HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 06-069APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 06-069
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING THE APPEAL
OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 04-359
Project Address - 19930 Sunset Drive
Property Owner -Oak Creek Partners LLC (BYRD)
Appellants -Alan and Meg Giberson
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2006 the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved Design
Review application 04-359 to construct a one story Santa Barbara style home with a basement on a
72,228 (net) sq. ft. lot. The proposed home will be 5,574 square feet in floor area (including garage)
with a 5,181 square foot basement. A 728 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The
home is situated at 19930 Sunset Drive, on a parcel (APN 510-26-001) which is to be annexed to the
City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2006, Alan and Meg Giberson of 15561 Glen Una Drive in Los
Gatos filed an appeal of Planning Commission's Design Review approval of application 04-359; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2006, a date approved in advance by the Appellants and
Property Owner, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal of application 04-359,
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga considered the application and all
testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council upheld the determination and findings of the Planning
Commission's Design Review approval of application 04-359; and
WHEREAS, this project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures",Class 3 (a)
of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of
up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and
roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and a second
dwelling unit. An exception to this Categorical Exemption is not triggered by the existence of a
tributary of Wildcat Creek that traverses the western portion of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following Genera] Plan policies; and
1 OF 6
Conservation Element Policv 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by
carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal will retain and
extend the life of the City's housing stock and will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga
by utilizing an existing residential site that was once occupied by a single family home. The
proposal will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring pazcels. The
proposed architectural style is very compatible with the ambiance of the neighborhood and
the zoning designation in which the property is located.
Land Use Element Policv S.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 City Council finds that the application meets the Findings
required for Design Review Approval.
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; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden ofproofrequired to support said application
for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been met:
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed home has been
designed such that it is at an angle in relation to other properties. Existing trees are proposed
for relocation, and new trees aze also proposed to preserve view corridors and further screen
neighboring properties. The entertaining areas are either located down slope and away from
neighboring residences, or highly screened to control potential noise impact.
(b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Consideration has been given to ensure that the building form
is in harmonywith the existing topography. Furthermore, a condition ofproject approval has
been added requiring a reduction in grading quantities. Many specimen trees are proposed for
relocation. A single architectural theme has been used throughout to unify the building
elements into a single integrated design that adequately blends with the surrounding
landscape.
(c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees on the property. The
proposed project exposes 36 native trees to potential damage during construction. The
applicant is proposing to relocate almost all of the trees that are in conflict with the proposed
design. One tree (#36 - a Plum Tree - as labeled on Sht. L.4.1 of attached Exhibit B) is
proposed for removal because of its poor condition. The applicant is required to submit a
security deposit to ensure that all trees aze protected during construction.
(d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed residence has been designed to avoid
large expanses of a single form. The use of angles and varying plate heights, combined with a
well-selected use of building materials and colors contribute significantly in reducing bulk
20F6
and massing. Also, cutting a portion of the building into the hillside has further minimized
the appeazance of bulk and massing.
(e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed varying rooflines and the use of different earth
tone materials, accents on the fagade, and garage doors facing the rear property line
adequately minimize the scale of the proposed home, resulting in an attractive building
facades that will complement the style of the neighborhood.
(f) Current grading and erosion control methods. As conditioned, the proposal would conform
to the City's current grading and erosion control standards.
(g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable
design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible
bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also
designed for energy efficiency because the main living and entertaining areas along the south
and west elevations, and the structure has been fit into the grade where possible to minimize
wall exposure.
Now, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe City of Sazatoga does herebyresolve as follows:
Section 1. This project is CategoricallyExempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the
Public Resources Code (CEQA).
Section 2. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Oak Creek LLC (Mr. and Mrs.
Byrd) for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject final annexation approval by the
Saratoga City Council and subject to the following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A, last revised on May
24, 2006 and date stamped August 28, 2006. Conditions outlined below shall be incorporated
into the final plans.
A deed restriction must be recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds, which limits rental of
the second dwelling unit to low or moderate-income households. This restriction must be
recorded prior to final occupancy permit.
2. Grading quantities for the yard work shall be reduced such that such quantities do not exceed
1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill combined. The proposed height of the home may be raised by 6
inches over the proposed approximate height of the home of 24 feet - 9 inches in order to reduce
grading quantities.
30F6
3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating required revisions, this Resolution and
the Arborist Reports on a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division.
4. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area,
especially along any hardscaped area.
Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific chazacteristics 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.
6. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan to the maximum extent possible.
7. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility ofthe
property owner.
A utility plan, including the location and trenching for the fire hydrant and other utilities shall be
submitted with the construction drawings for the azborist to review in terms of impact on
adjacent trees.
