Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Chairman Page, Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Kurash, Patrick and Roupe ABSENT: Commissioner Jackman STAFF: Senior Planners Block and Schubert, Planner Connolly, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Study Session and regular meeting minutes from February 14, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted February 23, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 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(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. V-O1-001 (393-25-024) - ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue; - Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height along Saratoga Avenue within the front yard setback. The site is located on a 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 28, 2001 PAGE 2 DR-00-045 &t SD-00-006 (410-39-012) - LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC., 15202 Quito Road; -Request for Design Review and Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.62 net acre parcel into three lots of 48,426; 50,868 and 65,484 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an existing residence and accessory structures and constructing three two story residences ranging in size from 5,702 square feet to 6,498 square feet. The site is located in an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) V-00-023 (503-56-010) -HALL, 13410 Old Oak Way; -Request for Variance approval to construct an addition to match an existing non-conforming structure, within the rear yard setback, on a slope that exceeds 30% and at a height greater than 26 feet. The existing structure is built on piers with a maximum height of about 43 feet. The site is located on a 40,075 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) 4. DR-00-063 (397-07-083) - SATHAYE,15315 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,066 square foot two-story, single-family residence. The maximum height proposed is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 43,680 square feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-1, PATRICK OPPOSED) 5. DR-00-061 (397-07-103) -CHID, 18615 Maude Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,873 square foot single story residence with accessory structures and construct a new single story 6,096 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 46,120 square foot parcel is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Modification of approved Planning Commission project standards (CONTINUED TO 3/14/01) COMMISSION ITEMS - Chew -Rodeo Creek Hollow (Lot 5) modification COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from February 7, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:15 TO THE NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 14, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 27, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2001 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-063 2. DR-00-045 &t SD-00-006 3. DR-00-061 4. V-O1-001 5. V-00-023 - SATHAYE Item 4 15315 Sobey Road - LEXOR INVESTMENTS Item 2 15202 Quito Road - CHIU Item 5 18615 Maude Avenue - ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL Item 1 13601 Saratoga Avenue - HALL Item 3 13410 Old Oak Way LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda: The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations anal testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday rr~orning for an estimated time of the site visit. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Study Session and regular meeting minutes from February 14, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted February 23, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public heazing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. V-O1-001 (393-25-024) - ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue; - Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height along Saratoga Avenue within the front yard setback. The site is located on a 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. 2. DR-00-045 6x SD-00-006 (410-39-012) - LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC., 15202 Quito Road; -Request for Design Review and Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.62 net acre parcel into three lots of 48,426; 50,868 and 65,484 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an existing residence and accessory structures and constructing three two story residences ranging in size from 5,702 square feet to 6,498 square feet. The site is located in an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 28, 2001 PAGE 2 3. V-00-023 (503-56-010) -HALL, 13410 Old Oak Way; -Request for Variance approval to construct an addition to match an existing non-conforming structure, within the rear yard setback, on a slope that exceeds 30% and at a height greater than 26 feet. The existing structure is built on piers with a maximum height of about 43 feet. The site is located on a 40,075 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. 4. DR-00-063 (397-07-083) - SATHAYE,15315 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,066 square foot two-story, single-family residence. The maximum height proposed is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 43,680 square feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. 