r ~ ; ~ {,F,_, l r ;~.~ J y I 'i •~ti ~ - ~ylr Cam.-- _ ~~"~ r i ~ `f- ' ` - `'a.f r_ r ~ - ' , _ ~r- ~ ;7• r': r i ~ i ,~ m X41 = -~'- ~ i € i ~..f~,~ r - m s 1 ~_ ~~ _ U o -- v m N N ~` p 01 N V O ~ m ~ _. d ~ ~ o ~~ m v ai ~ m c o - ~ -- m c x N - c a w _~ w ~ ~ € • .7 • • • _.. __ i • • • • ~+ 'a V L a ~ ~ o io Say ~Aa 1A C ~1 C l0 d O~~ 3°0 W t 3 pl~ d _t y 111 C ~ A ~~a~ 3 d ~ $ C ~ ; lp ~ ~~ a ~dw ~xAo ""'*'3 C O ~ vor` ,~~1 d 1o s Yl co$o2 ~i~3~a1 ~o~Eo 10 ~ ~~ a. ~d 3"~~~ d g. ~~~dd ;~~~ ~'~~Ao ~~w3~ #C001+~ ~ ~ A ~ i ~ 0 C A ~ 10 w= C °~ _~ $~ d'a•~~ a~ ~ a= ~ _~ ~o H ~ ~ ~c~d ~_c~a ~ w9 ~e~ ~~~ ~~ao ~Cal~ a'~1~1c~O ~~xd~ t1j01~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ N d~ A ~9~ ~~ E p 3N y C ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ A a~ a= ~Q~~ a ~ .~- , ~f Z ~ 3 ply 171 ~ p1 10 ~ ~ ~ d~o1o3 ~ A*;~ o dl 10 a~~ y t a E d c°~~cs= in ca ~ ~ E cwEA ~3~0,~% d~3~~ 10~~'$~ cEco~ ~a~~ ~- o~pc~p d ~ ~ ~ Id 10 N C 111 t7 ~~oA~ ;'Ay`~vl ~~ t d ia~ O gill ~~~ ~ ~Z 1d d ~ 3 d ~ ~ ~ ~ C l~0 ,Q t ~~~41~41 ~C~~o c 3~+.°~w - ~ d 7 L7 O ~~ 10 N'p $~ €d ~~~ ~~~1on°13 "c3~~3 Nc~`o~ dol~~~. ~~~~w~ ~dvl ~ A A 'y 'tl1 17f ~ ~ C p 'p ~ ~ ~ G {i L A 10 =TvL~ao '~c~ c ~Q sv d K V 9 A c y~ A O C 111 d d ~ ~+ 1~0 C~ ~fa0 C C~ A C _ _ N ±3s~a°~icQ o~CAa3$ af-d~ 1a a • Attachment 11 • • • Item' 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: 06-007;15175 Via Colina I Type of Application: Design Review I Owner/Applicant: Mike and Patti Klayko, Property Owners Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner ('~` Date: October 26, 2005 APN• 397-10-030 Department Head:~,L~~ i ~ T .~ . ~--r. -< Y ._ ~ ~..... ::ii% ~[~~~{ _- T $7Eet f~RES \ ~1 i (--~`~~ rl i Raject SAe _ t ~!~,~ ve cobia2 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ %I i - % ~o soo ~taoo ~ ~~ sxuTOC,+acs c,.a~s . ~..~~ ~ ~ N ~. W ~ ~ E 8 15175 Via Colina EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 07/06/05 09/09/05 10/12/05 09/26/05 10/20/05 The applicant requests design review approval to construct cone-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence including an attached second dwelling unit is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.5 feet. The gross lot size is 1.12 acres and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the design review application 06-007 with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ~~ • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density- - 4.09 Max Dwelling Units per Acre MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.12 acres or 48,787 square feet (gross) SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: Not Applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the construction. of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, `~Vew 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: The materials and colors include a slate roof. A beige cement plaster finish and stone veneer is proposed for the residence. A "materials and color board" is on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. • PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Residence Porches Pool, patio, walkways Driveway TOTAL Floor Area: Residence Second Dwelling Unit Total Basement Setbacks: Residence: Front Right Side (North) Left Side (South) Rear Attached Front Dwelling Right Side (North) Unit: Left Side (South) Rear Height: Residence: Highest point Lowest point Average point Topmost point ' ments Proposal Code Require 27% Maximum Allowable 35% 6,420 sq. ft. Plus 10% 784 sq. ft. 3,614 sq. ft. 2,380 sq. ft. 17,075 sq. ft. Plus 1,707 sq. ft. 13,198 sq. ft. 18,782 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 5,627 sq. ft. 385 sq. ft. 6,012 sq. ft (5,947 sq. ft.) 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 11 inches 123+/- ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 90+/- ft. 250+/- ft. Max of Residence and Unit 23.5 ft. 97.3 ft. 91.7 ft. 94.5 ft. 118.0 ft. 6,020 sq. ft. Plus 10% 602 sq. ft. 6,622 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft 20 ft 50 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. ~~ • • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence including an attached second dwelling unit is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is proposed including the dwelling unit. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.5 feet. The gross lot size is 1.12 acres and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. Identifying architectural features of the proposed residence include an entry porch that is proportional with columns and stone bases. A carriage style garage door is proposed. Architectural details such as decorative or false beams or braces are visible under the gable ends. The materials and colors include a slate roof. A beige cement plaster finish and stone veneer is proposed for the residence. A "materials and color board" is on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Elevations are softened using different materials. Materials are used that create horizontal proportions. The roofline is varied in height and form. Large wall expanses are avoided. Large attic spaces are avoided. Trees No trees are proposed for removal as a result of the proposed project. The arborist recommends removal of trees #3 and #4 because they are dead and/or in poor and unrecoverable condition. Neighbor Notification Staff received several comments from the neighbors which are attached. All concerns and issues raised by the neighbors have been addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of staff. In summary, concerns raised by the neighbors included trees, mailboxes, and construction vehicle parking. Please note the comments included by Hugh and Rowena Lennon were submitted prior to their understanding that the construction is not located adjacent to their property, but instead there is a vacant parcel separating the project site from their property. 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. Because the proposed residence is a one-story it preserves both views and privacy of adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Changes to natural topography aze minimized. The • proposed project requires no tree removals and minimal grading of the site, with the exception of the basement excavation. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed as a result of the proposed project. The azborist recommends two trees (#3 and #4) be removed due to poor heath and condition. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The proposed one-story design is proportional. Areas of maximum height aze minimized. Elevations aze softened using different materials including stone and plaster. The roofline is varied in height and form. Large wall expanses aze avoided. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The proposed 23.5 foot tall one-story will be compatible with the existing structures. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (~ 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 staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 06-007 by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolutions of Approval. 2. Arborist Report, dated July 26, 2005. 3. Neighbor Notification templates. 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • r~ • Attachment 1 C7 SOLUTION NO. • APPROVAL OF RE Application No. 06-007 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15175 Via Colina/Klayko WHEREAS, The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence including an attached second dwelling unit is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.5 feet. 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 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 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 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Because the proposed residence is a one-story it preserves both views and privacy of adjacent properties. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Changes to natural topography are minimized.. The proposed project requires no tree removals and minimal grading of the site, with the exception of the basement excavation. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed as a result of the proposed project. The arborist recommends two trees (#3 and #4) be removed due to poor heath and condition. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed one-story design is proportional. Areas of maximum height are minimized. Elevations are so$ened using different materials including stone and plaster. The roofline is varied in height and form. Large wall expanses are avoided. (e) Compatible bulk and height The project vicinity is a mixture of one and two-story residences. The proposed 23.5 foot tall one-story will be compatible with the existing structures. (n Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (~ 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 bulls as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Section 1. After careful. consideration of the -site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06-007 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 and date stamped September 20, 2005. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated July 26, 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. All changes to the approved plans must 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 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 are per the approved plans." 6. A grading and drainage plan 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. 7. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 8. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be • approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage. doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 9. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjscent properties. 10. 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. 11. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 12. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient imgation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 13. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 14. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 15. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 16. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained- and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. CITY ARBORIST 17. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated July 26, 2005 i shall be followed. • 18. 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. 19. 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 $154,320 pursuant to -the July 26, -2005 Arborist Report the value of all retained trees to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 20. All proposed landscaping and approved fencing shall be installed prior to Final Building Inspection approval. 21. 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, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 18. 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 19: An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any improvements in the City right- of- way prior to commencement of construction. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 20. 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. 21. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 22. 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 foundations pnor to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 23. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be • described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 25. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 26. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection . with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State 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. ursuant to the re uirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Section 4. Unless appealed p q City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 26th day of October by the following roll call vote: • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • Attachment 2 • • ,. ~ ,,,~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboriculturad Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 6~96~VIA COLINA SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Klayko APPLICATION #: 06-007 APN #: 397-10-030 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • July 26, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 +, David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 26, 2045 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with a new residence proposed on a vacant lot at 15175 Via Colima, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets 1 and 2 by Chris Spaulding Architect, dated 6/30/05. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet 1 (Site Plan). For identification purposes, round, metal tags containing engraved numbers were attached to the trees' trunks. The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 15. FINDINGS There are 15 trees of Ordinance-size situated in close proximity to the proposed project components. They include eight Coast Live Oaks (#5, 8-11, 13-15); one Valley Oak (#12); one Chinese Elm (#6); one Douglas-Fir (#7); one Italian Stone Pine (#1); one Monterey Pine (#2); and two Siberian Elms (#3, 4). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. ' e contains numerous additional trees of Ordinance-size that are located downhill The srt from #10-15. By installing protective fencing as shown on the attached map, they aze expected to be adequately protected. Please note though they were not inventoried for this report, measwes must be taken to achieve their protection. Tree #6 is not shown on the Site Plan and must be added. Its approximate location is presented on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. Tree #3 is nearly dead and should be removed regazdless of the proposed project. I also suggest tree #4 is permitted for removal due to its overall poor and unrecoverable condition. Mitigation for either tree is not necessary as they contain a zero appraised value. I anticipate trees presented in this report will survive the proposed development provided the revisions and protection measures presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into the development plans. Per City Ordinance, the bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $154 20.1 1 This value represents the combined value of trees inventoried for this report and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Klayko Property, 15175 Via Colima, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City ofSaratoQa Community Development Department :, David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 26, 2005 • RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to mitigate any foreseeable impacts to the trees on site. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The scale indicated on the Site Plan of 1 "=30' must be changed to the plan's actual scale of 1 "=20'. Additionally, the circles indicating trunk size should revised to reflect the actual trunk diameters presented in this report. 2. Tree #6's location and canopy dimension should be shown on future submittals of the Site Plan (and any other site related plans). 3. The grading design should be revised so no grading occurs within the designated fenced areas presented on the attached map (beneath the canopies of trees # 1, 9 and 11- 15. 4. The proposed driveway should be redesigned to be at least 14 feet from tree #9's trunk. 5. The proposed sewer line should be slightly rerouted to be at least 18 feet from tree #15's trunk and 7 feet from trees #14's trunk. • ro osed as and water lines should be rerouted to be at least 25 feet from tree 6. Thep p g #2's trunk. 7. The section of the existing retaining wall located beneath the canopies of trees #13-15 should be retained or replaced to avoid grading beneath their canopies. 8. For the driveway, the depth of any soil cut beneath tree #9's canopy should not exceed four inches below existing soil grade. 9. Protective fencing should be shown on Sheet 1 and reflect the location identified on the attached map. 10. Temporary or permanent drainage features, including downspouts, must be designed so water is not discharged beneath or towards the trees' canopies. 11. All plumbing lines for the pool, drainage lines and swales should be designed outside from the designated fenced areas and beneath tree #9's canopy. 12. Where beneath the trees' canopies, the sections of wood fence proposed along the southern property boundary (or any new fence installed on site) shall not require soil cuts or disturbance between the posts. • 1 . An unused existin under ound utilities/services lines or i es beneath the trees' 3 y g gi' PP canopies should be abandoned and not dug up. Klayko Property, 15175 Via Colina, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 26, 2005 d be reviewed for tree • 14. The drainage and landscape (planting and irngation) shoul impacts prior to installation. The locations of the plumbing lines should also be reviewed prior to excavation occurring for the pool. 15. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. Preferably, the areas beneath the canopies of retained trees should consist only of mulch, such as afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips. If plants are installed beneath, they should comprise no more than 15- to 20-percent of the canopy area (short- and long-term) and be drought-tolerant. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c. Any trenches for irrigation or lighting should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If inside, the trenches must 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. 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 must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. • Protection Measures during Site Development 16. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading, 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 24 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 the fencing should be established no further than six feet from the foundation basement wall of the new residence and two feet from the driveway and pool patio edges. 17. Unless otherwise specifically approved, all grading and construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 18. Prior to grading and the establishment of protective fencing, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips shall be manually spread beneath the portion of canopies of trees #6, 8 and 9 that are enclosed by fencing. The wood chips should not be placed against the trees' trunks. . Klayko Property, 15175 Via Colina, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 stn, nf.cnratnQa Community Development Department _, ~, David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 26, 2005 • 19. In the event the wood fence is installed along the southern property boundary prior to grading occurring, it could serve to substitute the portions of fence designated along the boundary. 20. Great caze shall be taken to avoid excavating beyond four to five feet from section of basement wall proposed beneath tree #1's canopy. 21. Prior to soil being excavated for the basement, Irecommend aone-foot wide trench is manually dug, using shovels, along the portion of the home's perimeter within 40 feet of tree #1's trunk. The trench should be dug to four feet below existing grade and occur where overbuild is needed beyond the basement wall. All exposed roots should be cleanly severed on the tree (outer) side of the trench and the cuts ends immediately covered with soil. The freshly cut- end of roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be immediately covered with a plastic sandwich bag .and tightly sealed with a rubber band. 22. Any approved trenching or grading within the designated fenced areas shall be manually performed using shovels. Roots encountered with diameter of two inches and greater shall remain intact and be continually covered until the associated trench is backfilled (plywood or moistened burlap aze effective for this). • 23. The removal of existing asphalt beneath tree #5's canopy shall be manually performed. Within one hour of this occurring, afour-inch layer of coazse wood chips should be manually spread on the exposed surface (but not placed against its trunk). 24. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa-arbor.com. 25. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to trees #1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 every two to three weeks. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is supplied using soakers hoses placed on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer-canopies. Another option for applying the water is to pour, at slow-pressure, the necessary water beneath a tree's entire canopy but not against its trunk. 26. 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 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 27. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. • Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet 1) Klayko Property, 15175 Via Colina, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 city nfSaratoQa Community Development Department '• ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care - TREE INVENTORY TABLE • 5 ~ ~ ,-, o 3 ,-. ~ ;; b ~ ~ ~ o .~ g~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o w3 ~ ~ w ,n ~ ~ . , A b~ ° -~ A ~ ~ 4~ ~ UGC '~. ~' U :y,'' ~ ,. `° . orr . ° ..~ ~ ~ o o TREE ~ •~ ,~ ~ ~ w ~ '~ a, a ~ i r.~ b ~ .g . i ~ b ~ °o ~ > ~ ~ ~ . .~ . °o ~ .~,~?.. ~ .~ °' ~. `o .. ~ ~ :. ° Q ~ . NO: TREE NAME. H ~. x v x ~ ~. ~ O ~ ~ H . Italian Stone Pine 1 Pines inea) 72 40 100 100% 50% Good High 2 X $22,500 Monterey Pine 2 (Pines mdiata) 35.5 55 45 75% 25% Fair Moderate 1 X $2,430 Siberian Elm Dying/ 3 (Ulmus pumila) 25.5 35 45 25% 0% Dead REMOVE - - $0 Siberian Elm 4 (Ulmus mila) 22 25 40 50% 25% Poor Low - $0 Coast Live Oak 5 ( emus agrijolia) 38.5 35 80 100% 50% Good High 3 $22,400 Chinese Elm 8.5, 8, 6 (Ulmusparvifolia) 6.5 25 45 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 X $1, Douglas-Fir 7 (Psettdotsuga menziesii) 33 55 60 100% 50% Good Moderate 4 $9,900 Coast Live Oak 8 (Quercus agrifolia) 29.5 45 70 100% 75% Good High 2 $15,000 Coast Live Oak 9 (Quetcus agrifolia) 31.5 40 80 100% 75% Good High 1 $16,300 Coast Live Oak 18, 16, 10 (Quercus agrifolia) 15 35 40 100% 50% Good High 5 $12,000 Coast Live Oak 35.5, 11 (Quercus agrifolia) 32.5 45 90 75% 50% Fair High 2 $22,800 Valley Oak 12 (Quercus lobata) 16 35 30 100% 75% Good High 3 $7,500 Coast Live Oak 13 (Quer~cus agrifolia) 15 30 25 75% 75% Good High 3 $3,280 Coast Live Oak 14 (Quetrus agrifolia) 11 30 20 100% 75% Good High 2 $2,040 Coast Live Oak (Querrrts agrifolia) 31.5 50 60 100% 75% Good High 1 $] REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S on = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 15175 Yea CoLroa, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Co~unwnity Development Depart Preaared by: Dovid L Babby, RCA J>rly 26, 2005 ~. •~ 0 I • dl SI~1 -~~ e¢ Attachment 3 _ __ Neighbor Notification Template for - - - - ~ -~ Development Applications Date: $/12/05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1517.5 via Cc;lina, Saratoga Applicant Name: Flick Enterprises, Inc. and Mike & Patty Klayko Application Number: 06-007 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~vly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies .the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: L Gam=' ~~f n= ~~Z~ Neighbor Address: ~~'70 Neighbor Phone ~: ~ ~`~ 7 yr Signature: _---°~" Printed: ~~Z~ ~~li~ ~z~ City of Saratoga Planning Deparnnent Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: $/12/05 • PROJECT ADDRESS: 15175 Via Celina, Saratoga Applicant Name: Flick Enterprises, Inc. and Mike & Patty Klayko Application Number: 06-007 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is renreseniative afal! residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City .f Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need. to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant; have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~ • ~~ Neighbor Address: t~I~~ I~t'~- Cu1~~~ ~i ~Y ~ ~--- • C ~jG ~ Neighbor Phone ~: ~~0~~ ~~~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~- . Signature: Printed: . _ . ____ .: ~ ~j l ` 1 d a'Y1 ~ Ct7' t~ C._. City of Saratoga Planning Deparnnent ~ ~ ~a Date: 8/12/05 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT ADDRESS: 15175 Via Colina, Saratoga Applicant Name: Flick Enterprises, -Inc. and Mike & Patty Klayko Application Number: 06-007 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of al! residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion. expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. i3-~e' \~J~ ~ ~~ y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~ 0~~° ~~~ . ~ .~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need S~ ~./ to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. `(~~\ ~~~ ~~~ ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~~ ~v-~ understand the sco e of work• and I have issues or concerns which after discussion ~~l~ P ~ ~ n,. with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please ~J `~ attach additional sheets if necessary): ~-~"~~ ct~5~ ~`a , ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~;~~~`~ ~ ti r^ Q~~ ~ 5~~~ N2l~llbol' I\'aIilt;: 1`~1Q~` G~'~ 1~eY~J~( y~Q~ ~7V Neighbor Address: 1515 U~ c~ C.c1-~~.~~ .~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~`~ ~ ~(0~ ~ Signature: ~ Printed: ~n U ~ 2-- City of Saratoga Planning Departmenr 1_.~ September 6, 2005 Maria and Henry Vogel 15050 Via Colina Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Maria and Henry Vogel: In response to your concern regarding the mailbox in front of the new Klayko residence, at 15175 Via Colina, we thank you for making us aware of the shared mailbox situation. Mr. Klayko would also like it to be a much nicer and solid-looking mailbox. It is our intention to leave the current mailbox as is until final landscape construction and we will contact you regarding it's design and placement before installation. la ko a it also owns the la lot o o Via Colina and it is our TheKy fmy fg ff f intention to stage most of the construction activities and related parking, through the iron gate from the rear one acre parcel, to avoid disturbing the neighborhood with our construction and trucks. I hope this helps to alleviate your concerns and I am confident that you will be pleased with the project as it proceeds. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 354-3837. Sincere) Dave Flick President cc: City of Saratoga • P. 0. Box GF ^ Los Gatos, California 95031 ^ (408) 354-3837 ., R p o R r. 2 0 2aa~ ~~~ Date: $/12/05 PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications 15175 Via Calina, Saratoga Applicant Name: Flick Enterprises, Inc. and Mike & Patty Klayko Application Number: 06-007 .The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents j-esidirg~ cn yc~~r property. lrrespec~ive of the opinion exprssed belox~, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. • ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT Gave any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies .the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, i~~•l~t, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please: attach additional sheets if necessary): T ~ _~~~T GAG , Neighbor Address: -~. ~~~,~~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: Planning? Department ~ a~d~ ~~~~~"~~~~~~ l V ~~ 4 moo' ~~ ~lri~GL~~ -~ .~~J.~ ~ ~ iy; ///~ ~- I f/ L/~ / ~ ~~ i~~~ ~~ ~ (~ ~~.~- :~~ U~ ~ ~ (~ %~~ ~~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~1~t-~/ a~~ rte- vu.~ ~D-~,Diq~ J • 5~.,~ 9- ~_ ~5 • September 6, 2005 Stephanie and Bart Lnlly 15200 Via Colina Saratoga, CA 95070 -Dear Stephanie and Bart Lnlly: This letter is in response to your concern regarding the parking in front of your home at 15200 Via Colina. The Klayko family also owns the flag lot off of Via Colina and it is our intention to stage most of the construction activities and related parking, through the iron gate from the rear one acre parcel, to avoid disturbing the neighborhood with our construction and trucks. I hope this helps to alleviate your concerns and I am confident that you will be pleased with the project as it proceeds. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 354-3837. Sincerely, Dave Flick President cc: City of Saratoga • P. 0.-Box GF ^ -Los Gatos, California 95031 ^ (408) 354-3837 vRPO R p. ~~~~~d ~~~ _ Neighbor Notification Template for • ~~ - Development Applications Date: 8/12/05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 15175 Via Celina, Saratoga Applicant Name: Flick Enterprises, Inc. and Mike & Patty Klayko Application Number: 06-007 The Saratoga. Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staj~''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT bave any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. '/ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additi~ona~l~ sheets if necessary): 2 Neighbor Name:,;~u'~ ~ IW V~)~~ ~,/~~~~" Neighbor Address: Cj~~Q~ , C.A ~'~ Signature: J ~ ~t ~c ~ prrx~~S "~ ~~ ~ ~x 3 3 ~S ~D~~ ~ ~~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~"0/ ~~~~ ~~~ Printed: • ~{. ~ ~ w 2 c ~ ~ L= ~ ~ f ~ ~ o ~ ~ -~- ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ / L ~ A.1 .~ ~ ~ ~ 1N ~ ~[~' ~, [ o rb ~ ,~ ~ ,~ , ~ S -(~.~ ~, ~ ~ ~j P 6 s -ems -~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ " ~. C-o r ~ ~ ~ . ~ e ~-e ~S- c ~ ~:.~-, e..~ ~ del / ~~ e ~, G v ~ ~- ~m ~ 1 O r LD ~ ~~lZ t~1 _ ~~ Lam,;, P ~ r> ~ {~~-e C~ ~ ~- f -~ c~ `1 ~ 0~1 0 ~ (Z~e_ G, ~s ~' 2 1'~---e s ~ r~ p t ~ `s s ~ {- f ~ c ~' ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~- / ~- ~~ ~~ vim-, (1-~- ~p r ~ ~ °r-~r r ~- 1'L~. ~ o`.~.~- ~.~--ems. ~ ~ f,-~~ ~ ~,J .~ -~-~ . c /~ (~ r • i /~ -~ Q,Q_ ~ (~ U ~ ~ b w~ -~C~ -Pte...] ~-2 o r j ,L P ter--~ ~ - f -~ ~ r~ ~ ~- ~-~ `r ~l~J ~ ~~-, Cam- "- `( 5 P--~ ~ ~ S ~,.,.,,e~ -~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ . C ~ L Lam-,,- , ~ ~ w a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r-~. ~~„~ ~ rte. ~ ~-~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ DELI ~~~REG ~U~ 2 ~ ~~ n U Hugh F. Lennon P.O. Box 3315 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Lennon: August 25, 2005 I am in receipt of your letter dated August 2, 2005, regarding the construction of the Klayko home next door to your home at 15225 Vin Colina in Saratoga, and your concern about your pine tree that straddles the property line. The site plan that I gave you was reduced from the original and may have given you a false impression of scale. The actual proposed home is more than forty feet from the trunk of that pine tree. In addition, • the city is requiring that the root zones of that tree and all the other trees on the site be completely fenced off and protected during construction. You can also be assured that my company and it's employees will use the utmost care while performing any work that may be near your property line or tree root zones. I hope this helps to alleviate your concerns and I am confident that you will be pleased with the project as it proceeds. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 354-3837. Sincere) , ,F (~ ~'~..~.` Dave Flick President • P. 0. Box GF ^ Los Gatos, California 95031 ^ (408) 354-3837 ~.RPOR r • ~~ c G kph }7 P September 15, 2005 Hugh F. Lennon P,O.Box3315 ~ ~~~Q~~ Saratoga, CA 95070 SEP 2 0 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA Dear Mr. Lennon: ""'iN?TY DEVELOPME"T I am in receipt of your letter dated September 4, 2005, regarding the Klayko residence to be built next door to your home. I spoke in length with your son after my response letter and he requested five additional screening trees be planted in the Klayko side yard to provide better privacy for your home and pool. Those have been added to the site plan and approved by the City of Saratoga. In addition, we have retained a certified arborist, David Babby, who has prepared a full report and evaluation of all the onsite trees, and included your two offsite pine trees. He has made strict recommendations as to the protection of these trees and they will be followed to the letter. They include the complete fencing off of the root zones, outside our home footprint, of all the trees, including your two pine trees, with 6-foot-chain link fence, to remain in place during the entire construction process. In addition, a 4-inch layer of tan bark will be placed inside the fenced areas, to prevent root compaction. Any roots that are exposed outside these fences will be hand trimmed, treated, and covered. In twenty-five years of home construction, my company has -never killed a tree and I think you will find the extraordinary care my employees take with all phases of the construction (including tree protection) will meet with your approval. Furthermore, in order to make this construction more sensitive to you, your trees, and other neighbors, we will be staging the majority of our construction related activities, parking, and deliveries, on the other Klayko owned acre, and through the private, gated entrance down the street. C: I? O. I~u~ (,I: _,l_us G~~t~>>, ~~;~lii~~rnia ~)~>O~~l-: ~~(i~'~ =~~~~1-~~~~~% Mr. Klayko has also posted a $154,320 tree protection bond that will be held by the city- until the home is complete and all tree protection compliance has been met. Nearly $25,000 of that bond is for the protection of your two pine trees alone. I have included the entire report for your convenience. If you have any further questions, please give me a call at 234-4009. C~ Sincerely Dnve Flick President {- c.. f f ~ ~ OS • rl~ V1 C~ v -2 ~ ~--~ ~`^''~-V~'.e /r`1_ ~~ C~Sc R / .1~ -t-~ -~'i ~-2'2' ~-'~`v ` L-2' ~ ~ ~~ ~-e-~-d--,,,~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -ems f~-e c~.~ ~ ~- Sp ~ -~~ ~~ R o o -~' S ~ S ~~n S' D ~ ~ ~ ..e ~~ -e-2-d ~ ~ loo ~ c ~ ~' ~ fie ~ ~ ~/~ -~- ~~,~, ~ , -~- ~ N ~ ~ ~-~e~-~ ~ ~ W ~., c~~v -P~ `f ` ~ -e-e S-~ v'~ c.2. / e~p o / t~ c~ ~ ~ G._r2 e 1 ~ e ~ Y , '~.~ ~ r ~ ,/S ~G~IL ~o~ ,,~, ~~~,~~ ~~ ~ o~~ ~- V ~ O • ~s G- c~t ~ , L C ti ~..5 6 ~J • Attachment 4 pia Colina 39709017 COHEN, SUSAN K & RICHARD TRUSTEE 19242 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6225 39709025 LAZARES, CYNTHIA L & DAVID L 19209 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6224 39709028 BYRNE, JAMES D & SANDRA S 15120 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6250 39710024 CARRIGAN, JAMES P & JENNIFER K TRUSTEE 19311 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6219 39710027 RAO, FRANK M & SOPHIE D TRUSTEE 19385 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6219 39710030 PERRUCCI, JOSEPH P TRUSTEE 2150 MONTEREY RD SAN JOSE CA 95112 39710033 PERRUCCI, JOSEPH P TRUSTEE 15175 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6248 39711005 TSAI, JOHN C & ANN C 15100 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070-6210 39711009 BONASERA, MICHAEL J 15101 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6284 39711012 VO, BINH A & JEANNIE 19271 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6244 39709018 NIKFAR, ARMIN TRUSTEE ETAL 19208 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6225 39709026 LALLY, BARTHOLOMEW C JR TRUSTEE ETAL 15200 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6250 39709029 HUBBELL, DOUGLAS A & MARLENE E TRUSTEE 15135 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070-6207 39710025 HUNTER, ANITA L 19327 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6219 39710028 O CONNELL, JO ANN J & JEROME F TRUSTEE 19360 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6246 39710031 PARK, HONG & SOON 18740 HANNA DR CUPERTINO CA 95014-3853 39710034 LENNON, HUGH F & ROWENA R PO BOX 3315 SARATOGA CA 95070-1315 39711006 WAITE, FREDERICK C JR & LANETTA A 15080 ENCINA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6212 39711010 METZ, MICHAEL V & KATHERINE M 19231 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6244 39711013 39709024 VAUDOIT, RAYMOND & ELAINE L TRUSTEE 19175 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6224 39709027 BOTCHEK, ROBERT C 15150 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6250 39709030 BAAB, CARLTON H & SHARON L 15165 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070-6207 39710026 SULLIVAN, JOHN J. & PATRZCIA M TRUSTEE 19341 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6219 39710029 MELEHAN, JAMES S TRUSTEE ETAL 15175 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6248 39710032 REID, ROBERT D & MARILYN W 15125 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6248 39711004 THOMPSON, KAY F TRUSTEE 15144 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070-6266 39711008 CARREKER, JAMES R & HELEN L TRUSTEE 15061 ENCINA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6212 39711011 JASWA, VIJAY & SANDHYA 19251 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6244 39711014 EPSTEIN, LEWIS S & VICKIE A ROWEN, ARLINE TRUSTEE 19410 VALLE VISTA DR ETAL SARATOGA CA 95070-6282 19361 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6245 • `!ia Colina 11015 39711018 DITTO, JERRY R & SARAH I TRUSTEE 15050 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 39711023 PERUSA, ANTHONY J & LAUREL B 15085 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 • 39711017 39711016 OWYANG, KIRK A & TARA 15070 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 39711019 COMPTON, PATRICIA A & JAMES R TRUSTEE 15040 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 39711022 VOGEL, BERNARD J JR & JOAN M TRUSTEE 15055 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 39711041 JOHNSON, ROBERT S & ESTELLA M 15043 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 39711047 TZOU, SHIN-YUAN & YIH- ZONG 15030 ORIOLE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6223 • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26`h day of October 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Project details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inquiries regarding the project should be directed to the planner noted below. • APPLICATION #06-007 (397-10-030) - KLAYKO, 15175 Via Colinas The applicant requests design review approval to construct aone-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence including an attached second dwelling unit is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is proposed including the dwelling unit. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.5 feet. The gross lot size is 1.12 acres and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of-this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner coosterhous@saratoga.ca.us 408 868-1286 • r • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) SS. I, ~{ ~~ J 5,~~-----... being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, o~ver~ the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ t~% 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 hst attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~; . ; ~~' /a , ~~~~~ Signed • Item 4 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION U • Application No./Location: OS-122, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Type of Application: Tentative Parcel Map Applicantl0wner: Steve and Diane Spitts, property owners (.°,~~' Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: October 26, 2005 APN: 510-06-006 Department Head: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Application No. OS-122; 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road EXECUTIVE SUNIlVIARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 04/04/05 Application complete: 10/12/05 Notice published: 10/12/05 Mailing completed: 10/07/05 Posting completed: 10/20/05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel located at 19330 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road into two parcels with a remainder parcel. Parcel 2 would include a new building site. The remainder parcel is to be recorded with the County as a conservation easement. An existing single-family residence is located in the proposed building envelope of parcel 1. Access for parcel 1 and 2 are proposed from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The existing parcel is 3.068 acres (net). The proposed net parcel sizes include: parcel 1 would be 1.129 acres, parcel 2 would be .937 acres, and the remainder parcel would be .70 acres. The majority of the property is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the Tentative Parcel Map Application Number OS-122 by adopting the attached Resolution. L.~ • L` STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1 40,000 GENERAL PLAN: Parcels 1 & 2 R-1 40,000: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 1.09 Remainder Parcel Pre-zoned Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre.S MEASURE G: Not Applicable EXISTING PARCEL SIZE: 3.223 acres (gross)/ 3.068 acres (net) PROPOSED PARCELS: PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 Remainder ParceU Conservation Easement AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: PARCEL 1 2.8% 1.129 -acres 49,179 square feet (net) 0.937 acres 40,816 square feet (net) 0.700 acres 30,492 square feet (net) PARCEL 2 5.8% GRADING REQUIRED: Grading quantities including any cut and fill will be provided at the time a design review application is filed for any proposed residences. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two building sites is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption applied to the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope of greater than 20%. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Not applicable at this time. At the time design review applications are filed for the construction of the residences materials and colors -will be specified. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel located at 19330 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road into two parcels with a remainder parcel. Parcel 2 would include a new building site. The remainder parcel is to be recorded with the County as a conservation easement. An existing single-family residence is located in the proposed building envelope of parcel 1. The existing parcel is 3.068 acres (net). The proposed net parcel sizes include: parcel 1 would be 1.129 acres, parcel 2 would be .937 acres, and the remainder parcel would be .70 acres. The majority of the property is zoned R-1 40,000. Access for parcel 1 and 2 are proposed from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The California Government Code Section 66424.6 authorizes a remainder parcel as follows: the subdivided may omit entirely "that portion" of any unit of improved or unimproved land which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing. Because the portion of the land not divided for sale, lease or financing is not limited as to size, and the remainder parcel is not a part of the subdivision, it need not comply with the General Plan or Zoning minimum parcel size requirements. • The remainder parcel concept, is permissible under the subdivision map act; however, the proposed remainder parcel is non-conforming in lot width and area; therefore, is it not a - legally build-able parcel. The proposed parcel 2 meets the required lot width for a subdivision because the narrow part of parcel 2 has been eliminated through the creation of a remainder parcel. While the creation of a remainder lot is permissible under the subdivision map act it is of utmost importance to the city that this remainder parcel not be developed in the future. To ensure those ends the following conditions shall be placed on the final map: • A conservation easement shall be recorded over the remainder parcel. The conservation easement shall be kept open and free from building and structures of any kind. Only native plants may be planted in said easement. • The conservation easement shall also be recorded on the final map and on the title. • The remainder parcel shall not be sold separately from parcel 2. Ownership of the remainder parcel shall be tied to parcel 2 An unusual circumstance exists for the subject parcel and at least one other property in the project vicinity where portions of the parcel are located in both the City and County. Areas located in the County are designated in the City's General Plan as Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). A 1,481 square foot area on the subject parcel is located within the County and consequently the General Plan Designation is RHC as are all county areas located within the City's Sphere of Influence. The 1,481 square foot area is contained within the proposed remainder parcel which is to recorded as a conservation easement. The majority of the existing parcel approximately 90,000 sq $ is designated Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) by the General Plan which equates to the R-1 40,000 zoning districts. Case law president has been set that when a parcel of land contains two zoning designations the most predominate zoning shall apply. In this case R-1 40,000. In addition, the remainder parcel need not comply with the General Plan or Zoning minimum parcel size requirements. It may be concluded that this condition of dual jurisdiction resulted because the parcel line follows aright-of--way, contrary to the City/County Limit Line(s), which follows a creek located on the property. In theory, the City/County Limit Line should also follow the right- of-way to avoid bisecting the subject property. It is contrary to good land use practice to have one parcel located within two jurisdictions; therefore the City is revising the City/County Limit Lines so that they are consistent in this area of the City. In the meantime, land use decisions will not be affected because the parcels are currently held to the City's land use regulations and standards. The County has jurisdiction over the application due to the location of approximately 1,481 square feet of the existing property being located on County lands. As a result the County has required that the City annex this area. The applicant has requested that the City Council initiate annexation of the subject area. The Council considered the annexation at the October 19, 2005 City Council meeting. As a condition of approval all portions of County land located within the project site shall be annexed by the City prior to adoption of the final map. Neighbor Notification The applicant substantially revised the plans due to neighborhood feedback. Specifically, the . applicant revised access to -the proposed building site on Parcel 2 from improving an undeveloped portion of Bainter Avenue including bridging San Thomas Aquino Creek to a flag parcel with access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The neighborhood meeting held by the applicant indicated that several neighbors did not support an application which included improving Bainter to provide access to the proposed building site. In response to negative reactions to this proposal the applicant revised the plans to include access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road for parcel 2. All neighborhood correspondence is attached for your review; however, most letters in opposition have largely been address by plan revisions to access parcel 2 from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Driveway for Parcel 2: Existing Garage/Poolhouse on Parcel l Parcel 2 is a flag lot with access to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The flag lot configuration for parcel 2 will require the demolition of an existing garage and poolhouse on parcel 1 because the existing structures will not meet the required setbacks from the parcel line for parcel 2. As you may recall, a subdivision may not be approved if it creates any non-conformities such as buildings located in the setback. The Tentative Map shall include the following conditions of approval: the existing poolhouse on parcel 1 shall be demolished prior to final map approval and the existing garage on parcel 1 shall be demolished and rebuilt prior to final map approval. The new garage if detached will require administrative design review. The new garage if attached may be eligible for an over the counter approval from the Planning Department. Biotic Assessment -Conservation Easement A biotic assessment report has been prepared for the project site by H.T. Harvey and Associates. A riparian setback of between 50-100 feet is often recommended as appropriate for streams with associated riparian habitat. Currently, the proposed building site on parcel 2 lies 175 feet from the topographic top of bank. As discussed earlier in the staff report,. a remainder parcel is proposed. A conservation easement shall be recorded over the remainder parcel. The conservation easement shall be kept open and free from building and structures of any kind. Only native plants may be planted in said easement. The conservation easement shall also be recorded on the final map and on the title. The remainder parcel shall not be sold separately from parcel 2. Ownership of the remainder parcel shall be tied to parcel 2. Additionally, project conditions have been incorporated in the Resolution of Approval to protect the Cooper's Hawks as recommended on page 9 of the Biotic Report, attachment 8. Geotechnical Clearance The subdivision has been reviewed by the City Geologist. Geotechnical clearance has been issued for the subdivision and the conditions are included on the resolution of approval. Conditions of approval required design review for each residence. Arborist Reports The City Arborist, David Babby worked closely with the applicant's project arborist, Dave Dockter during the project review. In addition the City Arborist performed a peer review of the applicants tree assessment dated August 1, 2005. . The City Arborist report found that construction of the proposed driveway and single-family residence on Parcel 2 would require removal of three oak trees #58, 59, and 61. Given their overall condition and relatively small size amongst a densely forested, Oak woodland stand, the City Arborist found their loss would be insignificant. Mitigation shall include the installation of new trees equivalent in value to the combine appraised values of those removed which is $7,470. The City Arborist has recommended that both the City Arborist recommendation as well at the project aborist recommendations be incorporated into the resolution of approval. The Arborist Reports are Attachment 2 and 3 of the staff report. In summary, the proposed parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate future improvements. