Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2015 Written Communications -Heber WayAugust Re: Application PDRII -0003 / VAR 11 -0001 —21794 Heber Way Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members: p M M M INS 1�UG 2 7 2015 My name is Han C. Lin. My wife, Annie Lim, and I are the homeowners of 21790 Heber Way. We live in the immediately adjacent property of the applicant's proposed project at 21794 Heber Way. We are writing to you to express our concerns regarding the proposed project and to persuade you to deny the appeal. We have submitted written communications to and appeared before the Planning Commission on October 22, 2014 and May 27, 2015. The reason the applicant was not able to get approval for his plans from 3 sets of Planning Commissions in 2004, 2014, and 2015 is because he had continuously ignored and did not materially comply with the Planning Commissions' consistent guidance to design a smaller house with less variance. The number and the extent of variances requested by the applicant are extreme and unjustified. The 3 Planning Commissions could not make the findings for variances and design review. We are pleased with the clear and consistent guidance provided by all 3 Planning Commissions, and support their decisions to not approve this application. We have attached a comprehensive review on the application at the end of this letter in Appendix A for your reference. We welcome the idea of building a house on the applicant's lot. However, we are against the idea of building a unnecessary huge house so close to us on the most geologically constrained lot in Teerlink Ranch by a builder that would not even live in it. Granting the variances is compromising our safety. Calabazas Creek runs across the top of the project site. Evidence of landslides can be seen in less than 100 feet from the site. Granting the variances to the applicant is also a grant of special privilege as no other neighbor has ever received a variance, let alone three. Moreover, there are no special circumstances that support the 3 variances requested by the applicant. We ask you to not make exceptions to guidelines that were established in order to prevent a negative impact on the hillsides and compromising the safety of their residents. Therefore, we hope the City Council will support the 3 Planning Commissions' decision and deny this appeal. Thank you very much. Regards, Han C. Lin &Annie Lim 4 _ A„ APPENDIX A: COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ON APPLICATION PDR11- 0003/VARI1 -0001— 21794 HEBER WAY APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL HAS NO MATERIAL CHANGE The applicant's latest proposal presented to the Planning Commission on May 27, 2015 had provided no material change, despite the fact that Planning Commission had given specific and clear recommendations to the applicant on October 22, 2014 to: (1) Minimize the number and extent of variances, (2) Minimize the size of the house, and (3) Reduce the mass appearance of the house. 1) Applicant's Proposal Had Not Minimized the Number and Extent of Setback Variances In his latest proposal, the applicant made the same request for 3 setback variances. The setback distances proposed are still extreme and unnecessary. The applicant was specifically asked to redesign his house with a smaller foot -print that requires less variance. The Planning Commission in October 2014 agreed that not all 3 variances requested are needed. Commissioner Grover emphasized that "We have to be very careful with giving variance to a particular project because it will come back to haunt us. I am not comfortable with giving all the variances requested ". Commissioner Smullen urged that "We need to be consistent with giving variance and not giving it for free." Commissioner Bernald and Commissioner Almalech both mentioned the left -side setbacks should be brought in more towards the requirement. The applicant's plan showed no effort had been put into achieving this goal. a) Left -Side Setback of 35 Feet: At first glance on paper, 35 feet may seem like an improvement from the 30 feet previously proposed, but in reality it is not. In his previous proposal, the applicant had a front porch that stood at a 30 -foot setback distance. In his current proposal, the applicant simply increased the setback of the front porch from 30 feet to 35 feet. The rest of the house particularly the first floor living area and the front entrance has no change in setback. Setting back the front porch does nothing to reduce the mass of the proposed building or to preserve our privacy. b) Left -Side Setback of 20 Feet: This number has not changed, despite Commissioner Almalech's emphasis in October 2014 that his focus is on this particular setback. The applicant claimed that this setback of 20 feet does not impact our privacy. It does. This requested setback enables the proposed house to expand much wider, resulting in a long wall of mass parallel to our property. The second floor will have direct view into our backyard. No landscape can screen out the view of this proposed house due to the proposed building height and the fact that the proposed building sits on a higher elevation than our property. Our house location is strategically misplaced in the applicant's plan (on page SK -1) to give a false impression that the proposed living area gained from this 20 -foot left -side setback does not compromise our privacy. 