5. DR-00-061 (397-07-103) - CHIU,18615 Maude Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,873 square foot single story residence with accessory structures and construct a new single story 6,096 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 46,120 square foot parcel is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Modification of approved Planning Commission project standards COMMISSION ITEMS Chew -Rodeo Creek Hollow (Lot 5) modification COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga Ciry Council Minutes from February 7, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 14, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA I ~_~ t • a 1 ,~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION & INFORMAL REVIEW OF TRAFALGAR PROJECT DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 PLACE: Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Study Session Chair Page called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe & Chair Page Councilmember Bogosian Absent: None Staff: Planner Mark Connolly Guests:Mr. Stan Gambel Mr. Glen Cahoon Mr. Stan Gambel, Applicant: • Identified their parcels as 517-08-Ob8 and 517-08-016. • Discussed the access easement shared with Mr. Srinivasan. • Provided a copy of the original site plan and proposal. • Advised that they will remove a palm tree and two fruit trees. Commissioner Patrick asked about the access easement. Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the easement is 12 feet wide. Commissioner Jackman asked who owned that easement. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the townhomes own the easement. Mr. Stan Gambel: • Pointed out the second sheet of his original proposal, which included 1,300 square feet of retail space at the ground level (Big Basin Way) with a loft above that space with 2,500 square feet. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the applicant is aware that this is retail and not office space on the ground floor. ~ ~- Mr. Stan Gambel said that he was aware that the space is intended for retail and not office use. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the lot sizes are for these two parcels. r }" Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 2 February 14, 2001 Mr. Stan Gambel replied that Lot A is 11,250 square. feet and Lot B is 11,332 square feet. He continued by stating that the Cork Tree would be retained. Under the new proposal two units, like single-family residences in a flag configuration, will include 2,750 square feet in living area each. This will create two lots from that one lot. Chair Page asked if there will be a share drive. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that there would not be a share drive. Commissioner Patrick asked how this property could be subdivided into substandard lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the difference is in creating condominiums and subdividing the lots. Mr. Mark Connolly explained that with condominiums, the owners own air space and not land. Added that staff is recommending keeping the boundary between the two existing lots and their differing zoning districts. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the proposal is for a subdivision or condominium project. Mr. Stan Gambel replied whichever is possible to do. Stated that for the Big Basin Way lot, he is proposing one lot with different Assessor Parcel Numbers for each unit and common area. Commissioner Ba ointed out that the newest ro osal ny p p p does not increase the retail use of Lot A. Mr. Stan Gambel disagreed and reminded the Commission that with this alternate proposal what would have been a residential loft is now being considered as commercial office space. Discussed parking requirements for that parcel. A viable commercial use of this parcel equals 3,400 square feet with 1,200 square feet downstairs and 2,220 square feet upstairs. For 3,400 in commercial space, 17 parking spaces are required. Nine are provided on site. Therefore a Variance for 8 parking spaces would be required. Commissioner Roupe asked if this sort of Variance is possible. Chair Page replied yes. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gambel what factors he takes into consideration in calling a project viable. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that a 2,500 square foot residential flat is more valuable. Turning that space into commercial space creates the requirement for elevator access and handicapped accessible restroom facilities. Commissioner Roupe added that it appears Mr. Gambe#1~~is seeking the same economic viability with the commercial use, as he would have obtained developing a residential use on the upper floor. r ~ Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 3 February 14, 2001 Commissioner Jackman disagreed that residential use of the upper floor is a given. Added that residential use is a discretionary use at the approval of the Planning Commission and Council and not a given right. Mr. Mark Connolly added that residential use of the upper floor is a permitted use. Commissioner Barry added that the Village Plan is more specific regarding commercial use than the zoning designation. Commissioner Patrick asked for information about the potential for underground parking, suggesting that use of underground parking would require less pavement and impervious surface at the street level. Commissioner Jackman asked if the intended use of the easement would be exceeded with this development. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the shared access easement allows for ingress and egress. Commissioner Patrick asked whether more open area is achieved with the underground parking and whether the need for a Variance would be negated. Mr. Glen Cahoon • Advised that under-grounding the parking creates only 16 spaces as a result of the need for the access ramp. Additionally, they cannot put retail space on the first floor directly over the ramp, as there would be no pedestrian access to that space. Their original proposal provided 14 spaces. The only landscape addition would be a small patch of grass at the rear of the site. Commissioner Barry asked what the parking requirement would be if the CH2 parcel is completely commercial in use. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that 20 spaces would be required. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would be more in support of a Variance to allow reduced provision of parking for commercial uses. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that this is a constrained lot that lends itself for residential use. Commissioner Jackman disagreed; stating that this is a viable commercial property that she is not willing to give up easily. Mr. Stan Gambel advised the Commissioners to check with staff. The residential use is not discretionary but a permitted use. Commissioner Barry stated that the purpose of this Study Session is to come up with alternatives to the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick agreed and added that the Commission is not here to argue the point. Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 4 ' February 14, 2001 Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the maximum arkin ossible on sit p g p e is 14 spaces, which would allow 2,800 square feet in retaiUcommercial use. Chair Page stated that retail use on the second floor has been found not to be viable so the second floor would be office space. Commissioner Jackman suggested larger retail on the first floor and maybe one condo on the rear of that parcel. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the justification for mixed use has been made. Mr. Stan Gambel argued that a big office building on stilts would not be an attractive addition to the downtown. Added that it is clear there are no advantages to underground parking: Commissioner Barry stated that there are differing views on the Commission about what represents viability. Commissioner Roupe stated that in Mr. Gambel's case, he is saying what is economically viable in his view and what he is willing to do. Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the City of Saratoga is doing a study on the viability of commercial uses in this area. Suggested that he be allowed to construct a 3,400 square foot retaiUoffice building on the Big Basin lot and four residences on the St. Charles lot. If it were determined after five years that the office use of the upper floor is not viable, he would be allowed to convert that space into a residential flat. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Gambel consider three smaller residential units on the other lot rather than two larger ones and only one residential unit on Lot A. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that parking and access constraints result from three units instead of two. With three units, they need six garage spaces and 1.5 on-site parking spaces. In addition, retention of trees including the Cork becomes more problematic. Commissioner Kurasch suggested flipping the direction of one unit. Commissioner Barry asked what justification there is to approve the rear setback Variance from the required 30 feet. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the justification is the expanded retail use of the Big Basin parcel and the retention of the lot lines and differing zoning designations for these two lots. He reiterated his offer to accept two residential lots on the St. Charles property, two on the Big Basin property, giving up the idea of the residential lot on top of the Big Basin retail space with a total of 3,400 square foot of retaiUoffice space on Big Basin. Commissioner Patrick added that this ro osal would re uire Variances for both arkin P P q p g and the setback. r ''~ Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 5 February 14, 2001 Commissioner Roupe reminded that Mr. Gambel is seeking a conditional five-year option to allow the conversion of the upper floor commercial space into living space should the office space be determined to not be viable at this location. ADJOURNMENT Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk • • ~~ • • • t f MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe anal Chair Page Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -January 24, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 2001, were approved with no amendments. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman abstained, as they were not in attendance at this meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he was present as a representative for his mother, who resides at 13920 Loquat Court. • Advised that there is a proposal fora 3,300 square foot house with a basement on his mother's street, a street on which the existing homes average only 2,000 square feet. • Expressed concerns that the City does not have a complete Storm Drain System or under- grounding of utilities. • Suggested that the City should take care to collect fees for the under-grounding of utilities, improvements to the Storm Drain System as well as Park & Recreation fees. • Added that garages for these larger homes should also be larger and the driveways should be longer to provide adequate off-street parking. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET 1NIr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Advised that he is recommending two additions to the Director Items. One is a request from the Heritage Preservation Commission and the second is consideration of a review and amendment to the guidelines for staff approvals of minor modifications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-011, SD-00-001 & V-00-018 (517-08-008 & 016) -TRAFALGAR, INC , 14612 Bid Basin . Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new two-story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2'and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this is the second time this project has come before the Planning Commission, the first time being at the last meeting on January 24`h • Advised that the noticing for this evening included a Variance that had not been properly noticed previously. • As a result of a Study Session held earlier this evening, staff is recommending a continuance of this item to the meeting of March 14, 2001. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:51 p.m. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she was in attendance at the Study Session. ~ Added that she is impressed with Mr. Gamble's efforts and would like to see this project proceed: • Said that this proposal will expand the community and its tax base and that it is a good idea .to incorporate residential uses above commercial uses. • Added that mixed uses help meet affordable housing requirements. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman; consideration of Agenda Item No. 1 (DR-00-011/SD-00-001/V-00-018) was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 2001, at 7:55 p.m. (7- 0) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-048 (510-06-014) - ONG, 19051 Austin Way: Request for Design Review approval that will involve the demolition of an existing 3,855 square foot single-story residence and construction of a • new single-story 6,393 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 60,448 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. S Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project is back before the Commission for a second time, continued from the January 10`h Planning Commission meeting. Areas of concern included the size of the proposed light wells, construction access to Highway 9, inadequate information regarding tree protection, view and/or privacy impacts and questions about the actual height of the proposed structure. • Stated that the maximum height of the structure has been lowered from the original proposal of 24 feet to 23 feet. . • Added that the adjacent neighbor still has concerns about privacy impacts and has provided several alternative site plan suggestions. • Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal. Commissioner Barry inquired whether the siting of the house remains the same as reviewed at the January 10`" meeting. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that no change in the placement of the home has occurred since that time. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Barrie Coates had recommended a move of the structure to alleviate impacts on a tree. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Mr. Coates' recommendation had been met with the original submittal. Commissioner Barry suggested altering the orientation of the house to help preserve Tree No. 5. Commissioner Jackman suggested the removal of Tree No. 2 (magnolia). Add that the palm tree on site is the only one in the neighborhood and it does not necessarily need to remain. Commissioner Barry asked the distance between the new home and Tree No. 25 (Redwood). Mr. Mark Connolly replied that there is about an eight to ten foot distance between the trunk and the proposed structure. Commissioner Barry advised that the minimum distance recommended between a structure and an Oak tree is ten feet, with an eight-foot separation for other tree species. Added that eight feet does not offer much protection during construction. Said that this particular Redwood tree is an incredible one. Mr. Mark Connolly added that the Arborist has not required construction fencing for that particular tree. Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Barry that the Redwood tree is a majestic one. Added that she also found that Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) is a particularly fine tree. Said that she was less concerned with the Oak. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Oak is listed as the most vulnerable. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the construction distance would not cause any life threatening impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Barry read from the Tune 20, 2000, Arborist's Report, which recommended moving the house to the east of the Douglas Fir. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant states that they will have most enjoyment of the house as they have sited it. Chair Page asked if the house has been relocated. Mr. Mark Connolly replied not since the last meeting. It was moved from its original proposed placement based upon the Arborist's recommendation. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing- for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Ray Nasmeh, P.O. Box 844, Saratoga:- • Advised that while there are over 90 trees on this parcel, only 27 are mentioned in the Arborist's Report. • Added that they are trying to have the front door of this new home fronting onto the drive. • Advised that they will hand dig around the Redwood tree to assure the health of that tree. • Advised that they will be adding four '24-inch box trees to help screen this site from the neighboring home. This is in replacement for two trees that will'be removed between the two properties: Additionally, they will replace the shared fence. • Informed that they re-sited. the house twice based upon recommendations of the Arborist and that they have been working with staff for more than a-year on this project. Mr. Scott Stoller, 18625 Sutter, Suite 900, Morgan Hill, CA: • Said that he was~available for ariy questions. • Added that the Ongs selected to build asingle-story house and that the front setback provided is 76 feet. Mr. Mike Garakani, 19061 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that the Commission is missing several poirits. • Advised that he purchased his property. three years ago and that he .has three children. • Added that his property is to the :east of the Ong parcel .with a~picket .fence separating the two parcels. • Currently, he has a view of trees on the Ong property. These trees obscure the current structure on the Ong parcel. Some of these screening trees are proposed for removal. • ,Said that he is particularly concerned with Trees No. 5 and 7, which have been deemed healthy and worth saving. • Said that he provided five alternate site plans, some.of which rotate the house without changing the footprint but saving all trees that had been recommended for retention by the Arborist (either rated as fine or exceptional specimens). • Asked the Commission to either require the redesign of the house to preserve the exceptional trees, require the rotation of the house to preserve several of the exceptional trees slated for removal and/or to require a landscape plan. • . Asked why the Arborist's report is being ignored. Saratoga. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 5 Chair Page asked Mr. Garakani whether the addition of four 24-inch box trees along the shared property line will help or hurt. Does he want them or not. Mr. Garakani replied that he wants to see the existing trees retained. Chair Page stated that other trees are placed at risk with his alternative proposals. Mr. Garakani suggested that the Commission consider the July Arborist's Report. Commissioner Barry inquired about such a report. Added that she has seen both the June and October Arborist's Reports but not a July Report. Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report is the most recent and relevant. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would like to see what is included on the July report. Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report refers back to the June report but makes no mention of a July report. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that the July 12, 2000, report is an addendum to the June report. That update stated that trees rated as exceptional (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11) must be retained at any cost while those rated as fine (9 and 10) should be retained if possible. Mr. Nesmeh stated that not all trees on the site are in the report. Added that the trees on this parcel are an asset and will be preserved as recommended by the Arborist. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:30 p.m. (7-0) Commissioner Kurasch stated that there are five exceptional trees at risk. The house is at the maximum allowable square footage. Another solution might be to reduce the footprint. Added that she is in favor of a landscape plan requirement. Said that the home design is a good one. Commissioner Jackman agreed that the home design is good. Added that the neighbor's suggested alternate site plans provide too small a rear yard. Said that she would like to see a landscape plan for the site. Asked whether there will be bonding required for the trees. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could hold onto the bond for a longer period of time if the Commission so desires to ensure the health of the trees on site. Commissioner Patrick reminded the Commission that the original light well gave the appearance of a sunken terrace. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the light well now meets the 36-inch maximum. Commissioner Patrick stated that perhaps the house needs to be smaller. Added that one tree on the Arborist Report that is rated exceptional did not appear particularly exceptional to her upon seeing at on a site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 6 ~ Commissioner Barry asked to hear the comments of the other Commissioners prior to making her own remarks. Commissioner Roupe stated that most concerns have been addressed including the front elevation, height and articulation. Said that the proposed square footage is not an issue for him and that this is a reasonable home. Said that he has no concerns with the design or the location of the home on the site. Commissioner Bernald stated that she appreciates the lowered front entryway. Said that her main concern is the preservation of Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) and Tree No. 25 (Redwood). Added that she did not see Tree No. 5 as being exceptional and that she had noticed bark damage on that tree. Tree No. 1 is an Olive and she is not concerned about that tree. Trees. No. 6, 7 and 11 did not appear to be unreplaceable.. Said that with the optimal protection of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25, she has no problem with the trees to be removed. Added that .while this is a massive home, it is balanced. The use of stone helps integrate the new home onto the site. Said that perhaps with the elimination of any wood-burning fireplaces, the need for spark arresters can be completely eliminated. Said that she can. support the project as long as the shed (currently covered with a blue tarp) is removed. Chair Page expressed his appreciation for the lowered height.. Added. that asingle-story takes more space on the lot but that he prefers asingle-story to a two-story home. Suggested a Condition of Approval to retain the bond longer to make sure the replacement trees survive. Commissioner Barry stated her appreciation for the redesign of the entryway. Agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners regarding the trees. Specifically, she is not comfortable with the closeness of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25 to the house. Said that she is open to suggestions. Commissioner Roupe suggested requiring a Project Arborist who will be on site and responsible for monitoring the trees at key points of the project. Chair Page agreed that this requirement can be made a Condition of Approval. If the applicant does not agree; they can appeal that Condition to Council. Commissioner Barry suggested a landscape plan that accomplishes :the necessary screening for the adjacent neighbor. Said that she would like to see a Water Retention Plan. Added that a good faith effort has been made here. With screening, this is a reasonable project. Commissioner Kurasch said that this project would impact two neighbors. The driveway is close to the property line .