The existing chain link fencing along the front and west side properties shall be removed. Any
existing barbed wire shall also be removed. All proposed fencing shall be consistent with the
provisions of Article 15-29 of the City Code.
10. The perpendiculaz parking azea shown immediately to the west of the driveway entrance shall be
deleted, and shall not be included in the building permit plan set.
11. All proposed screening trees proposed along the southern property line shall be evergreen
species.
12. 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.
13. The additional drainage offered by the applicant at the September 6, 2006 public hearing, as
shown on the drawings dated September 2006 by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and submitted that
evening by applicant, shall be a requirement of the project.
CITY ARBORIST REPORT
The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated November 29, 2004 and
March 22, 2005 as attached in Exhibit B, incorporated herein. The recommendations contained in
these reports are hereby included as conditions of approval. Among the recommendations outlined in
4OF6
this report is the following:
14. A bond equal to $297,740, which is 100% of the value of the trees to be retained, is required
prior to issuance of final zoning clearance.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
15. The applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara County Fire District conditions of approval as
attached in Exhibit C, incorporated herein.
GEOTECHNICAL AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW
16. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Geotechnical Cleazance that was granted on
March 22, 2005 as shown on attached Exhibit D, incorporated herein.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND AIRPORTS
17. The applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from this department prior to
issuance of City of Saratoga building permits.
CITY ATTORNEY
18. Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents and
independent contractors from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to
attorneys' fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with the
City's defense in any proceeding brought in State or Federal Court challenging the City's
action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City's
processing and/or approval of this application, including, but not limited to, any public record
act litigation, due process litigation or copyright infringement litigation.
Section 3. Construction must commence within 36 months or this approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental
entities must be met.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, the 6th day of
September 2006 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:KIine, Kao, King, Streit, Waltonsmith
NOES: None
SOF6
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A'
Cathl~t ~
Cit~Clerk
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 Council of the City of Saratoga.
Michael Byrd Date
~~
Elizat~ t Byrd Date
Oak Creek Partners LLC ~D,a~te ~1~ L/ - a~
BY: ~ / uv,/' j/`,~
Its: ~~~ ~
60F6
~., ; AR~~
RESOURCES ~• EXHIBIT B
Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE
PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT
19930 SiTNSET DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
OWNER'S NAME: Bvrd
APPLICATION #: 04-359
APN #: 510-26-001
Submitted to
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fntitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RCA
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Certifted Arborist #WE-4001A
November 29, 2004
r
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registereas• ng Arborist •• November 29, 2004
SUMMARY
There aze 51 trees in the vicinity of proposed development. Of these, 11 aze in conflict and
] 4 would be significantly impacted.
Relocation is proposed as an alternative to removing 10 of the 11 trees in conflict.
Measures to minimize and/or mitigate the damage to trees being retained or relocated are
presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report and includes numerous design
revisions to the gading and landscape design.
The tree protection bond is recommended to include the combined monetary value of all
retained and relocated trees as determined in the future by the Project Arborist.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the
potential tree impacts associated with demolishing an existing residence and constructing a
new one at 19930 Sunset Drive, Sazatoga. This report presents my findings and
recommendations.
Documents reviewed for this report include the following: an azborist report by Mr.
Raymond J. Morneau, dated 9/28/04; Sheets A.Ol, Al.l, A2.1, A2.2 and A4.1 thtu A4.4
(by William Maston Architect & Associates); Sheets 1 and 2 (by Westfall Engineers, Inc.);
and Sheets L-4, L-4.1 and L4.2 (by Ken Shopper Landscape Architect). The trees'
locations, numbers and canopy dimensions aze presented on an attached copy of Sheet
Al.l (Site Plan).
Trees #72 thru 75 aze not shown on plans reviewed; their trunk locations have been plotted
on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. Please note these
trees are located on the eastern neighboring property and were included as they are at risk
of being damaged during development.
Rectangulaz, metallic tags were found attached to the trunks of each tree on site and
contain numbers corresponding to those presented in this report.
Please note the numbers presented in this report are not entirely sequential as the following
trees were excluded: those smaller than Ordinance size, trees #17 and 21 t for having been
removed, and trees #65 thty 71 for being situated outside from the proposed development.
' The initial arborist report identifies trees #17 and 21 as being poor specimens that should be removed.
Consequently, I do not suggest mitigation for their removal.