2 c) Front Setback of 99 Feet: This front setback of 99 feet is an insignificant change from the 97 feet previously requested. Commissioner Bernald commented that "front setback is quite possibly okay, but if we can't diminish the size of the house we do have another option ". The applicant had not diminished the size of his proposed house. 2) Applicant's Proposal Had Not Diminished the Size of the Proposed House The Planning Commission in October 2014 agreed that a smaller house should be designed for this geologically challenged lot. Commissioner Bernald stated that "it is a pretty large house on a naturally constrained piece of property ". The square footage previously proposed was 5,039 square feet. The square footage currently proposed is 4,989 square feet. A size reduction of 50 square feet (1 %) is totally insignificant. It is still a large house on a naturally constrained property! Commissioner Fitzsimmons summed up the applicant's proposal in May 2015 and concluded "I don't think this is the house. I cannot perceive a material change. The reduction in size and mass is insignificant." The applicant did not act in good faith. When asked by the Planning Commission in May 2015 if a smaller house can be designed for the lot, the applicant's architect replied he wasn't sure because he was not given direction by the applicant to design a smaller house. 3) Applicant's Proposal Had Not Reduced the Mass of the Proposed House The current plan proposed a different roof form. In our opinion, the redesigned roof line actually increased the mass by raising the plate height and creating more wall plane. The front appearance of the house is more prominent and appears more like a multi -story building now. Without making significant change to the building height, setbacks, and floor area, the proposed house continues to sit on the highest point of the hillside and stand out against the landscape. NO SUPPORT FOR MAKING VARIANCE FINDINGS This application does not support the making of the required variance findings because: A. No Special Circumstances Applicable The applicant bought this 6.06 acre lot as an investment property under the name of Vintner Investments. He was aware at the time of purchase that 5.5 acres of it is dedicated as open space easement and only 0.5 acre is buildable. He knew the site has multiple geologic problems (steep slopes, fault lines, landslides, and excessive water running off during raining seasons). Instead of building a house that conforms to the geological constraints of the land, he is asking the City to reward him with multiple special treatments for his bad investment at the expense of his adjacent neighbors. The applicant argued his requested variances would enable him to have the same setback requirement as his neighbors who built their homes in the 1990s. All neighbors who built their homes in Teerlink Ranch built to the codes that were in place at the time. Mr. Rocky Hill at 21760 Heber Way told the Planning Commission in 2004 that his building plans were in the Planning Department when the building codes changed. He was told by the City to change his plans to accommodate the new codes, resulting in a smaller home by about 1,200 square feet. The Palmers at 21761 Heber Way had to resolve to having a flat roof to preserve the view of neighbors and a 2 -car garage to accommodate the square footage limitation. 2 homes on Teerlink Way had to be built long and narrow in order to fit the contour of the land. If every neighbor followed the rules, why should the applicant be an exception? The citizens of Saratoga voted on a referendum to have the building codes changed in 1992. Commissoiner Ahuja mentioned in May 2015 that "Rules were made for reasons." In fact, the rules were changed for very good reasons. They were changed to better preserve the integrity of the hillsides and to protect and health and safety of the hillside community. Why would anyone want to go back and resurrect the old codes that obviously did not serve the purpose? Commissioner Smullen told the applicant in May 2015 that "Just because you need 1 variance or 2 variances does not mean you need 3 variances." Indeed, the applicant does not need 3 setback variances to build a "typical" house in our neighborhood. With just the front setback of 99 feet alone, he will have at least 2,600 square feet of building pad to build a compatible house in size. There are 8 houses on Heber Way: Excluding the garage, 3 houses are in the 3,000 square -foot range, 3 in the 4,000 square -foot range, and 2 in the 5,000 square -foot range. In fact, 42% of the houses in Teerlink Ranch are in the 3,000 square -foot range. Besides, 4 houses in Teerlink Ranch have 2 -car garages. As you can see, the applicant does not need a 5,000 square -foot house to be "compatible ". He can have a 3,000 square -foot house. He can also have