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. Access to each of the proposed parcels will be . via Highway 9 or Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Tentative Map Approval Findings The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission fmds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b)). Staffhas provided evidence, which does not support the findings. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Low Very Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per acre. The proposed parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum prescribed by the zoning ordinance for parcels in the vicinity. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed parcels sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the code and are compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate asingle-family residence. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence. At the time an application to construct asingle-family residence on the proposed parcels is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are sloped however not to the point that building would be impeded. Geotechnical clearance shall be required for construction of either parcel at the time it is proposed. The subdivision has received geotechnical clearance. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. • (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subdivision application may result in the construction of asingle-family residence on parcel 2. Approximately one dwelling units per acre are permitted consistent with the general plan • maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 1.09 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of asingle-family home on the proposed parcel is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately one acre or more. (S) That the design of the subdivision are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two building sites is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 1531 S of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption applied to the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope of greater than 20%. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and general plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed and conditioned by the Sanitation District, Saratoga Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, the • Arborist, Planning Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. The project site is located in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. This designation incorporates the vast majority of properties within the City. Floodway areas of Zone AE are located along the City's major creeks and require certain construction techniques; however, the project site is designated as Zone X. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. The proposed subdivision- contains several easements a Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement, an existing Sanitary Sewer Easement, and a Conservation Easement. The subdivision does not conflict with any of the above-mentioned easements. The Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement has been noted on the plans. The SCVWD has reviewed the proposed subdivision. According to correspondence dated July 15, 2005 any proposed improvements adjacent to a District easement or facility shall required a permit prior to the start of construction. The Conservation Easement shall be recorded. The Conservation Easement shall be recorded over the remainder parcel. The conservation easement shall be kept open and free from building and structures of any kind. Only native plants may be planted in said easement. The conservation easement shall also be recorded on the final map and on the title. The remainder parcel shall not be sold separately from parcel 2. Ownership of the remainder parcel shall be tied to parcel 2 (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to • the Williamson Act. Not Applicable. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. • 9 That the dischar e o waste () g f from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements..The West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County has reviewed the proposed subdivision reference correspondence dated September 21, 2005. The District operates a 6-inch sewer main that runs parallel to San Tomas Creek within the property. This sewer main will provide service to the new parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map if the commission finds the proposal supports any of the following nine findings (Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b)). Staffhas provided evidence, which does not support the findings. Staff review of the proposed tentative map indicates that there is no evidence to support the findings listed in MCS 14-20.0709(b); therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision by adopting the attached Resolution. With the Planning commissions approval of the tentative subdivision the application will be forwarded to the City Council for approval of the final map and review by the City Surveyor. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. City Arborist Report by David Babby, dated September 5, 2005. 3. Project Arborist Report by David Dockter, dated August 11, 2005. 4. Neighbor correspondence. 5. Comments from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, dated December 21, 2004 and July 15, 2005. 6. Comments from the West Valley Sanitation District dated September 21, 2005. 7. Comments from the Saratoga Fire Department, dated August 15, 2005. 8. Biotic Constraints Analysis and Riparian Assessment Report by H.T Harvey and Associates, dated August 9, 2005 and May 25, 2005. 9. Mailing labels for project notification and affidavit. 10. Exhibit "A" legal description and Exhibit "B" map, date stamped October 19, 2005. 11. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." date stamped October 18, 2005. • • Attachment 1 • • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. OS-122 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Steve and Diane Spitts,19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels with a remainder parcel, set forth in file no. OS-122; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together -with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specific in such General Plan reference the staff report for further particulars; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on October 26, 2005 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and • WHEREAS, The Planning Commission shall not approve any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the nine findings listed in Municipal Code Section 14- 20.070(b). The findings were not supported based on the following evidence. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Low Very Density (RVLD) defined as 1.09 dwelling units per acre. The proposed parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required by the municipal code. Each proposed parcel will be in excess of the 40,000 square foot minimum prescribed by the zoning ordinance for parcels in the vicinity. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed parcels sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the code and are compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are ample to accommodate asingle-family residence. Building envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence. At the time an application to construct asingle-family residence on the proposed parcels is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing • neighborhood and residences shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed building envelopes. and surrounding areas are sloped however not to the point that building would be impeded. Geotechnical clearance shall be required for construction of either parcel at the time it is proposed. The subdivision has received geotechnical clearance. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape, that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings that may hinder future development on the site. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subdivision application may result in the construction of asingle-family residence on parcel 2. Approximately one dwelling units per acre are permitted consistent with the general plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 1.09 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of asingle-family home on the proposed parcel is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately one acre or more: (S) That the design of the subdivision are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project which includes subdivision of one lot into two building sites is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption applied to the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope of greater than 20%. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and general plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed -and conditioned by the Sanitation District, Saratoga Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Arborist, Planning Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department. The project site is located in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. This designation incorporates the vast majority of properties within the City. Floodway areas of Zone AE are located along the City's major creeks and require certain construction techniques; however, the project site is designated as Zone X. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access or use. The proposed subdivision contains several easements a Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement, an existing Sanitary Sewer Easement, and a Conservation Easement. The subdivision does not conflict with any of the above-mentioned easements. The Santa Clara Valley Water District Easement has been noted on the plans. The SCVWD has reviewed the proposed subdivision. According to correspondence dated July 15, 2005 any proposed improvements adjacent to a District easement or facility shall required a permit prior to the start of construction. The Conservation Easement shall be recorded. The Conservation Easement shall be recorded over the remainder parcel. The conservation easement shall be kept open and free from building and structures of any kind. Only native plants may be planted in said easement. The conservation easement shall also be recorded on the final map and on the title. The remainder parcel shall not be sold separately from parcel 2. Ownership of the remainder parcel shall be tied to parcel 2 (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. Not Applicable. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County has reviewed the proposed subdivision reference correspondence dated September 21, 2005. The District operates a 6-inch sewer main that runs parallel to San Tomas Creek within the property. This sewer main will provide service to the new parcel. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter Subdivision Application No. OS-122 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. A conservation easement shall be recorded over the remainder parcel. The conservation easement shall be kept open and free from building and structures of any kind. Only native plants may be planted in said easement. 2. The conservation easement shall also be recorded on the final map and on the title. 3. The remainder parcel shall not be sold separately from parcel 2. The final map shall state that ownership of the remainder parcel shall be tied to parcel 2. fished rior to final ma 4. The existing poolhouse on parcel 1 shall be demol p p approval 5. The existing garage on parcel 1 shall be demolished. A new garage meeting all current city codes at the time of construction shall be built prior to final map approval. 6. Annexation of County lands on the subject property shall be completed prior to final map approval BIOTIC ASSESSMENT 7. All measures outlined in the Biotic Assessment report dated May 25, 2005 shall be incorporated into the project plans. Including, but not limited, to avoid nesting season for Cooper's Hawks during construction. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 8. 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. 9. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 10. 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. 11. 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. 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. 12. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failuie or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 13. The District requests the land owner to grant an easement along the creek that included the creek itself and a 22 foot width from top of creek bank. 14. The owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in agreement with District standards. Property owners or their representatives should call the Well and Water Protection Unit at 408 265-2607, extension 2660. 15. A District permit can only be issued on the final set of plans and a transfer of prior to completion of the permit invalidates the permit requiring the new property owner to re apply and a new permit be issued to the correct permittee. 16. Reference SCVWDistrict File No. 3560 on future correspondence regarding this project. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT 17. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement-plan District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 18. All conditions of the Saratoga Fire Department shall be met. CITY ARBORIST 19. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report by David Babby, dated September 5, 2005 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 20. All recommendations of the project arborist Report by Dave Dockter, dated August 1, 2005. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be 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. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The .submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new comer location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 23. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map/Vesting Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the informa- tion required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 25. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 26. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 27. Private sanitary sewer easement from existing sanitary sewer easement to the developed lot shall be dedicated on the Final Map. 28. The owner (applicant) shall contact West Valley Sanitation District and comply with all their conditions and requirements. • 29. Applicant shall submit plans to Caltrans for review and approval of the new driveway entrance. All improvements required by Caltrans shall be incorporated into development plans prior to issuance of permits. All conditions shall be fulfilled prior to final project approval. Caltrans Encroachment Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of the work in the state right-of--way. 30. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 31. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers,- prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. ' 32. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 33. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. • Section 2. An approved or conditionally approved tentative subdivision map approval shall expire 24 months from the date on which the advisory agency, or the City Council on appeal granted its approval or conditional approval. An extension may be granted pursuant to 14-20-080. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED, The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, held on the 26th day of October 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: r~ u Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning • Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • -~s ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care September 5, 2005 Christy Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: PLAN REVIEW of the Proposed Two-Lot Subdivision at the Spitts Property; 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga; Application #: OS-122 Dear Christy: As requested, I have reviewed the following documents regarding the proposed two-lot subdivision at the above-referenced site: [1] Sheet 1 (dated August 2005) and Sheet 2 (dated July 2005) by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and [2] an arborist report (dated August 1, 2005) by Mr. Dave Dockter, APC (the Project Arborist on record for the subject development). My findings and recommendations are presented below. Please note the tree numbers and locations are shown on the attached map, which is a copy of Sheet 1 (Tentative Map -Alternative 1). Specific data regarding each tree is presented • on the attached tree inventory table. 1. The report prepared by Mr. Dockter provides a thorough analysis and presents effective, appropriate and suitable tree protection measures that should be identified within the Resolution of Approval for this project. 2. Based on my review of the plans and report, I recommend "Alternative 1" be approved as the design that would impose the least impacts to trees on site. 3~ By implementation of Alternative 1, 54 trees would be exposed to varying degrees of potential damage during construction of the driveway and home. Each tree planned for retention is expected to be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented within Mr. Dockter's report are carefully and thoroughly followed and incorporated into the project plans. 4. The 54 trees are sequentially numbered from 28 thru 81 and include twenty-nine Coast Live Oaks (#28, 29, 31-8, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48-61, 80); three Valley Oaks (#30, 41, 47); seven Coast Redwoods (#72-77, 79); ten Monterey Pines (#62-70, 78); two Deodar Cedars (#44, 71); one Spruce (#39); one Fir (#40); and one Black Walnut (#81). For identification purposes, round, metallic tags were attached to the trunks of accessible trees and contain engraved numbers that correspond to trees within this report. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 • r~ • ~~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care September 5, 2005 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road page 2 5. Trees #42, 46, 77 and 78 are not shown on the proposed plan but should be added due their proximity to the proposed project components. Their approximate trunk. locations are presented on the attached map but should not be construed as being surveyed. 6. By implementation of the proposed design, trees #58, 59 and 61 would be removed. Given their overall condition and relatively small size amongst a densely forested, Oak woodland stand, I find their loss would be insignificant. Per City standard, mitigation should include the installation of new trees equivalent in value to the combined appraised value of those removed, which is $7,470. Tree replacement values are presented on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The trees should be planted prior to final inspection per locations and standards provided by the Project Arborist. 7. The numbers and site map presented within Mr. Dockter's report should be modifed to conform to this report. 8. The bond amount required for adhering to recommendations presented in Mr. Dockter's report is determined to be $333,160. This value represents the combined value of trees anticipated to be retained and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the ISA, 2000. Sincerely, ~v David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (copy of the Tentative Map -Alternative 1) • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~, ` ° ~ ,-. o a ~ ~ ]v ~ •ro .-. ~' ,-: v ~ o 3 o 3 Y ~ N ~ 3 b $ ~ r ~ ~ 'b 'b _ ~ ~ o , ~ `° Q w[ ~ ~ T ~ j N ~ ~ U .~' ~, .~ i~ o -o y~ per' "TREE c ~o[ ~ o °~ o ~ `° ~ x ~ . ~ o.; °„ NO: TREE NAME ~ a. " ~ G t:, _ ~a a~ o i?' o > 3 u N ~ o o ~ ;: Coast Live Oak 28 (Quercus agrifolia) 18.5, 12 30 40 75% 75% Good High 4 - $10,000 Coast Live Oak 29 (Quercus agrifolia) 20.5, 16 35 55 100% 75% Good High 4 - $15,800 Valley Oak 30 (Quercus lobata) 21 40 40 100% 75% Good High 4 - $15,600 Coast Live Oak 17, 12, 31 (Quercus agri olio) 10, 6 30 40 100% 25% Fair High 4 - $7,200 Coast Live Oak 32 (Quercus agrifolia) 22, 13 40 50 100% 75% Good High 3 - $15,200 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 8.5 20 20 100% 50% Good High 3 - X ! Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 16.5 45 45 100% 75% Good High 3 - $4, Coast Live Oak 35 (Quercus agrifolia) 17.5, 8 35 50 100% 75% Good High 2 - $5,900 Coast Live Oak 36 (Quercus agrifolia) 16.5 25 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - $4,050 Coast Live Oak 37 (Quercus agrifolia) 19, 17 40 45 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 - $3,520 Coast Live Oak 38 (Quercus agrifolia) 9, 6.5, 6 30 30 50% 75% Fair Moderate 4 - X $1,400 Englemann Spruce 39 (Picea engelmannii) 19 30 40 100% 75% Good High 4 - X $5,300 Grand Fir 40 (Picea grandis) 14.5 40 30 100% 100% Good High 4 - X $6,200 Valley Oak 20, 18, ql (Quercus lobata) 14 70 110 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $65,000 Coast Live Oak 42 (Quercus agrifolia) 10, 9 30 30 100% 50% Good High 3 - X X $2,330 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ;allon = $120 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Comm Dev. Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 1 °j4 9/5/2005 • Coast Live Oak 43 (Quercus a ifolia) 36, 28 80 100 100% 50% Good High 4 - X $32,500 TREE INVENTORY TABLE >: r-. --, s v ¢ L ~ 3 ~ Ib 3 ~' Ib ' C ° aNi ~ ~ p n, o c~a P ~ ca is > ~ ~ ~ a, ,~ , °" n o~ ~.. ~ o o~ 3 ~ c Q ~ ~ ~ . b ~c 6 s ~b ~ y ~ ~'~ o ~ T Wit; TREE: ~ : `° Z ~ II ~ o NO. ' T'12EE NAME ~ ~ ~... ~ ~, W m ~ w U a i-o x'... ;c ~: ~ > O ~ ~ - .° :: ~ .[ la Z o .a w 6- Deodar Cedar 14, 12, 44 (Cedrus deodara) 11 70 60 50% 50% Fair High 3 - X $20,500 Coast Live Oak 45 (Quercus agrifolia) 10 30 15 100% 75% Good High 3 - $1,700 Coast Live Oak 46 (Quercus agrifolia) 8 30 15 75% 75% Good High 3 - X $980 Valley Oak 47 (Quercus lobata) 9 40 30 100% 75% Good High 3 - X $2,800 Coast Live Oak 50 (Quercus agrifolia) 15 14 35 40 75% 25% Fair Moderate 5 - $6,900 Coast Live Oak 17.5,11.5 51 (Quercusagrijo[ia) ,10.5 35 40 100% 25% Fair Moderate 4 - $6,100 Coast Live Oak g2 (Quercus agrifolia) 7 25 10 100% 50% Good Moderate 4 - $720 Coast Live Oak 53 (Quercus a rifolia) 17, 17 35 40 100% 50% Good High 4 - $8,300 Coast Live Oak gq (Quercus agrifolia) 8.5 25 15 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 - $1,030 Coast Live Oak 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 10.5 35 20 100% 50% Good Moderate 4 - $1,640 Coast Live Oak 56 (Quercus agrifolia) 14.5 40 35 100% 50% Good High 4 - $3,070 Coast Live Oak g7 (Quercus agrifolia) 14, 10 35 35 100% 75% Good High 2 - $4,750 i• REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES IS- allon = 5120 24-inch box = 5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Comm Dev. Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA z o j4 9isrzoos TREE INVENTORY TABLE L ~ ~ y ° -- Q ~ 3 3 ~, ~, ~ o q C " ¢ ~ o 0 0 . ~ C a..a .. P. ~ c ro a •~ , ~ •,., o °a~° o . . ~ E v, a" ^ o ~ Q is ~ ~ p „ a ~ ., ~ ~ a w o 3 F o o Ca w ~ ~ ~ a, `~ o U ~ ie pa - U ~ ~ ~, .~ ~ o .a ~ G,, TREE ~ .v ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ b _ ;°_ ~ ~ ~ x 1 6 ° =° U N v7 1e n. U °~ . • NO: TREE NAME F.., C7. ;W w U' x ... ' v~_.. O cn . ...1 ., G1: " .~. .a a:: - ....E-,. Coast Live Oak 58 (Quercus agrifolia) 10 35 35 100% 50% Good Moderate - X $1,500 Coast Live Oak 59 (Quercus agrifolia) 14, 13 50 45 100% 25% Fair Moderate - X $4,180 Coast Live Oak 60 (Quercus agrifolia) 22, 12, 5 40 35 75% 50% Fair High 2 - $8,000 Coast Live Oak 61 (Quercus a ifolia) 14.5 25 30 75% 25% Fair Low - X $1,790 Monterey Pine 62 (Pinus radiata) 41 50 80 100% 50% Good High 2 - $3,910 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 24 60 50 75°0 50% Fair High 2 - $1,: Monterey Pine 65 (Pinus radiata) 28 60 55 75% 50% Fair High 2 - $1,620 Monterey Pine 66 (Pinus radiata) 20 60 40 75% 50% Fair High 2 - $830 Monterey Pine 67 (Pinus radiata) 36 50 45 100% 50% Good High 2 - $3,200 Monterey Pine 6g (Pinus radiata) 24 50 30 75% 75% Good High 2 - $1,500 Monterey Pine 69 (Pinus radiata) 17 45 40 100% 75% Good High 2 - $860 Monterey Pine 70 (Pinus radiata) 38 65 60 75% 50% Fair High 2 - $2,800 Deodar Cedar 71 (Cedrus deodara) 17 65 70 100% 75% Good High 4 - $7,200 Coast Redwood 72 (Sequoia sempervirens) 10 40 25 100% 100% Good High 3 - $1,630 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES allon = 5120 24-inch box = 5420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,00( Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Comm Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 3 oj4 9/5/2005 i~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~,, :: ,.. ,.. _~ 0 ~. ' -- , ~ . . O ~ N y~' h m ~ : a ° p U ~ ° i 3. ~ F 3 0 '~ 0 Q ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~a W . . TREE c -o ~ ~ o e ~ o v a o ~. a~ ~ ~ x a~ o 00 : U n ~ ~ a ~ ,~ NO. TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ i F- v ~, w ~, ~ w. v ~ . o x ~.' ~ o in ? .~ > o ~ ~ ~ ll ...., .: . ~ ~ .. . r, ~ : o z .. o ~ w w w E~ Coast Redwood 73 (Seauoiasemoervirens) 10 40 25 100% 100% Good High 3 - $1,630 Coast Redwood 74 (Se uoia sem ervirens) 12 45 30 100% 100% Good High 3 - $2,310 Coast Redwood 75 (Se uoia sem ervirens) 12 45 25 100% 100% Good High 3 - $2,310 Coast Redwood 76 (Sequoia sem ervirens) 8 35 20 100% 100% Good High 3 - $1,080 Coast Redwood 77 (Seguoiasem ervirens) 20 80 50 100% 75% Good High 5 - X X $5,300 Coast Live Oak g0 (Quercus a rifolia) 18 40 40 100% 75% Good High 4 - X $5,300 California Black Walnut gl (Ju Tans hindsii) 23 35 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $1,160 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I S-gallon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd, Saratoga Prepared jor City ojSaratoga Comm Dev Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 4 oj4 _ $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 N 9/5/2005 ~~ a ~ ~ .~ Y IE dii~~~ $d~?~ ~ ~~ id - ~ C C ~ C ~ ~i !6 ~€ ~~~€pp~~..~ pp co EL C ~a ~~ i - 6• ~a ~~ a!•Faragy-ng!••rpyq!^{pelieFtt i S~i~ia~~~~~°`~9YEle~~ I - • • • Attachment 3 • Tree Assessment & Preservation Report --Lands of Spitts-- Prepared at the request of: Steve Spitts 14515 Chester Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 330-3802 Project Location: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, CA City of Saratoga, Community Development Department Application #05-122 Prepared by: Dave Dockter, APC Arboricultural Planning Consultant Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 866-2534 August 1, 2005 All Rights Reserved: Dave Dockter 2005® C7 ~~~~~~~ • auc i 1 zoos ~C1TY OF SARATOGA '~"'!~?UNITYDEl~Er ppn,!E~~T • Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 2 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Table of Contents Assignment and Background . Summary Statement Identifying Significant Issues Observations of Tree and Site Suitability for Preservation Discussion and Alternative Access Routes The Selected Driveway Approach Conclusion Recommendations 8 Development Measures Tree Preservation Instructions (Draft Conditions of Approval) Site Planning & Plan Specifications Prior to Demolition During Construction Inspection Schedule Performance of Consultant Limiting Conditions ~ Assumptions Exhibits Tree Location and Protection Zone Map Glossary 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 3 Tree Assessment 8 Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratog ~I Assignment and Background. ` Property owners, Steve and Diane Spitts, requested that I review any detrimental effect on trees, and recommend preservation measures associated with a proposed two-lot subdivision at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, Application #05-122. A subdivision improvement of the previously developed parcel involves a separate access road, footprint area for a new home and associated utilities. The plan reviewed for this report includes a Tentative Map by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated August 2005 and a site plan prepared by Louie Leu, Architect, sheets A1.2, undated. A preliminary Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Two-lot Subdivision, prepared by Arbor Resources, dated April 29, 2005 served as the base list of trees and was used for location and to evaluate impacts. This report is consistent with the Arbor Resources Inventory and the corresponding numbered tags placed on the trees at the site. The City of Saratoga requires that a monetary value of tree(s) to be preserved during development be established and is my understanding that it will be provided by Arbor Resources. Hence, the Arbor Resources report, inventory and appraisal is considered a companion to this report by reference: This report summarizes my observations and recommendations regarding the Tentative Map improvements, tree impacts and mitigation measures for preservation of trees during . development. A map with the locations of trees 1-71 is attached at the end of this document. Summary Statement The information gathered in my site visit and discussed in this report support the opinion that the recommendations and preservation measures outlined in this and ensuing reports, when integrated into the Tentative Map, design documents and implemented during construction, the subdivision project would successfully. preserve 68 of the 71 ordinance-size trees-both on the site and overhanging the site from neighboring properties. Within an existing grove of 11 oaks, only 3 oaks, which have been determined to be of lower retention value, would be removed for the access road. No other significant trees are envisioned to be removed either for the access road or the proposed home site pad. The 3 oaks removed would be subject to the City replacement tree criteria as required. After evaluating several alternatives (see Discussion and Alternative Access Routes), the plan that would remove the fewest oaks (3), which would impose the least long-term impact is the current Tentative Map dated August 2005, and is named Alternative One. The other proposed Alternatives, which have not been selected, still remain as feasible. alternatives, but were not selected by the property owner for various reasons. For example; the Bridge Access Alternative remains an environmentally feasible alternative but was not selected due the neighborhood opposition. Identifying Significant Issues The subdivision application has several constraints and challenges that were evident to navigate successfully the anticipated access road, ordinance size trees, home site pad and unique natural! terrain. These constraints include: Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Cert~ed Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net • Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 - 4 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga ^ Preservation during construction of mature native and ordinance size trees along the access road and home site pad is necessary. ^ Special preservation techniques are needed. Target goals include designing with a soft footprint (minimum root severance and soil compaction) on the land. ^ Grade contours dictate feasibility. In any of the scenarios considered (see Discussion and Alternative Access Routes), trees would be exposed to varying degrees of impact, as well as the number of trees that would be removed. Four alternatives were studied. ^ Minimize tree removal. To access the lower meadow where the home site is, a direct penetration through the oak grove was necessary--and is considered superior to traversing the driveway through or within the dripline~ of a greater number of trees. Therefore, all effort was made to design the project to pose the least detriment to the native and significant trees by carefully combining the road, grading, proven road building techniques best management practices. Observations of Trees and Site 71 ordinance-sized trees were inventoried on the property including many that are on the Lucas property and are overhanging the site. The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 71. The accessible trunks of trees #1 thru 40 contain numbered tags at this time. The existing site layout finds anorth/south terracing from the higher elevation along the Highway 9 frontage, a relatively level area of the developed driveway, motor court turnaround and house, an increasing slope stepped by a pool area, a bisecting oak grove at the top of a knoll, flatter area of the proposed lot 2 home site pad, and descending to two lower flood plain terraces of San Tomas Aquino Creek. No development is expected below Oaks #28-30, and would leave the riparian remainder section of the lot unaffected. H. T. Harvey and Associates prepared a Biotic Assessment Report, dated May 25, 2005, which outlines details of the tree and vegetative community of the coast live oak woodland habitat. Suitability for Preservation The Arbor Resources Inventory rated each tree for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment. Trees appearing to be in good or excellent health, structural stability and significantly contribute to the site are rated as high in suitability for preservation. All efforts should be taken to retain these trees. Mitigation for the removal of these trees is required. The majority of oaks, sycamore and other trees are in the "high" category. Trees appearing in overall good to fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment were rated as moderate in suitability for preservation.. Trees in the moderate category may be worthy of retention but not at the expense of major design revisions. They typically require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life spans than those in the "high" category. Mitigation fro the removal of these trees is recommended. Moderate category includes Trees #51 (oak) and 52 (oak). -Trees in poor health, with significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with corrective action. These trees cambe expected to decline regardless of management. Treatment or are proposed for removal from development were rated low in suitability for preservation. The species of an individual tree may possess either undesirable characteristics for the setting, not Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 5 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos.Road, Saratog and ordinance-sized trees or is not suitable for the intended use areas. Mitigation fro the removal of these trees is not recommended. Low category includes Tree #54 (leaning oak) The medium and low rating for the three oaks mentioned above is evident because they have developed poor tree structure due to grove competition, suppressed by several dominate adjacent oaks, they are asymmetrical and growing on an acute lean that is unstable (tree#54). Therefore, location of these three trees were selected as the most responsible area for a new driveway to be located in order to allow the better specimens remain and continue to grow. Discussion and Alternative Access Routes Lot 2-The Home Site. The Lot- 2 home site pad in the flat meadow area between several oaks is universally accepted by all consultants as the best location because of minimal grading, the location is surrounded by many oak and native trees that provides the most screening and the least visual impact from all vantage points, including those from Bainter Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Creek area. . Bridge over San Tomas Aauino Creek from Bainter lBridae Access Alternative). A previous route was considered with the access road from Bainter Avenue via a badge over San Tomas Aquino Creek, through the riparian sycamore grove habitat to the home site. This creek bridge route reflected removal of more trees, but trees of lesser significance, than Alternative One. The bridge itself did not require the removal of any trees, it was only the access route that required any tree removal. The Bridge Access Alternative still preserved the sycamore grove habitat and did not disturb the creek habitat area. The Bridge Access Alternative remains a feasible and viable alternative, but was not selected by the property owner solely due to the neighborhood objections. Selected Driveway Approach. Several access road placements (see 1-4 below) were studied to determine the option that would best preserve the most trees. In the current proposal, Tentative Map, dated August 2005, Alternative One route was selected because it would remove the fewest oaks (3), would impose the least long-term impacts to the native trees and oaks and provide the best screening. Alternative One was also recommended by the neighborhood as an access route they preferred. Details are as follows: Alternative One Selected. This driveway route along the west property line (Lucas) was determined to be the most. environmentally sound and would represent the least detriment to the oak grove. Similar to Alternative Three, the severely leaning and misshapen oaks (#51, 52, 54) would be removed and the driveway would align near the north property line, utilization of the existing paving/base material in the paved garage area, and continue down the slope to the flat grassy area to a functional motor court apron adjacent to a garage, where mature oaks #32 and 26 would be preserved. This driveway route originates on Highway 9 near the northwestern corner and utilizes areas that are already compacted, thereby minimizing any effects of adding new driveway surface. Paving and compacted soil currently exists. No grading cuts in the Monterey pint root area are proposed. The road base will be built on current grade using the existing base in place. Road construction would incorporate use of a thin, but extremely strong, engineered biaxial geogrid material. This material has been tested and is used in road Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net • Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 6 Tree Assessment 8~ Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga building where goals are to maintain an area of restrictions around tree root zones and where no surface material can be scraped off and minimum compaction is critical. Fire and- emergency vehicles may use the road without regard. This technique may be applied to the entire road, where needed, and directly enables this project to construct a road while achieving the preservation of a number of pines, oaks and other significant trees. The current Tentative Map sets the new driveway location in an area with a safe root zone buffer ranging from 5-18-feet from a tree(s) trunk. Protective fencing and, if needed, a low retaining wall would be required for this road placement. The mature row of the neighbors pine trees along the shared property line would be saved, including Monterey pine #63 (formerly #13). This Alternative has been determined to be the most environmentally sound and would represent the least detriment to the oak prove. It is also the access route recommended by the neighborhood. Alternative Two. An early driveway route in proximity of the east property line area was considered and was eliminated because it would result in either removal of several mature oaks and significant trees, including an immense Grey Pine (Digger Pine). This Alternative was eliminated because it would necessitate major soil cut and require fill for construction of a long retaining wall. In total, there would be significant grading and raised road appearance visible to the adjacent property owner. This Alterative has been determined not to be the best alternative choice and therefore was not selected. • Alternative Three. Another driveway route was considered that veered northeast (left) traversing above the oak- grove. This grade cut alteration of the natural drainage up-slope of the oak grove would result in slow deterioration of health and longevity, and this Alternative has been determined not be in best alternative choice and therefore was not selected. Alternative Four. This driveway route is similar (to Alternative Three), except this driveway route would cut through the oak grove. Alternative Four veered east (left) traversing into the slope below the oak grove, and would remove 6 or more oaks, including the three misshapen oaks #31 and 32, and 54. This Alternative also resulted in a substantial side slope cut/fill that would need with either a retaining wall or substantial fill that could migrate down toward the mature oak #43. This Alterative has been determined not be the best alternative choice and therefore was not selected. After evaluating these several alternatives, Alternative One would remove the fewest oaks (3) and impose the least long-term impact to trees, and as is reflected in the current Tentative Map dated August 2005. Conclusion In summation, if all of the design recommendations of Alternative One are integrated into the improvement plans, Tentative Map and mitigation measures are executed by the property owner, engineers and contractor, the potential detriment to the oaks would not be significant. The site trees should survive and continue providing beneficial contribution to the property owner, neighborhood, City of Saratoga and it's environs for many years. • Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Celle Marguerite, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 ~ Tree Assessment 8 Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratog~ Recommendations and Development Measures As a condition of development approval, the City of Saratoga requires protection' of designated existing trees to be retained during construction. The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on a development site subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained are likely to become a liability rather than an asset. The detrimental impact response by individual trees will depend on the extent of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. The impact can be minimized by coordinating construction activity outside and, when necessary, inside the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) if mitigation measures are adopted. Tree Preservation Instructions Site Planning and Plan Specifications (Recommended to staff for draft Conditions of Approval) 1. The final approved site plans must provide the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) setback recommended by the project arborist to ensure survival of the trees. Approved plans submitted for grading, building or demolition permit shall incorporate tree protection zones and the specified notes recommended in the Tree Preservation Report document. It is imperative that the designated Tree Protection Zone setbacks be depicted as a bold dashed line on all relevant plan sheets (site plan, demolition plan, foundation plan, grading. plan, and landscape plan (Refer to Tree Location and Protection Zone Map, Exhibit I).-The minimum TPZ radius is measured from the perimeter of the tree trunk. 2. The approved set of plans issued for building permit, grading, utilities and drainage shall incorporate the following information and specifications to minimize impacts to trees: Temporary or permanent drainage features, including downspouts, shall direct runoff water away from oaks or near the trunks of other trees. • Designate areas of fill and minimize scraping and cut as much as possible. Fill in the vicinity of trees may consider the option to use engineered structured soil mix to allow roots to exploit the fill voids while achieving the compaction necessary for stabilization. • Retaining walls shall be designed to maximize~tree root zone and endeavor to use a natural looking material and color. • In sections of roadway where no cut can be .tolerated (more than 4-inches) the, base course shall use existing rock base (kept in place) or overlay the existing asphalt to the maximum extent possible. To minimize cutting into existing tree roots, the approved plan shall specify a biaxial geogrid2 textile product pinned down and overlaid with minimal base rock and wearing surface. Indicate whether the new road surface will be pervious material, such as pervious concrete, pervious asphalt or approved equivalent3. Pervious surface is preferred over ' City of Saratoga Municipal Code, Article 15.50.090 s Biaxial geogrid-Tensar Biaxial (BX)-1200) or equivalent-- aroad-building method separating aggregate sandwich layers of~ tensile rib textile material to reduce subsurface pressure (compaction), improve permeability, enable thinner road surface, extend service life and can be installed over soft soils. http•/lwww tensarcom com/index.asy?id=73 s California Nevada Cement Council-contact for pervious concrete specifications and list of installations, http,•//www cncpc orQ/AaQes/pervious.html Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockterQcomcast.net • • Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 8 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga impervious surface because it promotes better tree health and enables storm water management. Pervious pavers are not recommended for this site due to grades, maintaining a minimal cut is paramount and there may be edge stability problems. • A Stormwater Runoff Prevention Plano-shall be prepared that, among other things, specifies the use of silt fencing and other measures where needed to prevent soil migrating into tree protection zones or areas that will -lead to the riparian portion of the lot. • No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, cable, water, gas, electric sewer or septic field, shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone unless approved by the Project Arborist. Utility trenching shall be clustered in the center of the roadway, and as far as possible from a tree trunk. Note: an existing utility line is already in place on a portion of the road (Pine trees #55-62) • Building pad and motor court area shall be designed outside of the designated areas. Foundations and/or retaining walls within a tree protection zone should be established using a pier and above-grade beam type foundation (i.e., a no-excavation design). Any grade beam inside a Tree Protection Zone shall be designed to be set on top of existing soil grade (or max of 4-inches). In this event, utilities should be attached to the home rater being installed below ground. A Project Arborist, with regard to tree impacts, shall review any plans, revisions or site changes affecting trees. These include, but are not limited to, civil improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, demolition plans, landscape and irrigation plans. • The Project Arborist shall verify the Tree Protection Zone for the tree(s) to be preserved in which no soil disturbance is permitted. If grading must encroach within the TPZ, the Project Arborist will determine if a smaller Tree Protection Zone is possible. 3. Establish a Tree Protection Instructions Sheet. The final set of plans submitted for a building permit from the City of Saratoga shall include a sheet(s) titled: T 1, T 2, etc. containing the following information: Project Arborist contact numbers; Tree Preservation Instructions contained herein (or final approved draft), Tree Fencing Plan; Tree survey (if applicable), tree locations (on the same sheet) and denote all trees to be retained from those to be removed (marked with an X). . 4. Site and Grading plans shall be modified to prevent any intrusion within the Tree Protection Zone for trees to be saved. 5. Prior to demolition or grading permit issuance, the Project Arborist or City Arborist shall verify that Type I fencing is installed in the approved location(s). 6. Any material such as herbicides or liming placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. 7. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. • a SCVWDRPP- Santa Clara Valley Water District Runoff Prevention Program Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 9 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratog~ PRIOR TO DEMOLITION 8. The City of Saratoga shall be in receipt of a statement with photograph from the contractor or Project Arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. 9. Tree Protection. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected during construction per the arborist report and to the satisfaction of the City. The location of all tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on submitted plans for building permit. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained. The Project Arborist must approve any modifications to these requirements. Protective Tree Fencing. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be retained. Fences are to be five or six-feet (5'-6') in height and mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The area to be fenced shall enclose the entire. area under the canopy dripline or as identified in the Tree Location And Preservation- Zone map. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection, except during work specifically. required in the approved plans to be done within the Tree Protection Zone. A "Notice" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection fence and shall state: "NOTICE -Tree Protection Fence -This fence sha~ not be removed without prior authorization from the Project Arborist subject to penalty pursuant to the City of Saratoga" _Tree Prunin4 and Shrub Removal. Any necessary pruning work on trees to be retained on site, including City trees, shall be performed in accordance with the following standards. Pruning or shrub removal shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree's structure and health, pursuant to ISA Best Management Practices for Pruning Trees 8~ Shrubs and Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations, ANSI A300-2002 and ANSI 2133-2003. DURING CONSTRUCTION 10. Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction. 11. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Project Arborist. 12. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Project Arborist. 13. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the Project Arborist should evaluate it as soon as possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 14. No dumping or storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the Tree Protection Zone. Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net • ~~ Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 10 Tree Assessment 8 Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga 15. Trees to be retained .shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The Project Arborist may specify one-to-several irrigations. 16. Removal of driveway, foundation is removed pavement or concrete over tree roots within the Tree Protection Zone, the procedure shall include the following precautions: break hardscape into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and. hand load the pieces onto a loader. The loader must remain on undisturbed pavement or off exposed roots. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply untreated wood chips over the exposed area within one hour, then wet the chips and base rock and keep moist until overlay surface is applied. • INSPECTION SCHEDULE 17. The Project Arborist shall be retained for tree preservation issues that arise, to monitor tree health and to conduct inspections during the following activities: Inspection of Protective Fencing Pre-construction with contractor, subcontractors, grading operators, etc. Inspection following rough grading Monthly Inspection with brief status report forwarded to contractor and/or City-if required by City of Saratoga approval Any special activity within the Tree Protection Zone Final inspection with Landscape Architect (if applicable and required by City of Saratoga) -END OF RECOMMENDED DRAFT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL--- -This space intentionally left blank-~ • Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Celle Marguerite, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 11 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Certification: Assignment of Performance I, Dave Dockter, certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have _ stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation or appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; that the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on current scientific procedures and facts; That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to me as the consultant, except as indicated within the report. I further certify that I am a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and I am an active member of the International Society of Arboriculture certification program. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 25 years. Respectfully submitted and signed: Date: ~~ ' ~~ ~ b Dave Dockter, ASCA, ISA, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Exhibit I: Tree Location and Protection Zone Map • Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant i 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net i - Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 ~ 12 Tree Assessment 8 Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Limiting Conditions & Assumptions: • • 1. Upon decision to remove the subject tree(s), please check the local, county and state jurisdictions in regard to any ordinance that may require an approved permit to allow the property owner to remove a tree. 2. Only a visual ground inspection of the trunk, upper branches and leaf crown was made for this assessment, unless otherwise noted. 3. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any property titles, boundaries, ownerships, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues beyond the scope of the arborist's services cannot be taken into account unless disclosed to the arborist consultant. The arborist consultant should be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 4. It is assumed that any property referred to is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statues, or other governmental regulations. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report, appraisal, evaluation or recommendations. 6. Possession of this report dated August 1, 2005 or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed or their representatives and the City of Saratoga, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the Dave Dockter, APC. 7. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist consultant, or to seek additional advice. 8, Unless otherwise required by law, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report dated August 1, 2005, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client or representatives, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of Dave Dockter, APC, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Celle Marguerite, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 13 Tree Assessment 8~ Preservation Re'ort Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratog EXHIBIT Tree Location and Protection Zone Map (Not to scale) • • '~ '~ J Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net i. • A. Pb0 • ~ ~' . eo s ~0 . n ~ ~' .R ~ `~ a'b- pp ' ~s ' 8 ~~ r' R ~ ~ S+~ g R E .R 7p / 3 /. .. R w -~ .• '~< R ,~ ~ ~R~ I ~ r~oB 4 ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ " ~F~ . d ~r ~ ~ ~ •R6s 'd • ~ ` 'a: ~8~~ . ^ ' R ~ r. « ~ ~ O ' • j ~ •' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ R . ~ f . a~ ~• ,k Je O $ , ~ ' • i .~ ~ R ~ d ~ 7 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ . • 88gg i~ ~ •~ _ ,~ . ~ • Q ~ t ! ,, r b ~ ~E q~ ~ F~ Ftltltl . § FI O Z ~ "°A l C ~ O is a ` A a v/ a R 1 ~' ~ `~~`~°•r ~ 6 :. ~ , ` V L~. 3 g a ~ / ~o 'C 3 (/1 ~ a~ i~ J ~x ~ ~ C o ~ = .- v Z •_ ~ ~ a t• _~„ ~~ ag ~ ~ o ~ 0 ~ Q a ~ ' F k- ~ „ , .M~ . ~~ ~ ~ y :: a a W F ~~ F A ~ Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 14 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga GLOSSARY OF TERMS Abatement Reduction in hazard, either by treatment of tree or removal of target. Aeration Providing oxygen to the root system. Arborist A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. Basal flare The rapid increase in diameter that occurs in the lower trunk and root crown, associated with both stem and root tissue. . Branch attachment The structural linkage of branch to stem. Bark Ridge Branch A ridge of bark that forms in the branch crotch as the specialized tissue of the . branch and trunk (or parent stem) meet. The bark ridge usually turns upward. Branch collar Wood that forms around a branch attachment, frequently more pronounced below the branch. Butt rot Decay in the lower trunk and root crown area. Buttress root A large woody root located at the base of the trunk (the root crown), which is im ortant to the overall stabilit of the tree due to its contributions to basal flare. Canker A localized area of dead tissue on a stem or branch, caused by fungal or bacterial organisms, characterized by callus development on the periphery; may be perennial or annual: Cavity An open wound, characterized by the presence of extensive decay and resulting in a hollow. Central leader The main stem of the tree; bole. Chlorotic Lackin in Chloro h II, t icall elow in color. Clinometer A device that measures vertical angles, and provides direct height measurements of ob'ects b trian ulation. Compartmentalization A dynamic physiological tree process, which creates the chemical and mechanical boundaries that act to limit the spread of disease and decay causing organisms. Core sample A sample of wood extracted from a trunk or branch, using an increment borer tool. The resulting core can be analyzed for characteristics of growth, structure, and decay, and for species identification. Crack Longitudinal split in the stem, involving bark, cambium and xylem (compare to • growth crack); maybe vertically and horizontally oriented. Critical root zone CRZ The roots stem of a tree that is enerall considered to be within under the dri Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net r~ • Spins Subdivision August 1, 2005 15 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga line of the crown. See also Tree Protection Zone. Crotch The point (or angle) at which two branches (or branch and the leader) meet. Crown Parts of the tree above the trunk, including leaves, branches and scaffolds. The full compliment of branches, twigs, and leaves of a tree. Crown clean -pruning Removal of dead, dying, diseased, rubbing, structurally unsound branches, etc. Crown raise -pruning Pruning technique where lower limbs are removed, thereby lifts the overall crown ' above the ground. Crown reduction pruning Removal of large branches and/or cutting back to large laterals to reduce the height or width of the crown; frequently referred to as "drop crotch" pruning or natural pruning" (utility arboriculture); corresponds to National Arborist Association standards. Crown restoration pruning Restoration of natural and /or structurally sound form to a tree that has been reviousl to ed or dama ed s non -crown restoration . C cle of Decline DBH Diameter of the trunk, measured at breast height (54 inches above natural grade). Also referred to as Diameter at Standard Height. Decaying/Decay The degradation if woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through decomposition of cellulose and of a host (tree) by a decay organism (pathogen) that results in the breakdown of tissues (wood and bark) which can cause the tree or its parts to become structurally weak. Decline A general loss of vitality("vigor') over the entire tree caused by a disease or by a series of events that disrupt essential life processes; e.g. too much or too little water, too much fertilizer, improper pruning, soil compaction, or chemical pollution. Decurrent Referring to crowns, which are made up of a broad open-crowned system of scaffold branches or lacking a central leader (contrast with excurrent). Defect Structural weakness or deformity. Dieback A reduction in the mass of a tree as twigs and branches die. Death of shoots and branches, generally from tip to base. Drip line The width of the crown as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage; representative of the major root absorbing area. The area under the canopy of a tree that is equal to the total branch spread (diameter of the branch spread) End weight The concentration of foliage at the distal ends of branches. Evaluation interval/c cle Time eriod between ins ections or hazard evaluations. Excurrent Crown form where a strong central leader is present to the top of the tree (contrasts with decurrent). Flush cut Prunin techni ue where both branch and stem tissue are removed; enerall Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Cert~ed Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Celle Marguerite, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 16 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratog~ considered poor practice. Growth increment The incremental growth added as new wood each growing season over existing wood. This is seen as (growth) rings in cross-sections of wood. Annual shoot growth of branches is measured from the terminal scar to tip of new growth and is reflective of current year vigor. Hazard The combination of a failure of tree (or tree part) with the presence of an adjacent target. Hazard abatement Reduction in the likelihood that failure of a tree or a part will result in injury to people or damage to property. Heading Pruning technique where the cut is made to a bud, weak lateral branch or stub; generally considered a poor practice. Heart rot Decay in the center of the tree (heartwood). Incipient When referring to decay, it is the beginning stages, often undetectable without the aid of special tools or equipment. Increment borer Device used to take small-sized cores of wood from the stem. Lean Departure of trunk from the vertical or near vertical position. Live crown ratio The relative proportion of green crown to overall height. Occupancy rating Level of use of a potential target; the likelihood that people will be present at the site when failure occurs. Oak Root Fungus A fungal pathogen that causes vascular system disruption, wood decay and death of trees. The pathogen can be spread by water, soil infection or wounds to trunk, roots or branches; affects many species of shrubs and trees; and is common to central California regions. Root collar Area at base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Root collar inspection Extensive examination of the junction of the root and stem, and the area immediately below, aimed at determining stability, presence of disease, decay, etc. (see Root Crown excavation). Root crown excavation The methodical and careful removal of soil, sod, and other materials from around the base of a tree to perform a thorough examination of the health and structure of roots, root flares, and the trunk base. Root flare -The transition zone between the. trunk and roots of a tree. The flares are usually large compared to roots, but relatively few in number. Sometimes loosely referred to as the zone of rapid taper (of the roots). Scaffold limb Primary structural branch of the crown. Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WC-0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net • • Spitts Subdivision August 1, 2005 17 Tree Assessment & Preservation Report Site: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Scribing (tracing) The removal or cutting away of the injured bark or wood about the margins of a wound. When scribing or tracing a wound make cuts as shallow as possible, do not point the vertical tips, and do not enlarge the wound. Do remove the injured bark and wood. Only to be performed by a qualified arborist. Seam .Callus ridge formed by included bark at branch junctions; also formed when tow edges of callus/wound wood meet at the center of a wound. Split Longitudinal breakage in stem, affecting bark, cambium and xylem (synonym- crack). Structural defect Internal or external points of weakness that reduce the stability of the tree. Target People or property potentially affected by tree failure. Thinning Pruning technique where branches are removed at their point of origin or to a large lateral (at least one-half the diameter of the removed branch). Topping Reducing a tree's size using heading cuts. Topping is not an acceptable pruning practice. Tree Protection Zone A designated area around trees where maximum protection and preservation (TPZ) efforts are implemented. (see also Critical Root Zone). Vigor Overall health; capacity to grow and resist physiological stress. Visual Tree Assessment A system of methodically inspecting a tree and its site typically performed from a (~/TA) ground observation of the foliage canopy to the root zone area unless otherwise noted. Wind sail effect Wind forces a twist in limbs as they bend, creating torque on the lower parts. When the force exceeds the limits of the wood supporting the tree, the wood will buckle or rupture and the tree fails at that point. Wood loss Reduction in overall amount of secondary xylem in a stem. . Wound Any injury of roots, trunk or branches, which induces a compartmentalization response of tissue. Wound wood Lignified, partially differentiated tissue, which develops from the callus, associated with wounds. Dave Dockter, Arboricultural Planning Consultant • All Rights Reserved: Dave Dockter 2005® Dave Dockter, ASCA; ISA Certified Arborist WG0351, APA Arboricultural Planning Consultant 255 Calle Marguerita, Los Gatos, CA 95032 0 Phone: (408) 866-2534 0 e-mail: davedockter@comcast.net • Attachment 4 • • Y Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~. "'~ Date: ` ` ~-~"' PROJECT ADDRESS: l ~1 $~' _ L ~aC Applicant Name: ~ ' fx Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does notlook favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. v lans• I ^My signature below certifies the followuig: I have reviewed the project p , _ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): '~~9`~'` ``` ~l~G ~~s ~ ~~-~~i~ ~L1.1 Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~~~1 !~ D ~ ~~~~~~. ~~ { ~~- , Neighbor Phone #: M Signature: C:. ~ ;~ _ J ,.. ;Z , -, Printed: ~~*~fr•°~ ~, • 1 • ~'~;%~ ~ ! ~~r?~i ~.y ~-ryk,ly ~ s~liulc~ -; ; -~ ,i Cwt-~' -~~'~l,Lv ~,c~~., - ~~~~,vx-ems • i• Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJEC DRESS: /93.30 ~~Ti~ GA Lds GG~-TD.~ ~oAp Applicant Name: s~/ STS Application Number: ©,S~ / a a- The Saratoga Planning Commission: requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concer~:s regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applica~:t. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the Gity of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed-the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address 6y the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): C~7e ~.VQ. ~ ~ ~ e.~ rev , S~ o-~ ~~~ Neighbor Address: ~,fj 5 ~~~, ~ ~~~ Signature: `~ , ~U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ • • p C~C~C~~~II~ JUL 1 8 2005 • CITY OF SARATOGA Neighbor Phone #: ~ C7 ~ ~J~' `(ITY 6~v~~~n~T Printed: ~~~~v~~C~-i • • ~.e ~s k.o ~-cQ -~ a c ce SS `~ p"~"~~ v~c~ C~ lov'~~~je 1'~~v~ko~- fie.. ~1,~-~-,~,, ~r~?.,.~c.~ c~ c,~.-I~.+~~ve. ~u.~ v • ~v~n V\ i t~~ ~ vin w p~~k ~v~ ~w.~~,c,~s .- ~ • Date: 7 ~ ~' " PROJEC DRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications -/933 D s~~,4-TD G~1 ~o.S ~AToS ~o~~ Applicant Name: / Application Number: QS ~ / ~ ~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planni~:g Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concer~~s and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all f•esidenrs : eliding on your prope.-ty. L•--especti:~e of the opinion: expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I eighbor Name: _~ Neighbor Address: ~-'~ c~'/d~~ ..a-a -9' ~I ~~~~ ~~. c om.Q..y - ~ 0 6 AUG 5 2005 ~/ Cf TY Op SA Rq TUGA 5 ~ s!-ToS, G'~ f.~o~ Neighbor Phone #: ~h~o8~ 3 5'~ ' a 3 7 G Signature: Printed:- • • ~~ 3 understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~•~~-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~..~ ~ ~ c~~~ ~~ • y Thomas and Jennifer Still 19480 Bainter Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application Number 05-122 Project Address: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road To Whom It May Concern: ~~~od~ ~ • AUG 5 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA I attended the informational meeting on June 30, 2005 conducted by the Property Owner of 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. I am opposed to the proposal. I have numerous issues and concerns about the proposed plan to access the pazcel via a bridge and private driveway off of Bainter Ave/Way. 1. The Property Owner failed to invite the majority of residents in the Bainter neighborhood to the informational meeting on June 30, thereby denying the residents who would be directly impacted by the proposed new bridge/road the opportunity to learn of and respond to the proposal. The Property Owner invited many neighbors who were not affected, i.e., those living off Hwy 9. 2. The Property Owner failed to adequately address why the parcel could not be accessed from existing property driveway on Hwy 9. No credible reason was given why pazcel cannot be accessed via Hwy 9 or a flag lot. 3. The Property Owner failed to address any necessary improvements to Bainter Ave./Way at the location where the pavement currently ends and where the Property Owner wants his private driveway onto his bridge. No mention of road improvements to accommodate fire and emergency vehicles, overflow parking, construction pazking and increased traffic. 4. Proposed new drive/bridge will create a new three way intersection at the convergence of Bainter Ave and the two other narrow, dangerous, private single lane roads. Bainter Ave. is already a narrow road with lots of traffic, a history of accidents at the bottom of the hill where the proposed bridge would sit. This project will make the situation worse. The Property Owner failed to address these concerns. 5. Bainter is very narrow in its run to and just past Redberry. The children of families living along these roads access the street on bikes, scooters, skateboards etc - more traffic, construction vehicles etc.. will increase the existing dangers. .: i • 6. The Property Owner failed to address the impact, if any, on how the proposed construction, bridge and driveway would affect the creek. Concerns regazding the upstream and downstream parcels due to bridge/piers and altering winter water flow were not addressed. 7. The Property Owner could not guarantee the residents of Bainter neighborhood that if the proposal to -build the bridge and driveway were approved by the planning commission, that the developer (or buyer of the property) would build a bridge that was aesthetically appropriate and in conformity with the rural setting. 8. The Property Owner did not address what impact, if any, the proposed development would have on the wildlife that uses the creek and surrounding azea as a habitat. The area of the proposed construction is a habitat for deer, bobcats, fox, hawks, woodpeckers, owls, and numerous other birds and animals, who use the creek area to nest and raise their young. 9. This proposal should be considered in light of the Lucas property proposed development/subdivision.that might also entail efforts to gain access using Bainter in lieu of Hwy 9. Thank you. Tom and Jennifer Still • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ PROJEC DRESS: /93~~ ~SA2LI-T~G'A Lois GATD.s /~OAD Applicant Name: J~®/ ~~S Application Number: ~s- /~.,- The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on yourpropert;~. Irrespective of the opinion expressed belo-v, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant,. have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): • • ~~e, .~ a, r6o~-d- ~,c~ ~ ~i! ~ 9 boa ~G~//r~-ow ~d ~ o Neighbor Name: air ~ l5 ~ ~ Q Neighbor Address: JUL 1 8 2005 l ®~~ o~IU /~'L~P_.1'" //~P~ ~'~ Z!JNfTY EVELOPM ENT ~~ S ~~OS, ~,/7 7~y Neighbor Phone #: ~~~~ ~ 9 9 ~ 7/~~~ /??11.5 • Signature: Printed: S ~/~ //~ /a ~v~r~ m6 ~'e fb~,YG ~i~~J 4 ~ ~~ ~~~a•S ~ ' L l~U r~ ~ s ~v ~//~ ly f ~f ~ ~e ~/ r:~~ Vii- ~~~qs • P ~~ y ~~a~~~~ ~ P~~ ~rr~ c~. / ~ ~ ~9 .~ ~,, ~ ~, c~,~ ~,~//~'~ f~~ ~ ~ s ~d lQn ~r ~. ~ mss o f 5 5 d~~ r'~. TG~~s ~ r~ G rzas e-oC, fr~~'f'/C ~~~ll ~a use. Q U'(~-~ ~ ~ s ~-~P~ fir, ('~!.'- ~~ r 7~~G~S~ O ~' (~ ~ ~%' p LJ ~ri~c~~ O~ 6r d ff ~ ~G~/1f~r. -~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~v~~~ ~~- r~fe.~,, der ~~~~/ 'Pik o~R~ ~'1~ ~j~^~ (O y ~ ~D J~ i7.C /G ~~'~-~/ ?l (i ~ ~ Gv ~'i~~~ -~ ~ /^ G ~/~ Q ~ e- ,6 ~ ~ rt f') Gi ~'1 ~I"U~t S ,~ (~1 ~- ~Q ~ i' ~~°~ d'u ~ fv ~a- Y ~ ~~li 1/~r Cv r~.~~~at.r.1~~.-~ i G~-~i ~r f (~ ~ifJ/ ~ ~P~S ~~ !/,' l fil ~ l0 G /~P.C~ is /~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ rva.~ . loo f/if ~-~~~~-~-- ~s t~ ~l~ ~ ~y r ~ ~~ , , ~ y~ ~ `~`~~ ~r~~ ~i'"6m ~f~e ~~a/~ fir ~~~(~ ~ o~~~ 1 " v ~~r .. V ~i' ~~ fi U w ~ e~r~- f G~ ~ r Qoose.eC 1 ~ {~~~~ r o~ ~• ,. ~~ to v~ ~, ~~ ;~ ; ~ '~; fG;rs Peace. ~~-~~ ru tea, l C~ r P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~' ~ ~ U ~ ~ s~~ ~ e~ PSG ~d ~~. ~ e~ ~o ~~na f ~~ trram o`~ara ~o~a- ~. G'. ~'d . i ~~,r~f o J a, / s pro 6 o b~ ~~ry o ~ rr9 ~i ~-o~- w Qys ~.~ ~ ~~Qy ~6~s. ~~~ ,s pussi6~ ~r~ ~r ~~r.5 l~ro~~ry a~ CvP/l/• ~ /~ay,~,.v how 6n 7~~i~ prop e/)y" G~vc+~~{, epos ~ ~i~K~~ 6~ ~~ molls ti~ol ~y ~• ri erw ~ w n e~i- ~ ~h e~ G ~o r e~ /'P~ co n ~9 cc, r ~~ ~ ~em5 /o ff icc~l fo us the ~~ p~ wP ~~,d ~r ~~ J~~,~f C-~ g ~f-o ~~ wo~ ~r f~i~ ~dw~Y p~ c~l~. 7~,~ ~,~~~ sol~~ ~f~~ f ra ~f ~ OrJ '~a~n l~v /~ssu ~~f~~ G~PrPi}' G~Uu,.~aL ~ 1 i~ ~~ (~~ ~ree fd 0~0 a m fh~ ~o ~~ er P ra F ~r fy cts ~~ ~ ~o ~ o ~J . ~ 7~ ~ ~'n y d ra,w ~a ~ ~o fh ~s / s ~rQ~~~ • ~a ~ i /~ 7~i~ G+J ~i ~ G~ ow~aL, ~j~ ~O ro~P/~', ~"h~- prod e~~ f a~ cts /,/l o ~~i~ jam. ~P~c~si~n on f{~ ,~as~s ~~' /~UilcPi 7~~ic~ /~oS~ ~QnJ'` ~y y OzU n ors c~wloG Qn ~ ~i~l~p owr~ er ~ ~,~oC hu rf ~vse /l t~~ on or a,~~' of i~ • Ms. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Oosterhous, I am writing to comment on Subdivision Application OS-122, 19330 Saratoga Los Gatos Road, specifically the letter dated May 19, 2005 from Westfall Engineers. This letter is written in response to your letter dated May 2, 2005 indicating that the application was incomplete at that point. I would suggest that the application is still incomplete and cannot be further processed by you at this time. First, the applicant has not fully evaluated alternatives for access to Parcel 2. The letter states in point 1 that "access is only possible on the south side of the parcel". In fact it appears that the existing driveway to the existing property could be extended on the north side of the parcel to access parcel 2 -why was this not considered? In addition, utilization of the existing driveway from Saratoga Los Gatos Road would minimize addition of impervious surface to the project -also completely eliminating the extreme impact of building a bridge and running an impervious surface road along the creek and through the "riparian" parcel. 4 that ermits for construction should be Second, the applicant is proposing in point p .processed after tentative map approval. I do not see how you can grant any kind of map approvals without these permits as the map approval would be tantamount to granting City approval for the subdivision, road, and bridge which is exactly what is at issue at this point. Third, the applicant has not organized or reported on any neighborhood meetings. Fourth, the applicant does not indicate that a meeting has been held with the owner of the adjacent property (Lucas) as requested in your letter dated May 2. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I would be happy to discuss any of this letter in greater detail (408-354-6651). Sincerely, Wanda Kownacki and John Holton Jill and Roger Milton U Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 7 .5 S PROJE T DRESS: X9330 -~~-To~'~ ~ G~'Tas Y~oAr~ Applicant Name: ~S~/ TTS Application Number: Q~ ~/ a- a- The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning-Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing opt your prope,•~y.. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. LYJ1Dfy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. M si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ~~ Y ~ understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): . ileighbor ivame: ~~~ ~'i AUG 11 2005 Neighbor Address: CITY OFSARATOGA ~~ p ~~~~ '~^~IMUNITYDEVELOPMENT ~ ~_-~ ~ hone #: `f"~ ~~ ~~~J~~~~ Nc~ghtiar t Signature: Printed: ~ ~ ~~~ Plnnnina T)nnnrtmvnt Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 7/20/05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. , Saratoga, Applicant Name: Spitts ~(~~6~~~ JUG 2 1 2005 CITY OF SA OS-122 ~+f~,trJNIT ~TOCA Application Number: YDEVELOp~y~,. The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to wog k with their neighbors to. address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Steve: to The City would ~be circumventing the normal planning process if reclassify a portion of your properly as "riparian" to allow for a to explain why this section Neighbor Address: your property should be reclassified. 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, CA Neighbor Phone #: 408-255-0600 • ~J City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Name: Donald L. Lucas Signature: Printed: C~ • • Bainter Neighbors Group c% Roger Milton 19392 Bainter Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 3, 2005 Ms. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Oosterhous, Thank you for taking the time to review the application with representatives of the Bainter Neighbors Group for a subdivision at 19330 Saratoga Los Gatos Road. The purpose of this letter is to provide you preliminary input from several parties in the neighborhood who would be affected by these changes to the subject property. Of major concern to us at this point is the proposal to access the subdivision via a driveway from Bainter Avenue and a bridge crossing San Thomas Aquino Creek. The land that this driveway and bridge would cross has been untouched for at least 50 years and contributes in a major way to the rural aesthetic of our neighborhood. We understand that the property is currently accessed from Saratoga Los Gatos Road. We strongly urge the City and the applicant to consider access to the proposed subdivision from Saratoga Los Gatos Road. This will preserve the beauty of our neighborhood: ' We would be happy to discuss this letter with you in greater detail. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Roger and Jill Milton 19392 Bainter Avenue s- 3-0 S Tom and Jennifer Still ~~ 19480 Bainter Way John Holton and Wanda Kownacki % `~~~/""" 19280 Bainter Ave C~ar~~ Charlie and Dana Duncheon ~ w 19384 Baurter Ave. -, Emily and Charles Dorr G';~.~„~,, ~A~~ 19460 Bainter Way Bev Ledwith 19394 Bamter Ave. Rudy and Judy Lomas ~~d9 19405 Bainter Ave. ~ ~~"~ °v Warren and Marion Wareham 19400 Bainter Ave. ~~~u~~ ,,ll i u MAY 1 1 2005 ''!TY OF JAkAT~ it Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ PROJE DRESS: ~ 9~ .30 Sf}2A-TD G~ Los G~ ~ OS /~D.41~ Applicant Name: S~/ STS' Application Number: QS -/~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission: requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerts regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the-signature on this document is representative of all residents residi~:.Q on your property. Irrespective o1'the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~vly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): m y coy ~ ; s ~~1~ I y -~ ~mp~~ ~~ • • ~ ~~- /a~,'~' -- ~1GC.~-5 S W ~ - GN 1~+ /~-t.~b ~f -~. ~-Q P~~1~ C~~n~S ~e (~ ~AN ~ ~~~ ~~SS f ~+-~- Ft~G Caf /Ia-42 ~o~ ~ G/i ~~ nn ~('~A'f ~ s S cc ~,~ dG~~ ~ ~ i~~~ Su c-f'stc~/ o IyEi~luvti~ditic: ~~il,~z(~ Neighbor Address: 1~35a ~-v~~~- ~e ~f ~J I V~- / S~ O Neighbor Phone #: 7 ~V - 3.~ -` ~ a~ Signature: Printed: • June i ~, 2005 Dear Neighbors, ~ ~~~~~( ,° AUG 5 2005 '`=' CIl'Y OF SARAT~rt,:•, l Al r*IITY ~ICVCI ~~~ As some of you already know, Diane and I have been working to sub-divide our three acre parcel at 19330 Saratoga Los Gatos Road. We would like to invite you to a meeting on June 30~' at 6:00 PM to share with you everything germane to the proposal. We hope to have the arborist, geologist and the field biologist from H.T. Hamer, and our civil engineer frc;n Westfall present to explain the scope of tSlZir work for IIs, ai,<d to answer any questions you may have. Please meet us at the tip of our property which terminates in the middle of Bainter. We will have chairs and refreshments and we don't expect to take more that an hour of your time. Kind regards, We look forward to seeing you there. Please RSVP so that we can have enough seating. o~~ ~~' zed S / 408-$72-3802 / Steve & Diane Spitts • ~~~ ~~~~ /Ya1~ ,°- ~~ ~~ .~ ~.r.._ . Neighbor. Notification Template. for Development Applications ~ (~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Date: 7 S ~ PROJEC DRESS: ! 9.3,E o ~A~AT~ GA GDS ~~}To ~~1~ 5 2005 "' CITY OF SARg70GA Applicant Name: s~/ STS •",~~~,~~T,~ n~„r, „_. Application Number: 6s~/ ~,L The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing or your proper ~•~. Irrespective of the opirion ,~apressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: T ,,.._.,, ..e_.;e,,,~ +~,A „,.,,;p„+ „,,~ u~dg I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): SCI Neighbor Name: ~L /1~ Neighbor Address: ~~~~ p ~~~ T7 Neighbor Phone # Printed: T • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Date: 7 ~D,~ I~I PROJECT DRESS: ~93~0 Sf}'2A-TD6~ GdSGfF~D,s 5 2005 CITY OF SARATU`v%~ AppllCant Name: /!r'/ ~Tj •*er~~nTV nr-vr~ ~~ Application Number: D Sam'/ Z.~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon: neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your prope,~7y. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion .with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): f~l~ ~du G j Neighbor Nzine: /~l t(~l~L~ ~G~~L~~ Neighbor Address: l~~~p ~~~~7~ c~-Y L©s ~~DS ~ - ~'S°~p Signature: Neighbor Phone #: 7 ~~ ~ ~ (~ ~'Z ~/ Printed: ~~C~A~L ~S~~C/< nr - -- - n --- ---`--- ---` Attachrnent for application number OS-122 Saratoga Planning Commission July 16 2005 Concerns of Neighbor Michael Black 19520 Bainter Way Los Gatos Ca. 95030 My concerns are that the traffic safety for ingress and egress to the proposed development has not been addressed. There are two options available for ingress and egress to this proposed development. Only one option is proposed because it maximizes the financial return of the developer. The second option is to provide access from Highway 9/ Sazatoga Los Gatos Blvd. This method would be a much safer- method than the one propose. The existing road that would be accessed is currently only a single car width and has two roads merging already. This new. development would now create a third direction of traffic merging into a single lane. The existing conditions have already been proven hazardous. I have personally suffered damage to a vehicle trying to more to side for an oncoming car. Another neighbor actually rolled their car at this location trying to stay to side of the road. The existing creek and mature local trees prevent the widening of this road to allow for addition traffic. I am not opposed Mr. Spins proposed development. I feel it is his right as a property owner to do so. I do however feel it needs to done in a manner that does not adversely impact the safety of others strictly to maximize his personal financial return. Especially since another option is available. Sincerely Michael ac CC. County Roads and Airport Department, County Planning Commision. J L5~L5~1%L5 5 ", AUG 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA '*~~frtlTV t1~1/G1 n-~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: 7/ 2 0/ 05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. , Saratoga, CA Applicant Name: Spitts • Application Number: 05-122 The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to wog k with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stajj`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Steve: - er to subdivide. The City would be circumventing the normal planning process if they officially reclassify a portion of your property as "riparian" to allow for a to explain why this section of your property should be reclassified. Neighbor Name: Donald L. Lucas u~ Neighbor Address: 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, CA Neighbor Phone #: 408-255-0600 U l5 AUG 5 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA • ei i*ti~rv nr~in ~. ___-----~~ Donald L. Lucas City of Saratoga Pla~:ning Department Signature: Printed: ~ ~. Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: 7 S ~; S PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ 3 3 C SG.,r~. • c~ ~ ~• ~ s /, c Applicant Name: ~ ~ Application Number: CJ S ' 1 Z Z The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residi~:g on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do iVOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. M si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I Y ~ understand the scope of work; and I have, issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): lvTei$i~bor Name: ~ 1G1~ ~tl~•0 ~~J I !~~' / ~~~v ' ~~- ~~1J ~~- Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ I ~ ~,t~r~ U ~ Signature: Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ,~~ ycN-~4-Y~3z ~~~u~~ L ~ AUG 5 2005 CITY OF SARA"fUGA •,nienT..~n~-vr_t ~- .: i~ ~ • Christy Oosterhous 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 .Dear Ms. Oosterhous: We aze writing this note with regard to the following Neighbor Notification Template for . Development Applications: Project Address:19330 Saratoga Los Gatos Road Applicant Name: Steven C. Spins Development Application OS-122 We have discussed the project plans with Mr. Spins and we believe that we understand the scope of work. While we do not have concerns relative to his immediate intentions, • we do have concerns about the potential implications for the neighboring property that adjoins our property at the creek. If Mr. Spins' plans are approved, and he grants access to Bainter Road for that adjoining property, an additional home could be built next to our property that would seriously impact the serenity, seclusion and value of our home. We have been advised that we should register our concern to you at this time because, once Mr. Spins' project is approved, it is our understanding that he or the subsequent owner of the subdivided lot could in turn grant access to Bainter through that lot, leaving us no recourse at that time. It is for that reason that we believe -this contingency needs to be addressed now and we are writing this letter to solicit your support. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, r Richazd and Deborah Justice 19510 Glen Una Drive ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ M Saratoga, Ca L5 U AUG 5 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA '"~~~rtlTv nr.~iFi ~-- Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications . Date: ~ PROJEC DRESS: i9,33~ ~s~12~-Ta GA~ Los G'~ToS ~o~~ Applicant Name: c5©/Y7S' Application Number: 0~~ / 1 ~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regardi~:g development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing vzr`~~::Y yroparty. Irrespective of the opi:iion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. win : I have reviewed the ro'ect laps; I ~My signature below certifies the follo g P J P understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): T h~e f e a r Q ~-w o i! P r y .rn a rr'v W 5 f,-e+( I+Ys o~ 13a~w~r .~4a~e.. year our lnorne, ~Ma* my ~a~--~~~ a~- ~'i~e a ~ i~- rp N _ ~ra~~ i e -~ r or ~ v- e u) . in o v-~ ~ ~ 2~- 3 ~ e~ i 1n o vv-~P s f co~s~uc~ ~o,n vP1~-cI~S, e ~t', for sai-E ~- y rtuSo N5, Neighbor Name: C~ai'I~L ~ ~AN~ ~u1nC I~F~i~ Neighbor Address: iq3 ~ ~ 13x1 r~~--er ~v e- J ~~~~ U- AUG 5 'll~' 2005 L, CITY OF SARAT(iG,~ ~.~$ ~ 0.~ s, CA ~ ~ D ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ 6 Signature: Printed: ~a~I1Q ~GNC~t°01l~ ' Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: 7 S D.~ PROJEC DRESS: /9330 s,42a-To GA GoS ~~~ D~~ u U AUG 5 200 ~`~ Applicant Name: ~P/ TTjr 5 CITY OF SARATUGA Application Number: 0~~! a- ~ -~~~~u~T~~~"" "~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not-look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City o .Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ' afore below certifies the followin : I have reviewed the project plans; I ^My sign g understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): e _ Neighbor Name: ~ ~ C~-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~`' Neighbor Address: 2~ ~~~ <,~ ~~~~ ~ /4 Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: yob -3 95-693J • Attachment 5 .ADEN EXPwY CA 95118-3686 (408) 265-2600 108) 266-0271 eywoter.org DRiUNIiY FAM1PLOYER File: 3560 San Tomas Aquino Creek December 21, 2004 RECEIVED DEC 2 2 2004 Mrs. Jitka Cymbal ~_~~l7S Westfall Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Design Informatiori Request for a Proposed Bridge at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road in Saratoga Dear Mrs. Cymbal: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff received. a topographic plan of the subject site on October 12, 2004. San Tomas Aquino Creek traverses through the site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (enclosed), the entire site is located within Zone X, an area of 100-year floods with average depths of less than 1-foot. The proposed project consists of the construction of an access bridge and driveway located within 50 feet of San Tomas Aquino Creek. Therefore, in accordance with District Ordinance 83-2, a permit is required for the subject work. The proposed access route begins at Bainter Avenue and continues north approximately 90 feet before crossing San Tomas Aquino Creek and continuing north to the proposed building site. At this location, San Tomas Aquino Creek is a natural channel as depicted by the general plan, enclosed for your use. The project may require permits from the California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers if construction work is done within the creek banks. To facilitate the design process, the District suggests a bridge design that allows the flow - produced by a 100-year storm event to pass under the bridge unobstructed. The District has determined that the design flowrate for this reach of San Tomas Aquino Creek is 900 cubic feet per second. Also, District freeboard requirements for new bridges suggest that freeboard shall be the same as in the channel either upstream or downstream whichever is greater. The bridge soffit should not encroach into the freeboard area. The District requests the land owner grant an easement along the creek that includes the creek itself and a 22-foot width from the top of creek bank. The easement will allow the District access to San Tomas Aquino Creek to perform emergency flood control and precautionary maintenance activities. :~ ~ • .Y ~. Mrs. Jitka Cymbal Page 2 December 21, 2004 When prepared, please submit two sets of plans, including grading, drainage, and detailed bridge plans for our review and approval prior to the issuance of a District permit. If you have any questions o t Fi a Non3560 on futule correspondence26ega d ng th s pr ~e~, Please reference Distric Sincerely, G~ Wendy Ilison, P.E. Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosures cc: B. Goldie, S. Tippets, R. Bramer, U. Chatwani, W. Allison, File (2) wj:jl 1220b-pl.doc . .. 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.valleywater.org AN EQLL-L OPPORTUNRY EMPLOYER July 15, 2005 Ms. Jitka Cymbal Westfall Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ID, L5 ~ IS B ~ 15 ~le: UII JUG 2 0 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA ~'"ti7UNITY DEVELOPMENT 3560 San Tomas Aquino Creek Subject: Proposed Development of Site Located at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek, in Saratoga Dear Ms. Cymbal: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff received a tentative tract map and site plan on June 10, 2005. The plans indicate that the owner intends to construct afree-span bridge across San Tomas Aquino Creek; however, in order to meet District freeboard requirements, a hydraulic analysis must be performed to determine the freeboard upstream and downstream of the bridge site. The soffit of the bridge must not encroach into the freeboard area, which will be equal to the greater of the upstream and downstream existing freeboard. The 100-year water surface elevation should be shown on all cross-sections. Please submit a hydraulic analysis for this reach of San Tomas Aquino Creek for District review. The plans also show proposed additional fill on the banks of San Tomas Aquino Creek, in an attempt to match the proposed bridge grade with the surrounding site topography. Please show and label the limit of grading on the subsequent site plan. The location and the adequacy of the storm drain energy dissipator design are not clear based on the information provided. Although the dissipator design attempts to prevent erosion by spreading the runoff from impervious surtaces constructed during development, the plans do not indicate the surface area that will be drained via this method. Also, the site plan shows the dissipator located just south of the driveway along the contour line representing elevation 546 feet, for the entire width of the site. The energy dissipator detail on Sheet 4 indicates that the dissipater has a length of 17 feet. Please revise. Per our phone conversation on June 30, 2005, it has come to my attention that the current property owner's intention as of this point in time is to subdivide the property and sell the southern portion of the site adjacent to the creek. The District appreciates the applicant's willingness to participate in the permit process; however, please advise the applicant that a District permit can only be issued on the final set of plans and that transfer of property prior to • Ms. Jitka Cymbal Page 2 .July 15, 2005 completion of the permit invalidates the permit, requiring the new property owner to reapply-and a new permit be .issued to the correct,permittee. When prepared, please submit two sets of revised plans, including grading, drainage, and detailed bridge- plans and a hydraulic analysis of San Tomas Aquino Creek for our review and approval prior to the issuance of a District permit. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 3135. Please reference District File No. 3560 on future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, Wen y,da, es, ~~. Assistan~`Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: Community Development, City of Saratoga • ' Steven & Diane Spitts B. Goldie, S. Tippets, U. Chatwani, W. Jones, M. Mahoney, File (2) wj:jl 0714c-pl.doc • • Attachment 6 r ~ LJ September 21, 2005 WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Christine Oosterhous Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. OS-122, APN 510-06-006 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Land of Spitts) Dear Ms. Oosterhous: SERVING RESIDENTS OF CITY OF CAMPBELL TOWN OF LOS GATOS CITY OF MONTE SERENO CITY OF SARATOGA UNINCORPORATED AREA ~ ~(~[~~jyj~, i~ i SEP 2 6 2005 ~~'~ CITY OF SAKf~ fUG~; The district has reviewed the tentative map of the above referenced subdivision. The district operates a 6-inch sewer main that runs parallel to San Tomas Creek within the property. This sewer main will provide services to the two new parcels. Pursuant to district ordinance code Section 10.130, "PAYMENT OF SEWER CONNECTION AND TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY FEE", the developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal of the improvement plan. District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ~' Jo athan K. Lee Senior Civil Engineer • • 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell, California 95008-6608 Tel:(408) 378-2407 Fax: (408) 364-1821 • Attachment 7 • ~~'c~~°oo FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 05 2371 ~ ~a SANTA CLARA COUNTY BLDGPERMRNUMBER ~ FIRE "` 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER GOUIITESY 8 SEHVIGE i FILE NUMBER 05~ 1 22 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODElSEC. SHEET NO. Review of tentative parcel map. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make 'application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. No fire department conditions or requirements. REQUIREMENT • City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantNam• DATE PAGE STG . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC 8/15/2005 1 of 1 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Rucker, Ryan • NAME OF PROJEG 1 ~~~~ ~ ~~+n LANDS OF SPITTS 19330 Saratoga-los Gatos Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Nill, and Saratoga • • Attachment 8 • H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ~ ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS ~, 9 August 2005 Ms. Christy Oosterhous Associate Planner Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Lands of Spitts, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Dear Ms. Oosterhous At the request of Mr. Steven C. Spitts, I have reviewed the most recent Tentative .Map improvement plans (dated August 2005) prepared by Westfall Engineers for the Lands of Spitts located at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga. The alignment of the proposed driveway has been changed to enter the parcel off of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road rather than off of Bainter Avenue, as originally proposed. The driveway would be placed along the western boundary of the property continuing past the existing house and pool. The proposed alignment of the road would result in fewer impacts to biological resources and would generate no new impacts beyond those identified in our earlier report. The driveway would not involve crossing the creek, thus, discretionary approvals from resource agencies with jurisdiction over activities conducted within the creek are not required for the proposed work. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly at 408.448.9450 x. 301. Sincerely, ~~~ Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D. Principal ~~~ ~~ ~- ~ I ~ ~ ~ U ~~ ~N AUK 1 ~ 2005 ~,"IY OF SARATUGA ~..,~.,,h,T~, DEVELOPMENT C • • ~ , rn n ~__„"J.... C...,~e.-~....,.. C..;tu ~.~~ • Con Tnca rn QS t i R . rdnRl 44R-94.5(1 • Fax: (4081448-9454 ' ,., H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ~ ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANT ~ ~ ~ ;., ~~ ~•~ ~~ May 25, 2005 MAY 2 6 2005 Mr. Steve Spitts 14515 Chester Avenue ,~"~MUNITYDEVELOPMEN~' Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Lands of Spitts Biotic Assessment Report (2482-02) Dear Mr. Spitts: Per the guidance provided in the City of Saratoga's letter specifically related to the need for further description of biological resources, H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists have completed an assessment of biotic constraints for your property located at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road property (Figure 1). Specifically, the City's letter requested the applicant to: Provide a detailed biotic assessment report. The report shall include a discussion of the following: habitat descriptions, special-status plant species, and special-status wildlife species. Areas referred to in the document shall be referred to on an enclosed map or exhibit. Such constraints could include the presence of regulated habitats and the potential occurrence of certain special-status species that are regulated by various federal and state laws. H. T. Harvey & Associates' wildlife biologist, Dr. Dave Johnston, and plant ecologist, Andrew Dilworth conducted site visits on May 10 and 17, 2005. The following letter report presents our field observations and findings. A biotic habitat map was prepared using an AutoCAD drawing provided for this assessment (Figure 2). Property Setting and Habitats The property is located in the lower foothills of the .Santa Cruz Mountains, in Saratoga, California. The property has a single residence that fronts Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Parcel 1, Figure 2). The existing home has a large front and back yard with many ornamental plantings, and occupies approximately one-third of the property. The remaining two-thirds of the property is dominated by oak woodland, non-native grassland, riparian woodland, and aquatic habitat occurring on a series of three terraces situated below the elevation of the existing home. The lowest terrace forms part of the floodplain for San Tomas Aquinas Creek. The creek flows through the southwest comer of the property, and has mostly contiguous riparian habitat dominated by large native and non-native trees along its length. Parcel 2, which is located in the middle of the property (Figure 2), is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland habitat. This habitat covers much of the foothills in this part of Saratoga, and includes various other native trees including coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), black oak (Quercus kelloggii~, and California bay (Umbellularia californica). A few orchard species including English walnut (Juglans regia), and stone fruit trees (Prunus sp.) also occur on site. Non- native grassland occurs in the understory of this habitat, as well as in large openings between trees, and is disked annually. Dominant non-native grassland species on site include soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum), vetch . ~r r_._ r.. .._ ~n nc i ~o . i~nQ~ .1AQ ~.1G(1. ~~.