Byrd Property, 19930 Sunset Drrve, Saratoga Page 1 of 6
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered~sultinAArborist
November 29, 2004
FINDINGS
The proposed project exposes the following 51 trees regulated by City Ordinance to
potential damage:
• 1 Chinese Pistache (#22)
• 9 Coast Live Oaks (#31, 32, 43-46, 64, 72 and 73)
• 23 Coast Redwoods (#13-15, 18-20, 28/29,2 30, 33, 34, 42, 48, 49, 53-55, 59-63, 74
and 75)
• 4 Douglas-Fir (#2, 4, 8 and 35)
• 1 Date Palm (#16)
• 1 English Hawthorn (#1)
• 3 Italian Cypress (#3, 9 and 24)
• 6 Olive Trees (#]0 and 37-41)
• 3 Plums (#36, 56, and 57)
Specific data regazding each tree is presented on the attached table and incorporates the
trunk diameters, crown radii, and tree heights shown in Mr. Morneau's report.
The proposed plans identify trees #I, 9, 22, 24, 33 and 36-41 as being in conflict with the
proposed design. With the exception of tree #36, all aze proposed for relocation on site.
Given tree #36's species and overall condition, I do not suggest mitigation for its removal.
There is an additional tree, #48, which is also proposed for relocation. However, I find it
would be better to retain and protect it in its current location rather than damaging the roots
of adjacent trees #48 and 64 during the relocation process.
Though not in direct conflict, trees #2-4, 8, 10, 13, I5, 20, 28/29, 30, 44-46 and 49 would
sustain a significant level of damage by implementing the proposed grading, home and
landscape design. Plan revisions and mitigation measures aze recommended in the next
section to lessen the anticipated damage to the trees' longevity, vigor and stability.
I anticipate each tree planned for retention and those approved for relocation can survive,
provided the recommendations presented in this report aze cazefully followed and
incorporated into construction plans.
RECONIMENDATIONS
Design Guidelines
1. The trunk locations of trees #72 thru 75 should be shown on all site-related plans
(including landscaping).
2. The project applicant or property owner must retain the Project Arborist on record, Mr.
Raymond Morneau, to appraise the monetary values of each tree presented in this
Z Tree #28/29 is comprised of two trunks originating from grade and is regarded as a single tree.
Byrd Property, 19930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of 6
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Bobby, Registered ~ultingArborist
~ November 29, 2004
report; the trees shall be appraised according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h
Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. The combined
value of trees being retained and relocated is then used as the amount for the tree
protection bond (per City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the combined appraised
value of inventoried trees is required).
3. The Project Arborist should also be retained to specifically comment on [1] the
location of the proposed basement beneath tree #15's canopy and [2] the proposed
foundation of the pool house beneath the canopies of trees #19 and 20. Measures to
mitigate the damage should also be provided and incorporated into the plan design and
development process. All comments and any possible plan refinements shall be
submitted to the City for review.
4. The proposed grading design should be revised so no grading is planned within the
azeas enclosed by protective fencing as shown on the attached map. Where this is not
at all feasibly possible, the Project Arborist should review and comment on the impact,
and provide specific mitigation measures for achieving the survival of the tree(s) with a
reasonable assurance.
5. The portion of new driveway proposed beneath the canopies of trees #8, 74 and 75
must be placed on top of existing grade (including edging) and be fully pervious.
Furthermore, the existing soil surface shall not be compacted; the subbase materials
can be but must not exceed 75-percent.
6. The staircase and walls proposed beneath tree #30's canopy must be designed and
established entirely on top of existing soil grade and not require soil excavation (i.e. a
no-dig design). I also suggest that designing the features an additional five feet from
the tree's trunk be considered to lessen their potential future damage.
7. The staircase and walkway proposed immediately south of tree #49's trunk should
either be [1] redesigned to be at least 12 feet from the trunk (in line with the proposed
east-west wall of the pool house) or [2] the portion within the 12-foot distance be
elevated over existing soil grade and established using discontinuous footings. Should
the latter option be used, the footings must be installed by hand.
8. The wall, walkway and staircase proposed immediately southeast of tree #13's trunk
should be revised to be an additional five feet away from the trunk.
9. The lawn proposed beneath the canopies of trees #2-4 and 8 must be revised to comply
with the recommendations presented below the "Landscaping Guidelines" heading in
this section (towazds the end of the report).
10. The proposed wall immediately south of tree #20's trunk should be revised to be in line
with the home's foundation (approximately 14 feet from the trunk's center).
Byrd Property, !9930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 6
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered>~'ultingArborist ~ November 29. 2004
11. The walls proposed beneath the trees' canopies shall be designed without excavating
the existing soil grade. A pier and beam wall design is acceptable where a dry stack
wall is not appropriate, provided no soil excavation is required between the footings.
12. The pathways and edging proposed beneath the trees' canopies shall be constructed
entirely on top of existing grade (i.e. a no-dig design).
13. The proposed new location of tree #31 should be revised so its entire canopy is outside
from beneath tree #34's. Furthermore, tree #48 should remain in its current location
rather than being relocated.
14. The Architectural drawings and azberist report refer to the project site being in the
Town of Los Gatos. The documents should be revised accordingly.