a 2 -car garage. The Palmers at 21761 Heber Way has a 2 -car garage and sold their house in February 2015 for $3 millions in less than a day. In reality, Teerlink Ranch is a community with homes that have diverse architecture and square footage. There is no commonality. Commissioner Smullen said in October 2014 that "Everyone should play by the same rule. Variance is only granted if it is really needed ". The applicant knowingly bought the most geological constrained lot in Teerlink Ranch and yet wanted a big house that his lot could not support. The proposed size should be in consistence with the geological restrictions and not so much with the size compatibility of the neighborhood. The applicant's attorney argued in her letter dated May 21, 2015 that special circumstances are applicable because the applicant's lot is burdened with an open space easement. If the open space easement is excluded, as suggested in the attorney's letter, the applicable left -side setbacks would be 22.7 feet which is below the requested left -side setback. We would like to point out that all lots in Teerlink Ranch Subdivisions are not re- subdividable. However, for argument's sake, if the open space easement is excluded, then the right -side setback would be 93 feet (due to geological constraint), the front setback would be 97 feet (due to geological constraint), and the applicable rear setback would be 60 feet. Therefore, if the open space easement is excluded, the applied setbacks will result in a significantly smaller building pad than the one when the open space easement is included. In other words, the lot is not burdened by the open space easement. The applicant's attorney also compared the proposed house on a 6.08 acre lot to our house on a 1.6 acre lot. However, these two lots are not comparable. The applicant's lot has 4 huge open space easement and many geological constraints, and could not support the size of the proposed house. On the other hand, our lot is one of the most geologically stable lots in Teerlink Ranch. It does not have fault line, underground water, or open space easement issues. Our building pad could support the size of our house. Even if our lot is undeveloped today, we are still able to build our house with the same setbacks and size according to the codes that are in place today. If the applicant could just shrink the size of his proposed house, he will have a house that fits his lot. B. Granting of a Special Privilege The applicant's residence at 21791 Heber Way is the only house in Teerlink Ranch that was granted a variance. Some neighbors had asked for variance when building their homes but their requests were rejected. Now the applicant is asking the same special privilege for the second time by requesting not one but three variances to build another house on Heber Way. Commissioner Smullen mentioned in May 2015 that the reason she could not support the variances requested is "based on that one finding that says are we granting a special privilege or not." We agree. Is it not a grant of special privilege if two properties on the same street, owned by the same owner, were granted variances repeatedly while other neighbors in the entire community received none? The staff reports for October 22, 2014 and May 27,2015 Planning Commission meetings claimed that granting setback variances to the applicant would not constitute a special privilege because the proposed setbacks are similar to the neighboring residences. We disagree. The average left -side setback of all homes on Heber Way is 80.14 feet while the average side (both left and right) setback of all homes on Heber Way is 58.64 feet. Both are larger than the required 45 feet, and certainly far larger than the setbacks the applicant requested. C. Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare a) Landslides Our property is down -slope from and adjacent to the applicant's lot, and could not be closer to the proposed structure. Calabazas Creek runs across the top of the proposed site. Evidence of landslides can be seen in less than 100 feet away from the proposed structure. Please see Appendix A.1 for pictures of landslides and extreme gully formation on adjacent property. JCP's geological report in 1978 showed a filled crack in the applicant's lot, about 70 feet directly upslope from the building site. Water running off from the applicant's lot has always been a problem for us every rainy season. The previous owner of our property had to install French drain between our lot and the applicant's lot because water running off from the hillside in the applicant's lot had caused damage to our driveway and plants. Every winter maintenance crew from Mountain Winery would work on controlling water problems that exist between the Mountain Winery property and the applicant's lot. Underground springs and landslides (many had happened and many are undoubtedly going to happen) are a reality of Teerlink Ranch and hillside living. 