•• ~1(1R11dR_Q151 J 1 ~ • n~ u Q _ ppouaooo : DP + '+r Eq ~ ~ aov~ ~ tin / ~ f' z ,~'• - a-: r h °fl ~' - aMFam i5 A cocxrxl'~ a sPEfNUOac `" Detall ~ t (( c ~ ~~~ ~.,r" ~ 3a~ _0 ~" SEAGULL CSC ^IY. ~ t - 60. BRAt bu OP `'~ S., ..B OOKVIEW ,. _:- Oq ~ F ~ V a ~~ ~ Gail ~ ~ , ~ - r°R.p ac ~ tlOaT11AYP7py xuEEq cr vur urx ,, 04 ~ ~ ¢ _ - ~. i; for +Y r ~ @ ~ ~ _ ~ ~' ~? . ° ~, ~ r ~ s z ~~ wl"°n °a ~ tr+r '~° ~FRr Ih - ~ J; ~G $ a ooPeNFSrFn o`' c ~ ~ ° ~. hrFS MUa ar.` r -- ~ 3,~aamor wua -: a F• ", ~,~ a P- ba. :~ ~'- C W ':. krfxie.c`_ °~ aaxLxAV ~ a oq. ~ ~ 'e°A n= ~ . i +' 3 R- - OEgrCr ~~rR 9 ~ + -SalA1 L0. - : t ~ _m C r1~ '~fY '.. .. 1 ~ _ VEAO[Cr Fw ~.- ~`R-V., ~ cRk. 4rjgC C! Y~ :~ '-A' ~L1a a CE -..g ~ pEUJYO0000. `~ ~~4~4[Iyf ~2A 4 3'r, - ~ ~ ~d~. 4~Ci'o KANF 4T ~ .'.YEM M 61!NINFA ~, aY - APE s~ ~ a ~ Q ,~` .-. : oy ~ I ~ c - ~~4 _:,°P s.~ a _: ., -cr ~ c, coa ~ ~ ~B Takla ~ rveA - = cr. ~ ` ~,1ux - tA.` - ~o p~~J' 2 g_ Francisc x ~' .. vnLlLU/SaUHG COX ~ _ R Oql~ '-~ PAO G ~~ "'p7 - ,q~~a,~ ' ~•. L ~ ~ ~b ~ i' ~ 7 t Q G g .t: ~ --' ~. ,~ ~ ~ C~~ San Tracy ~;. -: ~ C ~'~ ~ ~ g ~ s ~ HEaGf,- ~ € p ~_' `Rdo '._ ~ ~' ~AFnq. ~~t,, s osfgr oP. ~~ 'CO~.~c~- ~ eayawro ee lhrerrnore". ~: ~ -~ r :, - a ,- ~~ ~ ~ G G . W 3 CHATEAU ~ ~ 23 ~ ~ _`- __ :. ~ '~ NIMOFNr _: r~r,~ G ~. W' xALIORt ~~¢,~r - +m i0 K' .. - 101 _~R. .~ 9 0~ -.o PuuEay ;:. ~Ex, o¢ ~ ~En LMi rAtEauo °_~ gg~ 'u _` }+,~~oJb~ ~cr~: Project Vicinity ` = Cz ~• '~ ~ ¢ AaaoNAU< ; ['xATEAU 'YU s5 EswEU .-~ G oa ~!1 E4RF'~ a ~.yd ~ eW ~~ ~ rwaEO CP i mrcu xnxWC on EE~~r~~~~~ _,J• BgANOE Da sosLE °r o9 ~ ~a .~h.~ ~ 1~en 056 ~~ ~ _~ Gi fA ~r•p0. . g~ . c[W+lf 07 ~ _ ~d ~ ~ G ~ g __ ~ - ~ ~,r~ r~' rci Y "`'._~ ~, . ^' uEl~ .; ~ ,, urcxsG7s ~ ~3 ,,, ~ ~ I a - - rol ~- _ 'a uuami KILBR/p .g -:~, ggP o~~ ~ ARWaA Cr~ - ltl ' ~ ~' ° ~~ MIUEYICH F -~ D0. aa' .00114(0 SIP. i~ yT; . 0 _ .. i _, ~ONAAO fG.~ °e GLASGOW ED(NB11a0H'OP 5 NNIEa~~ ~G~rcP `0'Vl ' ~ ~~ t_ ~-~-~L.. s PecifiC Sarua x'~ ~ oEPSIf :,.. ~ r~s~GLEN ` BPAE: ~-~ ~,,aK r '~~y o a o9 `L` , _~ '~rq~b ~ ~ s OCB8F1 Cruz - s, ~R' tx TMF1kA - S AV' PRAEAIAR ~ + p,,C so ~~` ' .' , `»r-`-7- 4fA rat ~ faN1A11N ~ AV'.' ~Tf ~u. rU~'~-. p.1. -._.~~ ~ ~~oy ~ 1~ ~PEN• ~25j ~ .&APATD ; ~.: • :- .- -...D Pr'rM 101 .: \ YfMI~ ~ YISFA ~ ~ Lx: ` auLEr. ~ a ~ = oLO ~e : - . eg ; ~r ~ ~ +RLE1G11 17751}} ~ uFAalaL ~ aA a - ~G A €;nrAlx Montere PCOfeCt VlClnlt~/ "`,-... '~ ~ DwAaP ~ ~ PR.. ;~ 3 ~ • € s 4 ~ wA>yv 1 rwrrov . -: p N flL ~ " il. y _ _ ~~~ "" x ee '~ a _i i[[e ~ ~. 4cuPA .>. ~ ~ ~ ` ~~,M rol>sE. waoev 9 ~ ~ . ~ - o wK . a, W'Y _.. p. ? `~' ~ c .s!\-~~ ~ oa .a i ~ HEawu,N b0`4 n ~ ' : ~ LEN ~ C 7 ~~~ y"'n°cae ~erw ~ ~t ~o " --f ~~ f.. _ ~t 'ee% awl 2 INx ~ . ,. c ~ 6 '. ' ~ ,4 ~ ~ - '';-~ -.. g '~ i Av - ~ ,fJl d' . ~~ ~- _ - f ~^ F K ;P ~ OS60M O!},{R' ~ SPA tE`°~. +D t GS o~ -.. a. tyi - ~ W / ~ G ~ G~ '~ u Cl. t ~` ~~ a~ x :AVY ~ ~~e zAnaL '; iron: ~ " ~ ~\ '~` GS/ aA.exwaao - oa PAVFa~ `oP. t~y o~ ~ ~. ii f ~ 1,N ~._ WILLLIM6 AV ryd ~ / "`~' yy ' ~• ~`o - I y0A7AU'!. ~ ~.T. - J ,~ i p~ 6 ~ S .~IL4 y ~~a ~r ~ _ ~P ~ wuxur ~~/ ~~_ °~H+oow J o ~ @ .1 _ ~e ?` \ ~, `uns,41[.-:Ex ~ _.~ ~ ppiiAR~ ~ ~oiv_,. -. l~pa p0 ~ ~ :.,y'y°+'hi~, Aid" g ~ J. ~~ `- ~ ' ";- `~ S - ~ ~, _ ~ ? ~ z4~,. ~a; `+04 rAix' N. i°° - ~R. ~.. . 1 N '. -- 'G ~` :: i ~` -' ~ 3~ `= '~ ~. Eel. "krs oAAxosAq oa .~ ~ • ~~ ~ ~ DPer `+` ~~ ' trs .c~ sy r J ~< .~ amp, ='~~ - r; ~~ Fy ~ ~~PO. . _. s cU'aw ~ :-: ~~> _ 3 ~-:. e0{'x R.' 1A05 g KEx09Nr - j,_r ~ c 3 ~ 9F 5 >»: u"~,_. ~ opa. __:- NEAUSarw:. __~: ;"~;" ' 4 cc ~e t, ~" Er ~,.. _ e cusFrn < ~~. ~~ --~ ~..~ W ~,~ ~ooauss°-..: Lq ~E y : ~ 'o _ W ..- ~ ~ - :pnw. ~ P0. ~[ ;" ~ tpNE g~ ~ / O z °s ~ J ; - l~ '.a' / o- 1NEa A~°~ Ol0 ~ aOC 000 .~. ~C. 'ylo ~. ..~~_ ~zr 3 l • OAK , _ l--%~ 'tf 1 ~ - 3 SAx MAlIC0 ~ RO s = s ~ / O ~ ~ y $ ` _ G~ M Gi. - ~ W a v A oA.~ J~O _ d~,1O f ~S`° `T~ ~` ~ .6 vEa~ Es '.- ~°uNOr wr -, ' ~Es'rF~ $ mwlxc~ Ci I - _ . `a' e5 "~it'p pp~ ~ '~ ~ c R / ~~ ---~ J~~ F { J 9 /~' cS ~~ ~ pq T AILS ~' (t, YESSIXO flD.. /4~• ~E- ~ ~.Y1 . L ~~''A i •~" ~ 4, ~ '- / ~ ~ ~j~. ~ ~ ~ g ' i r ;- roof ' dw ~ ~ 6 ~ Q'~a ..Ur 2r _ / J' Ste- - - { 't~ ~ E#IIWELL AV \\ FICLfE ~ ', ~s ' ~ ® ~ R111T•a~aa ". d a -~ ` -.>T? a -, y:: ~~~/ ~~ I r~ ~ - P~tsuxc H E< ~ ~ , ~i}~ , s. o~~ of - .p ~A. t~ J >: c :vu ~, ~~- t3 •~ ~ _ r`+ ,µF~l < `'sr~ cr ~ ~ G \f ~ ~ . ono ~ moo G2 ~ ho= ~ . a ~ _ ~a+-~~'xs.~ '~. 11'~_ Od ~ - ~ ~ ~3 / cr T /_ - P.. ~: poSAOA ( 1'I~ i`e ~~- NItN _ 1 ,. ~. ~T lAawElL Y.: 7 K _ Y ~ ~._~ J P _: ~ __ s fir- c~ -. f°~O ~[~M~ghCf[FF .. c q4 ~ - CT ~ ~N' ~ 3 a\sv ;y ~ .near d'"~ o aJ~ 3 d ;;Y 'y ~ 4 _ =. ~ - -,? 4 ~ '~/YdYA~ BONXIE IaAE Z S ~. ;`OI.KS D~ ' ,C ~~ ru ~l; /.~a05~ ~ .:0 °SN~E ~ e:$~~.,c-. ~ o rf ~~,4•bM "'~' .~j ~ .~'..., ' ,~ s - So , -:~ ~~. sa` ot. e ~ ~ -c ^ L°msf ct Xulxr ~:~•~-•f-`[ ..33° ~ ~ +G o HILL '- AV. N N~ ~ ~ ~ 1NREE OAKS WY iT:. ~• y ro S ~ c : 0r. t1 i`c ~ X' ;,,,..5 .:.'Ay - Lri 7 ~~ ~:-O ~ ~' ~.-O 60lITA -: ~.~~~= _ ~ Project Site >i- _ ,~~- ~~° ~ o ~ _ _ ~, ~~ f,• xrs _oR c nD °ea ;~ `%~ '90 °~ v'![F ° ~' a~li {"-_ ~~- ~~ 3'"~- ~ Y ~" y E''~ ~ > ' t q " PART( OR..- ~ ~ •. ~ ~ _ J NAUO AY ~ - - s~ ~ ++` ~'--.r~' "t-~. ~ =fort x , - c a e~H wv ti if -~ oR e1J~~ •' ~ ~ ..~ -~~• r ~ ~ ~ ~" slag[ _~ LN r ~,~ ~ .-, ` soefl ; pt .' _ ~ y ~` of 'b *~~~ r ~ 3~o a ~., .K~ s ''DtiA; .a6 ~ os4R9T visr+ R°. 4 'a' _ ~ ems, ~-' t v 1 0L,- uW ~ OR s.e ~` F 4 - ~_'~ X11 _' ~. m _ ~ c~ ~ -. ~. ~ ~ ~S `' is~`~ ~' _ -.. H tir ~ ,r y ~ suASET ~ ~aLEN ,~ ~_ Da i ~, ~, ~ ~ "y Li-nn°~ oe E .s yoH/~oo~" oa - ~~ ~{ -. ~ ~ ~'. DP ONE I / OP -~ ~ _ ~ ,Ff - ~_. `P Sf ~ '=„ ~'_ 1 `bo`,J` ~i. 6e~NtE 5`A~Oat 4,~. / ~' ~. - ~F o r~+E: '~ 'y~lt d OAf1a.~_ P` _ T ?r'~;.n, ~ fL-~ / ~r~ ~~J1/ onE 4eeY ". a\ ~ o ~c°'`° ~.°ot~, ~7~14tr° ~` ~~" r. iatr ~rT ~~r>. ~cq xaL 'r~/ oo - =o '~+~yoa` ° '` _ .zy ;. ~ oa `~~r° ~~o~oEaNUr .~ y ~_ ,_. :-c Q OP -_ ---a 3' ~+'°~~-7 ,~ 3' i EEa, ~. / ~~eEOg~ \ KN a , x~F ~ ~ i`t~~- ,. _y`a4tl~' -rt `y ~9- •_ ~ ~,. <~' - . _ "~ ,~~ ,.~'.; o ~ H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES .. ~ a` _ ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 1 0 2200 feet ~- ~~~' s GE ~' ' approximate scale in feet aP ~ ~ ao° ,~ Lands of Spitts Biotic Assessment: Site /Vicinity Map sp N Map Copyrighted 2003 by the California State ~ " '_ " o. Automobile Association Reproduced by permESSton ``: ~ ~ File No. 2482-02 Date 5/18/05 Figure 1 (Vicia sativa), knotted hedge-parsley (Torilis nodosa), hawksbeard (Crepis sp.), and herba impia (Filago gallica). The grassland habitat also extends into the understory of the riparian habitat on the floodplain along the creek. Contiguous riparian woodland habitat exists along the San -Tomas Aquinas Creek corridor, and is dominated by tall California sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa), and blue gum trees (Eucalyptus globulus). The woody understory is dominated by smaller box elder (Ater negundo), buckeye (Aesculus californicus), California bay, and coast live oak trees and saplings. The herbaceous understory receives ample sunlight due to the tall riparian canopy and is dominated by non-native grassland from upslope, as well as abundant poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), miner's lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae). The San Tomas Aquinas Creek drainage is approximately 15 feet wide and 8 feet deep, on average. Water was flowing in the low-flow channel that is 4-foot wide channel and up to 10 inches deep (Figure 2). The bed of the creek drainage is mostly gravel, and appears to be scoured on an annual basis. No wetland habitat was observed in the creek, though various native and non-native shrubs and vines occur within the creek drainage and along its banks. These species include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), greater periwinkle (Vinca major), mugwort (Artemisia douglasii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutij'olia), and arroyo willow saplings (Salix lasiolepis). The project site provides habitat for those wildlife species tolerant to areas impacted by human activity. Nonetheless, a variety of species are expected to occur on the site, in part, due to the presence of San Thomas Aquinas Creek, the stands of sycamores and large coast hve-oaks, and the proxunity to larger areas with a similar habitat. This creek does not support a population of rainbow trout or anadromous steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss), although steelhead could irregularly occur downstream from a drop structure located near the confluence with Saratoga Creek. Furthermore, no records for the red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), yellow legged frog (Rana boylii~, or western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) occur on this creek, possibly because of the ephemeral nature of the stream. Along the narrow but dense understory associated with the creek, shrubs and various pieces of small debris provide cover. for the slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), and the southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus). In contrast, the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) likely occurs more frequently in the landscaped areas and at the edges of open areas of the non-native grassland. Common birds occurring in suburban situations with dense vegetation, such as the California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and Western Scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), as well as those in more open areas, such as the House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Morning Dove (Zenaida macroura), could breed on or immediately adjacent to, the project site. The native trees also provide food sources and breeding habitat for several other birds tolerant of disturbance including the Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri). A few raptors, such as the Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) and Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), could potentially breed in the blue gum eucalyptus along the creek riparian. Non-native squirrels, such as eastern grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) also occur among the large trees found in this habitat. Additionally, several mammals associated with urban and suburban areas, such as the broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus), 4 ~ T F-7dRVF~~ ~ a.c.cn~~aTF.c raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and exotic species such as the Virginia opposum (Didelphis virginia), and feral cat (Fells cafes), are also expected to occur on the site. Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) forage on many of the exotic annual plants, such as knotted hedge-parsley, and cultivated fiuit trees, such as apple trees (Males sp.), as well as natives such as the buckeye and poison oak. Special-Status Species Plants Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted on May 10, 2005 for special-status plant species blooming at the time of the survey and for habitats capable of supporting these species. Prior to the site visit, a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2005) was performed to identify special-status plant species potentially occurring within a 5-mile radius of the project vicinity within the USGS Castle Rock Ridge quadrangle. In addition, the California Native Plant Society Inventory (CNPS 2001) was used to identify and assess additional species occurring in similar habitats to those on site in Santa Clara. County. . Only five special-status plant species were identified as occurring within a 5-mile radius of the property, according to the CNDDB. These species include Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum), hairless popcomflower (Plagiobothrys glaber), Metcalf Canyon jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus), and robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta). None of these species are expected to occur on site due to the absence of either suitable habitat and/or microhabitats including serpentine and alkaline substrates.. In addition, no other special-status plants occurring in woodland, grassland, or riparian habitats of Santa Clara County aze expected to occur on site, since the site has been maintained over the years and is surrounded by residential development. Wildlife Reconnaissance-level field surveys were conducted on the project site on January 27 and May 17, 2005 for special-status wildlife species and their habitats. Special-status wildlife species that occur in the vicinity in habitats similar to those found on the project site are described below. The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of these species on-site are given in Table 1. Some special-status species may occur on the project area only as uncommon to rare visitors, migrants, or transients, but aze not expected to breed or occur on the site except on rare occasions, if at all. These species include the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striates), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Vaux's Swift (Chaetura vauxi), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). An expanded description is included only for the Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperit~, because it is the only special- status species for which potentially suitable nesting habitat occurs on and in the general vicinity of the project site. California Species of Special Concern Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Federal listing status: None; State listing status; Species of Special Concem. The Cooper's Hawk is a larger accipiter than the Sharp-shinned Hawk, thus, this 5 fi T I1 I llil f•ll O A CCIIl.l ATTC • • • V r N y W ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ -Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ..i ~ ~C ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ > ~ __ W H _ ~ a ~ m G p ~ •~ ~ a ~ ^ U ~y S ~ c~H ~+ dj ,0 ~ ~ ~. O C ~ ~ z ~° ~ ~ ~ .F u~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ` O W O ~ O ~ u ~ 7 y ~ 'y ~ a~ .~ P ~ SR CC~y OD a 7 ~ U .•~~. O • z y j $ V w ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ F o ~ L 'Q~p ~8 . ~ , - ~ y ~ ~ /~ ~ z n ~ ~ ' ~ d d - tAd F-I ~ .~„7 W J . .S7 "~ ~ ~ ~ . y ~ ° F ~ F ~ F y ~ OFD ~ A A •f^ ry+ V ~ O °~ F ~ O ~ ra ~ o ~ ~ .a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ A ~ `U° U ~y .F ~ 30 6A ~ H ~ w O ' ~ S F F •~ N b F _ ~ „ ~ ~ a a ~ g ~ ~ ~ G ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ . F~ ~ ~ ~ o y w o ~ O z . N ~ A , ~ ~ C t0 ~ Q Q k • ~ w f i5 y C ~ C ~ A m ~ F C yyy ~ C ~ W ~ • y O y p ~ ~ ~ y U - ~ y S y O C ~ ~ y O O .. ~ N ~ ' ~ F ^y 8 e ~ 4. Y! ~ F ~ • ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O •- --~ O ~ O O ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v~_ } t3 (y_ ~ t5 O ~ Q ~ O y ~' Q O ~ 4 x 7 O ~ w z z z z z z ~ Sa o o•~ S z z~ ~ z . ~ p ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ vi _ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ s ~ ~s ~ .C ~ A ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ G ~ V ,C ~ F ~ ..G7. ~ ~ ~ d id . ~: ~ p .F ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F cF d ~ ~ ~ i ~ ++ ~- ~ .F. F ~' ~ ~ - ~ ~. O a p O F ~ - ~ 'in ~ ~. ~ •~ .~ •~ .°1 9 'F .~ C L ~' °~ ~ O a Fy .~ 0. - Q. `~ A U 'Q i C H _ ~ y° A C3 G V' ° ,~ 'C 0.y ° c 4, ~ A 1° A ~ A ~~ ~ .G y~, ~~ S G X " F O ~ L ~ E io ~ CC ~ =~ ~ ~ ° c . 5 ~ ~. 5 y C v G ~ 2 y . T X '~ F ~ ~~:~ '~ O F F a~ q~~ - ~ ~ y ~ y N L ~ ~ ~ •F a~ ca A " F A ~ Y C T ~ 7 X 9 C ~ p a`3 ~ y ~ C ~° ~i y ~ C ~ ~ ~ .~3 ~ ~ Gn ~~yy U v ~ 7 > - - - > U t - Vi itl L 0. r i '7 r i 7 ~ z ~ C1 4:. G~ Oa S w t~ w 7 F+I ~ V] . O , . r . .~ ~ .w ~ a v~ ~ ,, ~. ~ ~ ~ a~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H om ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C q C/ ~ t - w - w ~ V U U U U U U U U U U • ,~ ~ ~ ~ V. ~ ~ ~ C ~+ ~ y ~. U OD ~ ~ 'O ~ ~i y 25 3 3 ~ V G~. ~ ~O ~ y Q ~wO = ~ ~ F y ~ y F y ~ :~G~. G~ w ' i .~ F ~ ~ .p ~ . w ' c ~ it U ~ $pp O ~ y ~ td O ~ p p p0 y O C O pp ~ 'Y ~d g [ ~ ~ a~ F F a~ ~ X C ~ •C c~ ~ N > ,Y' C p !"~ O ^n_ C ii ~ V C~ ^ ,L 'qy tl FL L Q ~ ~ C OD V E" c g y F .~ U -; CC. _ - ~ - G ~ g 'FO ~ ~ £ L ~~ ~p E OF ~n p N O ' U ' E ~ p ~ O N y 0 0 ~ •O 'O o O y O= `i ~ h • f \ F+r ~ ,O t ^ ~ ~ c a ~ ~ j . ~ } , h L1 ~ '~ d ~ ,~ ~ C ~ "'" G ~ F F U U ~ .Q ~ _. .~. ~ ~ ~ p b c .~ ~F 4b .p ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ s E °.3 F y r ~- ~ ~ ~ G •~ cci ~ a x obi .~ a ' q ~' a °~ F P ,~ '~ p :° ~ C` w C~ H Z 6~ fs+` a ~~ •~ ~ c ~`~ C~ W i~ F Ue ~ c w~ V. w ~ ..: 3U A ~ ~`~ $ u ue c ~`~ ~ r >U UQ .3~ is U~ ca a ~ ~z . U O O 'D U aci . U a. ~~~~ N ~ 0 U r7^ d ~ L^ ~y . V] .~ ~ " $ _~ ~ F~ Q ~d Qr bj p~j 4~ N ~~~~ II ~w`C3v~i H. T. HARVEY ~ A,S.S(1<.'lATES species can prey upon medium-sized birds (e.g., jays, doves, and quail) and occasionally takes small . mammals and reptiles. The Cooper's Hawk prefers landscapes where wooded areas occur in patches and groves, which facilitate the ambush hunting tactics employed by this species. Breeding pairs in California prefer nest sites within dense stands of live oak woodland or riparian areas and prey heavily on young birds during the nesting season. Although no Cooper's Hawks were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys, the project site provides potential foraging and nesting habitat. This species is frequently observed among neighborhoods in Saratoga at the edge of coast live oak forests, along riparian habitats, and where patches of coast live oaks occur with an open canopy and non-native annual grassland. Cooper's Hawks could nest in the coast live oaks or the eucalyptus trees on the project site. Regulated Habitats Potential Waters of the U.S. The project site was surveyed for areas that may meet the regulatory definition of "Waters of the United States" (i.e., jurisdictional waters) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as "Waters of the U.S.," tributaries of waters otherwise defined as "Waters of the U.S.," the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to "Waters of the U.S." (33 . CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). San Tomas Aquinas Creek is identified as palustrine habitat with a seasonal water regime, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS) National Wetland Inventory. The deep and narrow gravelly creek course prevents the establishment of wetland habitat within that reach of the creek on site. The creek is otherwise considered potential Waters of the U.S. Activities affecting San Tomas Aquinas Creek may require pemuts from the USAGE and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Potential California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction The site was also examined for habitats that are potentially under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFG. The CDFG definition of stream includes "intemuttent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams mapped on USGS quadrangles, and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife" (CDFG 1994). As described above, San Tomas Aquinas Creek is identified as a USGS blue-line stream course and USFWS palustrine habitat. This reach of the creek is expected to flow at least half of the year and has mostly contiguous, well-developed native and non-native riparian habitat. As such, the San Tomas Aquinas Creek channel lies within CDFG jurisdiction; however, the bridge is currently designed as a • clear span with no footings or abutments planned within the channel habitats. This jurisdiction may 7 rr T U A Dl/l V P_ ~ CCn/'/ATOC • include areas above the topographic top-of--bank of the creek (Figure 2), including up to the outer limits of canopy of those trees rooted within and along the banks of the creek. The project calls for select removal of a few non-native trees (e.g. eucalyptus) in the vicinity of the crossing with replacement of these trees with native trees and shrubs on site. City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance The City of Saratoga provides three general categories of protection for trees. All trees planted a. public street or right-of--way are fully protected by the City and may not be removed without explicit percussion. In addition, two native species of oak, Quercus lobata and Quercus agrifolia, are protected if the tree has a main stem or trunk of 32 inches or more in circumference when measured at 24 inches above natural grade. Finally, any tree not otherwise protected that has a main stem or trunk of 40 inches or more in circumference when measured at 24 inches above the natural grade is also protected. Additionally, any trees that have been planted as a requirement of a development permit or . planted as replacements for trees removed without a permit are protected regardless of size. Percussion to remove protected trees may be granted as part of approval of other development permits. However, no trees may be removed until a final building or grading pernut has been approved for a given project. (City of Saratoga Municipal Code, Chapter 15, Article 50, inclusive) The property has numerous trees that are of ordinance size requiring permits for removal from the City of Saratoga. These trees primarily include non-native species, which were either planted or volunteer in origin. Among these are several blue gum trees along the creek, as well as various pine trees in the yard around the home. Many of the larger oak trees may also prove to be of ordinance size if they were to be re-measured at 24 inches above the natural grade rather than at breast height. A formal tree survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. Conclusions Special-Status Plant Species of Constraints No state or federal listed threatened or endangered plant species are expected to occur on the property. Therefore, further assessment of the potential for occurrence of special-status plant species is not recommended. Special-Status Wildlife Species and Regulatory Compliance for Nesting Raptors and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA. Migratory birds are also protected in and by the state of California. The State Fish and Game Code §3503 (and other sections and subsections) emulates the MBTA and protects birds' nests and eggs F~l T Hd RVF1' .8 A.C.C~1('IATF..C from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is • considered "take" by the CDFG and would constitute a significant impact. Cooper's Hawks and other raptors (i.e., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." The vast majority of birds found on the project site are protected under the MBTA, and the Cooper's Hawk, a California species of special concern, is also protected by Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Project construction has the potential to take nests, eggs, young or individuals of these protected species. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Although this impact is not significant under CEQA due to the local and regional abundance of the species in question and the low magnitude of the potential impact, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to reduce the risk of a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code: Compliance Measures Measure 1. Avoidance. Avoid nesting season construction. Construction should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the South San Francisco Bay area extends from January through August. t ossible to schedule demolition Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If rt is no p and construction between August and January, then a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation should conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds. This survey should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction.activities during the early part of the breeding season (January through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with CDFG, will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest, typically 250 feet, to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA or State Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Measure 3. Inhibiting Nesting. If vegetation is to be removed by the project and all necessary approvals have been obtained, potential nesting substrate (e.g., bushes, trees, grass, burrows) that will be removed by the project should be removed before the start of the nesting season (January) to help preclude nesting. Pre-tree removal surveys are required for the Cooper's Hawk. Removal of any trees or structures slated for removal by the project should be completed outside of the nesting season. Biotic/Regulated Habitats The development of Parcel 2 will result in impacts to the coast live oak woodland habitat • (approximately 1.09 acres) on site by the removal of several oaks. The proposed access road will also 9 rr m rr ~ nvcv o ,~ C`(`/l/'7ATG`C . result in impacts to approximately 0.11 acres of sycamore riparian habitat, 0.04 acres of which occurs below the topographic top-of--bank of the San Tomas Aquinas Creek. The proposed clear-span bridge over the creek will result in impacts to approximately 0.016 acres of riparian habitat, and will also span approximately 0.008 acres of potential USACE tributary water habitat. The trees to be removed along the channel are eucalyptus trees that will be replanted on site with native trees and shrubs, as described below. No direct impacts are expected to occur within USACE jurisdiction, according to the current bridge design. Impacts to the coast live oak woodland on site are not expected to be significant or require mitigation. Similarly, impacts to riparian habitat are not considered significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the relatively small size of the habitat lost, close proximity to Bainter Avenue, and the presence of substantial disturbance along this reach of the creek already from existing home sites and creek crossings, and on-going management (i.e. mowing and disking) of the understory of the reach of the creek on the property. In addition, the applicant has agreed to the following measures as a means to minimise impacts to these resources including: (1) redesigning the access road on the parcel to reduce the number of trees to be removed on site, per the arborists' recommendations; (2) replacement of the oaks and sycamores to be removed with native trees and shrubs, to be planted within the setback areas of the creek (i.e. the remainder parcel), per recommendations of a certified arborist or qualified plant biologists, and; (3) to landscape elsewhere on the property with native species, to the extent practicable. Riparian setbacks of between 50 and 100 feet are often recommended as appropriate for streams with • associated riparian habitat. These setbacks are typically measured from either the top-of--bank or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Currently the proposed building site on Parcel 2 lies 175 feet from the topographic top-of--bank, and 75 feet from the edge of riparian habitat. The proposed access road encroaches within the riparian habitat of the creek without any setback from sensitive riparian resources. If enhancement plantings, including the use of native trees and shrubs, are incorporated into the landscaping plan of the remainder parcel per recommendations of a certified • arborist or qualified plant biologist, and- this lower flood bench of the creek is no longer maintained via mowing and disking, except that absolutely necessary for fire control, these encroachment impacts are considered less than significant. Pernits from the appropriate regulatory agencies maybe required before construction can take place within these habitats. These permits may include Section 404 Nationwide Pernuts from the USACE, for bank stabilization and temporary construction access and dewatering associated with the installation of the proposed clear span bridge. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Activities within the bed and banks of San Tomas Aquinas Creek may also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. In addition, the City of Saratoga may require both maintenance and creek protection easements, depending on the extent of impacts to riparian habitat, and any proposed mitigation and avoidance measures. Finally, it does not appear that the current project design will require the removal of any ordinance-sized trees, though the size of particular trees within the development footprint should be revisited in the field to verify their size at a height of 24 inches above the ground. The process for obtaining the above pemuts currently requires a minimum of 3 months duration, after i California Environmental Quality Act clearance has been obtained. 10 TJ T UAAVI:V ,P. ACCn/'-ATFC Please call me with any questions you may have at 408-448-9450 ext. 301. • Sincerely, Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D. Principal, Botany and Wetlands Division • U 11 u T vADVG'V .P ACClI!'/ATG'C ,~ . • LITERATURE CITED [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A filed guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements. Section 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division. [GNPs] California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 388p. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2005. Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 1968. Castle Rock Ridge Quadrangle. [SCVWD] Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2005. Federal Emergency Management Agency One Percent Flood Event Map Lookup Tool. Accessed at: http://www.valleywater.or~/ Water/Watersheds -streams and floods/Flooding_in the valley/Is your proUerty at risk. shtm#flood. C, 12 ~.7 T lUdpv~V,P. dCCn~'IdTF'C i .//~ ~~ R" -' _, ~. i aF: =-~•. rr~ r- A~, u s ,~ _ K • C7 i e ~ / ~ '~ i ~~ ~ $ /' ~ ~ J/~ ~ s % ~,~ . ~; t . ~~ ~1;.: I _` . .. ~ ~~\ o~ 'fb ~~~ 0 c Y _W 8 C ~ C ~ ~ N m C V 3 O a ~ 0 3 a m ° y c m s A a ~ o c S ~ m o E ~ o ~- m d ~ c a' a c v m > J 0. Fes- F m u1 U O i I~ . ~\`~,~ ~ ~`~ i. .. ~ ~~`~A ``~,. C. ~\~. a _.,,. - ~= X .: - f, 5 S ~~ 5 b~ ~, . S ~ O .= - - b~ = c ~s _ ~`1 ~~~ F a O J G p _ • ~ C _ - ~`• ~`\~ 4 Z E r ~4 r d x• 't, - i y' _ f- _ * 1 `~ 4 ~ .F a4 1 t i ~. /- ~ 1 a f ~ - ~ r~> a ~ : t. ~. :Y I~ ~~ .: ,: ,~ , t. ~. `~' f ~ m d - O m 'N` e e o • s Attachment 9 l~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ~ _ ~~~~-- ~~ `~ ~. ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ ~ The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26th day of October 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. . Please check the City web site at www.sarato ag_, ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION #05-122 (510-06-006) SPITTS, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The Applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 140,394 square foot lot (3.223. acres) with an existing residence into two separate building sites with a remainder lot. The existing residence would be retained on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 would include a new building site. Parcel 1 is 52,272 square feet (1.200 acres) and Parcel 2 is 57,630 square feet (1.323acres). The property is zoned R-1-40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. ]:n order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. ]:n some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1286 C • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. I; Sel~~1 F. ~,w~N bSZI~ tV ~, 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 6 CZ-~'(3~ ~- 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. • • MAXINE DUC 969 BUCKEYE DR ALE CA 086 STRATTON D & JODY SCLAVOS 19222 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CLOYD E & MARY MARVIN 15355 VIA COLINA SARATOGA CA 95070 GIOVANNI P & JULIA GIANNELLA 19401 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA JERRY & JILL CHEN 19298 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA ~70 DONALD L & SALLY LUCAS 19370 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KEITH F CRANE 19298 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ALBERT M & SUSAN SABES 19273 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 HENRY C & VICTORIA WU 19290 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 70 BERT A & GEORGIANNA SPiNAZZE 451 QUEENS LN SAN JOSE CA 95112 FARHAD & ZARRINKIIAMEH MOGHADAM 15440 VIA COLINA SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES D & GRETCHEN MAIR 1690 DELL AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 ESMARALDA T DAS 19351 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 WALTER S & GERTRUDE ANDRUS 19431 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA E F & M KVAMME 19490 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN & DIANE SPITTS 19330 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERTS 19295 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SPINAZZA 451 QUEENS LN SAN JOSE CA 95112 ROBERT A & GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE 451 QUEENS LN SAN JOSE CA 95112 FRANKLIN & MARGARET GEE 19264 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARY BURNS 15335 VIA COLINA SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL J DAS 19371 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HANNAH S COMISKEY 19324 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SHEI-HUEI & WU LIAO 19310 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DONALD P & BLYTHE BACCI PO BOX 942 LOS GATOS CA 95031 DONALD Y & NANCY LESSER 19266 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT A & GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE 451 QUEENS LN SAN JOSE CA 95112 . ~N ~o m~ z 0 y J s 0 y c s t V t f _ t M K 8 w w w s 0 u 0 W V O ~'b~,~' /I / N Y K Ti 4 d R 4 _~ ~jti.~~1 VO ~~~~ . ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ • a~ 0 U OCT 0 6 2005 1 ° ~y TOGA ~~ C1TY OF SARP+ _ ~c ° ..etITQPTV ~1FVF1 r` ?~'q ~ d ~~ ~~Qy sY rl ' , V • • • • Property Search New Search Clidc on the APN to view a detailed report or dick the Map Link to view a parcel map. SELECTED COUNTY: Santa Clara, CA APN Owner Name Situs Address Map Link /510-25-011 BLACK MICHAEL R 19520 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 1212 510-25-6 TIDD MICHAEL C HUTCHINSON 195..16 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao _ JULIE I 510-25=018 LEDWITH BEVERLY E 19394 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao ~10-25-19 WAREHAM WARRENS 8 18400 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 N~a MARION J ~ n_ 510-2,.:-.?~ SKJERVEN RICHARD H 8 19390 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 MaD _ CAROL A 0510-25-~'Ld WILLIAMS HILARY J 19317 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 7 510-25-0 NANDA KAPIL K 8 MARGARET 19580 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 1Aa~ . E 510-c.,--,,fig E NDA KAPIL K 8 MARGARET BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 510-25-r3.30 FLYNN JACQUELINE 19660 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 L~2 510-25-G~3 001 BOON C 8 TAN BENG S 19640 BAINTER WAY LOS uATOS CA 95030 Map 510-25-034 FLYNN JACQUELINE 19660 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-25_r~45 PFEIFFER JAMES W 8 JANET C 19443 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Ma..~ 510-25-06 OSBORNE DAVID D 8 GEORGIA 1938;1 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 iVta~ /510-25-Oa6 DUNCHEON CHARLES 8 DANA 19384 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 MaQ 510-25-058 MILTON JILL O 8 ROGER A JR 19392 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-25-061 WHITE RICHARD G 19650 BAINTER WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 I 510-25-i3`a_3 YONEMOTO FRED T 8 YUKIKO 19351 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 ~p 510-25.0 TOMINI DAVID J 8 CHRISTIAN ANNE M BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95030 IVI~~ 510-25-(~~4 TOMINI DAVID J 8 CHRISTIAN ANNE M 19406 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Maw 510-25-OF`,• - REBONG MARIE 19420 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Ot36 /510 25 FREDERICK C 8 EMILY J DORR 19460 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 M - - REV 9/27/9 ai 10-25-06? STILL THOMAS E 8 JENNIFER H 19480 BAINTER AVE LOS GJ\TOS CA 95030 510-25-068 LEE JUNG PYO 8 SONG HEE 19380 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Ada 0510-25-069 COTTINGHAM JOHN 8 KATE 19350 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 REBONG KENNETH 8 ANSON Mao "'The information provided here is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed • http://www. cd-data.com/CddSearch/PQSearch.asp?c=Li st&sid=86 5/15/2005 ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I c , ~~ - _ N W ~f M ~ ~~~ {{11 W ~ • ~~ / a ~ - ~ b y z ~ ti s a oti L~~- ,a ~ s ~ + ~ s bd. J ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ e r ~ C ~ °' ~. _.~, ail ~d ~ ~ , ~ z w ,1q, '~ ' ~ .yL~ J a W ~'~' ~ ~ a ~ ~ - w Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~,i ~ ~~~~~ ? ~+~ w r S `4 '~a, ~~c y ~ ~ ~; °'~ r ~ "' _ ~ ~ ~ (s "1 ~ ~ c O O~Q ~. v 4 ~ F~ti " ~ 3 ~ ~ -: 0 Q w ~\ ~ y ~ ~ ~~- ~ O ': W ~ Q y p V ~ t LL bq/ It~ ~ r~ 0 6 ~ ~ ~i Y ~~ « ~~ ~ ~ < ~ o a'N P /71i9 ~~ ~ Y .w ~ S ,o auw~ » oar ~i....ocn.~ ,ee-,.. Vflfi ~ N3Y~ ~` ~ y~[9Ct h-T ~ . ~ O S/~ ~~ .7 n ~_q Property Search ~..~_ ! Nero Search Click on the APN to view a detailed report or dick the Map Link to view a parcel map. SELECTED COUNTY: Santa Clara, CA Iv1ap APN O,-nor ~I~m2 Sltl;~ Address Link J M 5,0-06-Q03 KVAMME E F 8 M J 19490 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ap 510-06-G~05 I LUCAS DONALD L 8 SALLY S 19370 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD Mau ; SARATOGA CA 95070 TTS STE 19330 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD b1 10-06_uJ6 SPI VEN 8 DIANE J SARATOGA CA 95070 an • • 510-06-007 LIAO SAM 8 MEI 011 6 J CRANE KEITH F 510-0 - 510-06-013 SIDDIOI AZMAT 8 SAIRA 510-06-014 ONG THOMAS G 8 KUALA U 510-06-015 GARAKANI MOHAMMAD R 8 ASADIPOUR POURAN 510-06=016 KEEBLE PAUL T 8 JUDY G 510-OCr017 LULLA HIRALAL R 8 SULOCHINA H 510-06-018 NEWMARK RICHARD A 8 EVELYN M 510-06-021 CHADWICK ARTHUR D 8 SUBEDAR FARAH J 610=0F~022 GLAJCHEN DEON 8 DAWN 510-06-024 ASKEW KARMEN M 510-06-031 SANTACLARA COUNTY 510-06-035 CHARLES EARL C 8 PATRICW A 510-06-036 STURDEVANT DONALD E 8 GALE N 510-06-037 KOTHARI MUDER 8 YASMEEN FLOWERS GREGORY S 8 510-06-038 NANCY J 510-06-039 JUDD EVAN V 8 GAYLE W NAYAK VISHWANATH D 8 510-06-041 VAISHALI V 510-06-.043 BACCI DONALD P 8 BLYTHE T J 510-06-044 SABES ALBERT M 8 SUSAN L J 510-06.045 ROBERTS MARK A 8 LESLIE A 510-06-046 LESSER DONALD Y 8 NANCY J ~ 510-06-047 CHEN CHARLES Y r V 510-06-049 WU HENRY C 8 VICTORIA W J SPINAZZE ROBERT A 8 510 OFr050 GEORGIANNA 51 J SPINAZZE ROBERT A 8 510 06-0 GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE ROBERT A 8 19310 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 19298 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19102 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 19051 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Mau Iviao Maa Man MAR Mao 19061 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19041 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19099 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19165 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19120 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19100 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19066 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 19200 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19222 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19244 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19266 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19288 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19287 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 19261 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19273 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19295 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19266 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19234 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 19290 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 19220 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 19249 CITRUS LN SARATOGA CA 96070 http://www.cd-data.com/CddSearch/PQSearch.asp?c=Li st& sid=86 Man Man Mau Man AAaQ Maw Mau ~~ ~z ~R Mao Mat? ~P Mau Mau ~R AAap 5/15/2005 • • i• 4 ~~ d~~ ~ ~ ~~ w ~~ i ~~ o~' ~a ~ ~4 ~~r ~ Y ,~ '~ ~~ a w t O w C y *M /7 • M O r s s -w s 0 r s s s A O 6 7 s f! r w O 2 J. ~ . Property Search • New Search Click on the APN to view a detailed report or dick the Map Link to view a parcel map. SELECTED COUNTY: Santa Clara, CA APN Owner Name Situs Address Map Link 510-24001 LAURIDSEN FRAN E AND ROBERT W 19450 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24002 NAVI BAHRAM AND TABATABAEI 19418 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao MARYAM 510-24-003 L EPBURN PETER D AND TERRE 19400 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24006 hTiWANG GEORGE F AND HELEN 19288 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24009 SANTACLARA COUNTY LOS GATOS 95030 Mau 510-24010 PARASKEVOPOULOS DEMETRIS E 18160 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mai 510-24011 MADHVANI MARIA AND KANTILAL J 19144 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24012 DAVIS KIRK B AND ALISON C 19122 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 11. 510-24013 HENDERSON DAVID W AND NOELLE C 18100 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mau 510-24014 KUHAR JOSEPH E AND BETTY M 1g~. O HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA Man 510-24015 LITCHKO MICHAEL AND SIMON RHO 15781 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA ~R NDA 95030 510-24016 YIP THOMAS C AND WENDY L 1950.30 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA ~dQ 510-24017 NELSON GEORGIA B 1g~~ HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA Mau 510-24018 YOST DONALD E AND PATRICIA 1950.~'i0 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA ~~ 510-24-019 N CKHAM PHILIP G AND SACHI 9~ HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA Mau 510-24022 MARSHALL ROBERT E AND JUUE A 15780 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mau 510-24023 FLORES STEPHEN A AND SANDRA E 15784 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mau 510-24024 POZOS CARYL B 15780 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24025 MCINTYRE WAYNE F AND LOUISE S 15774 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 Maw 510-24026 OSINSKI WALDEMAR W AND KRYSTYNA 15768 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mau 24027 510 HOLTON JOHN P AND 19370 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS C 0 - KOWNACKI WANDA A 95 30 Mao 510-24030 SANTACLARA COUNTY BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Mau 510-24031 S C V W D BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Mau 510-24032 MELL DARRELL D AND MARILYN 19330 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-24-033 S C V W D BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Mau 510-24034 LYDDON GRANT S HOLTON JOHN AND KOWNACKI 19292 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mau 510-24035 WANDA 19280 BAINTER AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 Man 510-24036 DIERKES CARL L 19270 BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Man http://www.cd-data.com/CddSearchlPQSearch.asp?c=List&sid=7534 10/6/2005 • 510-24037 S C V W D 510-24-038 BROYLES DOUGLAS W AND BARBARA L 510-24039 S C V W D BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BAINTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 '"'The information provided here is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. • • http://www.cd-data.com/CddSearch/PQSearch.asp?c=Li st&sid=7534 Mao Mao Mao 10/6/2005 W 4 V' 1 ~ 3 $Y ~ _ O ~ ~- ~, s 0 J L z a O V a f v -~- t $' a W o° W O a g ~.Q _ • T 8 y+ ~j ~ : _ f w S ~ ~. kn?~ f W ~ - ; ~ J d "' n ~ O ~ '~ _-__ O 2 W _ 1~ ~' ~ ~ w t • a ~ o t P ~3 •r s a g~ a ! t a 0 t 3 ~ o __.... .. ~i6_ _... m0 _.. N< } Y S ~_ g ~ ._ • ,! ~: ~ /b ~^J 2 J ~• ~ 1~ a .. . ~~'do4 \~ 2a ~a`1. ~ d Y/1 ~~ ~tib e 4 C4 w ~ --.~._ X ~~._. 4~~~ 2 o K 'r ~ ~ ~ e ~ b ~ ~~_ e 4\~ / ` 4 :.. , ~ o ~ r ~„ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s'~ ' of ~ w y i 9 : w v ~' ` ~ 1 ~\ i ~ / \~ ~ ~~ a - + < ~` ~ 10 ~ '~. `g o rY -. a ,~ 'fit v ti ~, ~ ~, v,~~ N~°~~ ~-; ~F . j ~,~ Z Y ~ a t • ~• .d 3 ` v _, ~. ~ ~ j^ \ `/ / ,~ ~~~ ` ~ Wk~ ~~~~ s~~ • • ' 1 i{reel t.~E~s['~ ~~~ Property Search New Search Clidc on the APN to view a detailed report or dick the Map Link to view a parcel map. SELECTED COUNTY: Santa Clara, CA APN -Owner Name Situs Address Map Link 510-49-001 TAMJIDI MOHAMMAD 8 HAGHIRI lDEH 15570 CANON DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mai 510-49-002 CONLON DONALD J 19650 SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 Mao 510-49-003 GERA STEPHEN L 8 OLMA 19630 SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 510-49-004 DINAPOLI RICHARD L 8 1g60p SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 9503D LYNETTE 510-49-005 DONATI MARK 19574 SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 Man 510-49-006 ASHER JAMES J 8 VIRGINIA L 19544 SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 950~p )u~ . 510-49-007 KRON WIIUAM D 196! 1 SKY OAKS WAY LOS GATOS CA 95030 f. V~ 510-49-008 FREITAS JOHN R 8 CAROLf J 15600 CANON DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 510-49-009 ~TTEONI NORMAN E 8 PAMELA E 1966p GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA X030 Mai 510-49-010 JTHOMPSON CHARLES 8 BF??Y 19632 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 96030 ~R 510-49-011 PUGH MARK 8 KRISTIN 19604 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 95000 ~ 510-49-012 YEN YU-SZE 19574 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 Map 510-49-013 OSINSKI WALDFMiArt iN 8 KRYSTYNA 19544 GLEN UNA DR LOS GATOS CA 96030 l '"The information provided here is deemed rei'~able, t-ut is not guaranteed. 1 • http://www.cd-daza.com/CddSearch/PQSearch.asp?c=List&sid=86 5/15/2005 • Attachment 10 . • • EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION TO ACCOMPANY ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS BAINTER AVENUE NO. TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA All that certain property situated in the County of Santa Clara,- State of California, more particularly described as follows Beginning at a point in the centerline of Bainter Avenue at the most Southerly corner of that certain 4.716 acre tract of land deeded to John P. Blain by Henry Newmark, by Deed dated July 28, 1942, and recorded in Book 1100 of Official Records, Page 565; thence North 22 Degrees 31 Minutes East a length of 20.02 feet to the Northerly rights of way line of Bainter Avenue and the true point of beginning; thence North 22 Degrees 31 Minutes East a length of 4.23 feet more or less to the centerline of San Tomas Aquino Creek and the corporate limit of City of Saratoga as established by incorporation on October 22, 1956; thence Southeasterly along the centerline of said creek and city limit line approximately 220 feet; thence South 60 Degrees 13 Minutes 55 Minutes West a length of 0.69 feet to the Northerly rights of way line of Bainter Avenue; thence along said rights of way line North 35 Degrees 31 Minutes OS Seconds West a length of 79.65 feet; thence North 64 Degrees 50 Minutes 58 Seconds West a length of 95.31 feet to the true point of beginning. • Containing 0.034 acres more or less. ~~~.--. _ v .% r~r /~rC®n ~'~ No.4953 `} ~~ E~ires 12!31!05 ,::. ;..~ __ f J' ~ r f `~ ' ~'R`• '' `~s~ ~ • J ~~~~ U L5 OCT192 "I 005 CITY OF SAFtATOGA '~ei ~1J~TV nFtr~~ ~- WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. ,~ LEGEND: PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED TO CITY OF SARATOGA 80UNDARY EXISTING CITY LIMIT LJNE ---------- EXISTING CENTER LINE --------- EXISTING R.O.W. LINE - - - - - - - o ,ao zoo LANDS OF SPITTS APN 510-06-006 2.219 ACRES ~~ ~~ ~,~+o B~/C No.4953 Expires 1213105 `, - ~~ ~ ua 'J~ [~6[~U~f~ uu o~T ~ 9 zoos CITY OF SARA 1 •.~nwnTV f1F\~F' 3 h H~ ~• y ~ ;'~''~'~'-~;ci e ~~E ~i~y~P ~5,,~ ~ ~s~ ~G F VICINITY MAP 0.034 ACRES EXHIBIT "B„ PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA ENTITLED BAINTER AVENUE N0. ANNEXATION DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2005 BY: HARRY BABICKA WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ~~o luul 0 ~~ ~J 1 J - -- -~ • • > z ~ _;; ~ ~ ~`.`;I x ,~ ~~ --~ y Q ~ _. Y, n G ~~ ~ `_; x ~~i s J __-_ J x 0 _oo ml~ y ~ 07 ii ~~ ;_ 3 ~ ry n yl~, Y.^: < ~ J ~_ K..~n ~ f J~:1 - J Z 1 ; Y - - :! ~~~ > ~ s' - < f' , -, ' _I -__ _- , _o ~ ~ - ~-_ ~ _ uY a - w 3 c7 ~ o- < o _ -' ._~~ ~ - fie.-z-o a-o,N - ..-- j; - - - I <. _ ~ z ~ of L ~,. f?()~ <. On~i viz _;r` n. U r"i 3 S - x ~ ~~`< <-;. ~ YrO~ 3 ~~d3o9i ;'t e~- ~ w ~j o e O ~ - of ° J`v~i ~o_ YOB z 8~W< N ~ JQ~m~ ~ °~~~~_ r= ;` ' - O~ ~ ~ C ~OOpO O°~~ of ~'vi , ~, ' • I' ~i /;' /( - ~. ~ _ - t , I . ~ ~ ~ ~} I I i ~ ~ I ~; ~~~ ~~~r - -- r, T. - .i _ ry _ m ~ rv ~ _ :~ rv ti ~ _ Q ~i ~I U_.~- -_ ~- _-- _ _ >i a 0 ~'I~II"IO~ ~'IA SL t S I ~~I~I~QIS~2I O~I~~'~I~I /// j~l r,i- I;I~~ l~i a Y~ .Y ~.J ~ W ~ ~, L~.R~~~Cl~~ U u ''_" / 0 ~~ _ __~, - ,O N .