Tree Protection Measures during Construction
15. Tree protective fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and
established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy
equipment arriving on site. It must be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted
on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven two feet into the ground
and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain
undisturbed and be maintained throughout the demolition and construction process; the
relocation or dismantling of fencing must be directly approved by the Project Arborist
and/or City before doing so.
16. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the
fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved soil beneath the canopies
of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report, to include trees
along the west side of the driveway easement. These activities include, but are not
limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning,
stockpiling or dumping materials, and equipmenUvehicle operation and pazking.
Access within the fenced azeas to construct any approved component or feature shall be
limited to foot and wheelbarrow traffic.
17. The Project Arborist should be retained at the owner's expense to visit the project site
as follows: [1] prior to demolition for determining whether the tree protective fencing
is properly established, [2] during any grading or trenching activity approved beneath
the trees' canopies (inside or outside the fenced areas), [3) during the relocation of
trees, [4] once per month for determining compliance to tree protection measures, and
[5] at any time specified in this report. Furthermore, I suggest a letter summarizing all
relevant findings and recommendations are faxed on a monthly basis to the City's
Community Development Department. All recommendations from the letters shall be
followed.
18. The relocation of each tree must be performed by a professional tree moving company.
A drip- or soaker hose-type system should also be designed to supply water to the trees
for atwo- to three-yeaz period following relocation.
Byrd Property, 19930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga Page 4 oj6
City ojSaratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered ~ulting Arborist November 29, 2004
19. The removal of walls or hazdscape beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually
performed. Equipment shall not operate or travel on unpaved soil beneath the canopies
of retained trees.
20. Unless otherwise specified, approved grading beneath a tree's canopy shall be
manually performed using hand tools only.
21. Prior to excavating soil for the basement, a trench shall be dug to the required depth
where soil is planned for excavation closes[ the tree #15's trunk (where beneath its
canopy). Roots encountered having diameters of two inches and greater shall be
cleanly severed neaz the soil cut line. The freshly cut root end shall be immediately
wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is tightly secured using a rubber band or
electrical tape. Great care must be taken to avoid excavating beyond two feet from
basement wall.
22. Soil approved for excavation to construct the pool house must also be manually
performed using hand tools. The same root severance guidelines specified above
should be used.
23. Any new underground utilities should be planned outside from beneath canopies of
retained trees. Upon availability, plans showing their locations should be submitted to
the Project Arborist and/or City for review of any tree impacts.
24. Downspouts should be directed away from and be at least 15 feet to the side of the
trees' trunks.
25. The removal of any understory brush must only occur by hand. Great care must be
taken to minimize the amount of soil excavated during the process.
26. Prior to grading, Irecommend afour-inch layer of wood chips from a tree company is
manually spread beneath the canopies of retained trees (the material should not contact
the tree's trunk).
27. Throughout development, I recommend supplemental water is supplied to each
retained tree. The specific intervals, amounts and methodology should be obtained by
the Project Arborist.
28. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist
and according to ISA standazds. The scope of work should be reviewed and approved
by the Project Arborist.
Landscaping Guidelines
29. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should
be labeled for safe use neaz trees.
Byrd Property, 19930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga Page 5 of 6
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Bobby, Registered ~ulting Arborist November 29, 2004
30. Upon availability, the landscape design (planting and imgation) should be reviewed by
the Project Arborist and/or City for tree impacts.
31. Irrigation lines proposed beneath a tree's canopy should be placed on top of existing
soil grade. If trenching beneath a canopy and into the existing grade is necessary, the
trenches should be designed and dug in a radial direction to the trunks, and be no closer
than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk. Irrigation should not spray beneath
the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees.
32. Plant material requiring frequent watering should be installed away from the trees'
trunks by at least five times their diameter (a minimum distance of 10 feet is suggested)
and be limited to 25-percent of the dripline area. Plant material installed beneath
canopies of Oaks should bedrought-tolerant and also comprise no more than 25-
percent of a dripline azea.
33. 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. Installing edging
material or tilling beneath canopies should be avoided.
Attachments: Tree Inventory Table
Site Map (Copy of Sheet Al.l)
Byrd Property, 19930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga Page 6 oj6
City oJ~Saratoga Community Development Department
ARB~RESOLIRCES ~
Profession rboricultural Consulting & Tree~re
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
.~
,., 0
m
a3
"~ ate,
~
~'
a
ggg
a .a
~
3 ~
TRFF
q G
.~ ~
~ U
~ ~o
a ~ E
~
°
~ ~ `'
~ ~
~ o
NO.