7 properties in Teerlink Ranch had been affected by 3 separate major landslides that originated from the hillsides. Driveways and patios had collapsed, and hillsides had 5 washed away. Lawsuits were involved. All neighbors who were affected by landslides have homes that were built using the old setback codes. When commenting on the geology report for the applicant's lot, Commissioner Smullen stated in October 2014 that "I am comfortable with the geology report, but not a lot that I want to build my own home on." Commissioner Ahuya told the applicant in May 2015 that "I know you have the geology report saying it looks okay, but that is a big concern for me, even though you have the report." Despite many field investigations by 3 geotechnical firms (Frank Lee & Associates, Hydro -Geo Consultants, and Associated Terra Consultants) between 1990 and 1994, the applicant was unable to obtain geotechnical clearance for his lot. In 1992, the applicant's lot is characterized by the City as being within a "Pd" zone, which is defined as "relatively unstable landslide debris more than 10 feet in thickness on moderately steep to very steep slopes, subject to renewed deep landsliding." Cotton & Shires even pointed out that "there is a high probability that potentially unstable landslide deposits underlie building site and that the City's building code may not allow construction of the buttresses" The lot was deemed unbuildable in 1994 by Cotton & Shires. Mr. Manzagol's geological report in 1998 is the only report that stated large mapped landslide does not exist in the applicant's lot. In 2001, Cotton & Shires changed its opinion and agreed with Mr. Manzagol's findings. This is in huge contradiction to the 7 reviews Cotton & Shires wrote earlier which indicated the applicant's lot is located within deep- seated landslide deposits. The fact that the applicant took 10 years and at least 4 geologists before obtaining a geotechnical clearance really concerns us. Please refer to Appendix A.2 for a chronology of reports by various geotechnical consultants between 1990 and 1994 for the applicant's lot. A1989 article in Saratoga News suggested that "The City's detailed procedures don't always uncover landslides locations." During the interview, Stephen Emslie, the Planning Director, said "It is vitally important that we hold a firm line on development out in the hillside areas." In the events the City's procedures did not get it right, the setback requirement is crucial in protecting the hillsides and the neighbors. Commissioner Jill Hunter said in December 2004 that "The hillside belongs to everyone in Saratoga. What is constructed on them affects us all ". b) Average Slope Percentage Using setback variance to average down the slope percentage does not make the proposed building safer. Without any setback variance, the building pad has a average slope of 33 %. The proposed plans listed the average slope as 22 %. During the May 27, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Staff reported that the City did their own calculation and came up with a 28.8% average slope, by using 0.44 acre as the net building site area. However, the actual building site area should be around 0.2 acre instead 0.44 acre. We did our calculation and found out that the proposed building pad has a 31.6% average slope. This means, even with the requested setback variances, the average slope of the building pad still exceeds 30 %. Appendix A.3 shows our average slope calculation. G c) Granting a Geotechnical Clearance Based on Assumptions According to Mr. Manzagol's geological report on the applicant's lot in 1998, the Berrocal fault line was suggested but never confirmed to be 10 to 40 feet outside the applicant's lot and inside our lot. In a letter dated September 18, 2014, Mr. Manzagol clarified that "the projection of the fault trace is only approximate" and "the fault zone could possibly be 10 or 25 feet closer to the property line." In his email dated October 8, 2014, Mr. Manzagol emphasized that "I do not know the exact location of where the edge of the fault plane meets the surface. It would require additional subsurface investigation on either side of the common property line to more accurately locate it." In other words, Mr. Manzagol's report has not identified the location of the Berrocal fault line. However, a memorandum from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated January 24, 2001 stated that "the trace of the Berrocal fault has been determined to be 10 to 40 feet northeast of property line and consequently a building envelope can be established in an area determined to be at low risk to surface fault rupture ". We are baffled by the City's conclusion that the Berrocal fault has been located outside of the applicant's lot when Mr. Manzagol's report has never stated so. The City should not have granted a geotechnical clearance based on assumptions. We tried to raise our questions to the City Geotechnical Consultant but was told by the City Senior Engineer that we would have to pay $1,200 to do so. When we asked to be shown a fee schedule, we received no response. A memorandum from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated May 14, 2015 only confirmed that Mr. Manzagol wrote a response to the geological issues mentioned in our written communication dated September 