(six feet). Said that she did not agree that this is the only or even best placement of the house on site. Said that she will not support. Added that she does support the requirement for a landscape plan for the site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-048 with the' requirements. for: A. a Landscape Plan,, B. a Water Retention Plan; C. that the tarp-covered shed structure be removed from the property; D. that an on-site Arborist be retained for the project specifically during critical foundation construction as well to provide regular monitoring of the health of the trees during construction; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 7 E. that a bond for the trees be retained for two years after Final Occupancy; F. that the outside stairwell be reduced; and G. that two of three spark arresters be removed from the structure. (6-1; Commissioner Kurasch voted against the project) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 UP-O1-001 (397-24-093 & 094) - PINN BROTHERS, 20075 Spaich Court: Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 930 square foot cabana which would be 12 feet, 6 inches in height. A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within 33 feet of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel, which is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to allow a 930 square foot cabana in the rear yard for a house currently under construction. The cabana would be located 33 feet from the rear setback where 59 feet are required. The structure would be 12 feet, 6 inches while the maximum allowed without a Use Permit is 12 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:54 p.m. Ms. Gina Tense, 14315 Douglas Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that she is the representative of the purchasers of this home and that she is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Jackman asked if a stove is planned for this unit and whether the owners consider this structure to be a cabana or a guesthouse. Ms. Gina Terisi replied that the unit is considered a guesthouse per the plans and includes a bedroom. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:57 p.m. (7-0) Commissioner Jackman stated that as this unit will not be visible from the street she felt that it would be okay. Commissioner Patrick inquired if there is not a square footage limitation on guesthouses. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the maximum square footage is based on the total square footage on the lot. Chair Page asked what the total square footage is on the property. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the main house is 4,773 square feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch asked if all the homes in the project were sold. Commi i ss oner Patnck advised that the homes located directly behind this property are older existing homes. Mr. Mark Connolly stated that he is confident that this project will not exceed the total maximum allowable square footage. Chair Page called for a break at 9 p.m. to allow staff the opportunity to obtain the specific square footage for this site. Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that the house and cabana would total 5,703 square feet while the allowable square footage for the property is 6,040 square feet. Commissioner Barry stated that while there may be no impact from the street, there may be great impact to the neighbors on the other side of the fence. Suggested that the cabana could be more rectangular in shape rather than bulky and intrusive on the setback. It doesn't appear as if there are any hardships or reasons why the applicants cannot comply with required setbacks. Added that she had no problem with the extra six inches in height. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the cabana could be built closer to the home. Commissioner Ba said that h rry s e has design and placement concerns. A 900 square foot cabana is large and it is closer to the fences than it needs to be. Commissioner Patrick advised that the use of the term cabana implies the future addition of a pool, which may explain the placement to the side of the lot. Commissioner Jackman stated that most cabanas don't include a bedroom. Recommended a reduction in the size of the cabana so that it is a cabana rather than a guesthouse. Suggested approximately 700 square feet rather than the proposed 930.- Commissioner Bernald stated that a 30 by 30 foot house is not a huge structure and that the homeowners should be able to use their backyard as they see fit. The proposal does not exceed the allowable square footage and a pool is probably going to be added to the site. This is not an unprecedented request to have a guest house/cabana within a setback. Jokingly suggested throwing in an oven and allowing this to become affordable housing. Stated her support. Commissioner Roupe stated that the height is not an issue and that he will support this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it is fair game to look at this proposal since the Use Permit is required to approve the cabana. Said that the unit could be smaller. Chair Page stated that he can support the proposal as it is: Added that having a bed and bath in the unit is a nice addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved UP-O1-001. (5-2; Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** _ DIRECTOR ITEMS 1. Modification to Review Standards: Mr. Mark Connolly suggested bringing to the Commission, at its meeting of February 28, 2001, proposed modifications to relax the standards to minor modifications to previous approvals in order to allow staff to handle minor changes as opposed to requiring them to be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jackman stated that it is a good idea to review the standards. Commissioner Patrick added that she had no objection to bringing the idea up for review. Commissioner Bernald cautioned that sometimes even a minor modification such a moving a structure just a few inches causes big problems. 