TREE NAME
~
~
~
ti '
~ x
p ~~
~`
o m
English Hawthorn
1 (Cmtae laevi ata) 12.9 30 28 Fav Low - X
Douglas-Fir
2 (Pseudotsu a memaesii) 20.3 75 28 Good Hi 2 -
Incense Cedar
3 (Calocedrus decu»eus) 18.9 70 36 Good High 2 -
Douglas-Fu
4 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 35.8 95 40 Good Hi 2 -
Douglas-Fv
8 (Pseudotsuga meaziesii) 16.8 60 28 Good Moderate 1 -
Italian Cypress
9 (Cu ressus sempervirens) 10.1 40 4 Good Moderate - X X
Olive Tree
10 (Oleo euro ea) 14.5, 9.9 40 34 Fair Low 2 -
Coast Redwood
13 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 49.8 110 48 Good High ] -
Coasl Redwood
14 (Se oia sem rvirens) 30.7 60 32 Fav Low 3 -
Coast Redwood
15 (Sequora sem rvirens) 43.7 95 48 Good High 1 -
Date Palm
16 (Phoenix sp.) 15.5 14 14 Good Moderate 3 -
Coast Redwood
18 (Sequoia sempervirens) 51.5 110 50 Good 3 -
Coast Redwood
19 (Sequoia sempervirens) 40.3 100 40 Good Hi 3 -
Coast Redwood
20 (Sequoiasempervirens) 40.4 95 44 Good Hi 2 -
REPLACEMF,NT TREE VALUES
15- on = 5120 24-inrL box =5420 36-inch 6mc = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch bwc = 57,000 72-ircL bn~ = SIS 000
Silc 19930Sumet Drire, Saraaogo
PrepmrAjor Ciy ojSomoga comet DevdapmaaDepmc
Prrp~ed by: I)cril L Bobby, RCA I oj6
No.enlw 29, 2000
ARB(,~RESOLIRCES ~
Profession Arboricultural Consulting & Tre~re
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
0
~~
C
~
-~
P
G
~c ~
~3
R O
v. °
yV t] ~' a
}p+ ~ ~ ~
c v m
`°
~ ~
~' W
3 ai
,« p
OL7 'C
G
T Q ~
' Ta U ~ ~ ~
0 ~
~ ~ 6
o 0
NOE
~ el.
x
$ m
TREE NAME x U O ~ ~ ° c ° 8
Chinese Pistache
22 (Pistacia chinensis) 14.2 22 28 Fav Moderate - X X
Italian Cypress
24 (Cu resrar sempervirens) 10.1 50 4 Good Moderate - X X
Coast Redwood
28!29 (Sequoia sem rvirenr) 46.7, 45.2 100 50 Good High 2 -
Coast Redwood
30 (Sequoia sempervirens) 39.1 95 50 Fav Modetale 2 -
Coast Live Oak
31 ( ercus a folio) 12 35 20 Fair Moderate - X X
Cons[ Live Oak
32 (Quercus a Jolia) 7 28 16 Good Moderate 5 -
Coast Redwood
33 (Se oia sem rvirenr) 11.7 35 16 Gaod Moderate - X X
Coast Redwood
34 (Sequoia sem irens) 13.1, 11.1 35 22 Fair Moderate 3 -
Douglas-Fir
35 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 18.4 48 50 Good Moderate 3 -
Phan
36 (Prunus communis) 12 ]6 24 Poor Low - X
Olive Tree 7, 5, 4, 4,
37 (Oleo euro ea) 3 23 30 Fair Moderate - X X
Olive Tree
38 (Oleo euro ea) 7.5, 7, 4 22 16 Fair Moderate - X X
Olive Tree 6.5, 5, 3,
39 (Oleo euro ) 3, 2.5 20 26 Fav Moderate - X X
Olive Tree
40 (Oleo euro ea) 5.5, 4.5, 4 19 20 Fav Moderate - X X
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
IS Oon = 5120 24-incL boz =5420 36inch boz = 51,320 48-inch Irox = SS 000 52-ircA box = 57,000 72-ioc6 box = SI5,000
Sdc /9930 Sunse Drivt, Serafogo
Preparedj~: Ciry ojSmotogo Camx Devetopmenr Deport
Aepared by: DavidL Bobby, RCA 2 ojI
Noraabtr 39, 2001
ARB~RESOLIRCES
Profession Arboricultural Consulting & Tree~bre
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
0
~
~~
~
a
°
~
°, ~ o
~a S
~
d
~ 6
~
TREE
.y
o
~ S.
o m
~
~ ~
v o
NO.