13, 2014. However, all of our geotechnical questions (see Appendix A.4) remain unaddressed by the consultant. VIOLATION OF CODE REQUIREMENT FOR STORY POLES On August 17, 2015, about two weeks prior to the appeal hearing before the City Council, the applicant violated the code requirement for story poles by removing the entire set of story poles presented to the Planning Commissions in October 2014 and May 2015. A new and different set of story poles was constructed on the next day. According to City Code Section 15- 45.075, if the decision by the approving body is appealed, the story poles shall remain in place until a final decision that is not subject to appeal has been made. VIOLATION OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN POLICIES The proposed home does not conform to guidelines in the City's Single Family Residential Design Handbook and the findings pursuant to City Code Sections 15- 45.080, 15- 45.055, and 15- 13.100. a) Mass Without adequate setbacks, the proposed house appears bulky and out of context in the neighborhood. By raising the plate height, the design increases the stucco wall plane of the second floor. This long stucco wall plane creates more mass than the previous design. No existing landscaping or those proposed in the plan could screen out this mass. There is no space to plant more new trees or plants along our side of the property line. In October 2014 Commissioner Walia commented that the proposed split -level design increased mass and height. VA b) Height, Scale, and Proportion The proposed two -story split -level house has a building height of 32 feet facing our house and also the street, which is higher than the maximum height of 26 feet. In additions, the proposed house sits on a higher elevation, resulting in a total height of 40 feet from our property elevation and 48 feet from the street elevation. It has the appearance of a three - story house! The base of its second floor is at the same elevation as our rooftop. Its rooftop elevation is higher than ours by 15 feet. c) Setbacks The proposed house does not have the adequate setbacks that are in proportion to its size or height. If both left -side setback variances are granted, the side of proposed building will form a long wall that blocks our view and compromises our privacy. Noise impact is a major concern as well. d) Privacy The north side of the proposed house has only 35 feet of setback and looks directly into our living room and a bedroom. The east side of the proposed house has only 20 feet of setback, giving the large game -room window on the second floor a clear view of our backyard and another of our bedroom. This window should be a clerestory window or with high sills. The balcony on the second floor next to the game room is in line -of -sight to our outdoor area. This balcony should be removed. The reasons we bought our house in 2010 are because of the privacy, the view, and the tranquility offered by its location. All these reasons will be taken away by this proposal. In additions to the negative effects on privacy, view, and noise, we were told if this building project were to move forward as proposed, it would have a $600,000 (15 %) negative impact on our property value. This proposed house is not an asset to our community. e) Hillside Viewsheds and Hillside Integration The proposed home did not merge into the hillside or reduce its visual impact on a hillside lot, and is out of scale with the natural hillside setting. In additions, both Commissioner Walia and Commissioner Chang could not support the design review findings because the design has too many roof lines. APPLICANT HAS SOUGHT NO INPUTS FROM NEIGHBORS We had asked the applicant to keep both left -side setbacks at the 45 -foot requirement. We had received no response from him. While we appreciate the applicant placed his garage to face the street instead of our house, the applicant had ignored all of our safety and privacy concerns. CONCLUSION We welcome the idea of building a house on the applicant's lot. However, we believe the application before you is not the house that should be built. We agree with the Planning Commissions in 2004, 2014, and 2015 that the findings could not be made for this application. Please deny this appeal. Thank you. 8 Appendix A.1: Pictures of Extreme Gully Formation & Evidence of Landslides at Less Than 100 ft from Proposed Building Site: Picture 1: Picture 2: , Ape en d-1 x A - a MEMORANDUM TO: Sheng File (S1090/S1370) DATE: June 30, 1994 FR: WC RE: Chronology of consultant reports, WCA reviews, meetings, etc. Apr. 8, '90 Frank Lee & Associates report for Lot 13. May 8, '90 WCA review of FLA report dated Apr. 9, 1990 (Lot 13, 21791 Heber Way). WCA recommends a Detailed Engineering Geologic Investigation to "specifically determine whether a trace of the Berrocal fault underlies the property;" and evaluate slope stability hazards. WCA also recommends that geotechnical evaluations, including slope stability, be performed after geologic characterization. Aug. 21, '90 Frank Lee & Associates report for Lot 14. Oct. 2, '90 WCA review of FLA report dated Aug. 21, 1990 (Lot 14, 