- ~ ~~ Y ,_ ..~ o..en \~6~~ T-a~~. z 9~~-_: g i '~ 72--- W _. _. ~ _ ~ U D ~ '~ d ? ~ z ~ O ~n u ~ ~ ~n > i Z N ~ ~ Z ~ Z I ~ ~ ~ ~ H O u LL' o H , oC L n ~ ~ p• rt O ~ i L • • • - ~ V n G C Y „~ ::] ~ ~ Z ~J~' d. _ r ~ r='^I n<~ _ < :J r Y ~ ~ <~v I x - o~m T I ' Z y O O ~~ x ~m I is N y~~ I y j Y Z i J n 7 fjV U Z S!Z L C a ii :J ~~xo~~d~ o dooms ~'l~iI'IO~ ~'IA SL I S I ~~I~I~QIS~2I O~I~~''I~I ~~ N= O i O Z O °~ ^ ~I~I N.Q. Y Z < r ~ ' y I O~ II ~~~~~~.~ 01 ---- ~, ---- _II I ;~ I ~ - ------ 1 t I I ~ II } , I I ~~ I ~I < ~ ~ ,~ II ~ ~ I , ~ I I ~ ~ _ I I ~" 5 I ' II _ I Y r--- _- --- __ ~ li I I = II II ~ II g II ~ ~ I I z ~ i u it I o ~ i II I I i -- ~ ~i < i _ _ I ~-~ ~ ~ __~ ---- ----J1 ~ ~ I I II _ ~ II II ,: N ~ i = 1 II ~ o III II z i Imo----~-----~ ~ I I I i z I I ~i ~ J J I I \ ~ ;~_ -~ - - i I I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~' I I ! ~ , ~ ~ X11 , I :~ I w ,,~~..~~ ___ _ Q I I O I ~---- m L' J I I I ~ ~ I I I I ~ I I I ~ i I I I------t ---- - ~- n \ / , ~ ~ ~~ r I - _ ,~ i > ~ ~~ 2 O i~ I------~ ----- r,? ~~~ ~'il I G I I i ` J~ _ v O V r' I \ i n t ` ~ = ZI _ s g; ~~ ' N ~ o ~~ 2 ~ ~~ O N ~ 1 ~~ ~ o ~ N o _ I~ JI s - m j ,~. x Q \ / I zl / ~ I~ ,• • z F __-~~ _~ __? _ x G _ < ~• i ,/] plc 3 `n z E z ~ < <Y;' J __-~ '!li 01°0' I I.I Z o,a ry, ~, a~i~ Ill i i 3 ~+' O j Y ~i. E Z,~,~ z z: y'Jlzn __.i _ u dIN2I0~'Id~ ^ F~JO.L`v'2IdS ~'I~IIZO~ ~'IA SL I S I ~~I~I~QIS~ O~I~~d'I~I M = ~o~ ~ I c.~ ~I ~ ~ r u ?• ~ ~- n ~i, _ - <`IYI- N O - N N O ~~ O ~~ • • • = z ~ ~~ < ~ ;z_i Q ~ z r 4 _ z=y ~ i "'v ,. ~ _ U c ~ -r Y ~ :: Y c U " = . =~oio I 7 p!~ N Q'' . z rojci Iil LL 3 y Z r yi j. Y... Zl yly~.V~~ E. Z,v n.~ .I . it o'~i'z 'dIN2I0~'Id~ ^ dJO.Ld2IdS ~'I~II'IO~ ~'IA SL I S I ~~~I~QIS~2I O~I~~''I~I j l i I wl i O °m ~ u ~ 2 ~ ;z z 3 _ ~ ~ < Si ' _ c o ~ y \ I ., ~ I aci o~-.zz ~_I I i I f, i - - - __-sue- ~ - I -- ---- ---- ---- -------- I ;~r'-- --- ---- ----- ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ~i I I I u ~' I ~ i ~=j i I I ° i I I I I I I , I I d~ j I I I i t I i I ~~ r------- ! I I I I I i i ~ I I I I I I ~ I I I I p ~I I i i I Z I ~ I I I Z i I I p I ! I i I I I I I ^\ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - N / ~ I ~ ~ ~ -- ~~ I I O i N gy I I ~ __ __ - - - "~ .. I .~ I ~ -- _.~. -. I - ... _ I I ~ I f ~~ I < ! I I ~ I ~ O~ - I I ~ ~ I I J 3 I i ~ II I I L,, O II ~ I II i I II ~ I II ~ I II ° i 1I II ~ II Q i ~~ j II w II II ~ ~ I ------I------------- -----II O Y w _ U Y I I I I - 03 I I i _ i _--_____ ---- ~ ~' i ~ / ~ I ~--_~~ i - -I~-_._-__ I ~ ~ ~/ j __- ______________~ I I I II I ~ I I I I I I I o I I I c ~ j ~ i 8 ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ _z ~ I = I I ~ _ i ~ - ~ I I I ~, > ~------------ I I I ----------7 I t I II i ; I I ^<~ Y ` ~ / i ~ i ~ ~ ~ / / \ \\ ~ ~ i ~ /\ ~ ~ _ i I i Oil I I ^ I I I I I I I i I I I I I .I i t i p I ! I w i I d I ~ I I I w I I I `~ I I ~ Q i ' ~ , ' ----- -- ~- ~--------- j I I I I !~ i I ~ - I I I I I , I I ~ I ~ _ ~~\ ' , i_ ~ I ~ j~ o \ U i I i ~~ ; i I Iii ~! I ~i ~ ~ ! , I ~ I I I I ~ I ~. I L- __J \~ i \ ~/ \ / // I _ I - I I I~ o ~~ ~ I -1 ~` i i _II __ K I Z I ______ I li I ; __.-._.~-. _ -__.-- I I I I I ~ i = I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ I ?. ! ~ i ~ I ~ c i w I Z I i i I I I I j I I ~ I ' i I I I Y I I ~~~ I I ! I I I ' I I i ! j I I I j I ~ A i i ~ I I p I I nl I I I I , I I I I ~ I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I i i j i i I , / /~ ~~ V i~ -~ i ~ m ,~ o ® ~ --- z L Ji --o---- r--~ < o I I I J m L__J G 4 L--____I__ _I_ O `~ I! L_J~_J ~ --- O m U = C m i ly~`Jj( Y V ~~ N i ~I N O = J m 0 ~: ~ i, I I \\ I ~• I-J I I I i I I ~' Z g ^~ L.IL O O i I ~ i i ~ Z I ~ i I J I ~ bi I Q I A ~ I I I ~ Q I I ,i i i ~ ~ i A-£ I i C-9 • • • ~ ~ _ `' ~, x ,.~ < s ~ _ x _ ~ y ~ ~ - Y-Y,~ r<~ ~. , ~, - <_~~; ~,_ < ~ ~ - <z~ J .. =1 T O }~~~ Z ~~ >~ x~ ~! :-3- }~~' ~ ' I ~ ~ y ' Z 5 Y ~ Z J n ~'<z: O O U Z Q H Z W W Q' m N C O U Z Q J J lL z `Q G VI~II'IO~ VIA SL i S i ~~1~I~QIS ~2I O~I~VZ~I li i II!~ v J= o~ o ~~° ~i~~ ~,I;,s l0 Q +C Z .. S ~ < f .. _ T `~; x, ~ s • • • ~! _~ /~ %// -/_ ~~\~ \ ~ L y`~ ~~ ~•C ~~ ~, ~ ~~\ ~'~ ~ ~ \\ '... .r- kV it I i I ; i ~ I r~ i l~ ~ `._- i ~/ ~% ~; ~~ ' ,~- ~, ~~,, ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ f ~.~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,~~~ I ~~ v'~ I i I L I ~ II ~~ ~ ' i I III i ~ ~/~ ~/ ~~/ /~~~ ti i L ~ I iL _\: ~ ~~~ / / \\ 1 ~_ "~ ~ ~~ ~~` ~\ _ ~\ ~~ ,- \~ `\\ -- \\ i \ ~ I ~ F ~ I ~\ J !il ~ s\\ .__ j ~ ~\\. \\ \~U __ b713'N Y3a itl 3~N`d9 39b':13;\N ^v~ ~ii3-. -%`.'N .°-.£Z O II UI u 0 s u _: _~ i ~ i "'W ~y i ~w ~w ~y -z ~ `_'~ ~' ~t , ~~N ~n~ I -3'm•: -<:i <a: e~ .<~r Z O Q W J W H Z ~~ i ~~ ~~ V~ ~ V~ ~~ •"•oe ~yN n~c I~ i C _~ II Z ~_ Q W J Wi W ,~ V 1 jLI lL W JI - `O .T r b. o ~ o. M vV'4 lL - wY y Li3. < . ~ z' Can O ~ W U W [d~ U U ~ ^ ~O ~•~ .~4r F ~--~ N c Z - aF ~p ~..]v r¢ , B ~ " z vjz z ~ = °U x I z~~~~ >~ , z ~ I m~ Iii I I i %~. gl ~i x,~; i;;~ I,~ j 3 ~ ~>~j_ _` 2 Y ~ ~~ x ~`Ria:z o . . J • • • ~W ~w ggqqqqqq~ U^ `L ~ ~ ~ Win ~='~n ~~n f ~ « :1 < :1 ~~ ~+ it O l b to O~~ M ^I C ~ Q w ' .L v`IZ _ 3 a ~ ~ J y O' z w ~o< Wc; ~<^ ~^o ~~F ~" ~ ~ ~ ~G ~~ . =~ Y ,~] :J Y i ~ i _ `a=gig c`; v' ~ 3, z V, z ;_ <~a__ z '^ - U 's • • a71.J r+d]a 1v 3a ~979Md3 H01 tuSi34 'xvri .9-.EZ li ~W ~w ~w ~~ ~~ ~ u~ m ti ~ ~ > r <<Jt 66:1 ~QT I~ I ! i ~~ i ~i I III ~~ I ilk ij ~' ~: W 9 I' II ~~~ 9~ i '~ Z O \Q i J ~~ I W (n 1 `- ~ TI i Z~Ij~ >I i a' co i I jio ~ ~: z~~^I I I !i I~~~ Ili y13~~1 ~i > i i= zz n~ Yzt;.-c viz f r z a z J z ~ --~ c ~ ;~Y I ,^ ~rY. ~ r Q _ r ~ _ z=r, N<~ ~ <:J_ U C 'ice ~ < ~ Y rv z _ ~~ _ ~ U "'- of z ~~ z ~ fill ,~ y:.~ z ly S' > .,j H < ~ :J z~z.= ~ ~z~,~~ ~; Z ~x l~Idi=i~ dIN2I0.~'Id~ ^ dJO.Ld2IdS ~'I~II'IO~ ~'IA SL i S t ~~I~I~QIS~2I O~I~~'I~I a a ?1313%tlIJ3d ltl 30v3191tlM/I1tlY 39t~3Ab O1 1u913~ '%b'/V .9-.£Z III ! I l W ol 00 O \'~' ~ , ~ u. ~ ~ ~ ~ j j jj J II w >, L `< o -~ ~ c313/J213d V ~~b'E91b2'~'liH\ 39 b'b,/•.b O.. 9134; -x :4N .9-£Z ' n ^ I = I w `n U I ~ I a O ' _ .I~.b~ I ~c-e i ~_ . n a I ~ - - - -- - - i I - ', illiI I~II~I ~ I i I_ ' J J L- _ _I a i J ~ `~ < I I ~ O .> I I ,.~ I T I < I e N ~ .~ I I I c lc V r O _~ I~ ~~ Q Q z ~_ U w 0 U V Q Y Q I-bl Z w L r Y E O O c I I a_ ll:913:i 'XVN L .O-.b I ~_. Q N ' C 0 U I _- _----_ U Q I L I Q I I I ~:I I I O U ~ I nl 1 :x.9131: -%VI`: >E- £ ! I N ~ I 0 o w ~ m ~~O z 0 U LL.1 J Q Z _H C~ Z J • • • J - ~ :J ~. II _ Q = Y: _ ~, ,:~i ~ U ~ '~`' 3 `n ~. F .: z ~ ~ ~Y~~ _ U z_`I m~ ~ ~ ~ o, I I I is ~; o I W m: ~ 6' v - ill ~.~ _ z 3; N Y j_Y-. ~- Z~s!~i -'min _ z Z z: ~ ~.O _ _-J dIN2I0.~"Id~ ^ dJO.Ld2IVS ~~u~o~ ~In s~ t s t ~~1~I~QIS~2I O~I~~'~I~I OC 2 ~U / ~Z w ,,~~ f > _r - ;. ~ ~~.. ,._ z~ ~ ` ~~ r ~t i ~, \ k ~~, ~\ ~ ~,, \~\, z z ~° u w ,~ U ~z w :J CZ ^O^, I~IL W Z J Q W _W U O z s J~ a ~ Y :~ p~ -s-. 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ z w O O W Z J _ Q H w 0 _W U O z I i o oo^~ r ¢ og~ s x z ~_ 33 ~ J ¢ Y p _ `/OZ Z~,, Q L.IC~ U~w p~(f~ Z ~ Z g~~ Qcj~ ~ Z Z zWU ~U ~ ~JO O ~Q z Qn~ J _Q Z Z W OL W (f~ -- - - CD ~ - p[- (n J - -Q L ~ Z Z W ~ W L J `~ G +~ J C~ G ~ ~ J Q Q ~ Z z `` G Q ZQ ~ Z ~ Z Z ~ ( ''~ V U`.• ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ w ~Q Q C~ ~ O oC ~ O O o v ~ ~--~ J <.~ I I ~ L~J I • • r -~ /S j d e ~o UP V ~ ~~ pp ~~ °~ ~e t~J ,o ~e ~r -- 3l1N3AV 31VA11lRAi. 3A18( _ -'_ ~' ~ =a-~ci Q Z U S7 LL Q ~ E. 0 N - o Y ^ ~ r r z°~ ~ o S ~~ .rs -- - e O n^n r- . -., . {\ B -26 a !J _ ;~ am ~ ~ ~'a ~:~\ ~ ~~l y ;' ~O a ~ e ~ - ~ - > ~4. x -. ~ ASH ~ rv , ~,, / o ~ _ ~2,m~0.oo _ ~ ~.... ~~ - - .,, ~ b 1 H W / n. ~ '~ o - o-4' / m g .V1/~~ ~" /1~ ! /~ l / ° \.~~ o ~ ~ LLJ _ ~T ~ ~ ~ /~^ `` M M F J: ~ ~ • / moo- y 4R •. ~ ~ LL ¢ J `•RV[ our \ ,,. moo: K;a / XNC'~ ' U ~ - 1 c nyb OWN ~ ~ I -.., J~ `wry ~L r ~ 6 / ~ w~' LL -U - ~ ~h /~ v ~ m; t ~r / ~°~~- W Q a m _ 1 m~• ~ 3 N -~~,,~ s ~~~ - ~ / ~ Ewa - ~ ~'~eN - m ~ we l: ofo ~ `m `~'7:.~~'' /°~`~ ~ 9t}~% NQQ ¢ m ~, ~ 0 I W ~ CC Dar ~~~ /~~ ~. ~ '~9 ~ J W L /' ~~ ~~ .f Y~ ~'~ ~ U7 U H Esc ~ r W ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ w ,Rom .l.,ytim oo+ • ~ ~ ~ ~- < F- ~--~ Z /H~ ~? U s ~--+ 0e 4 2 a ~~ ~ o~oo ~~_~ ~y~~ ~~<~ ~~~~ Fa~a~ Wz- X aroZWZ¢~°~"~ zZ~3w0°~~w ^W K~~oa~on< - A ~Nw]YUf4QG< 11'.'..." F- r r'- Z W W W W W W W W W ~~ ~ N ~ N N ~~ N ~ .: ~. Q ° z ~ s - U 4 ~ 4 - 1 O ~ 1 .N ~~ . ? '~ ~ U ~ t ~. O ~ d f •Oz o / ;~t~ / - ~ Q JV n' ;~ -'~ _ ~_ h 4• ~ ~ n n ~~ v~~ O Y . '~dd- / ~ c a W S 3 / :~ ~ ~ ~ v y~ rjS ~ n$ ;r ~ a yyC, 9 ws f~( 7Bg r ..., ., _ ~' ~, - < ~ - T ~.. '`1_ vb~ ai ~ ~_ 4 y ~. ~~.^/ <g ~,b"fib"` ~ r ~~4 i ~ 39.6 S n°„y~'•S 9~C~...` ` O ~_ , ~ -. _ - '~~ ._ - q'~'p~2 -_ :-~ rrca ~ -- - ~ l.. .~v ••r Y1. r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ O`SQ W pW U W 0 a a v o. \t~ ~ 1 .R '- `\ tid v ~n ~ ~ ~., ~ \ ~ A9' ti~~ J' ~ O K W Y W ay j r r z ,€ ~ ~y Jai ~ ~~ s aQ~P~~` ~y~~s p Y> u ~z _ < -o O V ;~ a K K z aq FE~°, O ~N ou ~N = _ < o ~ "~ ~~ rco ~^' a a,; Z ~Z m F-w 7 U~ ~ ~` =~ °~ ~ ~ W - a U <-' ^- ~ Z m O u F C ~ C ~N Z a .v < d H vi O 8W ° a r ~ m U a N ~ w w ~O ~a g K a c9 x K a } ~ 3a ~o oao K b W N J ~ N U ~W n F- ¢ Z NQ ~ ~ ~ U w a o a 6 W ~.'. d x W Oz uW, 4 v a o z5 Z x [c[~~ J G 'w w~ v ~ a0 ~o ~ " iE X F ~ w h z o< V°u °•~% 3 uN $~< ~~: o: ~3~ ~o°< m ~~~~a~~',gFy~ • ~ ~` ~<c y aoy~Szr ~uVMm Ozc<i?'" h~ ?E4~f ~tid~^ ~md'w~ z .au-vo ~ ~a~~~ 3»~~~ y3~~u~~zo~d a cL z ~`~ ~bz9i 0 0 ~ o~ =u3a U Z N ~~ n N 1 m W O W° m W Z U ~~ 4 G L7 ZQ K W~ J J m r^~r^ m Vl W~ 3 5 °z u tt Y it Sq N 0 0 N ~ K -- W U "1 [O 1 U O KK Y U S> q l7 O W L] W _ Z w ~' `~ u i ¢ W o Qq U W S y' w q u a W ~ q m W O Z --- ~ -~ • ~:. E et t~ s, . ~ Z I F ._. _.. ~,p~OS ~ _.-- , - - -r+ .,-. --- ro n' c~,'m rn .-~ ~ n • __ y _._.._-.,a._, - _ -- e~i -r'_... --~ ~~ ~ - / x -S ~ ~~.._ . \ ~~ J 2 O ~2~ -~ ,., /J e . y / ' ;,• ~r ~ Z h, U N ~rl,-.' °~ ~ ~ a v z ~. )tip .la i ~ 0 n J / s / .•, / / 30~ 1 ~ Oz / ?^" `. i ~ / o /. ~/ _-_~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ w~ O >J i ~mn d N N ~ own c r ~i°m i oN~ ~ ~~~ i J ~ rry~ ZZ r ONN ~ 4 ~ a Py O y d(n zn om ~m ~ ti 0 N AP{ / sg 2 ~ \ ~~ N P~S~ ~ Q / ~ 2 vO ~ C\r C h & n ° N ~ ~ ~ ~ b~ - a Fy ~„~ 3 ~ ~ ~ / , ~ 0 > p Oe ? 2 U H O o u / / i ry' ~ Q Z ~ P / O~ 0 ` / I / / \ / /~ ~ V / Ue dOn, / / /~ , 1 W ~ o Q U ~ ,/ J ~ N tiD / / /' Q A a ll P / / / / ~ ~ S W Q V 3nN3nv airnima~ 3nlaa _ m _ a .8 ' / / ~ a p a aZd.-~ - ~ o a i yryI / // ^~ W Q ~w~ Q 3 !n ~? j n / ° ~ ~a~ / / / N Z WO Q Q `/ 7 v~ n- < 3 z ~ ~ 60 ,y 68 . - / / N MiNW' - ~ Q ~ m W I° / / - / ~ 0 W O . ~ ^ ' .3 ^ - ~ ,,. i e~ ~' .02 i / J m ~z~ W ~a ~ $ / ~/~~ ~ j / ~ O~W- a. -~ mZ y'~ ~ / / / .. rw~ F--i w °~<~~ `~W / m° ~ / a3~ tQ~ a- ~~aa &rc <a c,h ~ ) N ~ G Z ~wi w / J w ~R~rOQ^~~~ ° ,~ ~ li~~ .. ~naaa< Z W W W~ W W W W W m° ~;~ 5 3b9' 9 j, S ~ 1 44E I W r = Z I r ~ ~~ l=/11=/1 ~ 1=/11=/1 ~ ~ 1=/1 N Nj30 g 6t?g• ~ r Q Z `" p W ~ / ~ W O W OQm / e ~' °t 2 2 F-NdS - U _ / ~~~ ~~+' Z o / ~ / ~ W W / / w / / ,' / ,a / / / _ Q ~ J / o ti vi Z S H b ~ / ^j // ~ / ~~tt . I V a o w / ~ / ~ Z a d / 30q 02 / rSl.gB' / / / o w o W ~ /, / / Z N r a -. J Z J / / ^ W r W ~ ~ / / / / / ,I ? ~ ~- PO - / - ro / / ,~ o m za ww o oa n ~ ~- n ~ m ~ / / / ^ ~~ ,~ j / / / / / / a s m~ ce '^ ~ W 3 / i ~ /' / C° S N ° /3p6b 02 m aNN Nh < }W _ a ~ ° h ~$ / - ° / ~ / < ^ n < 3 h ~ n oa n / L ~ \ \ \ / / // / ~ ~mm w ~~N c - p N m u g ~ / 20 6gJy~ ~ ~~ l s 6yB __ J N <Nm m F ~ ° ~ Sgf o4~ `'7B' 4 7951'02'E 49 ' m ZONN 0 ~- w a ~W ~ ~Q N in n M w ~ r~i .14 J ~ O U U a a y ~ U z _ / F / o n u ~ Y / 4' < m C] ~ // D u Z W W Q O ~ Z p ~ r` ~ - Z ~ ° w~ ti > :a ~ N ~ W - ~ u ~ -- ~ N - ° o w _ x & `~ S S 9x In a ? `mot > ~ ~ w 3 ~ ~ ~ o vi' ol u a / a / ~ ~ Y U W ¢ A U F ~ \ O Z a \ Z v i °q \ n' t ~ 3 N ~ ^ Cj .g /~ ~ Z< = G ~ VC ryry \ ,kV~~ F' T ~ \ ~ 3["0I ~ z. r \ ~~ \ S`~0 ' ~ _ ~ ~'i' $~~ \ \ ~~' I se3~~_ 0 ,\ "~'rgN 8 " w u ~°' F.B. O p 8a ~~ ~ _ 5 J3F op'O~ ~ z o \ ~ ~ 1,10 J ut ~, pnJ1'~z 'i ~ ~Owd 2 - ~0 0 0~ -r ~ zy ~u : QUgy zu?Di \ •, - 10 vi \ d/ V~/al W Oe - E V _o ^ ~ g uFyc j Hm~ °e z v~j ~WFaq iu~v=i :7^V \ y ~l~p9 \VV ~ 0~ ~ < W 6 ~~ , of Q ~< , yv6fi` a ~ eNa< 3 y Q<y <N <6~~Y ~< ° z ~ / j 1 o - u <-- ~ z V] - rW o ~ ' a3 ou~, r \ r ~ ~ -~~ c . ~, W~-~W a a b ~ ~' i 'a < ~ z u o~ F~13a ~ ac w d z i ~ P b OVi Z^ om w m ,~ o _ ._^g ~ ~ \ _ ~w x 40 ~P~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ N S \ - S,~ a O 26 J '/ ~ ` ~ '~' ~ ~ ~ bJ ~ Y °~ \Po S~ 6 .~v/~ ~~ \\ ~2 s y 1. '~ < n m .. , ~y ~ Yom '~m Z =tio.~p~a.~a ~ MS ~ b ,, ~ ! ,; 3nNanr 3ivniinad avao ~' ~0. ~, ~ ~ m ~ ' ,~~ _--, ~~, . '' , Q Q ~ o -fi 2' Q . g ~ . 0 ~ ~ ~~ ^ / it \ Y s / 7`~„~' ~ ~ . . Gam' } .: / \ ~~ ~ io - 'y~ \ /`` - ~' r ~/ ,lY. vro~4~ ~~ / Y~ d ~~ ~ ~"'°h a i~ ~ - ~7)~~,~. , PDT' /~ .'/ my 1. -~~__.____ __-- • m vY h _ .. _ x - a _ . ._... m '.... _.. -- ~m. n Or h n ~ h .ate -.,o .. .. -- 4 ----Q ~n 3' ~u_ n -.__.. ~ - .t_' o r~oe}~}'~ti` _ _ • n _ _ _ / -~_ __ N o ~.~ I ~`(~ vie 6- .., b •_ ~ -24 ~, - i b :o ~ W __. _ - ~J' ti O b 0 , A .-. ~/J O ._ / ~ _ ~ \ e ~ ~-----'~- - - W o N a35 - N ~~ ,.t~~~ N } .__ i 0 N W ~i ~ u ~ - ~__. V a ~ .. _ - , tt Z ~ oC ~ ~- _ ~{ ~ t tC Y ;' _ - -. ;' _ ~~ /y ~; - _ ::~ ~ u / ; ~ Q i ry ~~~ _.-- in Y • / ~ ... -- ~ / -o W 3 ~' ~ ,>. ~ " N~ / m _ ~ 'i b /.•l j ~ „ v r,..y '.~ a .. ~2 .~~~ P ~ ~~ ,~.K.r.. Syr, u / \ N ~ 4 ......:.:.::... _ te. '~:.I~..ln~_A : ~~'.:~_~a .. 6. \ r 1 ' ~ ~ti > ' a ' _..~ . ~ ~ 2 _ Oti ~ ¢ l - ~'..-. - ~ ~ `..i r - _... ~F..' w !'~ - :SC-` i--~ xw ~. / c q ~ ~. ; ~ ~ ~ A ,. l rys~~ ` .. - _-~ 0 9 _ J ~ N ~ ~ Z o NN• 1tr h ` • .._ " a . ~ ~ ~ ~•~~ ~~~ r m ar `` 2 O W Y G< R ~ y4 ~ ~~ ` ~ s ~c9 • • ~ ~ J 2 > O V ~ x3 ~ ~ - "1~ ~ i - _ - . 4 o n ~ ~ __ n __ ~~.. . m -- ' n .-_ a A . .... i __ - -.. i ~ i •.. -p " ~' ~ ,,. - 7\ at r l e sa ~ " F. ~ \ ~ ; ~ a yy ~~ p~* smq ~~ ~. \~ 'qq~~ `~ ~C~Z ~~ ~ i 4 ~-~m r ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~'. \ l/ ~ ~ ~ ••ns +~" ~ M ~~° \~ ~ i 11 w 3 ~ •i1 YYYYYY ~ ~e o I . h ~, ~ \ ~ ~ V es .~ ~ > ~ I ~ ~ ~a 1 +~ ~ ~ z N \ ~. O• ~/pelf \`~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~• \ `` ~ a \ ~ D __~L _,\ ~ Sip ~ ~/ ~~~~ \ o ~6 ~~ j ~ a ~ o a- w W ~~ m 0 z ~r Oo ~°' ~ W y` N N o Z 0 F--1 Q . jg a H~ ~ ~HT = o _ r ^ v' O - t ^ V , ~~b zo ~ S ~3 D w ,.,._, bi Y bs . > ~ O W ~ Q : .1 Z ,, q ~~~-,/ i ~ Z ~/. ~ / J ; % ,, ; , ; .. , : " ,j ' , ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ -/'/ ~. O ~ Z N 1 ;' Z U _ ~`~.d' ~/~ N, N Y 1- (n ~ Q Z o W o' ~ ~ Z W rv H ~ 0 U' a z a ,- Z L,J y ' _ ONE ~b `~ U ¢ m ~ < J Q ~ ,\ Sb. ~ ~ ~P ~~ Ol ' m ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~ w G~ 3 ~ ~' Z J J ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ V ' y ` W H ~ v 7b -J \ °~ m J '~ m ~ ` \ W ~! v \` `i Z ,, n w\~~~ P Z ° Q ~ ~ ~ d, m ~P ~`` g W ~ z ~ ~o ~~ y/d m U (~ J U Q a_ Z O ~ ~ , ~o s ~ ~ Off. ~ z 0 ° 0 O ~ ~~ ~ o ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GGpO~ ~ => w o z Ry _ W r 1.1 J Q u in Y U W O a N l W A 2 U a W 4 Z O I - f 1 1 a r~ O Z ~: s -~ -~ .a ~ a ( ,~ ".1 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ O N ~u • k • _~ i ~~ i S aAS~~LL~ W ~~ « e ~~ - ~ , t J 't'd0 ~ ,i ~ v-~ E ~ ' ` $ g Ri iS ! d. V < - ~ ' S~ - W < ~a s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ L ~ L ~ ~ I ' y ~ ~ ~ .Ld~I Iddd dd lt ~AI; dZI~I ; Q I~IO SP ,« s ~ ~~ s.I.~~as 3o sQxd~ ~ 0 o ^~ N ii o ~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ . („~ ~' ~ E s" d • F ~ W ~- ~ ~_- J ..: 4 $ a 3 S ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ® _ U ~ ~ 3 y 0 Q lh3i ,01-,91 i' ~ o _ _ --- I , --- - ~ ~ II ~ a I . .- I _____________________ ~ i I i I i i i ~ Q ~ 4 j ~ v ~ ~v88p ~' ^ . o' ~ h ~` < ~ g ~ ~~ ~ti°~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ xoii~~I~aad adl~ ~ndix~ ~ p ; ~ ~ / l ~ SZF ~ ~~ S,L,LIdS 30 SQI~id'I o ~ ~ ; O ~ ~~ m a W \ ~ >~ W m z a a a w w a w a a r'\ N iI 1Iz6 0 I~ I ~., ~i~ ~ I aux.=~~ ~~ggg_ Y i ~~>~LL~ B ~m ~~~T ~ b~H O ~~ ~ ~ ~ SJ ~ ~ ~~K V ~~ - - -~ , _ W c , ~, s ~ ° ~ ~ I ti~ > " ~~ ~ ~~ i1bI.LN~I'Iaa~ adr~ ~nisdixai ~, s , P '~~ 5' ~ ~~ s.i..r.ias 3o saxdZ ~ ~~ s O~I ~' N w~ ~~ ~~ n a r .a a o.~ ,w ~ ~a w .. ~ ~, ~ 1 ~: ~~ ~ 1 1~ ~, ~! ` ~ ~; I ~ ¢ i ~ ^'~ I ~i , I ^li 1 ,~ 1 i .n i~ ® ~ ~ ~~ff , of c i `it ' ~' '-o v '-~ _~~ - tii sli ~~i5'~ i ~.:~;~. - 511 s'i Iii - h.~ i 'N ff i ~ '\~` __ t II 11 S+il ;9 +iri 4 ^~ ~~ i ^~ ~ II F III i I 3 ~I!{ ~ ~ ~ i;Ci E¢ ~ ~h~~rtl i iI. g~Y€~~I 9y~Fe i ~_.' iW~'k~ ar. e ~ 1~ ~ ' ,lid '1I~j~ '; es ;~N•i ~I~eil iE ~' ~ - ,S r ~ E i _ h Ih ~~~Ci ! ~ ~ C ' 1 r" ;bkl' I ,;I I d s 1~Y~~~ ~ ~ f{j':ykl• ' CSI ~~ FFSC~~ I ~ 1 I „eRia .I ~E .f k I ~~~r9i - -- ~~ti~. Ali ~ I i 1i C ~i; tticl~l.~fj ; it l II ~ 'i ~'I } ~ I h' I X i , I~ !~ i li~,-ii I 'I a,~~ 11 "€~ ~ . 1;~~4~~!E . l~p~C s i.= i II-. i ! s I. I I ~ 9 II 1 - , fl 9 ` ~ '1 X , . ~1~1l ~rhlpir~ ~" 1. ~ 7 -.! ' ` ~II ~4GEkP~ Ei I i ; y!! ~ ry iXC 1 ala a l@@ GEE F I k tC I ~i~Ca GCr ¢I ~ ~, ~ °i: ~~E9 y § lE Ir ~ ~k~~E. ~y}Ei ~~l~.6 Ea l- -I ~ u~i. 4lh~e 4N 7 E I I ~ i ~IP35a ~r -~ '~ ~f-I~ ~~ ~;~~~~ ~'}E~~~~I, i 1a ,s ~ ~ yw Iii f Ili , I ~ SI;~1E I i h h 1 I ~! i - III ii I-I ~ i~~h{~~~~~NEyi.~ r----• ~~ ICE I hN~~~ - °~ °tl E ~Y~p~ ~ th ~, ;: ~~g s ~! I f, ~di J7~k ti ~~~ G p __ I ~ ~r~ I, ~~ ~ hE VVI , I . ~ ~ F ~ ~ `I !1 I ~ I ~S9~i - _ i - I~ rjfi~~:i tl~ i-. 1~~_I ~ ~' ~ i ~. W. ~S I 4 1 tea ! I ~I ral `''S~~~ ~~ I I~ € a e I ~~ f I ~y '+~ h s 1( E P ~!€I i LLNII prpa f i Ida 3 ~~; ,~ ~pa ~ I ~ ~ la NIA '~ ~ I I ~~~~E I •_ ~ ' ~ ,, s ~ H g~~~ + Ei E ~y ~ I A ~E ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ vs~ .I Y I~ li O 4 E~ ~E ~~S ~1~~ !I , - i Fii I' --~ ~ ~ e l s E ~I b bl ~I ~ K I a ~L ~iI I ~ H 1 li ~ F ~~ ~ ,. a ~, ~~ :, ~~ ~~ .~ `~ M. h ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~'. S U ~, ~1 ~ ~ - O g . i P HAS E ~ SITE ASSESSMENT ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ . . ,~ ~ ~~ Jui_Y 200 19848 PROSPECT ROAD Saratoga, California ICI . .. , For: ~ Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger ~I .San Francisco, California I, Y5391-00 • BASELINE Environmental Consulting ~ ~y 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D • Emeryville, CA 94608 • (510) 420-8686 1 BASELINE- 28 July 2005 YS391-00 Ms. Carmen Borg Urban Planner ~ ~ ~ ' Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street ~ . 'San Francisco, CA 94102. . Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,19848~Prospect Road, Saratoga, California I~ Dear Ms. Borg: Please find enclosed our report docwnenting the activities and findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 19848 Prospect Road project site in~'Saratoga, California. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us~at your convenience. ' Sincerely, . G~~,Qi Todd Taylor, ane Nordhav Environmental Associate Principal Reg. Geologist No. 4009 TT:YN Encloswe YS 391.001 OS.pb I .wpd-7/28/05 • ~~ • PHASE I SITE ASSESSMENT Ju~Y 2005 • 19848 PROSPECT ROAD Saratoga, California For: Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger San Francisco, California Y5391-00 i~ BASELINE Environmental Consulting 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D • Emeryville, California 94608 (510) 420-8686 .' ~~ 4 ~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS page ~, , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... ~ v INTRODUCTION .......................... ................................. .1 ~~, SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................:.............................. .1 , HISTORICAL LAND USES .......... ....................... ............. . 1~ . USES/SITE RECONNAISSANCE ~ CURRENT LAND ......... .................... . • 6 REGULATORY AGENCY DATABASE REVIEW ........................ ....... . 9 . BUILDING-RELATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ... ......................... . 13 ~ . CONCLUSIONS ................ .................:....:................x.... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................:............ ...:,,.......... 14 .... :. 15 . LIMITATIONS .............. .................................. ... REFERENCES .............................................:................. 15 . APPENDICES (in Portable Document Format on CD-RO1Vn , A: Historical Land Use Resources ' B: Environmental Database Report C: Case Closure File and Site Summary for G&K Trucking; 20201 Merida Drive D: Qualifications of Preparers . FIGURES r ~ ~ 1: Regional Location ....................................................... .2 2: Project Site .......... ................................................. 3 5 3: 1965 Aerial Photograph ................................................... . . 4: Photographs from Site Reconnaissance .................................... . ~7 $• Photographs from Site Reconnaissance .................. . .................... . 8 6• Sites on Regulatory Databases Within One Mile of the Project Site ............ . 12 TABLE 1: Regulatory Agency Databases Reviewed ............ ~.. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 -~v- ~D • EXECUTIVE SI)~-ZMARY PHASE I SITE ASSESSMENT 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California Phis report presents the findings and conclusions of a Phase I environmental site assessment for the 19848 Prospect Road project site in Saratoga, California. This Phase I investigation was undertaken by BASELINE Environmental Consulting for Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger in support of environmental review of a proposed redevelopment of the project site. The scope of work for this Phase I investigation included: a review of historical land use information, including City Planning Department records, aerial photographs,' and topographic maps; a site reconnaissance; interviews with persons familiar with the project site; a review of Federal, State, and local regulatory agency files and databases; and, the development of recommendations. for further actions. • The project site was used for orchards from at least 1939 until around 1963, when it was developed for a church. Two chwch buildings were constructed around 1963, and an additional two buildings were constructed around 1971 and 1978. Surrounding areas were developed for residential land uses between 1956 and 1968. Agricultural chemicals were likely applied to the orchards, and there may be a potential for residues of these chemicals to be present in shallow soils at the project site. No other historical land uses associated with hazardous materials likely to affect redevelopment of the project site were identified. • The project site contained fow single-story buildings and a shed, which were mostly vacant at the time S of the site reconnaissance. No evidence of hazardous materials use, storage, or release was noted at the project site during the site reconnaissance. Adjoining land uses were residential and did not appear likely to use, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. • Two sites within one mile of the project site appear on Federal, State, and local agency databases of sites associated with hazardous materials storage, disposal, or release. Based on available details and locations, neither site identified in the database review would be likely to affect the project site. • Review of site history- information indicates that most of the structures at the project site were constructed prior to 1980, and therefore may contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. Demolition or renovation of these structures could release lead particles and asbestos fibers into the air, and potentially pose a health risk to construction workers and the general public. Other hazardous materials, such as mercury in light switches and thermostats, maybe encountered during demolition, and must be handled and disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. To determine whether agricultural chemical residues may be present at concentrations that could pose a health risk to construction workers and/or future residents at the site, a limited soil investigation should be conducted at the project site. Eight composite shallow soil samples should be collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and total lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury. (metals often found in inorganic pesticides). Prior to demolition or remodeling of buildings at the project site, alead-based paint and asbestos-containing material survey should be conducted by a certified professional. Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials should be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state construction worker safety regulations should be followed during construction activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. Other common hazardous materials that may be encountered during dcordance w'th Cal foml Departmen tof Toz c Sulbsance Control (DTSC) haza dour and disposed of In a waste regulations. ~izsios -v- Y5391.001 OS.ph 1.wpd- ~~ • PHASE I SITE ASSESSMENT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD Saratoga, California INTRODUCTION This report.presents the findings and conclusions of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 19848 Prospect Road project site in Sazatoga, California. This Phase I investigation was . . undertaken by BASELINE Environmental Consulting for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger in support of environmental review of a redevelopment project. The. City of Saratoga (City), the current owner of the property, is currently evaluating redevelopment of the project site for a residential subdivision containing nine single-family residences. The scope of work for this Phase I investigation included: a review of historical land use information, including City Planning Department records, aerial' photographs; and topographic maps; a site reconnaissance; interviews with persons familiaz witli~ the project site; a review of Federal, State, and local regulatory agency files and databases; and, the development of recommendations for ~, further actions. All Phase I activities were performed in accordance with the "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in Method E1527-00. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of two parcels (APN 383-26-070 and 386-26-071), totaling approximately 2.62 acres in area. The project site is bordered to the north by Prospect Road, and to the west, south, and east by residential properties (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is level and located approximately 280 feet above mean sea level (msl)~(USGS, 1991). Based on an environmental investigation conducted-approximately one mile east of the project site, soils neaz the project site consist of clayey silt to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs), underlain by gravelly and silty sands to a depth of at least 87.5 feet bgs (ATC Associates, 2002). The closest surface water bodies to the project site are Calabazas and Saratoga Creeks, located approximatelythree-quarters of a mile west and east of the project site, respectively (Figure 1). During 2004, groundwater was encountered at about 75 to 80 feet bgs in four monitoring wells one mile east of the project site (ATC Associates, 2005). The groundwater flow direction was determined to be towards the north-northeast (ATC Associates, 2005). . HISTORICAL LAND USES Historical land uses at the project site and adjoining properties were determined by reviewing City Planning Department records and historical aerial photographs from 1939 through 1998. Topographic maps from 1902 through 1991 were also reviewed to identify development patterns in the project vicinity. Historical Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and city directory abstract information Y5391.pO1 OS.ph l .wpd-7/28/05 -1- T 19848 Prospect Road 2000 Feet BASE 3 Saratoga, California Y5391-00.00105.Figl.cdr 5/19/05 _ 2 _ 1 ION ,Figure 1 i2EGIONAL LOCAT . • Approximate ~t~ • 19848 Pros ect Road . o ~SF~ P gA® E Saratoga, California Y5391-0O.OOIOS.Fig2.cdr 7/28/05 _ 3 were not available for the project site. Historical land use resources reviewed for this investigation • are included as Appendix A. the date of the fast available topographic Prospect Road was present in its current alignment in 1902, ect vicini ,but the map did , map. ` A few buildings were indicated along prospect Road fro 1939, showedthat-the project site not identify land uses. The first available aerial photograph, resent in a clearing in the and adjoining parcels were used for orchards. A small building was p northeastern portion of the project site, immediately north een a ruralnresidenc oran agricultural on the size and alignment of the bupilding, it may have b v,~ noted on the 1948 aenal storage building. No changes at the ro ect site or immediate vicinity photograph. B 1956; the adjoining property. to the northwest, across Prospect Road, had been cleared. No other y ro ect site was sold by Steve changes were noted at the project site~orCO~ Ch~h Extens9on Society of the Methodist Church. and Mary Vidovich to the Santa Cl h' On 22 April 1963, the Saratoga Planning Commission approved a Use Permit for the project site, win the site to be developed with apre-school building, an office, a church school building, a allo g bupldin social hall, and a sanctuary g• ' and shed buildings~at the project site in The 1965 aerial photograph showed the school, sanctuary, their present locations (Figure 3). The southern portion l1e serial ~ hotographs rlemained at the s ~, The small residence/agricultural building identified 3 e Pro erties to the north of the project site had immediately north of the sanctuary building (Figure Sara len Court and Viewridge Drive had been been developed with single-family homes (Figure 3). 8 constricted west and south of the project site, resp d on the barcelleastf of the project s to (Figure 3). had been constructed (Figure 3). Orchards remalne P . The 1968 topographic map indicated that Colby Court had been constructed east of the project site; that map and subsequent topographic maps identify the a sua a Prroovedtfor the fellowshl'p hall at the (fully-developed) areas. In 1971, a building permit wa PP ro'ect site. On 26 April 1978, the Saratoga PlanningdCo~s~~ on bulding at the project sl'tet fA P ~ which allowed construction of the a the project site, construction permit for the building was issued in May 1978. The ] 982 aerial photograph showed the. former residence/agricultural building had been demolished, and the project site buildings and grounds were in their current configuration. All adjoining ro erties were developed with residences. No changes at the project site or adjoining properties P P were rated in the 1993 or 1998 aerial photographs. 02 the roject site was purchased by the City of Saratoga. Sincc~tltol of occas oral use for In 20 P building has been used for offices and meeting space. With the ex ep community meetings, other buildings at the ~e Americans with Disabilities Actd(Lind, 2005). s ardin seismic safety and compliance with . reg g _ ~. 3 -4- Y5391.001 OS.ph 1.~'pd-~/28~05 Fi ure 3 S 1965 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH g • Legend .~~. Project Site (approximate boundary) Approximate 19848 Prospect Road a 200 Feet BASE Saratoga, California (P ~ vczot_na(NItOS.Fie3.cdr SQ3/OS • No historical land uses associated with hazardous materials were identified for the project site, with the exception of orchards, which were present at the'site and immediate vicinity from at least 1939 until the early 1960s. It is likely that agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers were applied to the project site and vicinity during this time. Agricultural chemical use was not regulated during this era, and records of the types and amounts of chemicals applied were not required to be maintained. Some classes of agricultural chemicals used in the past, such as organochlorine pesticides (a class of pesticides which.includes DDT) and inorganic compounds can leave residues in shallow soils that may ' (which may contain lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury);. persist. for decades. If presen~hgri ou d be exe ected toscome intoldirect contact with shallow soils workers and future residents, P at the site. CURRENT LAND USES/SITE RECONNAISSANCE A visual reconnaissance of the project site and adjoining parcels was conducted by a BASELINE geologist on 9 May 2005. Observations made during the site reconnaissance are detailed below. Photographs of the project site taken during the site reconnaissance are included on figures 4 and 5. Project Site The project site contained four buildings, a storage shed, and parking areas along Prospect Road and in the southern portion of the site (Figure 2). Vegetation at the project site consisted of grass, trees and other landscaping. No obvious indicators of hazardous materials releases, such as staining, odors, or stressed vegetation were identified at the project site. No hazardous material storage areas, or evidence of historical hazardous material storage, were identified at the project site. The former school building, in the northwestern portion of the site, was asingle-story, wood and stucco building (Figure 4, Photo 1). The building was empty at the time of the reconnaissance. The interior classrooms in the building were finished with wooden ceilings,. incandescent lighting fixtures, and linoleum flooring. A small playground area was located south of the school building. The former sanctuary building, in the northeastern portion ofthe-site, was awood-fi-ame and stucco structure (Figure 4, Photo 2). The building was vacant at the time of the reconnaissance, except for storage of chairs and other nd concmrernte fl ors. An empty shed was loS ted east of the sanctulary incandescent l~ghtmg, fixture building (Figure 2). The former fellowship hall, asingle-story wood building, was located south of the sanctuary (Figure 2). The building included a kitchen and a large open room, and was vacant at the time of the reconnaissance. The building was finished with incandescent lighting fixtures, concrete floors, and wood ceilings. Beige, textured material, presumably installed for acoustic purposes, was noted on - .the ceiling in the large open room (Figure 5, Photo 3). Y5391.OOlOS.phl.wpd-7/28/05 -6- OGRAPHS FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE Figure 4 PHOT .~ ...._. , .., _..~~. ~.:.5~.~. Photo 2: Former sanctuary tsunaing, iooxing ~vuwoaa~. • 19848 Prospect Road . Saratoga, California BASELINE ~p ~, Y5391-0O.OOlOS.Fig4.cdr 5/19/OS `t" 7- i ~~ i ~ ~ PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE Figure 5 • Photo 4: Former Administration Building, looking northwest. I 19848 Prospect Road Saratoga, California BASELINTi Y5391-00.001 OS.Fig S.cdr 7!28/05 ~ 1'J 8- (~ i The administration building, a single storywood frame and stucco building was located immediately south of the school building (Figure 5, Photo 4). The building contained chairs and other -office furniture. The building was finished with carpeted floors, incandescent lighting fixtures; and acoustical ceiling tiles. The buildings at the project site were heated using natural gas. Radiant heat was used in the school building and sanctuary; forced air heating was used in the fellowship hall and administration building. Only the administration building was air-conditioned; a compressor was present west of that building. .Adjoining Parcels. Adjoining parcels were all used for residences (Figure 2). No evidence of hazardous materials use, storage, or releases on adjoining properties was noted. REGULATORY AGENCY DATABASE REVIEW BASELINE contracted with EDR, Inc., an environmental information service, to search Federal,- State, and local regulatory agency databases pertaining to hazardous material use and releases on properties at and near the project site (EDR, 2005). A listing of the databases searched is provided in Table 1. The database report is included in Appendix B. Two sites associated with hazardous materials were identified within a one mile radius of the project site in the database review (Figure 6). The project site was not identified on any of the databases. Available Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) files for each of the sites identified in-the database report were reviewed, and site details are presented below. Site 1 -Watson, William and Son - 1649 Daphne Way This site, located approximately one-eighth. mile north of the site, was listed on the State Cortese list - ofhazardous waste sites, which is a compilation of sites from other regulatory agencies. However, no files. for the project site were present in SCVWD files, and the site was .not listed on other component databases of the Cortese list, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list (DTSC, 2005). On 9 May 2005, a BASELINE geologist conducted adrive-by reconnaissance of the site. The site is asingle-family residence, with no evidence of current or historical land uses associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, the inclusion of the site on the Cortese list appears to be an error, and this site would not have the potential to affect the project site.- Site 2 - G & K Trucking - 20261 Merida Drive This site, located approximately one-third mile west of the project site, was listed on the State Cortese list and leaking underground storage tank lists due to.a release from a former underground petroleum storage tank. The site was also included on the State HAZNET database of sites listed as generators on hazardous waste manifests. The site was listed as generator on one hazardous waste manifest consisting of empty containers of 30 gallons or greater volume. Y5391.OOlOS.phl.wpd-7/28/05 -9- ~!], D i. ~' • • REGULATORY AGENCY DATABASES REVIEWED • Table 1: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California. Agency Release Database (Agency) Date ~ Acronym Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities (State Water Resources 1 February 2005 - AST Control Board) Cal-Sites list of known hazardous waste sites targeted for cleanup (Cal EPA) 7 February 2005 A~yp Bond Expenditure Plan (California Department of Health Services) 1 January 1989 BEP 1 December 2001 Biennial Reporting System for hazardous waste generators (US EPA) BRS 7 Februa 2005 Cal-Sites list of known and potential hazardous waste sites (Cal EPA) r5' Cal-Sites CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 15 February 2005 • Information System (US EPA) -. California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (Office of Emergency . 31 December 2003 CHMIRS ' Services) 29 November 2004 ' Cleaning Facilities (DTSC) Cleaners Dry NT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees (US Department of Justice) 14 December 2004 CONSE 1 S December 2004 RCRA Corrective Action Report (US EPA) • CORRACTS 1 A ril 2001 Cortese index of identified hazardous waste and substance sites P Cortese S April 2005 List of Deed Restrictions (DTSC) ~ DEED 1 October 2003 Department of Defense Facilities (USGS) DOD 31 December 2002 EMt Emissions Inventory Data (California Air Resources Board) 31 December 2004 ' Response Notification System (US EPA) enc er E • y g m ERNS 31 October 1994 Facility Inventory Database (State Water Resources Control Board) FID 12 January 2005 Facility Index System (US EPA) FINDS T3 September 2004 FIFRA/TSCA Tracing System (US EPA) ~g 31 December 2003 Formerly Used Defense Sites (US Army Corps of Engineers) FIJDS 31 December 2002 HAZNET Hazardous Waste Information System (Cal EPA) 4 1 g November 200 Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (Department of HMIRS Transportation) Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (Santa Clara County, 10 January 2005 • LUST RWQCB, and State Water Resources Control Baard) 15 November 2004 MMES Mine Safety and Health Administration Master Index Material Licensing Tracking System (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 12 January 2005 MLTS 5 Proposition 65 Notification Records (State Water Resources Control Board) 21 October 1993 Notify 6 7 February 2005 No Further Action Determination Properties (DTSC) NFA 7 February 2005 Properties Needing Further~Evaluation (DTSC) NFE 14 December 2004 National Priority List (Superfund) NS EPA) NPL 15 October 1991 NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens (US EPA) 30 June 1985 ODI Operi Dump Inventory (US EPA) - 21 November 2004 PADS PCB Activity Database System (LJS EPA) 17 A ril 1995 RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (US EPA) 13 March 2005 d Recovery Information System (US EPA) i on an RCRIS Resource Conservat 7 February 2005 other Regulatory Agency (DTSC) A d n to REF Properties Referre 10 January 2005 ROD NPL (Superfund) Records of Decision (US EPA) 2005 F b 7 ruary e hool Property Evaluation Program Sites (DISC) S c SCH -10- `~- I Y5391.00 ] OS.ph ] .wpd-7/28/05 I Table 1 -continued Agency Release Acronym Database (Agent) Date SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SWRCB and Santa Clara County) ]0 January 2005 '' SSTS Suction 7 FIFRA Tracking System (US EPA) 31 December 2003 SWF/LF _ Solid Waste Information System (Integrated WB~ste Management Board)' 14 March 2005 (SWIS) ' Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites (State Water Resources Control Board) 1 July 1995 CIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (US EPA) ~ 31 December 2002 TSCA :Toxic Substances Control Act (US EPA) 31 December 2002 UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (US Department of Energy) 29 December 2004 US ENG Engineering Controls Site List (US EPA) 10 January 2005 CONTROLS UST Underground Storage Tanks (Santa Clara County and State Water Resources 10 January 2005 Control Board) VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program (DTSC) 7 February 200 WDS Waste Discharge System (State Water Resources Control Board) 21'March 2005 WMUDS Waste Management Unit Database System (State Water Resources Control 1 April 2000 Board) ' Source: EDR, 2005. Note: See Appendix B for complete environmental database report. ,. ;r .. . ~ a Y5391.001 OS.ph I .wpd-7/28/05 -1 1- ASES~WITHIN Figure 6 SITES ON REGULATORY DATAB nNF. MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE • ;~ Legend O .Watson, William and Son 1649 Daphne Way O G&K Trucking 20201 Merida Drive ~~ One Mile Radius '* Project Site 19848 Prospect Road Saratoga, California Y5391-0O.OOIOS.FigS.cdr 5/19/05 Note: See text for additional site information. Source: EDR, 2005. 0 2000 Feet BASELINj'ij L J-, ~ -12- 1- On 27 September 1995, a 750-gallon underground diesel storage tank and associated piping was removed from this site. Soils from.the tank excavation contained total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel at concentrations of up to 17,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), indicating that a release had occurred from the tank (SCVWD, 1997). Two rounds of soil excavation and verification testing were performed under SCVWD oversight. Following the second round of soil excavation, verification samples confirmed that petroleum-affected soils had been removed from the: tank area. A soil boring was installed in December 1996, to determine if deeper.soils had been affected by the release. Soil samples from 15 to 40 feet bgs were collected and analyzed for. petroleum-related compounds; none of the compounds were. identified above laboratory reporting limits (Soil Tech Engineering, 1997). On 9 July 1997, the site was closed by SCVWD; the closure letter and site summary are included as Appendix C. As only soil in the immediate tank vicinity was affected, this release would not have the potential to affect the project site. BUILDING-RELATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS' City Planning Department records, discussed above under Historical Land Uses, indicate that the buildings at the project site were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s. Based on their dates of construction; the buildings at the project site may contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos- containingmaterials (ACMs)r~ Lead oxide and lead chromate were commonly used in paints until , 1978, when regulations limited the allowable lead content in paint. Therefore, painted surfaces at buildings constructed prior to 1978 have the potential to contain lead-based paint. Federal and State ~, regulations govern the demolition. of structures where lead or material containing lead are present. ,~ During demolition, lead-based paint that is securely adhering to wood or metal maybe disposed of as demolition debris, which is anon-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a California and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. State and Federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities where lead-based paint is present. Asbestos was commonly used in construction materials until its use was phased out in the 1980s. Therefore, building materials manufactured prior to the 1980s have the potential to contain asbestos fibers, which could be released during demolition activities. At the project site, materials such as linoleum, sheetrock and joint compound, textwed ceiling material, and roofing materials could potentially contain asbestos. Federal, State, and local requirements govern the removal of asbestos or suspected ACMs, including the demolition of structures where asbestos is present. All friable (crushable by hand) ACMs,~or non-friable ACMs subject to damage, must be abated prior to demolition in.accordance with applicable requirements. Friable ACM must be disposed of as an asbestos waste at an approved facility. Non-friable ACM may bedisposed of asnon-hazardous waste at landfills that will accept such~wastes. Workers conducting asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with State and Federal OSHA regulations. Other common sources ofhazardous materials were noted at the project site, including light switches and thermostats (which often contain mercury) and air conditioning equipment (which may contain Freon or other refrigerants). These materials, though not a potential threat to human health and the Y5391.OO1 OS.ph l .wpd-7/28/05 -13- 1 • environment in their current state, would be classified as hazardous wastes when the buildings are . demolished. Proper handing and disposal of lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials would be the responsibility of the owner of the project site, who would be considered the generator of the. hazardous wastes that result from removal of these items. CONCLUSIONS • The project site was used for orchards from at least 1939 until around 1963, when it was developed for a church. Two church buildings were constructed around 1963, and an additional two buildings were construct 19561and 96819Agri ultural'cheiivca swere developed for res~dent~al land uses be likely applied to the orchards, and there may be a potential for residues of these chemicals to be present in shallow soils at the project site. No other historical land uses associated with hazardous materials likely to affect redevelopment of~tbe project site were identified. • LJ The project site contained four single-story buildings and a shed, which were mostly vacant at the time of the site reconnaissance. No evidence of hazardous materials use, storage, or release was noted at the project site during the site reconnaissance. Adjoining land uses were :, residential and did not appear likely to use, store, or dispose of significant quantities of ' hazardous materials. Two sites within one mile of the project site appeaz on Federal, State, and local agency databases of sites associated with hazardous materials storage, disposal, or release. Based on available details and locations, neither site identified in the database review would be likely to affect the project site. Review of site history information indicates that most of the structures at the project site were constructed prior to 1980, and therefore may contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos- containingmaterials. Demolition or renovation of these structures could release lead particles and asbestos fibers into the air, and potentially pose a health risk to construction workers and the general public. Other hazardous materials, such as mercury in light switches and thermostats, may be encountered during demolition, and must be handled and disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS To determine. whether agricultural chemical residues may be present in project site soils, a limited soil investigation should be conducted at the project site in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Interim Guidance) (DTSC, 2002). Although prepared specifically for evaluation of school sites, the Interim Guidance is also appropriate for future residential properties and other sites where children and other sensitive receptors may potentially come into direct contact with soils affected by agricultural chemical residues. Y5391.OOlOS.phl.wpd-7/28/05 -14- ~~ r~ -.J Based on the size of the Phase I project site (2.62 acres), the Interim Guidance specifies that a minimum of eight composite samples should be collected from shallow soils and analyzed for potential organic and inorganic agricultural chemical residues. For the project site, organochlorine pesticides and the metals lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury should be analyzed for. As specified in the Interim Guidance, anydetected organic compounds ormetals above naturally-occurring concentrations shouf d be evaluated in a risk assessment, and additional remedial action such as soils removal may be required, depending on the. results of the environmental.investigation and risk assessment. ~ ~' Prior to demolition or remodeling of buildings at the project site, alead-based paint and asbestos-containing material survey should be conducted by a certified professional. Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and ACMs should be abated in accordance with applicable. regulations. Federal and state construction worker safety regulations should be followed during construction activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. Other common hazardous materials that may be encountered during demolition, such as mercury switches and air conditioning refrigerants, should be handled and disposed of in accordance with DTSC hazardous waste regulations. LIMITATIONS The services BASELINE has performed in connection with this study have been performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices applicable to the profession at this time. The data presented were obtained from previous environmental investigations, historical land use information, regulatory agency files, an environmental database report, interviews, and a site reconnaissance. We make no other warranty or representation,. expressed or implied, for the work in this report. The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the indicated data described in this report. They are intended only for the purpose, site, and project indicated. Opinions and recommendations presented herein apply.to site conditions existing at the time of ow study. ~~ Changes in the conditions of the subject property can occw with time, because of natural processes or the works of humans, on the subject sites or on adjacent properties. Our failure to discover hazardous substances through a reasonable and mutually agreedupon limited scope-of--work does not guarantee that hazardous substances do not occur in an area. Similarly, an area which in part is unaffected by hazardous substances at the time of ow investigation, may later, due to natural phenomena or human intervention, become contaminated. Changes in applicable standards can also occw as the result of legislation or from the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report maybe invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond, our control. LJ Y5391.001 OS.ph l .wpd-7/28/05 -15- / (`F/) • REFERENCES ATC Associates, .2005, Groundwater Monitoring Report, Third Quarter 2004, Classic Car Wash Westgate, 18560 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California, 11 February. ATC Associates, 2002, Soil Sampling Report, ,Classic."Car Wash Westgate, 18560 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California, 8 November. Department ofToxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2002,~Interim Guidance for Sampling?~gricultural~ Fields for School Sites (Second.Revision), August 26. DTSC, 2005, Hazardous waste and Substances Site List, http://www.dtsc,ca.gov/database) Calsites/Cortese List.cfin, Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2005, Environmental Database Report, Saratoga North Campus Project, 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA 95129, Inquiry Number. 1413723.2s, 4 May. Lind, Brad, 2005, City of Saratoga Building Official, personal communication with Todd Taylor of BASELINE, 19 May. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 1997, Fuel Leak Site Case Closure - G.K. Trucking, 20201 Merida Drive, San Jose, CA 95070 (Santa Clara County), Case No. 14-084, 9 July. Soil Tech Engineering, 1997, Preliminary Subsurface Closure Investigation for the Property located at 20201 Merida Drive in Saratoga,. California, January 3. United States Geological Survey (LJSGS),1991, 7.5-minute topographic map, Cupertino quadrangle. • Y5391.OO I OS.ph l .wpd-7/28/05 -16- ^ I-X` .. APPENDICES ~~ - - ` ~~ (ON CD-ROM IN PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT) " A: HISTORICAL LAND USE RESOURCES B: ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REPORT ~~ C: CASE CLOSURE FILE AND.SITE SUMMARY FOR G&K TRUCKING, 20201 MERIDA DRIVE ~ ~~ D: QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS ~8 • Attachments available from the City of Saratoga, Community Development Department upon request. i -, ~ ~. A ~ , ' ~ 1 7 APPENDIX D ~D °,, BASELIN~t ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 24 August 2005 Y5391-00.00187 Ms. Carmen Borg Urban Planner Shute; Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Shallow Soil~Screening Investigation, 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California Dear Ms. Borg: This letter report documents the activities and findings of the shallow soil screening-level investigation for the 19848 Prospect Road project site in Saratoga, California (Figures 1 and 2). This investigation was conducted by BASELINE for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger in support of environmental review for a redevelopment project. The City of Saratoga (City), the current owner of the property, is currently evaluating redevelopment of the project site for a residential subdivision containing nine single-family residences. A Phase I site assessment for the project site determined that the site was used for orchards from at least 1939 until around 1963 (BASELINE, 2005). The Phase I concluded that agricultural chemicals were likely applied to the orchards, and that there may be a potential for residues of these chemicals to be present in shallow soils at the project site. This shallow soil screening investigation implements the recommendations of the Phase I report and evaluates whether agricultural chemical residues maybe present in shallow soils at the project site at concentrations that could pose a health risk to construction workers and/or future residents at the site. SITE DESCRIPTION The' project -site consists of two parcels (APN 386-26-070 -and 386-26-071), totaling approximately 2.62 acres. The project site is bordered to the north by Prospect Road, and to the west, south, and east by residential properties (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is level and located approximately 280 feet above mean sea level (msl) (USGS; 1991). Y5391.00187.rpt.wpd-8/24/05 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D • Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 • (510) 420-8686 • FAX: (510) 420-1707 ~' Emeryville Petaluma San Francisco BASELINE Ms. Carmen Borg 24 August 2005 Page 2 FIELD ACTIVITIES .On 17 June 2005, soil samples were collected- from near-surface soils at eight loctations at the project site by a BASELINE registered geologist (Figure 2). Sampling.locations were chosen by dividing the entire project site into eight equally-sized areas and plotting a sampling location within each area using random numbers from a computer random number generator. Where the randomly-selected location was inside a building or on a paved.. surface, the location was moved to the nearest unpaved surface. . • After removing any vegetation at the sampling location, a soil sample was collected at each location at the ground surface (0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface) using six-inch-long by ~ . ' 1.5-inch diameter stainless steel sampling tubes and a slide hammer. After sample collection, the sample tubes were sealed with Teflon film and'plastic end caps, labeled, and placed in a water ice-cooled container for transport under chain-of-custody procedures to, STL San Francisco, aCalifornia-certified analytical laborator}~. The samples were • ' composited into four composite samples by the laboratory. Each of the composite soil samples were analyzed for total lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury (metals often found in . ' . inorganic pesticides) and organochlorine pesticides. _ ' The sampling equipment was decontaminated between sampling locations using an Alconox solution and deionized water rinse. Rinsate generated during the investigation was allowed to evaporate naturally. No soil cuttings were generated during the shallow soil sampling. A1VAL,YTICAL RESULTS The analytical results for this investigation are summarized on Table 1. The results were compared to San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential land uses (RWQCB, 2005), which are conservative risk-based thresholds useful for screening laboratory data to evaluate potential human health and environmental risks. Exceedance of ESLs does~not necessarily mean that the site may pose a health risk, but may indicate that additional investigation and/or remediation of a site may be warranted. Metals concentrations were also compared to 95th percentile naturally-occurring (background) concentrations established by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for metals in .East Bay soils (LBNL, 2002). Complete laboratory reports and the chain-of-custody form are included as Attachment A. Metals. None of the metals were identified at concentrations above residential ESLs (Table 1). Lead was detected at concentrations up to 35 mg/kg, slightly above the 95th Ysa9 i.oo i s~.~t...~a-snaros S~' BASELINLi' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 24 August 2005 Y5391-00.00187 Ms. Carmen Borg Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Shallow Soil Screening Investigation, 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California Dear Ms. Borg: . This letter report documents the activities and findings of the shallow soil screening-level investigation for the 19848 Prospect Road project site in Saratoga, California (Figures 1 and 2). This investigation was conducted by BASELINE for Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger in support of environmental review for a redevelopment project. The City of Saratoga (City),. the current owner of the property,. is currently evaluating redevelopment of. the project site for a residential subdivision containing nine single-family residences. A Phase I site assessment for the project site determined that the site was used for orchards from at least 1939 until around 1963 (BASELINE, 2005). The Phase I concluded that agricultural chemicals were likely applied to the orchards, and that there may be a potential for residues of these chemicals to be present'in shallo dations tof the PhaselI reports and levaluates whcr~egr Investigation implements the recommen agricultural chemical residues may be present in shallow soils at the project site at concentrations that could pose a health risk to construction workers and/or future residents at the site. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of two parcels (APN 386-to then ~ ~ 8P ospe7ctl)Roaod~amad approximately 2.62 acres. The project site Is bordered ~ 1 and 2 The ro ect site is to the west, south, and east by residential properties (Figur )• P J level and located approximately 280 feet above mean sea level (msl) (USGS, 1991). Y5391.00187.rpc.Wpd-Sn4/OS 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D • Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 • (510) 420-8686 • FAX: (510) 420-1707 Q~ 3 EmervviUe Petaluma San Francesco U BASELINE Ms. Carmen Borg 24 August 2005 Page 2 FIELD ACTNITIES ~On 17 June 2005, soil samples. were collected from near-surface soils. at eight loctations at the project site by a BASELINE registered geologist (Figure 2). Sampling locations were chosen by dividing the entire project site into eight equally-sized areas and plotting a sampling location within each area using random numbers from a computer random number generator. Where the randomly-selected location was inside a building or on a paved surface, the location was moved to the nearest unpaved surface. . After removing any vegetation at the sampling location, a soil sample was collected of each ~ ' location at the ground surface (0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface) using, six-inch long by 1.5-inch diameter stainless steel sampling tubes and a slide hammer. After sample collection, the sample tubes were sealed with Teflon film and plastic end caps, labeled, and placed in a water ice'-cooled container for transport under chain-of-custody procedures to STL San Francisco, a California-certified analytical laboratory. The samples were composited into four composite samples by the laboratory. Each of the composite soil samples were analyzed for total lead, arsenic, copper, and mercury (metals often found in inorganic pesticides) and organochlorine pesticides. The sampling equipment was decontaminated between sampling locations using an Alconox solution and deionized water rinse. Rinsate generated during the investigation was allowed to evaporate naturally. No soil cuttings were generated during the shallow soil sampling. A1~1AI,YTICAL RESULTS The analytical results for this investigation are summarized on Table '1. The results were compared to San Francisco Bay Area Regional -Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential land uses (RWQCB, 2005), which .are conservative risk-based thresholds useful for screening laboratory data to evaluate potential human health and environmental risks. Exceedance of ESLs does~not necessarily mean that the site may pose a health risk, but may indicate that additional investigation and/or rernediation of a site may be warranted. Metals concentrations were also compared to 95th percentile naturally-occurring (background) concentrations established by Lawrence ' Berkeley National Laboratory for metals in East Bay soils (LBNL, 2002). Complete laboratory reports and the chain-of-custody form are included as Attachment A. Metals. None of the metals were identified at concentrations above residential ESLs (Table 1). Lead was detected at concentrations up to 35 mg/kg, slightly above the 95th •. Y5391.00187.tpt.wpd-8/24/05 8~/ • BASELINEi Ms: Carmen Borg 24 August 2005 Page 3 percentile naturally-occurring concentration of 27 mg/kg; no other metals were identified above the 95th percentile concentrations (Table 1). Organochlorine pesticides. The composite samples contained five insecticide=related compounds above laboratory reporting limits: DDT, DDE (a breakdown product of DDT), dieldrin, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane (Table 1). Dieldrin was detected in two of the four samples, at concentrations of 0.014 mg/kg and 0.043 mg/kg, above the residential ESL of 0.0023 mg/kg. All other pesticides detected were identified at concentratioriiss at least an order of magnitude below the residential ESLs (Table 1). The residential ESL for dieldrin is driven by potential water quality impacts ~ (RWQCB, 2005); to determine if the concentrations of dieldrin in soil may pose a health risk to future construction workers and residents through direct contact with soils at the project site, the maximum concentration of dieldrin at the site was also compazed to ESLs established for direct contact to construction workers and residential land users. The maximum dieldrin concentration of 0.043 mg/kg from this investigation was lower than the 1.6 mglkg construction worker direct-contact ESL (Table K-3, RWQCB, 2005), but above the 0.034 mg/kg residential direct-contact ESL (Table K-1, RWQCB, 2005). This suggests that concentrations of dieldrin in shallow soil at the project site would not be expected to present a health risk to future construction workers, but may have the potential to affect future residential users at the site. CONCLUSIONS Based on the four composite sample results from the shallow soil screening investigation performed at the site, there may be a potential for residues of the organochlorine-based insecticide dieldrin to be present in shallow soils at concentrations that could potentially affect water quality and/or pose a health risk to future residential land users through direct contact with site soils. No other organochlorine pesticides or metals commonly present in inorganic pesticides were identified above residential ESLs. RECOMMENDATIONS Additional sampling should be performed at the project site to further define the extent of organochlorine pesticide residues in shallow soils. Representative soil samples should be collected from shallow soils (less than 2 feet below ground surface) across the project site. If pesticide residues were identified above screening thresholds for residential land uses, a • human health risk assessment (HHRA) may be required to more accurately assess potential health risks from pesticide residues at the site. Based on the findings of the HHRA, Y539I,00187.rpt.wpd-8/24/05 g~ BASELINE Ms. Carmen Borg 24 August 2005 Page 4 additional measwes may be required to ensure that human health is protected at the project site, which may include remedial activities and/or engineering or institutional controls designed to minimize human exposwes to shallow soils at the site. LINIITATIONS The services. BASELINE has performed in connection with this investigation have been performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices applicable to the profession at this time. We make no other warranty or representation, expressed or implied, for the work in this report. The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the indicated data described in this report. ~ They are intended only for the purpose, , site, -and project indicated. Opinions and recommendations .presented herein apply to site conditions existing at the time of ow study. ~ , Changes in the conditions of the subject property can occw with time, because of natural processes or the works of man, on the subject sites or on adjacent properties. Furthermore, ; it would be extremely expensive and perhaps impossible, to conduct a site investigation: which would enswe detection of materials which now or in the future might be considered hazardous substances..0ur failure to discover hazardous substances through a reasonable and mutually agreed upon limited scope-of=work does not guarantee that hazardous substances do not occur in an area. Similarly, an area which in part is unaffected by hazardous substances at the time of ow investigation, may later, due to natural phenomena or human intervention, become contaminated. Changes in applicable standards can also occur as the result of legislation. or from the broadening ~of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond ow control. REFERENCES BASELINE, 2005, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga California, July 28. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), 2002, Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in the Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, June. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2005, Screening For Environmental Concerns At Sites With Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, February. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1991, 7.5-minute topographic map, Cupertino ~ ~. quadrangle. Y5391.00187.rpt.wpd-8/24/05 ~~. • BASELIN~i Ms. Carmen Borg 24 August 2005 Page 5 If you have any questions or comments regarding this investigation, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, . 1~ ~ Todd Taylor, REA ane Nordhav Environmental Associate Pnnc~pal . Reg. Geologist No. 4009 . TT:YNaan ', Attachments . Y5391.00187.tpt.wpd-8/24/05 ~~ • T 19848 Prospect Road 0 ZoooF~c Saratoga, California - BASELINTj Y5391-00.00187.Figl.cdr 8/4/05 L REGIONAL LOCATION ~ Figure 1 TIONS ~ ~ Figure 2 c s wrpT .F T.OCA C Legend PR-S2 O Shallow Soil Sample Location approximate 19848 Prospect Road 75 Feet BA-® E Saratoga, California ~ Y5391-00.°0187.Fig2.cdr 8/4/05 g Table 1: Summary otAnalytical Results, Soil ' 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California (All values in m Sample ID PR-S 1,2 PR-S 3,4 PR-S 5,6 PR-S 7,8 Residential ESLs Background Concentrations itle 22 Metals (Method 6010B /7471A) Arsenic ~ 2.8 2.4 3.9 3.0 S.S l7 opper 24 20 26 29 23 53 ~ 15 ' 12 20 35 15 27 ercury 0.14 0.095 0.16 0.12 3. NEt Organochlorine Pesticides (Method 8081A) ,4'-DDD <0.02 <0.01 <0.01. <0.01 2.3 ,4'-DDE 0.028 0.026 0.034 0.034 l.6 ,4'-DDT 0.031 0.020 0.024 0.029 l.6 4,4'-Methoxychlor <0.02 <0.01. <0.01 ` <0.01 ~ l9 Aldrin <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.032 alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.021 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 . <0.01 <O.OI ~ 0.016 <0.01 0.049 0.44 0.049 Chlordane (technical) <0.50 <0.25 . <0.25 x0.25 0.440 delta-BHC ~ <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.049 ieldrin <0.02 <0.01 0.014 0.043 0.0023 ndosulfan I <0.02 <O.OI <0.01 <0.01 0.0046 ndosulfan II <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <O.OI 0.0046 ndosulfan sulfate <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0046 ndrin <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00065 ndrin aldehyde <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 ~ <O.OI 0.00065 Endrin ketone <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00065 gamma-BHC gamma-Chlordane e tachlor <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.020 <0.01 <0.01 <O.OI <0.01 <0.01 0.014 <0.01 0.049 0.44 0.014 Heptachlor epoxide oxa hene <0.02 <I.0 <0.01 <0.50 <0.01 <0.50 <0.01 <0.50 O.OlS 0.00042 Notes: 4r.x compound not identified above laboratory reporting limit of x.x. ESL =Environmental Screening Level (RWQCB, 2005, Table A for Residential Land Use). Background concentrations for metals are 95 percentile values calculated for East Bay area soils (LBNL, 2002). s.: [bold] = oompourtd detected above laboratory reporting limit zx [bold italic] =compound detected above residential ESLs. - =not applicable NE =not established Samples were collected on 17 June 2005 from shallow soils (0 to 0.5 foot below ground surface). See Figure 2 for sampling locations. See Attachment A for laboratory reports and chain of custody forms ~ No 95th percentile mercury background concentration was established due to data limitations for the background metals study (LBNL, 2005). QA/QC: nau: • • Y5391.00187.tbs.xls/'1'able 1-8/12/2005 T-1 ~ D ATTACHMENT A ~', LABORATORY REPORT AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM . ~i ~, i• ~I S TL ~ Submission#: 2005-06-0484 .- Baseline Environmental June 30, 2005 ' 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D - Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 , Attn.: Bill Scott ~ '~ . Project: Y5391-00 Project: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Dear Mr. Scott, Attached is our report for your samples received on 06/17/2005 14:20 ~- This report has been reviewed and approved for release. Reproduction of this, report is permitted only in its entirety. ' Please note that any unused portion of the samples will be discarded after 08/01/2005 unless you have requested otherwise. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. if you have any questions, please call me. at (925) 484-1919. You can also contact me via email. My email address is: ssidhu@stl-inc.com ,~ Sincerely, . C~^''~ `~~ ' ~ ~ K ~+ Surinder Sidhu Project Manager •I Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco • 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 AnandsawmTmnPk Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 464 1096' WNNV.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~~ Page 1 of 1 • ~ STL Metals ,' Submission: 2005-06-0484 • .; ,~ I Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D ~; •' Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420=8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 , , Received: 06/17/200514:20 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA , Samples Reported Date Sam fed iwlatri9s Lab Sample 1Vame 06/17/2005 ~ ~ Soil 1 PR-S 1,2 06/17/2005 • , Soil 2 PR-S 3,4 06/17/2005 Soll ~ 3 PR-S 5,6 06/17/2005 Soil 4 PR-S 7,8 • i• Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 rp~ A~5 a84 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.sU-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~~ 06/24/2005 17:04 Page 1 of 9 ~ STL Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Metals Submission: 2005-06-04 . Received: 06/17/200514:20 Prep(s):- 3050B Test(s)° 60108: 74~1A 7471)q Sampie'1©: PR-S 1,2 ~ ~ ~.ab JD: ~ 2005-06-0484 -~~ Sampled::: a6/17~/2UU5 'Extracted: : 6/21/200514:36 6/22/2005.'.15102 Matnz Soil QG Batch#; 2005/Q6/2~-02.1fi 2005/0672-03.15 Compound ; Conc. RL Unit Dilution Anal ed Fla Arsenic ~ 2.8 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00. 06/241200510:49 Copper 24 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:49 Lead 15 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:49 Mercury 0.14 0.050 mg/Kg 1.00 06/23/200512:51 i N~ • Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ~_..-.,..M or Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 ' www.sU-inc.com ' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 06/24/2005 17:04 Page 2 of 9 Baseline Environmental Attn.: Biil Scott • STL 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect.Road, Saratoga, CA Metals ~, Submission: 2005-06-0484 Received: 06/17/200514:20 Prep{s) 305At3 ~Testts): 601fl13 Sample aD: ~R-S 3,4 Lab 1Dt 2005-06-0484 2 Sampled; 06/17/2005 Extracted: ` 6/21/2005, X4,38 6/22!2005 ~ 5~f2 ~' .. G3C Satch#:; - ~ 2005/,06/2'1-02,18 Matrix: ,. Soil 2~(i05%©6122 3~~~~6 Compound Conc. RL Unit Dilution Anal ed Fla 4 2 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:53 . Arsenic . 20 1,0 mg/Kg ~ 1.00 06/24/200510:53 Copper 12 1.0 m9/K9 ~ 1.00 06/24/200510:53 Lead 0.095 0.050 mg/Kg 1.00 06/23/200512:52 Mercury Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. - STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ~ ~ a ~,,,, Tom, ~ Te1 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 ' www.sU-inc.com ' CA DHS ELAPi~ 2496 ~~ ~~ 06/24/2005 17:04 Page 3 of 9 ~, .. Submission: 2005-06-0484 S TL ~ ~ s Metals Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 •, Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 • Project: Y5391-00 Received: 06/17/200514:20 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA . Prep(s)::. 30508. Test{s): 5 T r 601fl8 74~1A" ~ ~ .. 7471A• 4 .. Sar~ple ID: PRS 5,~. ~ dab"ID: .. 2005-06-D484 S ~ x . _ 4~ 'Sampled: 06/17120®5 ~ Extracteda 6/2x1200514:36 z :; • ~ 6/2?J2Q05 15:02 _ ' Matrix: ` Soil QC Batch#; .2005/06121-021s r '~ ' ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ Com ound Conc. RL Unit Dilution Anal ed Fla 3.9 1.0. mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:57 ' 26 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:57 Copper 20 1 0 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200510:57 Lead 16 0 . 0.050 mg/Kg 1.00 06/23/2005:12:53 , Mercury . Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 „~.,,,,5„b,,,T„M~ Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 osnanoo517:oa Page 4 of 9 Submission: 2005-06-0484 STL ~ . ~~ Metals ' Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott . 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D ~ ` Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Received: 06/17/200514:20 ' Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA ~ Test(s): 601013. Prep(s)c 30508.. 7471A ' 7471 ~, Lab 1D: , 2005-06-0484 - +4 . Sample 1D ~R-S 7,8 , Extracted: 6/21/2005 94:36 Sampled: 06/77/2005 ~6/22/200b 95:02. ~: ~, {3C Batch#: ..2005106121-0215 , : Matrix: Soil; - . _ . 2fl05106/22-021~;. ;;; _ i ~ Conc RL Unit Dilution Anal ed. Fla • Compound . 0 7 mg/Kg 1.00 06/24/200511:01 , Arsenic 3'0 29 . 1.0 mg/Kg 1.00 06124/200511:01 . Copper 35 1.0 m9/K9 1.00 06/24/200511:01 Lead 0.12 0.050 mg/Kg 1.00 06/23/200512:55 Mercury ~ ' ~~ Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco • 1220 Quarry Lane. Pleasanton, CA 94566 _ _ _ . _ . _.,.., ~_.. ~~~ wne ~noa • www_sti-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 06/24/200517:04 Page 5 of 9 STL .Submission: 2005-08-0484 ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~~~ Metals Compound Conc. RL ~ Unit Analyzed Fla Mercury ND 0.050 ~ mg/Kg 06/23/200512:32 r Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ~~as..~.mrmaak Te1 925 484 1919 Fax 925464 1096' WWW.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~~ 06/24!2005 17:04 Page 6 of 9 • ~ STL Submission: 2005-06-0484 ' Metals Baseline Environmental , • Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 e: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 • Ph , on Received: 06/17/200514:20 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA , Ba#cfi.G1C Re `ort.. Test(s):6i3108 Prep(s~ 30506 Soil qC Batch. # ~2DO~t06122-D2.'15 Methosi Blank Date .Extracted: 0612212005 1 5 02 MB:2005/06/22-021.5.025 .... .. _ Conc. RL Compound 10 Unit Analyzed Fla mg/Kg 06/24/200510:06 Arsenic ND ND 1.0 mg/Kg 06/24/200510:06 Copper ND 10 mg/Kg 06/24/200510:06 ' Lead ~ r • Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 rol 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' yyWwstl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~~ osnanoos 17:04 Page 7 of 9 STL .,.~• . Submission: 2005-06-04~- Metals Baseline. Environmental Attn.: ~Biil Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Received: 06/17/2005 14:20 Batch ~C Re:port I Conc. mg/Kg Exp.Conc. Recovery % RPD Ctrl.Limits % ,Flags Compound LCS LCSD LCS LCSD % -Rec. RPD LCS LCSD Mercury 0.513 0.520 0.500 102.6 104.0 1.4 85-115 20 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ..,,,,,~ ~._,,,.,.,,, ~ Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 • www.stl-ino.com ' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~D~ 06/24/200517:04 Page 8 of 9 Submission: 2005-06-0484 STL , Metals Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 Received: 06/17/200514:20 ' 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Batch OC Re on .Prep(s):..-305fl6` Test(s)t~6010B ~ , Laboratory Control Spike Soil QC Batch,# 2005106/22-02.~~v ' LCS 2005/06/2?-02.15-02fi Extracted: 06122/2005 analyzed: 06/24/20©510 Q$.', 2005/06/22-02.15-Q?7 Extraceec). ©6i2212~~5 flnaia+zed. 06124120r351Q.~ LCSD n :7 ~ Conc. mg/Kg Exp.Conc. Recovery % RPD Ctri.Limits % Flags Compound LCS LCSD LCS LCSD % Rec. RPD LCS LCSD Arsenic 105 103 100.0 105.0 103.0 1.9 80-120 20 105 103 100.0 105.0 .103.0 1.9 80-120 20 Copper 103 101 100.0 103.0 101.0 2.0 80'120 20 Lead lol osnanoo6lroa Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton. CA 94566 page 9 of 9 ~P.,,as...~TomRc Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ° Submission: 2005-06-0484 S TL ~ Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental Attn.:-Bill Scott. 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D ~ ~ ' Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 ' . Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420.1707 . Project: Y5391-00 ~ Received: 06/17/200514:20 19848 Prospect Road , Saratoga, CA , Samples Reported Sample Name Date Sant aed' Mattiz' L~a~b~'. PR-S 1,2 06/17/2005 .. Soil 1 2 , PR-S 3,4 06/17/2005 Sail ~ 3 PR-S 5,6 06/17/2005 Soil Soil ~ 4 PR-S Z,8 06/17/2005 ~ ~. ' ~ d" osr~onoos 17:01 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 page 1 of 9 ,,,.„~~,,,Tfe11,~ Te1 925 484 1919 Fax 925484 1096' www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAPq 2496. ' Submission: 2005-06-0484 . ~ ~ STL Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis ., Baseline Environmental , ' Attn:: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D ~' Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 ' Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Received: 06/17/2005 14:20 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA i Prep(a): 3550/8081 Tests): i 8081 . Lab ID: 2005-06-0484 -1- ' ~ SarnPle 1Dt PR-S 1,2 ' Sampled: ~06117120U5 ~ Extracted: 6/26120D5 •'1556 ~~ , - ~~. ~ CC Batch: 2x05106126-04'f~ ~Matnx:` Boll Analysis Fiag S2 (:See Legend and Note Section.') = • • ' Conc RL Unit ~ Dilution Anal ed Fla Compound i . ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Aldrin ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Dieldrin ND 20 ug1Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 , Endrin aldehyde ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54. ~ Endrin ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 ~ Endrin ketone ND . 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 ' Heptachlor ND 20 ug/Kg .10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Heptachlor epoxide 31 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/28/2005 20:23 4,4'-DDT 28 20 u9M9 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 4,4'-DDE ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/200523:54 4,4'-DDD ND 20 ug(Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Endosulfan I ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Endosulfan II ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 alpha-BHC ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 beta-BHC ~ . ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23,:54 , delta-BHC _ ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 ~ Endosulfan sulfate ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 , 4,4'-Methoxychlor ND 1000 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Toxaphene ND 500 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Chlordane (Technical) ~ ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 alpha-Chlordane ND 20 ug/Kg 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 gamma-Chlordane Surrogate(s) 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene NA 5142 ~0 10.00 06/27/2005 23:54 Decachlorobiphenyl (PesU8081) 103 06/30/200517:01 Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 page 2 of 9 . _~ ~ ~_._.., t...,, ~ Tei. 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 ' www.stl-inc.com ' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 ~ STL ' ~ Submission: 2005-06-04>: Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental ~ . , Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 ~' Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 Received: 06/17/2005 14:20 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Prep(s): 3550/80131 '` Test(e): - 808 Sampie ID. IPR-5 3,4 - t.ab ID; 2005-fl6-048~1 2 -. ' Sampled 06/17/2{05 ,' Extractetl: fi/26/20051556 ' (Watnx: S©il - - ` . t3C Batch#; . 2D05/06126-Od ~~ , ,' ,, ~ _ , Compound Conc. RL Unit Dilution, Ana ed Fta . ' Aldrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Dieldrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Endrin aldehyde ~ ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Endrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 ' Endrin ketone ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Heptachlor ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Heptachlor epoxide ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 U6/28/2005 00:25 4'-DDT 4 20 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 20:54 , 4'-DDE 4 26 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 , 4'-DDD 4 ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 , Endosulfan I ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00. 06/28/2005 00:25 Endosulfan II ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 alpha-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 beta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ~ ND 10 ug/Kg 5,00 06/28/2005 00:25 delta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Endosulfan sulfate ~ ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 4'-Methoxychlor 4 ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 , , Toxaphene ~ ND 500 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Chlordane (Technical) ND 250 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 alpha-Chlordane 21 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 gamma-Chlordane 20 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Surrogate(s) 6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 5 4 2 98.4 50-125 % 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 , , , Decachlorobiphenyl (Pest/8081) 66.6 46-142 % 5.00 06/28/2005 00:25 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc: STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ,,,,, ~, ~„,,, T,~ ~ Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 ' www.stl-inc.com ' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 I ~~ 06/30/2005 17:01 . Page 3 of 9 ~~ -7 • ~ STL • • Submission: 2005-06-0484 . Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental • Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D ~'•, _ • Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 , ~ Received: 06/17/2005 14:20 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Prep(s~:' 35507$081 Test{s): 8fl87 Safi lD. . 2005-06-fl4~4 - ~ Sample to PR-S 5&, Sara{led Ofi/17/20fl5 '~ Extracted: 67261200515156 ~ '9 5106120=U4 _ ~_ C3C Batch#: s • _ 200 -:.: 'S il .Matroc Conc RL Unit Dilution Anal ed Fla Compound . ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Aldrin 14 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Dieldrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Endrin aldehyde ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Endrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Endrin ketone ND 10 ug/Kg ' . 5.00 06728/2005 00:56 Heptachlor ND 1U ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Heptachlor epoxide 24 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 21:25 4,4'-DDT 34 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 4,4'-DDE ' ND 10 uglKg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 -DDD 4,4 ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Endosulfan I ND 10 u9~g 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Endosulfan II ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 alpha-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 beta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ~ ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 delta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 ' Endosulfan sulfate ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 4,4'-Methoxychlor ND 500 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Toxaphene ND 250 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 Chlordane (Technical) ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 alpha-Chlordane . ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 00:56 gamma-Chlordane Surrogate(s) 6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 5 4 2 92.1 50-125 % 5.00 00 5 06/28/2005 00:56. 06/28/2005 00:56 • , , , Decachlorobiphenyl (Pest/8081) 50.7 6-142 . .. .:: o Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 t,.,,,,,~ Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.sU-inc.com' CA DHS ELAPff 2496 ~Q~ 06/30/200517:01 Page 4 of 9 c ~ STL Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Submission: 2005-06-0484 .. Received: 06/17/2005 14:20 Compound Conc. RL Unit Dilution Anal ed Fla Aldrin ND 10 ug/Kg. 5.00 06/28/2005 01:2.7 Dieldrin 43 10 ug/Kg ' 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 ~ Endrin aldehyde , ND 10 u /K 9 9 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27; Endrin ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Endrin ketone ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Heptachlor ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Heptachlor epoxide ND 10 ug/Kg 6.00 06/28/2005 01:27 . 4,4'-DDT 29 ~ 10 ug/Kg 5.00. 21:56 06/28/2005 4,4'-DDE 34 10 ~ ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 4;4'-DDD ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Endosulfan I ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Endosulfan II ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 alpha-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 beta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 _ gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/200501:27 delta-BHC ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Endosulfan sulfate ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 . 4'-Methoxychlor 4 ND 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 , Toxaphene ND 500 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27. Chlordane (Technical) ND 250 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 alpha-Chlordane 16 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 gamma-Chlordane 14 10 ug/Kg 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Surrogate(s) 6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 4 5 2 103.3 50-125 % 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 , , , Decachlorobiphenyl (Pest/8081) • 58.5 46-142 % 5.00 06/28/2005 01:27 Sevem Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ,,,~„ a S„ro,,, T~ ~ Tel 925 464 1919 Fax 925 484 1096 ' www.stl-inc.com ' CA DHS ELAPii 2496 i I ~~ 06/30/200517:01 Page 5 of 9 • ~ STL Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Submission: 2005-06-0484 Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 Received: 06/17/200514:20- .- 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Batch QC Report • • Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin Endrin ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD Endosulfan I Endosulfan II alpha-BHC beta-BHC gamma-BHC (Lind delta-BHC Endosulfan sulfate 4.,4'-Methoxychlor Toxaphene Chlordane (Techni alpha-Chlordane gamma-Chlordane Surrogates(sj 2,4,5,6-Tetrachlorc Decachlorobipherr Conc. RL unrt r~nai tea., ..o ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21. ' ~ Np 2,0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 , ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ' ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06%27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 Np 2,0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2,0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg . 06/27/2005 22:21 ane) ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 . ND 100 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 cal) ND 50 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005 22:21 ND 2.0 ug/Kg 06/27/2005.22:21 -m-xylene 61.0 50-125 % 06/27/2005 22:21 ~I (Pest/8081) 77.1- 46-142 % 06/27/2005 22:21 In~ 06/30/200517:01 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco • 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 page 6 of 9 rpi 925 a84 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.stl-inc.com • CA DHS ELAP# 2496 C' ~I 11 . ®®S TL ~. Submission: 2005-06-0484 Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott • 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D . Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 •~, Phone: (510) 420-8686 Faz: (510) 420-1707 , Conc.: ug/Kg Exp.Conc. . Recovery % RPD Ctrl.Limits % Flags Compound LCS LCSD LCS LCSD. % Rec. RPD LCS LCSD Aldrin 12.4 12.1 16.6 74.7 72.9 2.4 37-136 35 Dieldrin 11.7 11.1 16.6 70.5 66.9 5.2 58-135 35 Endrin 11.8 11.3 16.6 71.1 68.1 4.3 5&134 35 Heptachlor 12.6 12.1 16.6 75.9 72.9 4.0 40-136 35 4'-DDT 4 11.6 11.1 16.6- 69.9 66.9 4.4 55-132 .35 , gamma-BHC (Lindane) 12.3 11.8 16.6 74.1 71.1 4.1 37-137 35 Surrogates(s) 6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 4 5 2 32.6 31.3 50 65.2 62.7 50-125 .0 , , , Decachlorobiphenyl 36.8 37.3 50 73.6 74.6 46-142 0 r, Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco • 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 _..~,r.d.. 7e1 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 s ,~~ 06/30/2005 17:01 Page 7 of 9 ~ STL Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis Baseline Environmental Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008 Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA Submission: 2005-06-0484 Received: 06/17/200514:20 i3atcfi QC Repor# -. ,... - •prep(a~; 355018081 Test(s);"808"1 ~: Matrix Spike { MS /MSD") » MS Pfd S '78 ~ MB.... 2005/06126 04.13-004 `Soil ~ ~.. Extracted: 06/2612005 QC Batch #t 2005106126-048 .r Lab t[3q 2005-06-O~t~ ;* OCR. Analyzeti: A611812Q05 Oaxw$ Dllutior~: 5.00 MSD: 2005/06/26-04.'1.3-005 Extracted: 061261200.5 Anatyzeda Dilution• 06128/2005 02:9" 5.00:. • Conc. u /K S k.Leve Recove % Limits % Fla s Compound MS MSD Sam le u /K MS MSD RPD Rec. RPD MS MSD Aldrin 13.9 13.6 ND 16.5 84.2 81.9 2.8 37-136 35 5 47 44 9 43.1 16.5 26.7 •10.8 84.8 58-135 35 M5 M5,R7 Dieldrin . Endrin . 15.5 . 15.0 ND 16.5 93.9 90.4 3.8 58-134 35 Heptachlor 13.5 13.2 ND 16.5 81.8 79.5 2.9 40-136 35 4'-0DT 4 34.1 34.8 29.4 16.5 28.5. 32.5 13.1 55.132 35 M5 M5 , gamma-BHC (Lindane) 13.7 13.6 ND 16.5 83.0 81.9 1.3 ~37-137 35 Surrogate(s) 6-Tetrachloro-m-xylen 4 5 2 51.7, 52.3 50 103.3 104.6 50-125 0 , , , Decachlorobiphenyl 30.5 23.2 50 .60.9 46.5 46-142 0 ~D~ 06/30/2005 17:01 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco • 1220 Quarry lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 ~a„d~,,,T,.,,,~ Tel 925 484 1919 Fax 925 484 1096' www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 Page 8 of 9 ', STL Organochlorine Pesticides Analysis r Submisslon:2005-06-0484 Baseline Environmental ~ ~~ Attn.: Bill Scott 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608-2008_ Phone: (510) 420-8686 Fax: (510) 420-1707 Project: Y5391-00 Received: 06/17/200514:20 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA . Legend andNotes ' Analysis Flag N ' 4 S2 Surrogate(s) diluted out. " Result Flag ` M5 ~~ MS/MSD spike recoveries were below acceptance limits. See blank spike (LCS). ,~ R1 .. Analyte RPD was out of DC limits. , Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. STL San Francisco' 1220 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 r_, .,~~ .c~ ,o,e cs., ors eAd ~noR • www.stl-inc.com' CA DHS ELAP# 2496 //D 06/30/200517:01 Page 9 of 9 - .---~-- ., ~. S'~L San Franclsea. .~ . ~S;am :1~ ~~ece~~t~Check~Ss~, S~tiimtssir~;ri #:2n45 ~'"~• .. ;;. _ • :~~~ , r _ .. 'cheCkli~C~ohtp~?~.'b.~"~ ~ ~ i Courier. - r STL SF (~urla[ r~ fedex UPS ~thCr Cfieit~ , ;,, -.'Log !n-D.e;<ails. - 1 Custody seats irrtatit on shiPPln9 cc+ntainerlsamplas_ ~ Cl3aiR.of custody prersenE? ~ . • . <.._ .3 Chaln~ofcusfody:sig~ed~wtien ielir-quis~edand re.~eived? ; ~ .e1u,,,p„r~;~ .~ .. .:.. 4 A11 samples cb~cked?n-hea C(?C retinguished _ . 5 Ghain of.custody agre~es:•vrittt sample labels? ~ j~' ; ' ' , '. g amples In proper containefllot;l~2~ 7 Sample cantalners IntatiL? - - ', ' , ~B Su~clen~rsample:voturrreiorinrJicatedtest~. ~ .:., ~ , • g All samples. received wltliin holdit-g'timb's' '_ ~ Cooler Temperature:;ComptiartGe Clleel~. ' ~ ' ~ ~ _- .._ p,=; Covler~amP}e9'~mpPtatur8 ~ , 7emper~ture Blank Readip ~ no ~a~M ~.~me~ -. ~'i. ~2 ' . ~:. _. Avezage ~adivxR~ldLnssaroF _ _-~ " ~amples-v~tth.7~m >:!6'G Cornme :.. Reason~fot~levatr=if Ttrri{ierature ' - . 1-- -Ice Meked r. lnsufTiCaAi~1 ... . [- Same- In`hoxes ~~ r . ~ ~ pled c 4#u r 9ce not r~.q. _ VOA Sample`7iispectaon ._ ` - ~Sinail `aSAell L.a ~ _ - ~atnpies~w?th_~ _ . •. $amtilelF' Q ~ :rarlcAd ot"~ic~ngxsoril~l!':1e1' ~` Are`bubtiles:present-i'tira~-lyoffi~VOA• ~- r- j- _ , vials-P r r r .. , ;. r- r ; r . .1Sos: tJo ~ Samples wlth'1:lnacceptable:pli~ Water - p.N :ac:rtptable .upon ~receip~ ~" I- = i -. ..: .... :- 1 C pH adjusted- presaryative used: 7 _HN.tp3.f7 f~4'I C: H=SDi C1 N~0!N O ZnOAc-l.ot~s) ^._ .: - Cr~menfs: L ', • Project i~9anagement [Routing for:ir+sir~cUon nf=indicated di'screpancy(iesj] Project Manager: (I.aitfats,) -Gate: 1 105 Glit'nt>contacted: Yer Nr Summary of discussion: ` I er:PMlCient}: ~~„~,.,,~,,4y Corrective ~Arfiorl'tp.. w ~~ ~ ~ ~+ v _~ ~~~ ;~ ~ :~ w ~ ` ~~ ~ a ,:~. 3 a+ 'U ~~,~'" `~ A' 1 0 t~ w 0 ~. _ Q 0 U .700: ~b~ y~ ~ :1 O" ~4' ~i ~~ ~ ~, ,~ ~r pi w f y M o E, M ,anv:.l APPENDIX E ~~ r i• ~~3 •~. F€HR & P€EI:S ~RAnsvoQia•iow cowsu uadrs MEMORANDUM Date: May 24, 2005 To: Iveta Harvancik, City of Saratoga From:. Sohrab Rashid, P.E. Subject: Prospect Road Residential -Traffic Evaluation 102 Fehr 8~ Peers has completed a traffic and street IigMing evaluation of the proposed single- family residential subdivision located at 19848 Prospect Road. [3{het s'gte. Howevernthe comprised a church with ancillary support facilities currently occupy . existing site is unoccupied and does not generate any traffic. This;memorandum summarizes our traffic and street lighting evaluation of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes a total of nine single-family homes on approximately 10,000- to 12,600-square foot lots asvia a new t ublAe stree05ntersedionr ovcatedb85 feet twest of the: is proposed to be provtded P Clarkspur Lane intersection based on centerline-to-centerline distance. A 3.0-foot curb~o- curb width street with a turnaround at the south end will provide on-site circulation. Given the relatively low volume of traffic, the new public street will operate more like a private drive and the subsequent traffic evaluation considers this fad. . TRAFFIC EVALUATION The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 90 daily trips and 9 peak hour trips during either the AM or PM peak hours. This volume of traffic would not substantially affect the traffic operations from a capacity .standpoint at any of the adjacent signalized or unsignalized intersections. Accordingly, the traffic evaluation is focused on site access and on-site circulafton• Site Access ' Existing site access is provided via one-way driveways located on the west (inbound) and east (outbound) sides of the property. A separate eastbound left-turn lane is provided at Clarkspur Lane and a tvro-way left-tum exists to the west. A painted median is striped east of Clarkspur Lane that requires vehicles to make a U-turn at Scully Avenue to access residences on-the north side of Prosped east of Clarkspur Lane. The proposed project access is a new public street located in the middle of the property and would be only 85 feet west of the existing Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane intersedosite one a circulation standpoint, driveways or public streets should be located directly opp another or should 1eft~uf m acce sleast 120 feet, especially in the case where atwo-way left- tum lane provides 255 Market Street, Suile 200, San Jose CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www fehrandaeers com C] • ~/~ ~` . Iveta Harvanak FEII R.St INFERS May 24, 2005 ~-..:-.~~.?~.. ~p..