TREE NAME g
; m
x
U ~
O ~
~ ~ v x
~ ~
~ o ~
a "
& i
~
8
~ "
Olive Tree
41 (Oleo europaea) 5, 5, 2.5 I S 14 Fav Moderate - X X
Coast Redwood
42 (Sequoia sempervirens) 7.2 37 16 Good Hi 4 -
Coast Live Oak
43 (Querrus a Jolia) 5.8, 4.5 18 14 Good Hi 4 -
Coast Live Oak
44 ( ercus a 'olio) 11.9, 7.3 43 26 Good I
Coast Live Oak
45 (Qeercus a ;/'olio) 1 ] 38 22 Good High 2 -
Coast Live Oak
46 (Querous a Jolia) 7.5 37 16 Good Hi 2
Coast Redwood
48 (Sequoias rvirens) 14.8, ] 3.2 60 26 Fair Moderate 3 _ ]{
Coast Redwood
49 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 45 110 50 Fair Moderate 2 -
Coast Redwood
53 (Se oia sem rvimca) 14.6 35 32 Fair Low 3 -
Coast Redwood
54 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 8.4 28 18 Fair Low 4 -
Coast Redwood
55 (Sequoiasempervirens) 11.4 26 28 Fair Low 3 -
Plum 4, 4, 3, 3,
56 (Prunes commtmis) 2, 2 22 22 Poor Low 3 -
Plum
57 (Prumts communis) 6, 4, 3, 2 20 14 Poor Low 5 -
Cons[ Redwood
59 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 10.2 23 20 Fair Low 5 -
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15• Ilon = 5120 24iach box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-incA box = 57,000 72-v~ch bmc = 515,000
Sac 79930 SumdOrive. Saratoga
Preparadjoc Coy ojSaraulga Coaua. Devdapne~tlDepm~t
Aepard by: DaridL Bobby, RCA 3 oj4
Novembo 29, 2004
ARB(~RESOLIRCES ~
Profession rboricultural Consulting & Tree~re
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
0
~y
~
~
C
O
~~
~
~ tl
L
6
~
L
~ O
~ a p
0.
~ td
OE
°
~
°
" p
N
v
g
"fa "
?g
~i 3 F4
TREE A
'~ G
.~
m rn
a
o U
'~
b ~"
'yb
9~ E
i'i .c
_°. °°
~~
~ ~
~... w
~
$ PP
5
~
~ 0
NO. TREE NAME F •.1°'• U O vii ^,~' " :~ q °~' , o `a
Cons[ Redwood
60 (Sequoia sempervirens) 13.8 20 30 Fav Low 4 -
Coas[Redwood
61 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 8.6 22 24 Fair Low 4 -
Coast Redwood
62 (Sequoia sempervirens) 11.4 25 30 Fair Low 3 -
Coast Redwood
63 (Sequoia sempervirens) 6.2 22 12 Fair Low 4 -
Coast Live Oak
64 (Quercus a Jolia) 13.3 38 34 Good Hi 3 -
Coast Live Oak
72 ( ercusagrijolia) 12 35 25 Fav High 3 - X X
Coast Live Oak
73 ( ercus a 'olio) 14 30 35 Good Hi 3 - X X
Cons[ Redwood
74 (Sequoiasem rvirens) 45 110 40 Good Hi 3 - X X
Coast Redwood
75 (Sequoia sem rvirc~zs) 28 100 40 Good Hi 3 - X X
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
IS Om = 5120 24-inch bne =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch hox = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000
Sitc 19930 Suaad Dme, Sm-etogo
Prey~edjor: City ojS®aroge Comm Developmen(Depmt
Prepmad by: DavidL Bobby, RCA 4 oj4
Nwernber 29, 2004
ARB~Ii RESOURCES ~
' Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care
March 22, 2005 /Q~ /c~~
Lata Vasudevan 1//(~/j GS' /pD~
Community Development Department M9R 2 810 ~a
City of Sazatoga ~,, ~~ry OS O
Saz7 togaruCA 95 ~~ nue M'/N/~y~e~ ~ay~Nr
RE: REVIEW OF PLANS for the Proposed Residence at the Byrd Property;
19930 Sunset Drive, Sazatoga; Application #: 04-359
Deaz Lata:
I have reviewed the following documents in relation to the proposed development at the
above-referenced site: [1] most recent set of project plans; [2] the report by Mr. Ray
Morneau, dated 2/11/05; and [3] the letter by Mr. Ken Schoppet, dated 2/7/05. My
comments aze presented below.
1. The trunk locations of trees #72 thru 75 aze shown on the Screening Plan (Sheet L-4.1)
but not on the Site Plan (Sheet Al.l) or Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1). Plans
should be revised accordingly. Additionally, these trees' canopy dimensions as shown
on Sheets L-4.1 and A1.1 should represent the canopy sizes presented within the table
attached to my report dated 11/29/04.
2. The appraised value of each tree was accurately prepazed to City Code by Mr.
Momeau. Based on his calculated amounts and trees planned for retention, the tree
protection bond amount required for this project is $297.740. This amount considers
the value of all trees minus #36 (a Plum in overall poor condition and being removed).