21794 Heber Way). WCA recommends a Detailed Engineering Geologic Investigation to "ensure that the proposed development is sited outside of previously established fault setback " and address other seismic and slope stability hazards. WCA also recommends that geotechnical evaluations, including slope stability, be performed after geologic characterization. Feb. 25, '91 Hydro -Geo Consultants reports for Lots 13 and 14 (separate reports for each lot). Mar. 22, '91 WCA review of HGC report dated Feb. 251991 for Lot 14 (received Mar. 7). WCA notes that this report does not resolve geologic issues and that data presented in the report appears to indicate that "it may not be geotechnically feasible to develop within the proposed building envelope due to the severity of the geologic hazards." Specific problems are notes, such as: limited depth of trenching within landslide mass, small- scale of map and uncertainty in trench locations; inconsistencies between map and cross section, etc. WCA recommend supplemental work to "fully characterize the engineering geologic conditions." Recommended tasks include mapping and profiling on a new, accurate base map; compilation of previous data; deeper subsurface exploration; etc. WCA requests opportunity to inspect new trenches. Apr. 9, '91 HGC letter (response) to WCA review dated Mar. 22, 1991. Apr. 17, '91 FLA letter (response) to WCA review dated Mar. 22,1991. May 7, '91 WCA review of HGC and FLA letters dated Apr. 9 and 17, 1991 re: Lot 14. WCA suggests that a meeting be arranged with HGC in order to point out the problems with the previous work, and need for supplemental data. WCA states (for the third time) that geotechnical engineering recommendations should be formulated after completion of geologic characterization. Apr. 30, '91 FLA letter (response) for Lot 13. Jun. 13, '91 WCA review of HGC report dated Feb. 25, 1991 and FLA letter (response) dated Apr. 30, 1991 (Lot 13). ......... Chronology June 30,1994 Sheng properties - 51090/51320 Page 2 WCA generally has same comments that were provided in Lot 14 review dated Mar. 22,1991. WCA requests opportunity to inspect new trenches. Jun. 25, '91 Meeting between WCA and Shenggss to discuss geologic problems and HGC work. Shengs have been trying to locate City files for Lots 13 and 14. Mrs. Sheng says City previously approved building site on Lot 13 (about 1986 ?), but that 1986 box of files is missing. Mrs. Sheng also thinks previous trenching was done on Lot 14 by Terratech. She will check. Jul. 2, '91 Meeting between WCA, HGC and MR. Sheng in which WCA points out specific issues that need resolution. WCA suggests that large- diameter borings may be needed if landslide thickness precludes use of trenches. Aug., '91 Telephone conversations with new consultants (Associated Terra Consultants) on Aug. 6, 8, 19, 20 and 28. Sept. 3, '91 Meeting with WCA and ATC to discuss upcoming field investigation. WCA emphasizes use of large- diameter borings, ATC prefers coring. WCA points out that core recovery may be limited and that structural data will not be available from cores. Sept. -Oct. '91 ATC's field investigation. WCA inspects drilling ATC's drilling operation week of Sept. 9 -13, and inspects test pits on Oct. 15. Methods and core recovery will probably not allow detailed resolution of complicated subsurface conditions, but may be OK for general characterization. Jul. 1, '92 FLA report (primarily ATC's geologic work) of Lots 13 and 14. Sept. 3, '92 OX**t of FLA /ATC report dated July 1, 1992 (received July 15). WCA states that this report "provides the first coherent explanation of geologic conditions on lots 13 and 14," and that "local geologic conditions are more adverse than previously recognized in subdivision -level and subsequent site-specific investigations." Thus, "the geotechnically feasibility of the proposed building sites cannot yet be established." WCA points out that "the applicant should recognize that there is a high probability that potentially unstable landslide deposits underlie both building sites and that the City's building code may not allow construction of the buttresses..." WCA recommends additional work to "conclusively determine the presence of faults in the proposed building sites and acquire parameters needed to perform slope stability analyses." WCA again recommends that large- diameter borings be used because trenches appear to be unable to penetrate landslides. in addition, WCA recommends that landslide parameters be discussed prior to performing stability analyses. Jan. 11, '93 Meeting with City staff, WCA and ATC to discuss options. On Lot 14, WCA points out that 1 to 2 large-diameter holes will be needed to assess fault hazard, and that 3 to 4 holes will be needed to determine landslide parameters. On Lot 13, deeper trenching and /or large-diameter borings will be needed. WCA recommends that, after field work is performed, ATC provide WCA with field data and revised geologic interpretations. WCA emphasizes that no stability analyses should be performed until all geology is resolved, and landslide parameters have been discussed. A,a J[(x V, C Can+. ) Chronology