~,,.,,~ Page 2 of 2 e 85-foot distance between the new street and Cla Would not have) adequlatedistanceto Th osi left tum~ of a two-way. left lane because opp n9 decelerate and move into the tum lane. rThus i aft irart~o he ~~ from westbound Plrosped Prospect Road to. prevent vehicles from to n9 cad. To enter the site from the westbound dirae~ turnvandltum °9~ ~ theme sde (see R left-turn lane, make median, enter. the two way ttached figure). Vehicles exiting the site and l and make a U-u m from the leftRtum pocket a have to cross the two eastbound through apes at Clarkspur Lane. W hile this is not an ideal layoh ~ t eak hour) and these veh Iles wou d not movement will bo s os Ing'trafficss than five in t p conflict with any PP On-site Circulation ' osed 30-foot street will provide adequate width o the treat without causing any The prof arkin could be permitted on both sides traffic volume, p 9 y osite eacFi other, then major circulation issues. If two cars were parked direct) ~iPcpulation. This layout may approximately 16 feet of pavement would remain -for two-way this configuration require one vehicle to wait while the opposing vehicle passes. However, will limit travel speeds and is recomm houtd review the s toe planpbr to fiDal approvals.anta Clara County Sheriff Department staffs STREET LIGHTING EVALUATION Existing lighting on Prospect Road in the i'e of ProspeC<.tNo I ghts arepocated on the south by two 100 Watt HPS lights on the north s d side of Prospect Road at this locationdo lit bel eveeitfwould be adequatef or the south s'de of the wattage of-the existing tights, we the street. Prospect Road is relatively nd future streetaapproachtrees along the south s e would likely block light on the sidewalk a recommend installing an electrolier near the new1~reet~' ~ Po e0on the south side rof We The new light could be powered by lines on a ears to be located on the utilrty pole on the Prospect Road. An overhead secondary line app west side of the church property. PG~E will have to install a secondary line for the new , residences if no other service point exists. • ~~~ ~~ ON11lSl Md103W 03SIVii uo-ez-eer : oco-ss-9ec r~i acose r~ ~oivavs ;~ SS300d TdIlN301S32! AA3N r~oians eo u° c 3nranr ~vnurxa tttc~ vaolvavs eo ~ OVOa 103dS021d Ob'021103dSOad 8V9fi~ • -- e • ~I -~ I li ~~ ~ ; ; ,~ ~; I ;~ ;; , ~ ~' I ' . --- --' 3 NHl . ~ an ~+~tn~ ~ -----1 '~ ~ s~ ~, ~-, Y J ' I I i I ~I i I . ~; • I I I I ~. ~~~~_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH: Grace Subdivision 19848 Prospect Road (APPLICATION NO.OS-179) I. The City of Saratoga is considering the Grace Subdivision Project consisting of a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on an approximately 2.6 acre site from Quasi-Public Facility to Medium Density Single Family (M-10), a proposed General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal, and a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Project") as more particularly set forth in File No. OS-179 of this City; II. An Initial Study (IS), attached herein, was prepared for the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). III. The IS identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the proposed project but found that revisions in the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. IV. The IS and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated for public review from August 30, 2005 through September 30, 2005. V. The City received one comment addressing potentially adverse environmental impacts not covered by the IS, but found that when further revisions were made to the Project, these effects would be avoided or mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. VI. On October 26, 2005 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the MND (including the IS) at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Planning • /l~ i Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the IS and MND, administrative record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA requirements. VI. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. Notice of all hearings on the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and local City requirements; and 2. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the Planning Commission; and All comments raised during the public comment period and at the public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately; and 4. The M1VD is hereby amended to include the following additional mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 All drainage plans and all disposition of on-site storm water in connection with any improvements on the site shall be consistent with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (NPDES) as defined in Article 15-06 of the Zoning Code. In order to ensure compliance with the program, grading plans shall incorporate appropriate source control and site design measures that minimize storm water pollutant discharges to the maximum extent possible. This change does not raise any new issues about the significant effects of the Project on the environment; and 5. The Planning Commission was presented with and has reviewed all of the information in the administrative record; and 6. The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA requirements, and the MND represents the Planning Commission's independent judgment. The Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions; and • r~`~ 7. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project as • revised may have a significant effect on the environment; and 8. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department. ' VII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 18, 2005 and attached to the staff report accompanying this Resolution. VIII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby directs the Community Development Director to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California, this 26th day of October, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • U ~a~ • • Attachment 3 ~~l RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. APPLICATION NO.05-179 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19848 PROSPECT ROAD GRACE SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels totaling 2.6 acres, zoned R1-10,000 located at 19848 Prospect Road into 9 lots, or as more particularly set forth in File No. OS-179 of this City; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency has recommended that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the project site from Quasi-Public Facilities (QPF) to Medium Density Single Family (M-10); and • WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and • WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map has been evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Advisory Agency has determined that the project, including the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment. WHEREAS, having considered all public testimony, written comments, application materials, and materials presented by staff, the Advisory Agency has determined that, subject to the conditions below, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Tentative Map Approval. State law precludes approval of a tentative subdivision map if any of the Advisory Agency makes any of the findings listed below. For the reasons specified in bold text, none of these findings is applicable to the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map: That the proposed map or building site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is being processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment. Upon approval of the whole of the action the proposed map will be consistent with the General Plan. • ~~ a' 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is being processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment. Upon approval of the whole of the action, the proposed map will be consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project site is relatively flat and large enough to meet associated zoning requirements fora 91ot subdivision. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project site is currently zoned R-1-10,000, which allows for medium- density residential development. A zoning amendment is not required. The proposal meets the density requirements of the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 5. That the design of the subdivision or building site or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed project. The analysis indicates that the proposal, as mitigated, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The proposed design is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems and will meet all subdivision requirements and fire codes. 7. That the design of the subdivision or building site or type or improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The proposal will not conflict with any access easements. 8. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act") will result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The property is not under Williamson Act contract. 9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision or building site into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. The future development of 9 residential units will not create . substantial discharge of waste resulting in a violation of the State Water Code. ~ ~.3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the Tentative Subdivision Map for the . hereinafter described subdivision, marked Exhibit "A" in the file described above, is hereby approved by the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. This approval shall take effect on the effective date of a general plan amendment re-designating the General Plan land use designation of the project site to Medium Density Single Family (M-10). 2. All subdivision improvements and other development on the site shall comply with the mitigation measures set forth in the October 18, 2005 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the Planning Commission on October 26, 2005 and included in the above referenced project file. 3. All site improvements shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by this reference. Any modifications of the approved plans are subject to the review of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Division with a proposed set of plans highlighting all changes with a cloud. 4. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check. review process: 5. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 6. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 7. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 8. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height with the exception of fencing to mitigate noise in accordance with section 15-29.030. 9. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. ~~ ~ • 10. A landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of the Commuity Development Department prior to issuance of any grading permit. Landscape plans shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 11. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 12. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 13. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 14. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • 15. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 16. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 17. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. PUBLIC WORKS 18. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. • '~a 19. The owner shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance .with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by ,Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within i. ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 20. The owner shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 21. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental • entities must be met. 22. Interior monuments -shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 23. The owner shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 24. The owner shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: • ~~~ 25. The street median shall be designed on Prospect Road as shown on the Tentative Map. Prior to commencement of any work owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City of San Jose if any portion of the median is proposed within the City of San Jose. All median Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the City of San Jose Public Works Department for review. All conditions required by the City of San Jose shall be incorporated into Improvement Plans prior to Final Map approval. The conditions shall be fulfilled prior to final subdivision map approval or as required by the City of San Jose, whichever comes sooner. 26. A Street light shall be installed on Prospect Road as shown on-the Tentative Map. 27. The median in the new street shown on the Tentative Map shall be designed to save the three existing trees as shown on the Tentative Map. 28. The owner shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 29. The applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Santa Clara Basin. Best Management Practices for site design and storm water treatment must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. Certification of the Engineered Stormwater Management . Plan shall be required. Owners of properties with treatment BMP's will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance on an annual basis. 30. The owner shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 31. The owner shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 32. The owner shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 33. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 34. The owner shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by • the City shall be provided to City Engineer. a"~ 35. The owner shall pay the applicable Park in lieu fee prior to Final Map approval. . 36. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval and maintained on site at all times during construction of the subdivision improvements. 37. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 38. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20-feet, vertical clearance of 13-feet 6-inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36- feet outside and 23-feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. . 39. Fire Department (Engine) Roadway Turn-around Required: Provide 'an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36-feet outside and 23-feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less than 72-feet. Cul-De-Sac radius must be widened to 36-feet. 40. Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. 41. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner and, parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking may be permitted along one side of roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet, parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured curb face to curb face, with parking space based on an 8ft width. • /~0 CITY ARBORIST 42. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated July 12, 2005 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to all items listed in that report as "Recommendations" (beginning on page 3), retention of tree #16 on lot 9 as discussed on page 2, and posting of the tree protection bond for trees to be retained as discussed on page 3. 43. Development of individual residences will not occur as part of this approval and further design review is required in accordance with the City Code. All residential site development plans must conform with the July 12, 2005 Arborist Report and may require additional review to ensure that adequate tree protection occurs. 44. Replacement trees will be required at a value, which equals the value of trees that have been removed. Based on the proposed Tentative Map this amount equals $29,770.00; however, this amount is subject to change in the event that an individual house design is able to further avoid significant trees. Exact value shall be determined at the design review approval stage. 45. All replacement trees shall be a minimum 24" box in size. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State • of California, this 26th day of October by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This approval 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 on behalf of the owner and any of owner's successors or ~~~ assigns and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • l~~ • Attachment 4 • ~3~ RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. APPLICATION NO. OS-179 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Grace Subdivision 19848 Prospect Road GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council referred Fto the City of Saratoga Planning Commission an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map and a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site listed above from Quasi-Public Facility to Medium Density Single Family (M-10) and a General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal to subdivide two parcels totaling 2.6-acres, zoned R1-10, 000 located at 19848 Prospect Road into nine lots, as more particularly set forth in File No. OS-179 of this City; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Medium Density Single Family (M-10); and u WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65402 (a) regulates government disposition • of real property, mandating that prior to disposing of property the Planning Commission must report on the conformity of that action with the jurisdiction's General Plan; 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 General Plan Amendment and subdivision have been evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City has determined that the project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment and conformity determination will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Approval, and the following findings have been determined: With respect to General Plan goals: LU.6.1: Prior to initial approval the decision making body shall consider the cumulative traffic impacts of single-family residential projects of 4 or more lots. • 1 1 ~ ~' The proposed project meets this goal. A traffic study was conducted as part of the Initial Study and that study found the project to have a less than significant impact on traffic. LU.6.3 The capacity of existing streets shall be recognized prior to tentative building site or subdivision approval of any project. New development shall be designed to minimize disruption to the area caused by an increase in through or heavy traffic. The proposed project is consistent with this goal. A traffic study was conducted as part of the Initial Study and found the project to have a less than significant impact on traffic. LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences. The proposed project is consistent with this goal. The proposed project will replace an existing commercial use with a residential use consistent with the current zoning district designation. With respect to the City's Zoning Ordinance, the project site is currently zoned for single family residential uses: The current General Plan designation of Quasi-Public Facility, when amended to Medium Density Single Family (M-10), will be consistent with the • surrounding residential neighborhood uses. With respect to Government Code Section 65402(a) regarding government disposition of real property and mandating that prior to disposing of property the Planning Commission must report on the conformity of the disposal with the jurisdiction's General Plan: The proposed sale of the land for residential development will conform with the General Plan if the Plan is amended by the City Council as recommended by this resolution. Now Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval by the City Council of a General Plan Amendment amending the land use map of the Saratoga General Plan to change the designation of the project site from Quasi-Public Facilities to Medium Density Single Family (M-10); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: -that the Planning Commission finds the proposed disposition of the property to be in conformity with the General Plan if the General Plan is amended as described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26`" day of October, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES • NOES: 2 3 ~~ ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • • /3'~ • • Attachment 5 • ~3~ ' • • '• ' ~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NINE LOT .SUBDIVISION AT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF SARATOGA SITE NAME: NORTH CAMPUS APN'S #: 386-26-070 & 386-26-071 Submitted to: Public Works Deparhnent City of Saratoga -13777 Fruit<~ale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A • July 12, 2005 • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@.comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351. Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 /~~ ,~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Public Works Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed nine lot subdivision of the property owned by the City of Saratoga at 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga (named the "North Campus"). This report presents my findings and recommendations. The plan reviewed for this report includes the Tentative Map prepared by the City of Saratoga, dated July 5, 2005. The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags containing engraved numbers corresponding to trees within this report were attached to each accessible trunk. FINDINGS • Tree Count and Composition ~ . Fifty-eight trees of Ordinance-size' were inventoried for this report. They comprise a total of 14 species and their name, numbers, counts and total percentages are presented below. Please note specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. PERCENT COMMON NAME TREE NUMBERS COUNT' OF TOTAL American Sweetgum California Pepper Tree Camphor Tree Chinese Pistache Coast Redwood Italian Stone Pine Mexican Fan Palm Monterey Cypress Monterey Pine Olive Tree Prunus sp. Silver-Dollar Gum Willow-Leafed Peppermint White Alder 6-8 32 5, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 29, 53-55, 57 26, 27, 36, 56, 58 3, 4, 19, 30, 31 47 24 10, 48 15, 38, 42, 43, 45 2, 11-13, 49, 50 52 35, 40, 41 1, 33-35, 37, 39-41, 44, 46 51 TOTAL 3 5% 1 2% 17 29% 5 5 1 1 2 5 6 1 3 7 1 58 9% 9% 2% 2% 3% 9% 10% 2% 5% 12% 2% 100% • 'Trees presented in this report have trunk diameters large enough to be regulated by the City per the Tree Ordinance as well as the Subdivision Ordinance. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 5 City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13~ • , ~. David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 Overall Tree Conditions The trees presented in this report been assigned an overall condition rating that considers both their physiological health and structural integrity. The table below summarizes the ratings assigned to each tree and reveals that the trees appear in mostly fair to good condition. GOOD FAlR PQOR Tree # 3, 10, 13, 16-22, 24, 28, 30, 4-9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 25-27, 1, 2, 15, 33-35, 37-39, 41, 36, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58 29, 31, 32, 40, 43, 47-49, 52, 42, 44-46, 51 55, 57 Total 19 of Total 33% 24 15 41% 26% Tree Locations There are forty-three trees located on the subject site and include #1-4, 10-14, 16-29, 33- 37, 39-41, 44, 46 and 49-58. There are nine trees situated on neighboring properties and include #30-32, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47 and 48. There are six trees situated within the public right-of--way along Prospect Road and include #5-9 and 15. Plan Review and Site Observations The proposed Tentative Map identifies the removal of the following 13 trees that, to my understanding, are situated in direct conflict with the proposed road or building envelopes: #2, 6-8, 12, 14, 16, 21-23 and 49-51. Replacements are suggested to mitigate the loss of any tree approved for removal. My review of the recent Tentative Map reveals that a home could possibly be constructed on lot 9 in a manner that allows the retention and protection of tree #16, a 21.5-inch diameter Camphor in overall good condition. If possible, I recommend this occurs due to its size, condition and relative contribution to the site. In doing so, I suggest a minimum setback of 12 feet from its trunk. Please note the tree protection bond amount and replacement tree value consider the retention of this tree. My observations of the 10 Eucalyptus trees on site (#1, 33-35, 37, 39-41, 44 and 46) reveal they are in overall poor structural condition due to being repeatedly being pruned at severe levels for clearance from the overhead, high-voltage electrical lines. Consequently, their branches are predisposed to failure and present a significant and potentially imminent risk to public safety. The only foreseeable way to potentially minimize this risk is to radically prune each tree at least once or twice a year and continue doing so throughout their life. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 5 City of Saratoga Public Works Department C~ r: n ~~g • '. ~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 However, by doing so, branches originating from the cut areas can increasingly grow at more rapid rates each time cuts are made (thus increasing maintenance requirements). Based on the above information, I find the Eucalyptus trees on site are highly inappropriate and unsuitable for being located near homes on residential properties. As such, I anticipate their removal will be requested by the owners of the future lots. Tree Protection Bond Based on the proposed Tentative Map, the tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $143,815. This amount represents the combined, appraised values of trees anticipated for retention2 throughout the subdivision phase of development and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are intended to serve as guidelines for mitigating the foreseeable impacts to inventoried trees. They are intended to aid in the planning process and function as a blueprint for establishing more specific measures as the project progresses. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. • Design Guidelines 1. The numbers of 55 thru 58 should be assigned to the trees presented on the plan. 2. All site development plans, whether for the subdivision or development of individual lots, should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. Recommendations should be provided to protect trees planned for retention. All grading and trenching (such as for drainage, utilities and services) should be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not possible. 4. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. Any trenching for irrigation or lighting beneath the trees' canopies should be designed in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk. b. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trees' trunks. c. 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. d. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided. e. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be placed on top of existing soil grade (vertical stakes can be used to achieve this). Z Trees identified on the plan to remain include #1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, 15-20, 24-48 and 52-58. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 3 of S City of Saratoga Public Works Department ~ 3 °~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 Tree Protection Measures during Site Development 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to the demolition and clearing phases. The fencing shall consist of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, eight-foot tall steel posts driven two feet into the ground every 10 to 12 feet. Once established, the fence should remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process. Please note the precise location for fencing will be specified during the pre-construction meeting (see the second line item below). 6. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas and off of unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies. 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. 7. Before commencing the site demolition and clearing phases, apre-construction meeting shall be held on site with the Project Manager, Project Superintendent and I. The intent is to specify tree protective fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, trees approved for removal and other items regarding tree impacts and protection measures. The removal of any brick, hardscape or foundations beneath the canopies of retained trees, including outside the designated fenced areas, must be performed as follows: the surface of the features should be first broken into small pieces with a jackhammer and manually lifted onto a loader that must remain on undisturbed hardscape and off exposed roots. Base rock covering exposed roots should remain intact and used as the new material. Within one hour, place six inches of coarse wood chips over the newly exposed area and apply water to keep moist for atwo-week period. 9. Temporary or permanent drainage features must be designed so water is not discharged towards the trunks of retained trees. 10. Any existing and unused underground pipes and utilities beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned. 11. Any trenching or grading approved beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. . 12. Any existing plants, groundcover, trees or shrubs being removed beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually cut to grade and the roots left below ground. The stumps can either be axed away or ground to below grade. 13. Great care must be taken by all personnel and equipment operators to avoid damaging the canopies of retained trees. • City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect~Road, Saratoga Page 4 of 5 City of Saratoga Public Works Department ~~o __ _ „ J David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 14. Herbicides and pesticides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. Every three to four weeks throughout site development, supplemental water should be supplied to each tree on the subject site during the months of May thru October. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per every inch of trunk diameter. For the Coast Redwoods, I recommend the same amount of water is supplied to them beyond the site being developed, during the aforementioned months and time intervals. 16. Prior to demolition, asix-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the canopies of the Coast Redwoods. The wood chips should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 17. 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 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 18. Any tree pruning or removal must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa- arbor. com. 19. Mitigation for the loss of trees approved. for removal shall include the installation of new trees equal to their combined, appraised value. Based on proposed Tentative Map, this amount equals $29,770. Given the size of the property and amount of retained trees, I recommend the replacements consist of the following trees: four of 48-inch box size and seven of 36-inch box size. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. 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 the canopy edges of retained trees. They must be installed prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support, be double-staked with rubber tree ties. Automatic irrigation must be supplied to each tree and be a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (copy of the Tentative Map) n U City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 5 of S City of Saratoga Public Works Department ~,~~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE v ~ y ` Y ~:, ., a ~ ,,ro ,-• o ~, o ~ n ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~, a ,-. 3 3 o ~ a. ~ ~ ~, O c c O 'O 6) O ~... cd ~ .~ O ~ O '~ N id G^ G ~ ar G c ` ~ 3 - a ~ ~ o _ ~, ~ ~ G TREE ~ o° ° o " o i a~ ~ ° E V t'' ~ ~ o ~ : TREE AM£ v 2 G a~ c ~ m v o ~:c > ~ ~ ;? ~ ~ c .~ ~ . , ,p o NO. N E- . C7 , x U .Ti :. v7: ~ O F tY F- a: ,° W ..~. ~ ~ o. F- . Willow-Leafed Peppermint 1 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 33 25 40 50% 25% Poor X . - - $1,870 Coast Redwood 3 (Sequoiasempervirens) 25 70 35 75% 75% Good X - - $7,100 Coast Redwood • 4 (Sequoiasempervirens) 25.5 85 35 50% 75% Fair X - - $4,720 Camphor Tree 5 (Cinnamomum camphora) 13 25 25 50% 50% Fair X - - X $1,460 American Sweetgum 6 (Liquidambar styraciJlua) 9.5 25 20 75% 25% Fair - X X X $610 American Sweetgum (LiquidambarstyraciJlua) 10 25 25 75% 25% Fair - X X X $6i American Sweetgum 8 (Liquidambarstyraciflua) 11 25 25 75% 25% Fair - X X X $810 Camphor Tree 9 (Cinnamomum camphora) 11 20 25 100% 50% Fair X - - X $1,570 Monterey Cypress 10 (Cupressus macrocarpa) 22.5 45 25 75% 75% Good X - - $7,700 Olive Tree 11 (Olea europaea) 9.5 20 20 75% 25% Fair X - - $370 Olive Tree 12 (Olea europaea) 12 20 25 75% 50% Fair - X X $700 Olive Tree 13 (Olea europaea) 17 25 25 100% 50% Good X - - $2,040 Camphor Tree 14 (Cinnamomum camphora) 13 25 30 75% 50% Fair - X - $2,180 Monterey Pine . 15 (Pinus radiata) 19 25 35 50% 25% Poor X - - X $270 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ;anon = $120 24inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,C Site: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 1 of 4 o~ • 7/11!1005 ~~~ i _. ~ ~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE -- ~ ~ '.~ a :N ~ 4 ~, .~y p G Q 3 ,;3 0 "¢ = ~ y: ~ ro ~ .D . y: .~ p ~ p C '.... ' ~ ~ P" p, C ro `gyp d . ~ u ,-. a :b - G . --~ b 0. ' :~ a ~ .~ 3 ~ ~~~ ., (] ~ >, ~ II II o - ~ d > q ~ ~ O ~ Q " c c ' o '-' o ~ " \~ ~ Q ~ ~ o o Z, ~ r ~ ~ ' b o ~ TREE v ~ ~ o ^ G c° o o ~ o. ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a~i U . ° o ° . ' o ° ~ NO. TREE NAME ' - F-H t7 ~ x e a U a i x .. vs.".. O ~ H cY, F- w c ~ w _ .~.C+; ..a a F. Camphor Tree 16 (Cinnamomum camphora) 21.5 30 30 100% 75% Good X - - $8,900 Camphor Tree 17 (Cinnamomum camphora) 12 35 30 75% 75% Good X - - $2,490 Camphor Tree 18 (Cinnamomum camphora) 10 35 25 100% 50% Good X - - $1,420 Coast Redwood 19 (Sequoia sempervirens) 49.5 115 70 50% 100% Good X - - $27,800 Camphor Tree 20 (Cinnamomum camphora) 22 40 40 100% 50% Good X - - $7,700 Camphor Tree 23 (Cinnamomum camphora) 18.5 40 55 75% 50% Fair - X - $4,380 Mexican Fan Palm 24 (Washingtonia robusta) 19 25 10 100% 100% Good X - - $525 Camphor Tree 25 (Cinnamomum camphora) 11.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,600 Chinese Pistache 26 (Pistacia chinensis) 10.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,340 Chinese Pistache 27 (Pistacia chinensis) 12.5 35 35 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,890 Camphor Tree 28 (Cinnamomum camphora) 12.5 35 35 75% 75% Good X - - $2,360 Camphor Tree 29 (Cinnamomum camphora) 21.5 35 40 75% 50% Fair X - - $5,500 Coast Redwood 30 (Sequoia sempervirens) 19 75 25 100% 75% Good X - - X $4,000 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- allon = $120 24inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $ ] 5,000 Site: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David G Babby, RCA 2 oj4 7/12/1005 ~~3 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ro ~ Y U n. ~ ~ ~ ~ .o a~ ~ a ° 0. 3 ~ 3 . ° o a : Q ~ c o ~o ^ o ~ ..o a: o y m ~ ; a~ ctY E a, ,-. ~ '' ;~ c ~' ~ ~' ~ 0. 0. ~ 3 'b ;~ ro Q c ti Q w \ II . ~ TREE c 2s won- 4 o L o " o i ¢ c ~ w c o ?; ~ Q • I~IO. TREE NAME` H .c7 ' ~ . U x ~ in ~ 0 H .cc ~~ t-. x G ~ w o ~ a w~ o° a a ~ F Coast Redwood 31 (Sequoia sempervirens) 25 70 30 50% 75% Fair X - - X $4,900 California Pepper Tree 32 (Schinus molle) 22, 15 20 30 75% 25% Fair X - - X $3,150 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 33 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 27 40 35 50% 25% Poor X - - $1,280 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 28, 22, 34 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 20, 16, 9 40 50 50% 25% Poor X - - $3,020 Silver-Dollar Gum 35 (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 17.5 20 30 50% 25% Poor X - - $760 Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) 10.5 25 35 100% 75% Good X - - ; Willow-Leafed Peppermint (Eucalyptus nicholii) 28 45 35 50% 25% Poor X - - $1,3 Monterey Pine 38 (Pinus radiata) 14 40 30 50% 25% Poor X - - X $ I50 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 39 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 20.5 20 35 50% 25% Poor X - - $740 Silver-Dollar Gum 40 (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 25 50 35 75°/a 25% Fair X - - $3,800 Silver-Dollar Gum 41 (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 16 20 20 50°/a 25% Poor . X - - $640 Monterey Pine 42 (Pinus radiata) 11.5 25 20 50% 25% Poor X - - X $100 Monterey Pine 43 (Pinus radiata) 13 40 35 75% 25% Fair X - - X $180 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 44 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 21.5 20 40 50% 25% Poor X - - $820 Monterey Pine 45 (Pinus radiata) 15 35 35 50% 25% Poor X - - X $240 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES :allon = $120 24inch box = $420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,C Site: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 3 of 4 00~ • 7/11/2005 I ~~ i ~ ~° Willow-Leafed Peppermint 46 (Eucalyptus nicholii) 25 20 25 50% 25% Poor X - - $1,100 Italian Stone Pine q'7 (Pinus pinea) 32 35 40 75% 25% Fair X - - X $4,040 Monterey Cypress 48 (Cupressus macrocarpa) 22 30 35 75% 25% Fair X - - X $3,190 Olive Tree 49 (Oleaeuropaea) 17 25 35 50% 75% Fair - X - $1,380 Olive Tree 50 (Oleo europaea) 14.5 30 35 75% 75% Good - X - $1,500 Camphor Tree 53 (Cinnamomum camphora) 23 35 60 100% 50% Good X - - $8,400 Camphor Tree 54 (Cinnamomum camphora) 14.5 35 50 100% 50% Good X - - $3,380 Camphor Tree 55 (Cinnamomum camphora) 11 25 25 50% 50% Fair X - - $960 Chinese Pistache 56 (Pistacia chinensis) 12 25 30 100% 50% Good X - - $2,180 Camphor Tree 57 (Cinnamomum camphora) 11 25 30 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,470 Chinese Pistache 58 (Pistacia chinensis) 11.5 25 35 100% 75% Good X - - $2,270 • ~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE „ N ;-. ,-. a ` w ..~ ~I o c ~ ~I C o G o ~ ° '~ b ~ ° o Y c1 ~ a i ~ O ~ y _O ~. O " a~ ro 0.. C ;a ~ ^ ~ c J ~ ;.~ G b C 0. 0. ~ cy _ Q ~ '- v cn °0.1 ~ Rl U ~_ ~ Cy b o 3 ~.:, ° ~, °' se a, ~ a s o o ~ ¢ ~° ti o °o °' °' TREE NO. TREE-NAME O F~ x E- x r. w .a. w a s F- i ~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- allon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 79848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 4 of 4 iasisuu~ ~~ .,, r _ m. _-._ - -~ --____. _ - - .^ ~ . r .. ._ ___.._. --t- ,_ ~__ ~ _.. ..v_.~..- __- -_._ _ ____„ _ ,_ _ .`_ ,,.~ r~ . _ _ _ _ nn ~ _ z T. `i_i --- ~ --tom-- ,__ ~;1.' t.i%!-'i i °---+-~'-- .ryx .-{~'~!-~ !- - i~'-~ r~ 1s;.ly ~v:~i r•,,, ~ s t~~ ~~ ~ I : i _ ~ --ate .:~..~~., t ~ ~'i ~~~ ;~ ° LOT 1 ~ ~ i ..~ : ~ '~. ; - ~ ~: •/ ~O' ~' .~.i.~ ~ 12.739 SF y ^ ~~ ,.,~ ' ' •' ( 1r~` 0`'' ~ •1(}`1-`J' ~iJ~'.. ~wf r ~S~ i ,~.! ~>.t'1; r2u~OT r=,` _ . ~ .. .T := ~ i _ ~'•JJ _ ._ ; iRCTGI j i Yr;. 7 ' [ \~ ~ _ ^~` ~'J_ i ~Y ^~' ;iK Jam- ~ ~ :i ng ~._ ~ -'?f~+ 1 ~ ... ~ ~` ; ~ O ~~ I ! i~ t ~~ ~. ~Q. G 1 2 i~ lu 'e. O ~ i I I t ~ < O ~ { ; 10,07 S Sr ! ~ j- y - .~ ~- , - _._.. ° __ i - -- -?r ~ - - - -~-~-~- =- ~^.;,; - - __~ _~ ~ . - - -'~ - X24 \ (• + '/+'' ' {_.~. t ~ `! 4 `a .il ~-t ~ ,1 ~', Qh its y.: _ c,i ~ f : - .. l~\ ~ :• - i ~ tt t FAGc ~^sly: ~~'; G':SZ;^~"25' Oc • ~~~ ~~~ ~'i t3`. t56 ' 3 a= 'GU(~S 3 •, 'y' ,} `SR^ '+ __ ~. . s '~~i ~ ~ fj i L~ t • ~Y ~"~h i !`"'T-! 1 I ~t *" -~I i tf''..J '~,~Y _---_ -N~~ I E,^ssc SF ~,~ .~~~ ~ ~ ! ~~ t O~ ~ \` i~TsF ~ I ~N` ' ~. , .. ' i~ ~ -tip '4'^`~-C1c-~.:^ 5~-.-~3 0.5 ~_"" I; \ ` • + ~\ f,.t~, I ~ ~~ ~yr~'1~. ~ ~ ~~ J ~~ .. w4{! ~ !; .' l~ ~ '! ~ft ~i t! i ~ i(~~ i ~ J' _ ~ty ~ ~i~ ~ `~~' r~ • m t ~~~ ' ~ LOT 4 =, ,LOTS r ~ ~ ~: ~ LOT 6 `~ . , r_ ~ ~r~-)~ ~ 11,24€E~'~~" t~ ~~-- r IOX102 S~ i!5 i ~~'- i 17,356 Sr' ~ ~ -- - ,.. 5 X ' ~'' _~ `'~• R , B `~ ,tt J. ~~ ~. >i~ ` ~ ':~ '.A ~~ `~ ~, _ ; ~ N.T.S. t - - _ ! `~ _c!t ~~~nii rrp~~ r- ___~_ 1 - [ +`a~o~~++w.*~ra ( ~ 1 / .-_-_.~~_._~ ~ _.•_7 '~'r+i: r`)!t` ~~- ~J•• 'T r.. •~i~6.6~+~L; s v~ ~ ~. VC3..r,~.o- - ._i -~ i Attachment 6 U ~~~ • Q~ 1 ~xS ~e~ ~2 maid ~~ ~ c ~ ..~ C~~~ ~~~ ~ T~, ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~{ ~ • Members of Saratoga City Council July 21, 2005 Members of Saratoga Planning Commission Dear Council Members and Commissioners, We have recently sent a letter to John Livingstone expressing our concern with the development of the North Campus. (See enclosed copy of letter, and map of proposed development, with trees and privacy screening.) Mr. Livingstone verbally stated to us that the city has little control over plantings which do not fall within the parameters of the city code. For example, what is to preclude the removal of the English Laurel and 3 smaller Camphor trees not on the arborist's list, but bordering our property? These plantings currently provide screening for us and would also serve as such for the new neighbors. It is our feeling that the conditions for approval. in the development of this property could be set so that the privacy screen and camphor trees are not removed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincere , d~G~ ~ William C. Ford Norma L.Ford 19905 Viewridge Dr. Saratoga, CA 252-3017 1'~ ~ John Livingstone City of Saratoga ' July 7, Zoos John, Regarding the North Campus sale and development, the following are some of our concerns: In as much as the three eucalyptus trees bordering our property are scheduled to be removed, we certainly hope that other screening which borders our fence line will be retained. Although three Camphor trees, 22 inches in circumference, eleven English Laurel, a Dodonaea, and Privets, do not appear on the tree inventory list or proposed map, it is our hope that they will be retained. This will give us and the new residents a privacy screen, as well as a continuation of an aesthetic feature and bird sanctuary . to which we have become accustomed. Starting at the South West corner of the project and extending northward, our property borders the western aspect of the North Campus for 140 feet. Enclosed is a map of same with the locations of the above mentioned trees and shrubs. We also like the fence- which was installed by the city two years ago, and we hope it will remain. Our other concern is the increased grade elevation of the North Campus, in contrast to surrounding properties. As any two story design would be an intrusion to our privacy, we hope that single story construction will be required. One would hope that 3,200 sq. ft. single story homes, on 10,000 + to 11,000 + sq.foot lots, with a basement option up to the same dimension would be more than adequate. Si cer y, i liam and orma Ford 19906 Viewridge Drive Saratoga, CA ph 262-3017 l~~ • untitled Ref. The North Campus we Object to the sale of this property. Warren .and Etta Palmer 20069 Chateau Drive, Saratoga • Page 1 ~ ~~~o~~ ~ OCT 4 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA -' "' "UNITY DEVELOPMEN'`~ .~l John Livi From: - Linda Yelavich [LindaY@cupertino.org] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:06 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: Kevin Moran Park/North Campus Dear Mr. Livingston: I was at my parents house who still live in Saratoga. When I visit I still enjoy reading the Saratoga News to keep up on the community. Lately I have been reading a lot about Kevin Moran Park and the possibility of changing it from a residential park to a soccer complex, much to the disatisfaction of several neighbors who reside near the park. I have also read quite a bit about the North Campus and how it has become a financial drain on the city thus the decision to sell it to a developer for nine residences. Unless the information I have read is incorrect, it seems that the main reason the city would like to sell the North Campus is because it would be too costly to renovate to todays standards. I am not sure where the city plans on obtaining the money to make Kevin Moran Park into a soccer complex but it cannot be inexpensive. What about taking that money and leveling the buildings at the North Campus and turning that into a soccer complex. The land is level, there is already an existing parking lot plus lots of additional parking along Prospect Rd. It is in a more open area and not infringing upon a residential area. The land would continue to be used for community purposes and if the demand for soccer were to decrease in the future the city would still own the land to develop into a senior center or community center or later sell for development. It would satisfy the people who need soccer space. It would please the neighbors living near Kevin Moran Park to know their park would remain residential and the North Campus would become a park for community use. The city would not have to keep up any buildings other than maybe a restroom or two and the money that was going to be used to convert • Kevin Moran Park could go into the North Campus renovation. I may be missing something here but it seems it would keep-more people happy. Could the soccer organizations help with the upkeep costs of a soccer complex? Sincerely, Linda Yelavich 1677 Blaney Ave. San Jose, CA PS: I grew up in Saratoga and attended Foothill Elementary School, Redwood Junior High, (now Redwood Middle School), and graduated from Saratoga HIgh. My heart remains in Saratoga even though I can not afford to live there. ~~ ~'j 1 ~' ~ ~1~~~~LS ~ ~ SEP 3 0 2005 CITY Ot: SARATOGA ~~~~ ~' ''"^°I.INITY DEVELOPMEN''' 7 ~37G~ Z~ ~%~~ ~~ ,g.~-~ !: - U ~,,,~!~ ~~ L~ l2 G~o`~ . ~~ j ~, ~ ~~ C~ ~~/ f ~- -~~ ~ ~z-~~ ~'~~~ ' . r=te ~,,.~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~-~-~=- ~~ y~~/~ l~iP'~~a A/ (~o~f Z.~z 3zo ~ ~~ ~ c,,~..e ~ `mac'' ~s~~~ ~ MARLENE QUAYLE DUFFIN 21241 CANYON VIEW DR. • SARATOOA, CALIFORNIA 95070 I have been part of a committee working on saving the property on 19848 Prospect Rd (Grace United Methodist Church) for public use. The property was purchased by the City Council from the church with that intention and ethically it should remain in public hands. I strongly disapprove of the changing of the city's general plan on this property from Public to a Residential designation. Our city has such limited building space for public meetings and events. This property serves a vital role in providing that venue. The property can serve seniors, community organizations, as well as our youth with a place that adds to the quality of life in Saratoga. I ask that you do not change the general plan designation. ~~7 Page 1 of 1 John Livin stone 9 From: The Williamsons [zurtz@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:13 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: North Campus Dear John, We'd like to go on record as opposing changing the city's general plan from public to residential designation and creating anine-lot subdivision out of this city land. The land should be saved for the public. Linda and James Williamson • l ~~ i 550 i On Orbit Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 September 28.2005 John Livingston Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Livingston, SEP 2 9 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA ~'~~~UNITY DEVELOPMENT Tonight, in the Saratoga News, there was an article that said you would be taking citizen input on the North Campus as long as it amves by Sept 30. Two days is really not sufficient time, and maybe that was the plan, but I care enough about this issue to make a special trip to drop this offtomorrow on my way to work. i am still in disbelief that the City would sell this property. It is a special property with useful buildings, beautiful trees, plenty of parking, easy access, good location and other attributes. I belong to the Saratoga Historical Society, and we have met there quite a few times for various functions. i believe that if it was fixed up a little, there would be interest to rent it for functions and bring money to the city. You may even be able to get volunteers and donations to fix it up. It would also be a good facility for senior functions that have outgrown their present space. But more importantly, land and buildings such as this are nearly unattainable in Saratoga. If this is developed, that is the end of it. Where would we ever get another piece of land with buildings, trees, parking, and such easy access. We certainly would not buy it for the price that was paid for this parcel. I believe that we should focus on retaining more of the tax dollars paid to maintain the infrastructure of our city. I know our Governor supports keeping more of the tax dollars in local coffers, and this would be an excellent time for Saratoga to lobby the effort. It is really criminal that we all pay so much and retain so little. I also wonder if there are grants available to accomplish some of our projects. It is also criminal to sell this property for such a tiny short term gain, and such an enormous long term loss. Please be far sighted. Sense of community, doing the right thing, and maintaining class and style in our surroundings are what make Saratoga so very special. Thank you! Sincerely, ~~~ N~ ~Cy ~ ~a Page 1 of 1 John Livingstone From: Michael Lu [michael_s_lu@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:23 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: Please keep North Campus as public use property Dear Mr. Livingstone: I strongly OPPOSE the city council's idea to rezone 2.6 acres of city property located at 19848 Prospect Road between Scully and Blaney (It is the former Grace United Methodist Church property and has been referred to as the North Campus) from Public to Residential with an approved subdivision for nine residential lots. I strongly resent the city council's idea to create a nine lot subdivision out of this city land. I believe that the city of Saratoga should keep its rural city nature, instead of becoming like the city of Cupertino. As an citizen who are concerned about the future of Saratoga, I am very concerned at the loss of this city property especially knowing that the city is 98 per cent developed and this maybe the last large property that could be used as community center. Retaining the property for community use keeps our options open, rather than losing the land to nine more houses forever. I believe what the city should do is reign in its soaring budget: The budget has been out of control in the past few years. Selling property is not a advisable solution. Michael Lu 12484 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. • ~~ ~ I~ SEP ~ ~~ 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA _'"r~4T1~1TY DEVELOPME?~''`' September 24, 2005 John Livingston, Director Community Development City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Livingston: This letter is in regazd to the North Campus (former Grace United Methodist Church) property. I wish to protest the proposed change from Public use to Residential use for this property. I am concerned about the loss of this property for use by the residents of Sazatoga and surrounding communities. Since we have so little property left that can be used by the community, I feel this would be a real loss to our citizens. Therefore, please do not turn this property into more homes and lose our community spirit. Please heaz our concern! Sincerely yours, a ~~~h~~ Louise Chamberlin 12909 Foothill Lane Sazatoga, CA 95070 • 1 ~~ Citizens to Create the North Saratoga Community Center Preserving the Future for the Youth, Teens, Seniors, and Community Groups 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 408 252 7447, Mallory58@aol.com, Fax 408 252 8599 September 25, 2005 Mr. John Livingstone Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Mr. Livingstone ~~~~o~~~ SEP 2 7 2005 CITY Or SARATOGA 'x??