3. The proposed grading design has not been revised per item #4 of my report. Plans
should be revised accordingly, to include Sheets A1.1 and 1 conforming to another.
4. Tree #15 will be severely jeopazdized by constructing the proposed basement. This
tree is identified as being in overall good condition and has a high suitability for
preservation. As such, measures to achieve a reasonable assurance of its stability and
longevity are suggested for compliance to the City's Ordinance. My recommendation
for achieving this includes redesigning the home in a manner so the closest edge of
excavation (including for any finish grading) is at least 20 feet from the tree's trunk.
This distance must also consider any overcuUoverbuild required for constructing and
sealing the walls, as well as installing drainage components. One possible manner in
which to maximize the amount of square footage for the home while maintaining the
required setbacks is for the vertical cut of the basement to be achieved through "soil
nailing" and using shotcrete.
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor#796763
- ARBOR RESOURCES ~
Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care
Mazch 22, 2005
19930 Sunset Drive
page 2
5. The proposed pool house should be redesigned so no soil excavation (including finish
grading) is required within 20 feet from the trunks of trees #19 and 20. If this cannot
be achieved through the use of a pier and above-grade beam footing, then the structure
should be designed to be at least 20 feet from the trunks.
6. The proposed wall immediately south of tree #20's trunk has not been revised to be in
line with the home's foundation (per item #10 of my report) and plans should be
revised accordingly. The applicant has commented that the wall will be constructed
above grade using a pier and beam system. However, the proposed grading on the
wall's south side will significantly compromise this tree. In addition, the proximity of
the wall to the trunk is too close for minimizing the potential risk of the wall being
damaged in the foreseeable future.
Item #5 of my report specifies the portion of new driveway proposed beneath the
canopies of trees #8, 74 and 75 being placed on top of existing grade. A note on Sheet
L-4.1 indicates this will occur, however, the entire recommendation must be reflected
on Sheet 1, including where shown in Sections A-A on Sheet 2 of the plans.
8. The proposed staircase beneath tree #30's canopy should be designed an additional five
feet from its trunk than what is shown on Sheet Al.l. Sheets L4.1 and 1 should be
revised accordingly.
9. Sheet 1 does not reflect the staircase being in line with the east-west wall of the pool
house and should be revised accordingly.
10. The wall, walkway and staircase immediately southeast of tree #13's trunk have not
been revised on Sheet A1.1 to be an additional five feet away from its trunk (per item
#8 of my report). The plan should be revised accordingly.
11. A note is shown on Sheet L-4.1 regazding the proposed lawn beneath the canopies of
tree #2-4 and 8. However, the change(s) must be incorporated into the design and
shown on the plans.
12. The note specified on Sheet L-4.1 regarding item #12 of my report should also include
`edging.'
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net
Phone: 650.654.335] • Pax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763
,_
ARB~Z RESOURCES
' Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care
Mazch 22, 2005
19930 Sunset Drive
page 3
13. The proposed storm drain shown on Sheet 1 should be reconfigured to be established
outside from the designated fenced area. Additionally, all utilities and services should
be deigned as such. If this is not possible, alternative means for installing any line
should be prescribed and monitored by the Project Arborist.
Sincerely
L. ;
David L. Babby, RCA
Consulting Arborist
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763
r ~cPCy~a °Oo
m F ~~`
mwe
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
PLAN~EW NUMBER 04 2965
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wtvw.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER
FlLE NUMBER 04-359
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC.
SHEET
REDUIREMENi
Review of a proposed 9503 square foot single family residence.
EXHIBIT e
JpFC
II-A dix
STG
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.
1.
Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2750 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure. As an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow has
been reduced by 75% establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1000 gpm at 20
psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and
fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
JFC
103.3 as
~mendedby
3MC
_6-20.150
2. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in
excess of 2,000 GPM or new homes located within the hazardous fire area, shall be
protected throughout by an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system,
hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard
An FDC is required for this sprinkler system.
Provide the hydrant number with the flow data submitted.
CNy PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplluMNem• DATE PAGE
STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ WILLIAM MASTON 11/22/2004 1
3
of
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Rucker, Ryan
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR- BYRD 19930 Sunset Dr
as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection
Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos.
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
~P~,LAR4 c~0
m'~ ~a.~
CDDE/SEC.
UFC
902.2.4.1
UFC
903.2
UFC
902.2.2
UFC
A pendix
III-A
UFC
901.4.4
SHEET
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
PLAN•IEW NUMBER 04 2965
BLDG PERMR NUMBER
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER
FlLE NUMBER 04-359
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
ND. REWIREMENi
3. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not
obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or
driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to
4. Required Access to Water Su}~p1Tv -(Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are
greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway
containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an
approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building.
s. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required• Provide an access driveway
with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating fuming 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 D-1.