June 30,1994 Sheng properties S10901S1370 Page 3 Oct. 1, '93 WCA inspects new trench location. Nov. 2, '93 WCA inspects new trench. Apr. 20, '94 The Bentley Company (formerly ATC) issues "addendum" report for Lot 13. May 31, '94 of T13C report dated Apr. 20,1994 (hot 13). Generally, not much progress from previous report: (1) new boring are not large - diameter and do not resolve previous issues (2) new trench provides useful data, but constrains fault trace to lie closer to building site; (3) stability analyses are not appropriate and should not have been performed yet; (4) geologic findings should have been discussed with WCA before report preparation. WCA recommends meetings with property owners and consultants to discuss project issues again. Appendix A.3: Calculation of Average Slope for Proposed Building Pad AWA 6T Po in�f WCUION 41 ',.XTFNr or AP�A 'Fie r I cz fl 1, -, i4' si or cis � � , SITE " A v 0 rc, tj c QA. b-J) Y) �f-qde of re4r off' 6Ljldoh Ip Ido, over- ul r4 d e (at POIIf- U, 0 z w a: Lu z (0 O < F- F- < Ui W Z w 0- > < 0 ui >K -1 4(i �� Ave(av Slope. 100 4 Appendix A.4 Geological Questions for City Geotechnical Consultant Despite many field investigations by three geotechnical firms (Frank Lee &Associates, Hydro -Geo Consultants, and Associated Terra Consultants) between 1990 and 1994, Mr. Sheng was unable to obtain a geotechnical clearance for lot # 14 due to complex and adverse geologic conditions, such as the west trace of the Berrocal Fault possibly runs closer to the building site than originally thought, the large mapped unstable landslide deposits underlie the building site, and the city's building code may not allow construction of the buttresses. Lot #14 was deemed unbuildable in 1994 by Cotton & Shires in a memorandum written to city's public works director, Mr. Larry Perlin, on June 30, 1994. On January 24, 2001 this project on lot #14, 21794 Heber Way - Vintner Investment, has received geo clearance per Mr. Tim Manzagol's findings on 6/29/98. The documents indicate that: (1) the large mapped landslide does not exist, (2) smaller landslides identified by the consultants can be mitigated by appropriate sitting of the building envelope and engineering measures, (3) and the trace of the Berrocal fault has been determined to be 10 to 40 feet northeast of the property line (consequently, a building envelope can be established in an area determined to be at low risk to surface fault rupture). Mr. Manzagol's findings are in huge contradiction to the seven peer reviews written by Cotton & Shires. His report is the only one disagrees with reports from JCP, Terratech, Hydro -Geo, and Frank Lee & Associates as well as all other geological reports from neighboring lots on Teerlink Ranch subdivision. We have a few technical questions in regarding to Mr. Manzagol's findings. We can use the field data from various geotechnical professionals (all data had been verified by Cotton & Shires) to cross exam Tim Manzagol's findings. We hope the city geologist can provide some answers. All the comments and field data presented below are from memorandum written by Cotton & Shires. Question 1: Where is the trace of the Western Berrocal Fault according to Mr. Manzagol's report? According to Mr. Manzagol, the surface projection of Primary Berrocal Fault Rupture Plane (where Cretaceous Franciscan Formation Bedrock in contact with Plio - Plestocene Santa Clara Formation Bedrock) is 10 to 40 feet into lot #15. Let's look at T -5 (by JCP, 1978). The preferred exploration method to confirm the surface rupture plane of a fault is by using trenches to allow the geologist to observe the surface rupture plane contact between two bedrock formations. T -5 showed no surface rupture plane in lot # 15, instead it showed the entire T -5 was composed landslides (KYs debris) which Mr. Manzagol failed to recognize in his report. Furthermore, the 1989 geological study by JCP on Lot #15 showed no surface rupture in Mr. Manzagol's suggested fault zone. 2 Appendix AA (cont.) Mr. Manzagol used TB -1 and TB -2 to project the surface rupture plane. His method of projection does not seem logical. If we could make another geologic cross section diagram, much like Figure 3 in his report, that shows both TB -1 and TB -2 on the same plane (instead of just showing TB -2 as in Figure 3) we will see that the surface rupture plane will not project into lot #15. Instead, we will see that TB -1 and TB -2 both terminated at around the same elevation of 683 feet, which means the assumed projection should be parallel to sea level. Furthermore, none of Mr. Manzagol's borings intercept Santa Clara Formation Bedrock. Before a reasonable assumption on the projection of surface eruption can be made, at least one of the borings needs to intercept the Santa Clara Formation Bedrock, otherwise what is Mr. Manzagol trying to project out of lot #14? Question 2: If Mr. Manzagol's findings are assumptive, where exactly is the trace of the Western Berrocal Fault? In 1992 Cotton and Shires concerned this fault may be closer to the proposed building site in lot #14 than originally thought. If TP -8 (by Frank Lee, 1992) is