-'!JNITY DEVELOPMEA?T On behalf of the citizens' committee to create the North Community Center, I am responding to the City's request for a response to the Negative Declaration on the proposed rezoning of the city . land from Public Use to nine residential. homes at 19848 Prospect Road that is referred to as the North Campus. First, we are deeply concerned that you are viewing this change as a "one-off', isolated consideration of land use for a specific location. It is much more appropriate to view this in the context of use of TOTAL SARATOGA COMMUNITY property. ALL citizens of Saratoga are affected by the proposed elimination of the last large property that can be used for community purposes. Land Use Planning ' The statement states the proposed changes are consistent with the existing housing in this area and therefore there are no impacts. We disagree as this implies there are no problems when there is over zoning for housing and under zoning for other community facilities. This imbalance needs to be reconsidered. Public Services This site is physically separated from the residential houses nearby and faces on a main road and with no nearby parks. If this project is approved as planed one of the lots in the front should be used as a mini park/ open space for the residents and for a positive City appearance along Prospect Road, a major thoroughfare. Recreation We disagree there is not a significant impact on recreation. All of Saratoga has a shortage of recreation/community center facilities and there are no facilities in the north and east especially from Pierce Road and Cox to Prospect. There are only neighborhood parks in this area and they are not as suitable for a community center as the Prospect Road site. Please consider: 1.. The city officials have stated publicly there has been a shortage of recreational/community facilities in Saratoga for many years and the needs are increasing. 2. There are no recreation/community center facilities in the north and east sections of Saratoga. The City's Negative Declaration, itself, states that areas near the proposed development are short of recreation and open space facilities. ,~y 3. The payment of a fee to the City in lieu of dedicating land for recreation/community center will not alleviate the need for recreation/community center on other projects. Transportation and Traffic This Prospect Road site is on a main thoroughfare that can easily handle an increase in traffic. However, by not using the site as a community center, it will dramatically increase the future use at the Saratoga Civic Center on Allendale and aggravate these problems at the existing facilities. The existing facilities are located on a dead-end street and surrounded by West Valley College, a middle school, Post Office, Library, City Government Offices, and two nearby churches. Traffic, parking and transportation there are already serious problems. The Prospect site with its extensive parking would also reduce the parking and the traffic problems at the Civic Center. General Please note that this is the last major city property that can be used for public purposes outside of building on city parks. To rezone this property for more housing does not meet the long range planning needs of the city. On this basis we ask that you deny this negative impact due to the issues cited. Next, we ask the City Council to immediately conduct an assessment of current and long range community land needs of all types and prepare a Strategic Community Facility plan for the City consisting of a citizens' committee and a professional city planning consultant. Please seriously consider these points in your deliberations before you proceed. Sin ely ~m-~..I~ J ck Mallory, Chairm cc Please distribute copies to the Planning Commissioners / ~D • ' Attachment 7 /~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~~ ~'« .- ~ /7in /G~~ ,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 City Council on the ~ t~ day of ~C 70~ r 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 re aid addressed to the followin ersons at the addresses shown, to-wit: P P ~ gp (See list attached. hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice.of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to/-the addresses shown above. ~~~ Signed ~~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26t'' day of October 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at ~vww.sarato a.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 05-179 (386-26-070 & 071) CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Road; -The Applicant is requesting a Tentative Map Subdivision, General Plan Amendment from a Quasi Public Facility to Medium Density Residential, General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal; and Mitigated Negative Declaration, to demolish the existing church facility and replace it with 9 single family residential lots. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission s information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you .believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. s John F. Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director 408.868.1231 ~~ 373 12 001. 373 12 002 Charles & Paige Simpson Kathryn Kay 1027 Jacqueline Way 5092 Durban Ct San Jose, CA 95129-2826 ; : San Jose, CA 95138-2100 373 12 004. 373 12 015 Chih--Ming Chang ~ Ryszard & Stephanie Janowski 1640 Clarkspur Ln ~ 6546 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3804 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3801 ;: 373 12 020 ~ 373 12 036 Bhupinder ~t Chetna Ahuja Glenn Lai 6514 Bibel Ave ~ 6492 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3801 San Jose, CA 95129-3900 373 12 043 373 12 044 Sanjay & Nagavarapu Usha Pujare Jianhua Huang 6449 Prospect Rd 6471 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 047 ~ ~ 373 12 048 Ching-Lung LoJeff Norma Buford 6515 Prospect Rd ~ 6537 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3841 ~: 373 12 O50 ~ ' 373 12 051 Stephen S K & Malinda Chan Zong 8c Sun Qi Ling 6567 Prospect Rd ' ' 6574 IvgLn San Jose, CA 95129-3841 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 053 373 12 054 Avrahatn & Dahlia Perahia Sam Liang 6548 Ivy Ln `: 6538 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 056 ~ 373 12 057 Jiangxu 8c Sun Xian Xiang Hui-Chen Kuo 6525 Ivy Ln ~ ~ 6537 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129 San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 12 059 ~ 373 12 060 Visvanathan Cranapathy Li Hwa Lin 6563 Ivy Ln ' ~ 6575 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 037 373 13 038 Gary & Sandra Schoenfeld ~ Cheng Hu 1673 Ardenwood Dr 1519 Noriega St San Jose, CA 95129-3856 San Francisco, CA 94122-4433 I 37312 003 Michael & Hsiao Lei Lee 1648 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3804 373 12 017 Ellen Oleary 6530 Bibel Ave ! ' San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 037 Joseph 8t Young Park 6470 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3900 • 373 12 045 Ralph & Elaine Chambers 6493 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 :; 373 12 049 Charles & Margaret Ting 6545 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 052 Min-Chun Tsai 6562 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 055 Mansop Hahn 12904 SE 45th Ln Bellevue, WA 98006-2038 373 12 058 "; Hueichian & Chen Nanning Huang 6549 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 036 Hung-Lin Hsu- ! 1665 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 373 13 039 William & Christine Munson 1693 Ardenwood Dr . • • San Jose, CA 95129-3856 ~ ~ ,/ 13 040 i i i 373 13 041 373 13 042 ~ Jim W ~ . a James Dozier I.a Agua Ct 210 e Fce Dr ~ ~ 7510 D 180 2nd St Morgan Hill, CA 95037-5634 Cupertino, CA 95014-4307 Los Altos, CA 94022-2821 373 13 043 ~ 373 13 044 373 13 067 Kerning Wang Wilhelm & Marianne Grotheer Sze Ming Lum 1652 Ardenwood Dr 1644 Ardenwood Dr 1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3855 ~ ° San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373.13 068 ~ 373 13 069 ~ 373 13 070 Nancy Anderson William & Sonja Watson Jr. ~ Li-Jen & Chun-Juan Tseng 13561 Lomond Ct 1649 Daphne Dr ~ 6690 Ivy Ln Saratoga, CA 95070-5414 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3813 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 071 373 13 072 373 13 073 William Kahn Andrew Hsiang ~ Richard & Helen Bailey 6670 Ivy Ln 66501vy Ln ~ 6630 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 San Jose, CA 95129-3839 San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 074 373 13 075 ~ 373 13 076 Tolvanen ~ Kui Yau ~ ' Dennis Rust 0 Ivy Ln : 1669 Clarhspur Ln 6631 Prospect ltd an Jose, CA 95129-3839 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3805 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 077 ,. ~ : 373 13 078 373 13 079 William & Lynn Rothwein Venu 8c Smitha Varma Ranjit John 6645 Prospect Rd 6661 Prospect Rd 6675 Prospect ltd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 080 373 13 081 373 13 082 Hongbo & Wang Xiaorui Tang Miranda Amitava Choudhuri 6691 Prospect Rd 206 Thomas Dr 6697 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 Los Gatos, CA 95032-4038 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 14 001 ~ ' 373 14 002 373 14 053 . Margaret Scardigli ~ ~ Brian & Amanda Aberg Simon & Tsai Hwie Chen 1638 Daphne Dr ~ 1628 Daphne Dr 1639 Clarlsspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3812 San Jose, CA 95129-3812 San Jose, CA 95129-3805 373 14 054 ; . 386 26 001 386 26 002 Whan Soo & Eun Sim Kang Glenford Dennee Jr. Kelvin & Susan Kiev 647 Clarkspur Ln 2265 El Camino Real #3 12031 Saraglen Dr Jose, CA 95129-3805 Santa Clara, CA 95050-4064 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 003 386 26 004 ~ 386 26 005 Paul & Sandra Eovino Louis Tseng , John & Jia-Ning Chen 12045 Saraglen Dr 12061 Saraglen Dr 12075 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ~,(~ 386 26 006 . Blane & Barbara Eisenberg 12091 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 009 Ahmed & Asna Masood 12135 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 032 Robert Guowei & Wang Xiuzhen Xu 12150 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 035 Stan 8t Barbara Stewart 12100 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 038 Jui Nung & Ma I Kuang Wang 12121 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26.041 Eugene & June Levitre 12201 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 386 26 049 Jonathan & Suzanne Owens 19830 pakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 26 052 Anthony Hei Leung Huang 12150 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 386 26 055 Ira & Susan Kaye 19830 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 058 Lars Majlof 19861 Yewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 007 Harry 8t Phyllis Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 010 Richard & Sonya D'Sa ;. 12151 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 033 Nansen D'Sa 12149 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 036 ~: Steve B Pratt 19920 Viewridge Dr ' . Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 039 Y R & Lillian Koda 12141 Vewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 042 Stephen & Rose Horvath 259 Belvue Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032-5003 386 26 050 Richard & Elizabeth Machado ' 19831 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 053 Willis & Liliana McCarthy 12120 Vewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 ' 386 26 056 Hsien-Jywan & Hwu Der Fen Ko 19831 V ewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 059 William &c Norma Ford 19905 vevvridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 386 26 008 Sugimoto Jones 12121 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 031 Sungsun & Diane Choi 12180 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 034 Richard & Dorothy Dorsay ' 12120 Sarrglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 037 Peter Leeb 19910 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 040 Girardot 12161 vewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 048 Javad Khakbaz 19840 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 26 051 Shao Kang Tan 19845 Oalchaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 054 Marvin & Susan Cohn 19840 vewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 057 Graham Mostyn 19845 vewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 060 Maria Continillo 19911 vewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 • • ~~~ 26 061 • 386 26 062 I 386 26 063 nstantinos & Serraiocco Gina Haritos ~ Gary & Drummond Dee Carlson John & Kathleen Haleblian 19921 Viewridge Dr ~ . 12070 Saraglen Dr 12044 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3226 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 064 386 26 065 ~ 386 26 066 Sam 8t Muffie Ochi Ram Bapu ~ Chandrasekha & Sujatha Bodapati 19920 Saraglen Ct ~ : ' 19910 Saraglen Ct i 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 ~: 386 26 067 386 26 068 ~ : 386 26 069 Dennis Lyden Bernard & Eliabeth Sievers ~ ' Raymond Tankersley 19911 Saraglen Ct ~ 19921 Saraglen Ct ~ 12010 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 ~ ' Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3219 ~. 386 26 070 386 37 001 ~ 386 37 002 ~ CITY OF SARATOGA Yao Chang James & Marsha Patterson 13777 Fnritvale Ave 19771 Colby Ct i 19783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37003 386 37 004 ~ 386 37 005 'ce Hayward ~ ; Khoo Lung Wen & Siu Lan Wang 95 Colby Ct ~ ~ 19807 Colby Ct ~ 19819 Colby Ct aratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~, ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 006 386 37 007 386 37 008 David & Bennadette Wyandt Roger & Mary Piazza Alton & Carmen Anderson 19827 Colby Ct 19828 Colby Ct ~ 19816 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 009 386 37 010 386 37 011 Lily & pascal Chen C L & Helen Lott Lingxiong & Ding Ying Shao 3 Ling yi St 4f Lane 8 19825 Viewridge Dr 19786 Colby Ct Taipei, Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 012 386 37 013 386 37 014 Louis & Bernice Degive ~ Griffith & Lois Brown Klein Kao 19774 Colby Ct ~ 19773 V ewridge Dr ~ 19785 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~ . Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386.37 015 386 37 016 386 37 017 Thomas & Katherine Maier Robert & Bonnie Lind Chung Ho & Chen-Huii Fan 19797 Vewridge Dr 19809 vewridge Dr 19815 vewridge Dr • toga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 018 386 37 019 ~ 386 37 020 Thomas & Dianna Saari Helen Lott Brian & Hang Scei-Shin Shing 19823• V ewridge Dr 19824 V ewridge Dr 19816 V ewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 • , 386 37 021 I I i i 386 37 022 86 37 023 Warren Uchimoto Chung C T & Mel-Ping Loan Norma Montgomery Rayl 19808 Viewridge Dr ~ 19796 Viewridge Dr 19784 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 ~. Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 024 386 37 025 386 37 026 Kuang-Yu Wang Wen Chung Liou Alfred & Marlene Kass 19772 Viewridge Dr 19775 Oakhaven Dr ~ 19787 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 027 .~ ~ 386 37 028 ~ . 386 37 029 Dean & Lucille Antonelli ~ Guy & Nancy Robby Durga & Raj Agarwal 19799 Oakhaven Dr 19805 Oakhaven Dr ; 19817 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 ; Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 030 386 37 031 ~ 386 37 032 Pamela Parker Terry Teruo & Yoko Linda Matsumoto Gary Kramp 19825 Oakhaven Dr 19826 Oakhaven Dr Psc 45 #764 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 '. Apo, AE 09468-0764 386 37 033 ~ 386 37 034 ~ . 386 37 035 Ju & Janet Shen Susan Lofelmaker ~ George & Frances Scuffos ~ 14638 Aloha Ave 19796 Oakhaven Dr 19784 Oakhaven Dr i Saratoga, CA 95070-6004 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 1 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 48 021 SCVWD Saratoga, CA 95070 l log 'Jam and Smudge Free Printing ~ ~ vrww.averycom ' Q AyERy® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 12 001 ~ ~ ` 373 12 002 373 12 003 ~upant At ~ Occupant At `Occupant At 6585 Prospect Rd ~ ~ .6590 Ivy Ln 1648 Clarlcspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3841 i -San Jose, CA 95129-3837 `. ' San Jose, CA 95129-3804 _..... 373 12004- . _ ~ 373 12 015 ~ 373 12 017 Occupant Ai ;Occupant At ;Occupant At 1640 Clarkspur Ln 6546 Babel Ave i 6530 Bbel Ave Saa Jose, CA 95129-3804 ~ ~ ;San Jose, CA 95129-3801 -San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 020 ~ ~ 373 12 036 373 12 037 Occupant At ~ ~ Occupant At ~ Occupant At 6514 Babel Ave '6492 Ivy I.n ~ 6470 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3801 .' San Jose, CA 95129-3900 i ~ -San Jose, CA 9$129-3900 373 12043 ~ 373 12 044 ; 373 12 045 Occupant At ; :Occupant At ,Occupant At 6449 prospect Rd ~ 6471 Prospect Rd I '6493 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 ~ ! 'San Jose, CA 95129-3840 i San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 047 ~ _ i ' .373 12 048 - - ~ 373 12 049 ant At 'Occupant At ;Occupant At Prospect Rd ' ~ 6537 Prospect Rd ' 6545 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841. ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3841 ~ ~ -San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 050 ~ . ~. ~ :373 12 051 .II , :373 12 052 Occupant At ; ~ 'Occupant At ~ ~ Occupant At 6567 Prospect Rd- ~ 6574 Ivy Ln ~ :6562 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3841 ~ :San Jose, CA 95129-3837 San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 053 ~ :373 12 054 ' 373 12 055 Occupant At ' ~ :Occupant At ' ~ Occupant At 6548 Ivy Ln ? ~ 6538 Ivy Ln 6524 Ivy Ln . Saa Jose, CA 95129-3837 ~ ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3837 ' ' San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 056 ~ ~ ~ 373 12 057 ; -373 12 058 occupant At ` i 'Occupant At ,Occupant At 1525 Ivy Ln (No Mail) ~ 6537 Ivy Ln ; :6549 Ivy Ln tan Jose, CA 95129-3838 ~ 'San Jose, CA 95129-3838 ~. ; :San Jose, CA 95129-3838 ,: i73 12 059 i ::373 12 060 '373 13 036 )ccupant At ; ~ (Occupant At ~ Occupant At Ivy I,n ~ ~ :6575 Ivy Ln ' ! ~ 1665 Ardenwood Dr ose, CA 95129-3838 ~ :San Jose, CA 95129-3838 '" ;~~ ~ :San Jose, CA 95129-3856 is 73 13 037 ' ~ ;373 13 038 ~ 373 13 039 )ccupant At ' :Occupant At ,Occupant At 673 Ardenwood Dr i ~ ;1679 Ardenwood Dr , -1693 Ardenwood Dr / an Jose, CA 95129-3856 ~ 'San Jose, CA 95129-3856 I i San Jose, CA 95129-3856 Jam and Smudge Free Printing ~ www.averycom ' Q AVERY® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~ ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY _.. 373 13 040 ~ ~ 373 13 041 ~ 373 13 042 r~ Occupant At ! ~ Occupant At ~ Occupant At 1678 Ardenwood Dr ~ :1672 Ardenwood Dr ; :1664 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 ~ ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3855 i ;'San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 043 . i ' ' 373 13 044 i• ~ i ; 373 13 067 Occupant At ~ ~ Occupant At ~ ~ Occupant At 1652 Ardenwood Dr ~ '' 1644 Ardenwood Dr ' i .1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 ': i ;San Jose, CA 95129-3855 ` ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3813 ` i Ii, ~ _ iI: 373 13 068 ' , ; 373 13 069 i ~ 373 13 070 Occupant At ~ ;Occupant At ~ ~ ;Occupant At ' 1639 Daphne Dr ~ i :1649 Daphne Dr ; ' 6690 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3813 .i San Jose, CA -95129-3813 I ;San Jose, CA 95129-3839 . I 373 13 071 373 13 072 i 373 13 073 Occupant At i ;Occupant At ~ ;Occupant At 6670 Ivy Ln ~ 16650 Ivy Ln i ' 6630 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 ~ ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3839 !San Jose, CA 95129-3839 ~. 373 13 074 -I I ' 1373 13 075 '::373 13 076 Occupant At Occupant At ~ ~ Occupant At •~ 6610 Ivy Ln i :1669 Clarkspur Ln [ ~ 6631 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3839 , San Jose, CA 95129-3805 ' ;San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 077 -,i ..373 13 078 _ i ! -373 13 079 Occupant At ~' ~ Occupant At ' ;Occupant At 6645 Prospect Rd 6661 Prospect Rd ~ 6675 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 `San Jose, CA 95129-3842 I i -San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 080 ~ 37313 081 373 13 082 Occupant At ' :Occupant At ;Occupant At 6691 Prospect Rd 6695 Prospect Rd ; 6697 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 'San Jose, CA 95129-3842 ;San Jose, CA 95129-3842 _ ,ii i . 373 14 001 ' i '373 14002 .:373 14 053 Occupant At I ; Occupant At ~ ! Occupant At 1638 Daphne Dr ' . ;1628 Daphne Dr i -1639 Clarkspur Ln ~• San Jose, CA 95129-3812 i San Jose, CA 95129-3812 !San Jose, CA 95129-3805 i 373 14 054 ' ~ 386 26 001 ~ 386 26 002 occupant At Occupant At 'Occupant At 1647 Clarkspur Ln ; -12011 Saraglen Dr :12031 Saraglen Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3805 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 i ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 _ •86 26 003 386 26 004 ; 386 26 005 )ccupant At 'Occupant At i Occupant At 1 ~ Q 2045 Saraglen Dr :12061 Saraglen Dr ! 12075 Saraglen Dr / :arnrnoa_ ca 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 i Saratoga. CA 95070-3218 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avety® TEMPLATE 5160® -26.006 aat At 12091 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3218 386 26 009 Occupant At . 12135 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3220 386 26 032 Occupant At 12150 Saraglen Dr Saratoga,. CA 95070.3221 386 26035 Occupant At 12100 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3221 386.26 038 t At 1 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 041 Occupant At 12201 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 38626 049 Occupant At 19830 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3214 386 26 052 occupant At 12150 Viewoak Dr iaratoga, CA 95070-3233 186 26 055 )ccupantAt Viewridge Dr ga, CA 95070-3205 86 26 058 )ccupant At 9861 Viewridge Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~ www.averycom - ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY I ~ .386 26 007 Occupant At ;12105 Saraglen Dr (No Mail ) Saratoga, CA 95070.3220 ~.~ 386 26 010 ;Occupant At 12151 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 ~. ; ; -~- ' 386 26 033 ` Occupant At 12140 Saraglen Dr ~ ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 X386 26 036 :Occupant At 19920 Viewridge l?r Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 ~~ _,~`. ~ 386 26 039 Occupant At ~ :12141 Viewoak Dr ~ ` Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 !! ;: .II 386 26 042 Occupant At :12221 Viewoak Dr !Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 I I '386 26 050 `Occupant At ! ' 19831 Oakhaven Dr :Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 ~' ;386 26 053 :Occupant At 12120 Viewoak Dr ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 ~:~ 386 26 056 1';Occupant At :19831 Viewridge Dr -Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 059 :Occupant At -19905 Viewridge Dr '. ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 0 AVERY®s16o® 386 26 008 ' Occupant At :.12121 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 031 Occupant At .12180 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3221 386 26 034 Occupant At 12120 Saraglen Dr (No Mail ) :Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 037 Occupant At 19910 Viewridge Dr 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 ,~ :386 26 040 Occupant At 12161 Viewoak Dr ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 :: 386 26 048 . Occupant At 19840 Oakhaven Dr ;Saratoga, CA 95070-32.14 -386 26 051 Occupant At :19845 Oakhaven Dr :Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 054 'Occupant At '. ~ _19840 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 '386 26 057 Occupant At 19845 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 060 Occupant At -19911 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 /'~I Impression antibourrage et 6 sec~tage rapids ~ wrww.averycom ~ ANERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 26061.: ! 386 26 062 Occupant At Occupant At 19921 Viewridge Dr 12070 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3226 386 26 064- Occupant At . 19920 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 067 Occupant At . 19911 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 065 Occupant At 19910 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 :386 26 068 Occupant At 19921 Saraglen Ct . 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 070 Occupant At 19848 Prospect Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-3229 386 37 003 Occupant At 19795 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 006 Occupant At 19827 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA. 95070-3202 386 37009 Occupant At 19804 Colby Ct . Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 012 Jccupant At 19774 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 186 37 015 )ccupant At .9797 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 001 :Occupant At 19771 Colby Ct ' Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 004 ' . Occupant At 19807 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 007 ' 'Occupant At 19828 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 010 Occupant At . -19798 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 .i. 386 37 013 Occupant At :19773 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 .. 386 37 016 Occupant At 19809 Viewridge Dr ' ' Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 ':386 26 063 Occupant At 12044 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 066 Occupant At 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 069 ;Occupant At 12010 Saraglen 1)r Saratoga, CA 95070-3219 i . ~ 386 37002 Occupant At i .:19783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 .386 37 005 :Occupant At 19819 Colby Ct 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~. :386 37 008 Occupant At :19816 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 :386 37 011 Occupant At 19786 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 :.386 37 014 ' :Occupant At 19785 Viewridge Dr " .Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 :386 37 017 Occupant At ' ' 19815 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 86 37 018 386 37 019 386 37 020 )ccupant At ~ 'Occupant At Occupant At 9823 Viewridge Dr ~ : 19824 Viewridge Dr ' 19816 Viewridge ]Jr aratoga, CA 95070-3236 :Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 ,~ L7 1~~ Impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ www.averymm ~ AVErjY~ 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 7 021 386 37 022 386 37 023 ~ pant At Occupant At Occupant At 19808 Viewridge Dr 19796 Viewridge Dr 19784 Viewridge Dr iaratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 s86 37 024 386 37 025 386 37 026 occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19772 Viewridge Dr 19775 Oakhaven Dr 19787 Oalchaven Dr ;aratoga, CA 95070-3205 ~ ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 X86 37 027 ' :386 37 028 ~ .386 37 029 kcupant At ~ Occupant At Occupant At 9799 Oakhaven Dr 19805 Oalchaven l}r 19817 Oakhaven Dr . -aratoga, CA 95070-3213 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 . ; ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 . •86 37 030 ;386 37 031 '386 37 032 )ccupant At ' ;Occupant At 'Occupant At 9825 Oakhaven Dr (No Mail) ~ ' 19826 Oalchaven Dr ' ~ 19814 Oalchaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 : 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 ~86 37 033 386 37 034 386 37 035 ant At ~ ~ Occupant At :Occupant At 8 Oakhaven Dr 19796 Oakhaven Dr 19784 Oalchaven Dr toga, CA 95070-3214 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 . 86 48 021 )ccupant At - no Site Address* CA ~1~ l._J 1 ~~ ~. ~j , ~. Santa Clara County Fire Dept. (4700 Winchester Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95030 West Valley Sanitation District (00 East Sunnyvale Avenue ~ampbell, CA 95008 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 ATTN: Julie Render SCC Dept. of Environmental Health P.O. Box 26070 San Jose, CA 95159-6070 ATTN: Kurt Fisher, REHS California Dept. of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Pacific Gas and Electric San Jose Land Rights Office 111 Almaden Blvd., Room 814 San Jose, CA 95115 San Jose Water Company 1221 South Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Cupertino Union School District 10301 Vista Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 s l ~'`~ Imeression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utillsez"le gabarit 5160® of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 • • ~ www.averycom ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY City of-San Jose Plan Implementation Division 200 E. Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113-1905 Q AVER'1(® 5160® City of Cupertino Sheriff's Office 160ll S. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 ~~~ Marty Oakley Design Build 20840 Beauchamps Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 CorinazDel Pozzo ROEM Corporation 1650 Lafayette Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 Scott Sheldon Premier Commercial Inc. 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300 Fairfield, CA 94534 Terence Szewczyk TS /Civil Engineering 1776 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110 Andrew Barnes 14377 Oldwood Road Saratoga, CA 95070 -~ N "t ~ ~ ~s Z LSD pp~-V~-'~.i ~S L'l s ~ William Bean Meir Levi 21388 Sarahills Road Shoreline Commercial Real Saratoga, CA 95070 EstatePO Box 3748 Sazatoga, CA 95070 Lea Ann Hernandez Coldwell Banker 12029 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Sazatoga, CA 95070 Reberta Savage Village Square Realty 515 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030. Salim Sagarchi S.E.I. 495 E. Browkaw Road, #F San Jose, CA 95112 Tim Nieuwsma Synergy 900 E. Hamilton, Suite 100 Campbell, CA 95008 • • • Leona Fong 19466 Burgundy Way Saratoga, CA 95070 • Backer Navid Navico, Inc. 20480 Blauer Drive, Suite A Sazatoga, CA 95070 Charles Butterfield Butterfield Real Estate 2470 Winchester Blvd, Suite A Campbell, CA 95008 ~~~ f Clare McBride Louis Plegive Fran Colletti 5 E. Brokaw Rd., #F 19774 Colby Ct. 12185 Terrence Ave. an Jose, CA 95113 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dave & Beinie Wyandt Gene Golobic Norman & Marlene Siegler 19827 Colby Ct. 12336 Terrence Ave. 20743 Seaton Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Terry Martin Bill Sheridan Pam Khoo 45 E. Main St., #B 19766 Elisa Ave. 19807 Colby Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Bill & Norma Ford Joann & Roger Piazza Jack Tolvanen 19905 Viewridge Dr. Colby Ct. 6610 Ivy Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 San Jose, CA 95129 Matt Lavender Kaustuv Basu Barry Wilbanks 1650 Lafayette St. 245 Almendra Avenue 800 El Camino Real, 3rd Floor ~nta Clara, CA 95050 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Menlo Park, CA 94025 • ' ~~ • Jam arcd Smudge Free Printing ~ vwvw.averycan: ~ gVERI~® 51601 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY _- . Native American Heritage Commission ' ~ Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan 915 Capitol Mall, Room #364 ; Valentin Lopez, Chairperson ~ Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Sacramento, CA -95814 3095 Eastern Avenue P.O. Box 28 ATTN: Rob Wood Sacramento, CA 95821 Hollister, CA 95024 i ' Trina Marine Ruano Family The Ohlone Indian Tribe Ella Rodriguez Ramona Garibay, Representative ~ Andrew A. Galvan P.O. Box 1411 36423 Peugeot Place ~ P.O. Box 3152 Salinas, CA 93902 ' ' Newark, CA 94560 ~ ' ' Mission San Jose, CA 94539 Amah/MutsunTribalBand ~i Muwekma Indian Tribe Irene Zwierlein, Chair Rosemary Cambra, Chair 789 Canada Rd P.O. Box 360791 Woodside, CA 94062 Milpitas, CA 95036 ~: ~' . !i ~ ~; is ~: ;:. ~; ' i I I. . ;; ,~ i~ i; -i I : ; ~~~ • • Attachment 8 1 ~"~ 0 ~ O ~W~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ o o ~ d~. ~ <o ~~~~ ~ ~~~ 00 N~~ o ~" o~ ~ t7 N ~ ~ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ y 00 00 b O C~ y O d y O G~ G~ ~ ~z ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ bid ~ d ~ b ~ ~ O 7d y y y O O y O G~ d b 0 .y ~d r z • • ~ ~d ...~ ~ H by ~'~ ~~~ y ~ ~ ~ ~C,~v,'HH Q v, ~ ~ ~ cn TJ ~ O p„ O ~ CD ~ ~Ny~' ~ ~ v' O Spy ~ ~ ~' Q. ~ • '~. f""D "~ vA~i 'd ~ N a ~. O CD Q. ~ n .'3 b ~ ~ CD ~ ~"~' ,n~. ~ n .•s ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ o o ~ CD a~ ~~ ~, ~~ g ~• ~ ~ ~ as a~~.ti ~ i ~~ a'~v~ ~ ~ ~' cG o ~.. A.. o co . ~ co ~ b o ~. ~ ~ ~, a ~ ~ n ,~ a ~ ~ ~• ~ _ c .... c~ ~ ~. ~ ~ • cv ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o k d ~ ~ a '~ ~ o ~• 'ts ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ "' a, a O N O ~ `~ ~ ~ O ~.. ... cD ~ ~ ~ • z ~ a ~ ~ '~ C~9 Q' CD O\ v~ A ~', cD O .+. O' n ~. = O ~ O `~ ~ '-* ~ ~'-'~~• k vii O ~J~O~ UQ O ~. '~ ~ ~-. ~--~ CT' P~ N vOi pOq vow ~, ~~ ~ ~~ _ << ~ *' ~ a o ~ '"' ~ ... cn ~ ~ cr ~ ~ ° °Q ~ °~ ~ ~ C~ o ~ '~~ N n U~Q vii N ~ ^ p~ ~s vOi O ~ N ~O-h ~ N ~ ~' iOh A~ O ~ < O `< n ~ O . ''d O "Y ~-. C1 O r~• i~t CD CD n nom... ~ ~ ~ ~ go ~ `d o o ~ ~ ~ a o ~- ~ ~' cu ~' a i ~~ N ~ cu C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C c~ n a o m a ~ < ~O o '~' 'r1 cu Y . ~o v, ,Y ~ ~ ~ cu ~ w '' ~ r; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •° oq ~, •° ~ ~ ~' ~ cu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A A . ,~ ~ ~ O O 'C ~ X 0 0 G ti O~ ,.~ n ~ (D ~ cD A~ y n' ~ ~ ~" a ~, aY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oa co ~ ,~ ~ co ~' '~ ° ~ p, _ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ m ~ n ~. o ,~ ~ ~ , v a ~ co ~ ~ ~ .Ay .•-' (D `C3 ° ` ~ ~' CD ~ ° ° r-y .D v~ co ~ °' A~ ~ ~ '"'. O C ~ ~ o ~ a (D ~ ~ v~ ~ ' a a ~ o A do z z ° ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~b ~ ~~. o ~ ~ ~~ o ... ~ ~ ~ C C O ~ ~ O C O "~ A ~ O (~ n (~ ~ 'C C ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Ao ° ~ ~3 ~~'~5 4 ~ ~ ° ~ ~ `~ c ~ a ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ coc~~ ., ° A ~ ~ via c ~o ° p- cn ~ rn p~ ~ p~ ~, 0 ~• ,~ v~ . O A ~ cD ~ ~ O ~ ,_,, O ~ O (~ C • '* D y o ~ yy ~ ro ~ b y ~ F'S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • y ~ A ~ "' ~ ~ ! '~ ~ ~ ~. p O ~ p •t o a A ~o a~ w y O co `. ~ cu 'rs Y ••. o d ~: o o ~ a' ~' ~ Y ~ ar4 • . . ~ o o o' ° ao o ~°,~, ° ~ ~ o a a ' 5 va ~ ~ ~ = ~ o ~ w .. o y Y~• V1 y _ !~' Q a va l~~ ~W z~ '~ o C7 ~ C o ~'~' w Tj ~,•5~ roz5~~~ ~ C ~ a a 'Y O ~ cn n v~ a~ ~. ~ O ~ C R 'C7 v' .y ~ ~ c ~ r? N ~ .~ ~ >/ ~ a ~ ~ C7 0 .* ~' O O O ~ ,~ cu tP , ~ O ~ ?? ~ G. ~ G. cu O ~, a, ~' ~G A.. ~ ~ O 9 ° ?~ ~ ... n o , o ~ o o ~' ~ ~ ~. o' y~ o co ~ < ~ ~ n o ~ ~ . ~ er ~ o . .~ ~: ~ '* ora ~ ~' ~ ~ .~, a o coo °, ~'~ ~ • ~ ~' ~ ~ p, ~ ~ ~ ~ ego . , N ~ o ~ .. a' ' `~ ~ C~ ,~ y ~ ° ° o ~ ~. ~ y o °' ~ ~ ` ° ~ a.~ p O y ~ p ~ ~ . c ~ ~, I ~s o ~ ~ ao • ~ ~ ~ ~ y d a ~ y ~ ~ ' ao~ .~ °~° ~~ rn~ ~ ~Ya~,~~ cfDO a:o o o ~, cu c~~ . ~, ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ooa o ~ ~ b o .moo o r"~ o '~ ~ ~• • ~ ~' o o o o ao ~ ~ ~ 'd ~. ~ ~ ~, o ,~ ~~ ,.. dx - d o °~~ ~'~ O ~jy-I H i N v ~ O 'C ~. ."5 ~ ~ C ~' r. QQ ~ y 'LS W ~ QQ ~ M - ~ C D O A' + Q ~ ~ ~ n ~ n ~ C Ao \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° `~ ~ ~ «~ ~ ~ Sy FBI ~ ~ .~ .~. ~ [/~ r ~~~ .~ r. .-. ~ O ~ r* n c _ r~'f• a~ y 'Ll rb ~ O ~y l ~ Z1 b ~~' ~ ° ICI ~ y y r- ~ ~• ~ `~ ~r ~ r7 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~Q d R° y ~ r •r ~ rt ~ ~ C• r. ~ fD ``~ ~. ~. ~ M O ~ ~• ~ O a. ~ C7 a ~ '~ ~ ~ °' o d p o o b ~ ' • o o • o o _ ~ o ao '0 0 0 ~. ~ o vo .0 0 0 ~ CD ° ~~ o 0 0 ~ ~ °~ ~ ~. a ~ a, . ~ ~~ ~o • ~ ~ ~ ~ := c C `~ p a as l ~3 co ~-* ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-* 'C o cu an ~' ~c ~ ~ a ~ Za .c~ cu a' n 'r3 c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n m ~ o p o ~' ~-* y •~ w ~ ' ~ ~ Y ~ c o v, ~ ~ cu ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ o co w ~ ~ ''d A ~ w cu ~ n <' ~ ~ ° ,~ c w ~ ~ ~ o p. fD ~ . n ~ ° v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ° ,n ° ~' • s c o ~. c O m, ~ a ~ N a~ ° ~ ° c ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ c ~ ~ ~•~ ~ . . , . A.~° o'er ~'o c ova '" ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~• ~ a ,~ ~ d o o~ -~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~o~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ °oo ~~ 5z~~"~ ., A .~ ~.,~0 .., .,~ " O ~' ~ O ".3' O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a °~ o ~ ° ~ o ~~g~ ~ ~, o ~ ~ co p p n p ~ A O ~' . ~ ~' ~ ~ n p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~..-~ ~ Q~ tv . .. ` . ~ '-~ '~ C7 ~ ~ ~. ~ m ~. o ~ o ° ~~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ - S p-o ~ M p'~i ~ r ' CD b FPM 0 ~ y ~ y y r'S a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..y V ~ r~ ~ F' ~ Y 'y r ~ ~ A . ~ Q ~ .~, ~'S O °,~ ~ a ~ a ~ °~ a ,~ v `3 o o a ° o d ° o o h ~ ' ' ° ' ° • v a .~ c ac ~~ o o r_.. ~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° o ~ a a ' o ~ O rt D ~ A y ~ ~ a ara ,/ p ~0 7 f •~ ° o .~ ~ a' ' ~~ °.b ~ ° t/ ~-* s~ ~ c °''_' ~ o ~° a~ arc "' ~.~ ~. ~ ~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ' ~ ~ ° ~ ' ~ ~ w to °r°u ~ u, ~,~ ~ . ~ A ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ O n u ~ p ~ o ° O ° ~ ~ ~ °° 'd A ~ A. • " p ~ c , . . o n ^ ~ w n ~ ~ ~ ~' °~ c o ~ o ~ ~ • ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " o `~ ~ b o ~' ~ ~ o ~ c o ~ ~ ~ ,. 7 'C _. ~ ' ~ .b . ~ ~ "'~ :D. ~' O O a c D '~ A ~ ~ O ^ O p n ~ ,.~ O ~ ~ O ~ N O ~, n A O p' .*, Clq A • a N r C w nt' C~ ~' ~ ~ tv O sv O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' co p ~ im "t p ~ a ' x ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ o ,. v , ~ c ~. ~ n ~' Cd a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ n o ~ x ~ o a, ~ o c ' ~ tro n °" ~• fD ~ , , ~. ~ . ~ , ,.~ ~ `° ~'~ ' ~ ` ° °~.. ~ •., X05.-. co ~ ~ a ~:~ o 'er ~° ~~. ~. ~~ ?~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~,~ ~ r:~ ° ~ ~ ,~ cum N O o ~~ .r~, o ,-~ o ~.~ o ~ °•:~ a c o" ~ ~ CD ~ `° ~ `° ~ `~ tro ~ ° a°a a ° do o ~~b ~ '; ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~e ~ ~ p o ~ ~ ~ a vo ~ p G' ~ c 0 d `~ o.~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ ~~ ~ a. o ~ ~' .°~ co n ~' o ~ y ~ ' .. u o ~. ~ ~ °~ o ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ 0 w :r ~ ~ ~.tro ~ ° r. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ . ~~~~ ~ ~~ co ,~.~ Vn ~ `' ~ o p p ~-t C ~ n ~v,~~ a~ H a a: o ~ a. 0 ~ ~ ~ d arc ~ o 0 ~~ 0 o fD •"• rj C3 ~ r.. K H ~ O ~ H ~ a ac / ~ •J rn ~ ~ ° -' ~ ~ ~ o ° ~ ~ c~ ' ~, < ~ ~ ' . ~ ?' ~ ~ a ~ o ' ~;, CD ~. ~ c w ° o ~ a °~ ~ a. a~' a, ~. ~ '~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o. C o '~ ~ ~ +: ~ ~ o a ~ c o , ° Q ~ ~ ~ voa ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~, o b ~ . ~ o o p ~ x. o o c~u ~' ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ co o ?rw o.m ~, o ~ - o ~ o~o ~ ~ Sao < ~ ?*~',x~ao ~ o a c~ ~ n .ao a, ao. ~o ~~aa-~~ ~ ,,x`"30'0 ~d'~ ~'cs ~' ~~ w ~'~ ~'~ u ~ O ~ ' ~ p p O~ G. w C O~ c~ ~' ~ ~ ~ n O ' S ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ O ~ 0 ~. (~ fD ° ' '* O O ~ ~' o o ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . n'. I ~ ~' ~' 3 ~ °~ cu ' .~ . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~' b ~ .~ ~, o , p ~ ~ n r; ~ io p ~ do ~,~ ~m ~ ~ ~ A ~ Joao c v '~ ~ CD a ~' ~ `' c r- ~ e~ ~ c 0 a '~ '~ ,~ CG ~ '~ c ~ '~ ~ ~ 7d ~o ro~~`~~~b~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a' °Q a ~ ~~ ~ w ' a ~-C"C ` ~ n [77 o efl < C O ~ ~~ `~ ~ C ~t ~. ~ fD ~q .y.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ b (J r'' ~' OQ UQ q r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~~ ~o ~ '~"' A `~ y ~• I~ ~ y ~ d OQ /~~ J • •~ ~ w 9 ~ C ~ O ' ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ti ~ C. ~ ! i i ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ... w a~°.a~ ~ ~ aa•ao w x ~.~ p.o ~ ~~ o co 'mho arm ~' ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ' ° 0 ~'°~ N ~a'w a ' o ~ ~ .a. 0 ~, o ~ o ~ ~,a ~ 0 ' ~ 'C ~ ~ p. o' ~ ~ o, c~u ,~ coo ~' ~' ~ ~ '~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ p' a' ~ o o x ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ o o . c ~ $ x ~ ~. ~ n ~' ~ ~~ a.~ ~~ o •~ ~co'~u ~ p..a~.~. ~ ~~ ?r~~ w ~ `_' o ~ a. ~ a. 0 o o- c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 00 ~' S ~. ~ ~ do do o ~, ~d , ~~~ ~ c~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ;~ "~~ o TS 00 C3 00 OQ % ^+. ~ ~ ~ ~ A o O a ~ n ~ ~ w oTS o ~ c ~ ~ ~~ ~•~~'< a a, w ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~. ~ a. ~. ~ C~ e-n ~+ 0 ~ ~a'w ~ '~ a, C1 ~% ~~ o 0 0 ~ ~• a ~• n , v Cd ~' 'b n o --+ Cri ;t~ ~d ~ ~ l~ r~ ( /1 W ~"'l a ~°"°~ ~ a <~ ~ ... ~ ~ o o' -, ° ~ s 0 o da;~'° b ~ adQ;a~ ~ 3 o ~. o o ~: ~ ~: ~' 0 ~ ~ o ~~ ° ~ 00 ~~ ~ 00 ~ ~ , o va , a 0 ° ~ ~ ° o ~ ~ g ~. ~ 00 '~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~-n ~ o.. ~ Gs. ~n a ~ • ,..* N =0~ ... ??, o ~ y a o. 00 p ~O ao ~ ~ o• p O• ~ ~~ o• ~' ~ vp _^'. b p oo~ ~ io io aa ~ ~ ° w w o_ ~ n ~ w ~ ~ ~ orC t ~ ~ ~ ° a o ° ° , ~ ac ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o'~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a '-' w 'C ~ w ~ ~ ~. G ~ 'C w ai ~ ~ w o ~ :' a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ a' n o ~ ~ . 0 C ~ ~, ~ • ~ ~ "~'' a- c p, , o G. b o ~. b o ~ ~ o ~ .~., 'C v ~ ~~s ~ ~ R ~ ° d p. ~ ~ cn ~' m O ~' ~ N 't3 ~ ~ ~. ~ r* p ° ~ ~ w C , ~ c o ~ ~ v, n '"' ~ ~ w ,w~ w b K ~ f D o ~ ~ d '~ O ~ ~ o ~wi c~'o ~ p~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ '~ O ~ ~ ~ < ~ a~. cu a Q. a,rdry ~ .n ~ .~ . o O ~ ' ~ 'Y w w ~ ~ pi '-+' p ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ cND '~ `~ ~ `O N " "'~ ~ ~ OQ ~ ~, ~ ~ o•~. ~ `g~O ~ x ~' ~' ~ ~ ate' ew-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (7 ~. ~ 'fi't d O d O ~ ~ M ~ C ~ < ~ / A''~ 'p ~ (D ~ N ~n ~ A p `< "~ U~Q 'd O~Q ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ _ . .. ° A7 f`D ~ ": ~-. `~ '~ w `~ O a ~ i--i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `b C/~ ,~ r . y o ~. ~ ~ M ~ A~ O ~ „may, ~ ' vi. ~ CD w. ~ b cu b n b ~ ~ ~ ~. . o o a o _. .-.. ~ ~ " ~ n O Cf O p ~ ~ ~ n y CD Q ~ Q 0 ~ + ~ y UQ dQ y ~ . ~ . y ~ A QQ ° r~ ( p ~ / CD ~• '~ ' A ~~ ~ ~ ~ a o o d~ c° ~ ~ d o~ _. ~ °~ ~ a~ ~a '~ ~ o.~~o.~~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ `~ p p - w v d ~ 0 ~ ° ^ . y ~ ~ ° y '.3 .`J a ara ~~~ • s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ C ~~ phi ~ ~ (~D ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' n O. ~ N p ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ A ~ ~ vii ~ ~' ~ "~' ~ N ~ n ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ai N ,~ .' ~ (~D (D ~ 't3 ~ . ..a .~.. ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~~~as ~ p o ~' co ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~< ~ ~ o ~ ~ co o ~ ° ~' ° ° ~ o u ~ ~' ° a° ~' ao c o ~ o ~•~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o < --~ • ~ ° °* ~ a ~'~'-' ''y ~ ~ CD w v, ~ ~ '-' ~ a ~ o a ~ ~ ?r ~ ~ f , ~ ~~ ~ m h . ~ ~n ~-• ~ i c o ~ o 0 0 ce " ~ / C ~ i r~ ~Cy 1~ r ~ O fD , O ~..h .~ ~, ~ ~.t A~ e=. CD ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ N N ~ v~ Q' q ~~ ~ ~ `G' `.~. A i -. ~ ^.t ."~ 'C ~ ~ ~ .'Y ~ ~ -' ",..5' ~ C D N O b ~'h ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ cu ~ ~' C ~ 7C' ~ ~ O y ~ O G ~ ~' ~ `~ '" ~ dx ~ °~ b ~ y b ~ • ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a a o~_ ~~ go o .~ ~~~~~~~~ ~`~°~ ~~~ ~ x ~ b ' ~ ~ ~ c m ~ ~ b ~' ~ b ro ~ ~'C o ~ b ~ ~ . ~ d io ~ ~ ~• ~ ~. ~ a. ~ c°~ ~ i ~'a~ ~~~ ' ~ Y cu n r* ~, CD ' •'~ w ~ ~ ° a • ~ ~ n '. ~ ° ~" rd 'Cj ~ ~ "~ ~ r ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O • ~ ~D aq -`n.. U~ ~ ~• ~ ",~ e~ fD O ° .~ ^! o ~ ~ ~ cau '•~ p% H o ~ d a: o o ~ ' ° ~ r'~.~ ~: 'a ~ ~ ' v a ~. o o ~ o ~ ~ c "' ~ ~ 0 a. ~~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ o ~ y ~, O ~ to ~. O. OQ i~9 0 °o ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~- u ~ p'o'i ~•~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a'o ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ .fl n A. ~ o a. x ~ ~ ~ ~.'~ ~ 5 ~ • ~ o -~ ~ cu ~ ~ vo , ao a, ~ ~ a c o ~ ~ o O ~ ~ . a ~ c ~ ~ c,~u O ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ C co O ~. p ~ o w ~ ~ ~, co ~ w ,~ ~- . V ~ ~ ' ~ ~ A.. ~ c~ ~a~, ~ v ~ • ~ v' '~ ~' cc ~ G O ""' ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ O ~ • `O ~ O N O b~ O O O ~ ~ m• ~ vv~i ~ C O ~ co ~ ~ O ~n ~-~•, ,~ O ~ ~ ~, S b ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~+ ~ i'h ~ y "S ~ O °' ~ a , _ a ~* ~' 0 c a `~ e~ o. 0 H F~ ~ C. b ~ ~ D b f ~•~ y ~Q ~ ~. K ~ ~ 0 ~ ~3 ~ ~ O .. °ti . :: ~• y ~ ~ H a oa /9~ J • ~ ~ a'r* ~ap~ •-3 yc 'cs a~ ~ ~'~ na-'b~~ ~ ~ o Y ~ ~ cu a .~ o ~ ~ a ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~. ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~• ... ro~ ~ z~' o ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ e ~.~° ~ r°, CD~ ~ ~~co o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ G p, r~i, ~ ~ ,~ CD ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p co v, ~ ~ ~ c o ~ ~ `D ~ ~ ~ m ~ o~ o.(~~ `C a' ' O ~ o ~ ~ 5•~ a, o ~ r. ~ ' o ar a 0 n O N ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~'. V] tri ~ ~ c '+ O dq A o" ~ ~ ° O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tzi ~ n CD c7 o ~ a O 7s' G ~. ~ A Z A ~-. K ~ cD ~ '~ , cu ..~ ~ ~ A ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ ,-~ o ~, . N ~, ~ ~ A o ~ ~ o p- ~ €~ ~ ~ ~ • o ~ ~. `< ° w dx dx °~~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~o ~, goo ~, ~.. pj O " O pj '. A . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O A' !* A ~ ~ ~ C .~ p- ~ . ~ ~ ~ • . O y ., o ~ ~ ~ o'~ • o C o ~~ < c ... ~ o a a . ~ o ' ~s ~' ~ •o ~ ~ o `< ~ p; o as ~ a ro o ~ ... y o ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ d ~ o • o ~ ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C o c ~ O ~• Vn O~ O• O 0 n ~ v' ~' C Or~ y' ~ ~ °' o o ~ o ~. ~ o ~ o n ao ~ ~ '' co a~ ao o o ,~ c o ~ ~ ~ G O ~ -• o ~ ~ ~ ~, -. y ~ ~ ~ H .~ a ara l9~ N ,~ cu c, ~,~ro c.y ~ ~ 5'do~ ~ ~o ~C7 ~ C7 ,~„ O r. C O G. ~ ~ N ~ O p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co co ... o ~ '~ o _ ~ ~~ o °. p; w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~.va ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a `D c o c o• n ~ u ~. ~ o' ~, ~• `° p- o• ~ o. ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w O ~ ~ a' ~ p' O A.. ~ N ~ O ~ C7 Q ~ O~ o ~ p ~ ,~ ~ 0 .~ ~' . u c ~ , ~ ~ o ~ A. ~ w a o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ p- ~ ~ o ° c U ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ io C o ~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ u i ~ °-~~ o ~' S• n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ w ~ z ~ a.a z ° v, ~.~'n n ~ O ~ ~ O a,y O ~"' "' ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ o ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .r ri t ~ c u ~ '~ ~ ? o c ~ vo p, ~ ~ .-~ ~ ~ G ~ O ~ ~ ~, UQ ~ ~• ~ w ° ~ ~ N ,..~ ~. 'd (D ~. O ~ ~ O• (~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dx dx do do ° ~ ~'~ < ~ C C C O 'ti ~ ~ • 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ cD v, ~ cD ~ 0 .r 1 `C r- O O ~• oq o ~ '~ QO o ~ '~ 00 0 'C OG O a (lQ ~ m A ... A~ O ~ o ~ fD ~ C o p •t ~ ~ p N ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ O p ~ ~ p% ~ p (D ~ o o ~ ~ ~ 5 ' ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ y ~ ° ~ '~ as '' ~ a ;° ~ o ~ ~ ~ ° o ~ ' a ° ~ ~ a ' c ° ° ° ~ a a.m a CD ~' ~ o o 'ts i ~ a `° o ~ o ~. o c '"'C ~ ~ a o • p-~ ° o '"' . o o ~ ~ ; a C? ~ te' o .o ~ '~' o • ~ ?~ ?„~ ~ °• ~ ~' ~ ~, ~ ~ ,~ ~ ? ~ _ ,--. ~ O ° ~ ~ ~ o o ~ O fD ~ ~a ~a ~ cu ~a a ~ ~a ~ a y ~ ~ ~ . x ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ o. b o ~--~ E a' < ~ ~ • T 1 C O ~. C Q': C '-t ... ~ a' O "'t. o+ a' < ~. • `t7 ~ O ~. a' ~ .ti v~ v, ~ _ p' J o a o a' o a~ a o ~. e o ~ a o a' ~ ~ ~ a o~ a c a~ ~ n o o~ c `~ O ~ ~ ~ N cn A ~i O 'C n OOG O ~ G O '~ ~ (D ~. ~. ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ N • '* C7 G Ar ~ ... , ~ ~ CD C~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~„ . ~ A O O O O O O_ ~ O ''b O~ a, d ~ d ~ ~ ~ d i ~ v ~ C7 ~ ~'. ~ ~ O ~ O '~'' C Q d ~ ~ A~ ~. ~ ~, O H ~ ~ ~. QQ ~ q~ f .~ ~ v v 0 cQ v N r-~ y' c v 0 ~' 0 a ~ ~' uc ~ vo a* •CD o ~ ~n ~ o o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ?; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ .t y ~a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o o'~~ ~ ~ ~ ho ,~ ~ o `< ~ o ~'~c ~. o ~, ~ ~ o 0 ~ "~ 7~ e~ • e~ a A O `"'~ p ~ ~ r~~+ '* O ~ ~ A C~~ •- O ~ ^s ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ y ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ° ' ~ ~. ' ~ ~• ~ o' ° a ~ S o c~ O O rt ~ fD ~'• A '.3 ~ ~ ~ ,~, O ~ v' `r3 C. 7Q / ~~ Attachment 9 ~ 1 iy~ ~~@ ~ t1 vV c~ 'A'--' ~~~ ~~~ , 1L0-9Z-98E '8 OLO-8Z-98E Ndb' QQ . OL096 d~ dJ ~lVOdJ i ~ ~~ q S ~ ,, yy S w o s ~ s 3f1N3nb' 3~b/~Llfl2i~ LLL~ L P~ ~~ dJOl~Nt/S ~O A.LI~ ~ O dooldavs ~o uio A ~ dt/W ~nll`d1N~l ab~02~ 1~3dSO~d 886 ~ ~ ~ .. Y ~~3~~~ ~~~a ~ WO~ ~~ ~Z~B ~~ °~ ~ o i5 ~ D~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ o €~~~a~ ~~ ~-~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~`m~ ~~ ~ /w^ W ~<n app <~ ~ O U' 6 1J ~ d < C~ V/ ~ ~2~~ ~wyW II ~ gyp, W ~~ ~~ =J ~F~ ~~~W° ~~ j o a ;~ ° O W~ ` -~ - - - W OrO~~ ~ lNe4Q {e4~ p,~ ~ ~ r~ 2p~O~~ ~ ~N6LL N3000ri ~ ~ ?Tl O ~ ~~~~ a~ Uo U ~ ~i1 2 ~ ~ W 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ q xx ~ } ~ g y~ ~ ~ J pm q~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ E i ~ J S ~ 1S m tl < ~ F~ p~5 `> F F F- ~ y 00~ < (Fa~!~j ~ ~ aJ' ~ ~ ~ < rg. ~ ~ G F ~ SS ~ *y gF~j R<' g~ Yi ~ ~ ~ tg~ z O 3 ~ ~ ~ si ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ a~ ZS ~ K ~i ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 3 i 3~ l _ 1_ I I ~ iI4 L..1 CJ u ] n z ? in ~ M r. ~ ~~- ~i ~ ~_ `° i u I I 1 ~ ~ I F ~~. WI) Q ~~ (~ t~ ~L` s w i) u $ ra ~ G= ~ r ~' a n ~ u o~ ~n F, 3 I L ~~ F tl I .. I , ~ I ~ , I i , i I i ----- :a=.-oJ-- ~IVV-~I 21fIdS~l?JV IJ -, ... - "~ - - ~, N ~ ~ ~b Q Grl I ~~: f~~i. ~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~~, , ~ . %' ~~ ~ %/ ;- _;1 .//--\' r. u Y Q.'. c , } Ci C9 ~. C7 <C 4 a -- $ d ~-~ $ h p m B ~~ ~ ~ a ,~ g I ~ ~ ~ ~