6. Timing of Required Driveway Installations: A driveway with 6 inches of class 2
aggregate base compacted to 95°/G shall be constructed and accepted by the Fire
Department, prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not
be delivered to the site until installations are complete. Note that building permit
issuance maybe withheld until installations are completed.
~• Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
background.
Clry PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplleentNBDN DATE PAGE
STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ WILLIAM MASTON 11/22/2004 3
2
DF
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPr10N BY
Residential Development Rucker, Ryan
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR- BYRD 19930 Sunset Dr
as the Santa Clara Countv Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of C°mpbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos. Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
~~PGI.ARA pplr
~a
g FI '`
COUNiF3Y84ERVICE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos; CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wwwsccfd.org
PLA•IEW NUMBER U4 2965
BLDG PERMR NUMBER
CONTROL NUMBER
FILE NUMBER 04-359
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
COOE/SEC. SHEET ~ NO. REQUIREMENT
$ (Revise notes to reflect compliance with items 2 and 4.
To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental
Review Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan
submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan
submittal.
Cary PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppI1glHNsnro DATE PAGE
STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ WILLIAM MASTON 11/22/2004 3
3
DF
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Rucker, Ryan
LVtiM 11VX
SFR- BYRD 19930 Sunset Dr
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection Districl
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
EXHIBIT D
i3~7~ FR?'iTVAL~. -"-_\L :L'E . Sfi RHTOv~±. C__LiF~IF ~iA 450x0 + (_U~'~ b6~-i2U0
Incorporated October 22, 195E
Mazch 22, 2005
Michael & Elizabeth Byrd
14858 Gypsy Hill Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: 19930 Sunset Drive
Geotechnical Clearance
Deaz Mr. and Mrs. Byrd:
Aileen Y.au
}<aihleen Kina
N'o~man Kling
l'Jick SVeit
Ann b1'aRonc~mith
BAR 2 3 2005 Ll
"1TVOFSAkgTOr.-
Geotechnical Clearance with conditions has been granted for the above referenced project based on
the review letter prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated March 22, 2005. Geotechnical
conditions of approval as well as the review letter are attached.
Please sign the attached Hold Hamiless form and send back to me.
L` you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 868-
1274. Thank you
Silncerely,
1 ~"~~ir.
Iveta Harvancik
Associate Engineer
Cc: ~i,ata Vasudevan, Community Development Department, City of Saratoga
r
~_
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner
CC: Applicant
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for 19930 Sunset Drive
APPLICANT: Byrd
DATE: March 22, 2005
Geotechnical Conditions of approval:
1. The following items shall be incorporated into the final plans for project construction:
• The consultant has provided design criteria for a drilled pier and grade beam
foundation for the proposed cabana. The piers would be minimum 16 inches in
diameter and minimum 9 feet deep. Given the deep, potentially expansive
subsurface materials, and the relatively shallow recommended pier depths combined
with local groundwater conditions, piers could be subject to significant uplift forces.
Satisfactory pier embedment should be re-evaluated and confirmed by the
consultant during pier drilling. Construction of a pier foundation for the cabana is a
condition of Geotechnical Clearance.
• The consultant has provided the option of using 6 inches of drain rock and a 4-inch
PVC subdrain between the face of the pool excavation and the pool shell. The use
of this design option is a condition of Geotechnical Cleazance.
• The Project Geotechnical Engineer has provided supplemental design measures to
address potential adverse subsurface water impacts to the proposed basement. The
consultant has indicated that subdrains should be installed beneath the basement
slab in the event that evidence of the elevated subsurface water (as noted in the
boring logs) is identified during construction. This field inspection is a condition of
Geotechnical Clearance; however, we strongly recommend that the applicant
consider use the supplemental basement subdrains based on ground water data
already collected at the site.
1 of 3
•
Project Construction Plans reflecting the above conditions shall be submitted to the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, site drainage improvements,
drainage outfalls and design parameters for the building foundations, driveway, and swimming
pool) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants'
recommendations.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnica] Engineer in a
letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits.
3. The Project Geotechnical Engineer 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,
basement and pool excavations, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel
and concrete. Additionally, the consultant should address the following:
• The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect the basement excavation for
signs of moisture/seepage and verify that appropriate subdrain systems are
installed.
• Given the deep clayey subsurface materials (CH/fat clay), the relatively shallow
pier embedment, and elevated groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed pool
house, the consultant shall inspect all excavations for foundation piers and
retaining walls for adverse soil and groundwater conditions. Appropriate
embedment of piers shall be confirmed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant
during the drilling of piers.
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 prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval.
2 of 3
•
4. 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.
5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any
claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other
soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
3 of 3