located outside of a landslide, and the greywacke (Franciscan Formation Bedrock) is in- place, then the western trace of the Berrocal Fault should be located between downslope of TP -8 and upslope of T -6 (by JCP, 1978. The entire base of T -6 is Santa Clara Formation Bedrock). Instead of confirming the trace of the Berrocal Fault is not too close to the building site, Mr. Manzagol just moved the Berrocal Fault to lot #15 based on his inconclusive findings. For argument sake, according to Mr. Manzagol's findings, if the proposed building site is on Franciscan Formation Bedrock and outside of a landslide, shouldn't there be another fault line between the proposed building site and T -6? Question 3: What formation bedrock is underlaid the building site of lot #14? Mr. Manzagol seems to think it is Franciscan Formation Bedrock that underlie the building site. Let's look at B -2 (by Frank Lee, 1992) and T -6 (by JCP, 1978). B -2 appears to have encountered and conclusively established the type of undisturbed bedrock, the Santa Clara Formation Bedrock (memorandum September 3, 1992.). The entire bottom of T -6 is Santa Clara Formation Bedrock. It has been well documented in the Comprehensive Geotechnical Summary Report for Teerlink Ranch by Terratech Geotechnical Services that the Berrocal Fault separates the Franciscan Formation on the west from the Santa Clara Formation Bedrock on the east. Did Tim Manzagol just made the western trace of the Berrocal Fault disappear from lot # 14 and moved it to lot # 15? Question 4: Do the large mapped landslides exist? Four sets of black- and -white stereo aerial photographs were reviewed as part of investigation by Frank Lee and Cotton & Shires. a) CIV 17G, frames -175 and -176, taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on April 1, 1950, at approximately 1:20,000 scale; 3 Appendix A.4 (cont.) b) AV 129 -01, frames -25 and -26, taken by Pacific Aerial Surveys, Oakland, California, on March 2, 1954, at approximately 1:9,000 scale; c) HAP 82/372215, frames 252 -22 and -23, taken by the U.S. Geological Survey, on August 16, 1982, at approximately 1:80,000 scale; d) AV 3845 -17, frames 83 and 84, taken by Pacific Aerial Surveys, Oakland, California, on July 26, 1990, at approximately 1:12,000 scale; It appears the building site is impacted by deep- seated landslides. Aerial photographic mapping, photolineaments, many test pits helped define the lateral boundaries of the landslides. Many small - diameter borings helped define the deeper portions of the landslides. Frank Lee's reports (1992) went into great details on the landslide issues. Cotton & Shires said the report provides the first coherent explanation of geologic conditions (memorandum September 3, 1992.) T -1 (by JCP, 1978) showed a "filled crack" at the direct upslope of the building site. The data collected from T -1 basically defined the 140 feet wide of no -build zone (open space easement). The entire T -5 (by JCP, 1978) was filled with the landslide mass (at least 10 feet thick). B -2 (by Frank Lee, 1992) extended through the landslide mass (about 20 to 25 feet thick) into undisturbed bedrock. Data collected from T -1, T -5, and B -2 conclusively established that the landslides are at least 10 feet thick at T -5 location and 20 to 25 feet thick at B -2 location, yet Mr. Manzagol's report showed no landslides at T -1, T -5 and B -2 areas. Without recognizing the landslides at the building site, how could sufficient engineering measures be put into the proposed project? A A • TT P -4 sp TP-io if T V 4u P) T P) T-6 j(p) 7�t I tip City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Il AUG 2 7 2015 By August 13, 2015 Re: APPLICATION PDRI1- 0003NAR11 -0001— 21794 HEBER WAY Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members: We are the neighbors of the applicant's proposed project at 21794 Heber Way. We are opposing the grant of variances requested by the applicant. We believe the variances requested are extreme and unnecessary. We signed and submitted a petition letter to the Planning Commission in October 2014 and are attaching it in this written communication for your reference. Thank you. Regards, Neighbors of 21794 Heber Way Dear City of Saratoga Planning Commissioners, We, the undersigned, are neighbors of proposed project site at 21794 Heber Way. Based on the information available and presented to us, we believe the variances requested by the applicant, Mr. Steve Sheng, are extreme and should be considered very serious and unnecessary for the development of his lot. If the need for variances can be avoided by simply reducing the size of the house then the requested variances should not be r permitted or approved. The size of the proposed house should just be reduced. A house with the proposed setbacks is inconsistent with all other neighboring houses. If these setback variances are approved they will devalue our properties and impact the beauty of our neighborhood. Therefore, we would like to petition the planning commission to return this proposed plan back to the city staff for further review. SIGNATURE ADDRESS 7 6 766 l-�cIr4 Aq DATE Y /S" / (�- ie /V6