2. Heritage Preservation Commission Request: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission will be conducting a site visit at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue (Kalkunte project) on March 6, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. and is asking any available member of the Planning Commission to join them on that site visit. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. West Valley College Stadium Expansion: Commissioner Roupe advised that West Valley-College is seeking to expand its stadium. Suggested that staff be directed to investigate whether the Planning Commission can call up the College's Use Permit for review. Commissioner Patrick suggested that Commissioner Roupe contact the City Attorney directly due to staff limitations at this time. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the City Attorney is already involved. Added that there is a Use Permit for the college. Advised that recently 10 trees were removed but the City does not have a lot to say about that. Said that staff can update the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Patrick again suggested a report directly from the City Attorney as to what purview the City and/or Commission has in regard to West Valley College. Chair Page suggested that Richard Taylor be contacted. 2. La Paloma Project: Commissioner Jackman expressed concerns regarding the total disregard for the safety of a tree on her friend's property, adjacent to the La Paloma Project. Concrete has been dumped on the ground beneath the tree and gravel was poured beneath the tree. The City red- tagged the project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a $1,700 fine has been imposed. A platform buffer was installed but later removed by the contractor. There is the possibility to impose a $200 per day fine effective from the date of the removal of the platform buffer. Commissioner Roupe stated that. it appears that imposing a fine is not enough of a deterrent. Suggested that the developers be put on notice and brought before the Planning Commission to explain their lack of compliance with the Tree Protection requirements. Mr. Mark Connolly asked what recourse the Commission would take if the developer refuses to come before the Commission. Chair Page directed staff to invite the developer to the next meeting. If they do not appear, the project will be red-tagged. 3. Conditions of Project on Quito Road: Commissioner Jackman advised of a friend living on Quito _ Road where a messy construction site is located nearby. Commissioner Jackman asked how long those poor site conditions would be allowed to remain. Mr. Mark.Connolly advised that as long as the project is making progress and inspections are being obtained, they .comply with City regulations as far as timing of a project. The property owner is installing asub-terrainian basement up to the property line. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any discretion to call this project up for review and whether there are any geological concerns regarding the amount of basement space under construction. Chair Page suggested that staff pose that question to the City Geologist. . Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a basement is exempt from the requirement for a grading permit. Commissioner Bernald added that there is a safety issue, as this building appears to be perched on stilts while the basement is being dug beneath it. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Building inspectors visit the site often. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from January 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. to Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn .. Minutes Clerk ri ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: V-00-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue Applicant/Owner: SAINT ANDREWS SCHOOL Staff Planner: I Date: I APN: Mark J Connolly, Assistant Planner February 28, 2001 393-25-024 Department Head' • • 000001 1JVV1 ~J0.10.1V~0. 1ZVC.1IUC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1/31/01 2/1/01 2/14/01 2/15/01 2/08/01 The applicant has requested Variance approval to construct asix-foot tall welded steel fence treated with black polyester covering along the front and exterior sides of the site. The proposed fence would replace an existing four-foot high chain-link fence mostly in the same location on the Crestbrook Drive side and utilizing the same postholes. The fence would be new on the Saratoga Avenue side. The fence would consist of ornamental steel with vertical rails that would provide visibility through the fence to the site as well as from the site to Saratoga Avenue. The fence would provide security to the school as well as being ornamental. The site is a corner lot located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. The front yard setback abutting Saratoga Avenue is 30 feet and the exterior side yard setback is 20 feet from the property line. The maximum permitted height of a fence within the front and exterior side yard setback is three feet (Section 15.29.010 Saratoga Zoning Ordinance). Therefore, the application requires Variance approval in order to construct the fence to a height of six feet. The parcel is 89,291 square feet and located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation is RLD-Residential Low density. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Variance application by adopting Resolution V-O1-001. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V-O1-001 3. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes; dated 12/12/00 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 5. Alternate option Plans, Exhibit "B" • • 000002 File No. V-O1-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential-Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 89,291 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: N/A GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Black Polyester Powder Coated Over Welded Un-galvanized Steel Rails. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The applicant, Saint Andrew's School has proposed a vertical steel rail fence in order to protect the children from wandering off the play ground and reduce vandalism to the site. The height of the fence will have a maximum height of six feet unless located to the street side of the Oak trees on Crestbrook lane where the fence will be either be lowered to accommodate branch clearance or located inside toward the playfield around the trees. The existing four-foot chain link fence, according to Mr. Harry McKay of Saint Andrew's, is easy to jump over and the chain link is easy to climb over. The site is located along Saratoga Avenue, a designated Heritage Lane within the City. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the application on December 12, 2000. The Commission approved the fence (5-1-1 absent) with a request to provide buffer landscaping that emphasized oak trees. Commissioner Peepari was the one dissenting vote. Commissioner Peepari voted against the motion of approval stating that he wanted the fence to be treated with a green surface. Section 15-29.060 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance, "Landscaping", states that the applicant shall prepare a landscaping plan, and maintain the area within the right of way parallel to the Heritage Lane (Saratoga Avenue). The plan shows that twenty feet of this right-of-way exists on the subject property. That area shall be required to be landscaped and maintained as a condition of approval. Staff recommends that the landscape plan include native tree plantings and drought-tolerant native shrubs within the right-of-way. The landscape plan shall include all the requirements of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission and Staff report. 000003 File No. V-O1-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue. There is concern that the locating the fence along Crestbrook Drive maybe injurious to the existing Oak trees. The plan shows the fence being built around the trunks of the trees that line the drives per the Residential Design Handbook: However, the applicant has provided Staff with a proposal along Crestbrook Drive (Exhibit "B"), that shows the fence being built around the trunk of one Oak tree only. Upon site visits by Staff finds that it will not be feasible to build the fence on the Crestbrook-side of the Oaks. Staff would like to see the fence built around the tree trunks to the inside of the playfield throughout the Crestbrook drive side per the Residential Design Handbook. Staff has made it a condition of approval that an on site certified ASA Arborist be retained to ensure hand digging of post holes in sensitive areas and provide the best location of these postholes. Beyond that, the project Arborist will provide Staff with updates to ensure tree protection during construction. Variance Staff finds that there are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, location or surroundings and safety, that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. The site is developed with a playground associated with the adjacent Saint Andrews School. Secure fencing that is ornamental and sensitive to Saratoga Avenue protects the children from wandering off-site onto Saratoga Avenue or Crestbrook Drive and discourages climbing or jumping over is required for the safety and security of the children, and to reduce vandalism to the playground. A Use Permit is on file with the City for the church and school use (UP-530) which establishes the partial use of the fence on the site. ^ The fencing must be open in nature in order to maintain visibility of drivers in vehicles along both Saratoga Avenue and Crestview Drive, while providing security as well as a sensitive design to the Saratoga Avenue a designated heritage lane. The fence as proposed meets these requirements. Owners of similar uses (schools, play yards, church yards) in residential districts of other properties in the vicinity and City and classified in the same zoning district, are given similar consideration for fencing. Play ground areas associated with institutional uses require security fencing that is more formidable than an average decorative or temtorial fence around asingle-family home. Also, other institutional land uses, such as a church, school, play yard, within the residential district would receive similar consideration. ^ The granting of the Variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. ^ The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or S materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 000004 File No. V-O1-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue. ^ The fence would increase safe as the vertical rail desi would not rovide ty ~ P foothold for climbing and its height would be more difficult to jump over. ^ The open design of the fence would provide for visibility through the fence, which would not block the view of a driver in a car along Saratoga Avenue or Crestbrook Drive. ^ The fence shall be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code, which provides for adequate footing for stability. ^ The design of the fence is complimentary to the site and Saratoga Avenue, a Heritage Lane. The fence would replace an existing chain link fence that is not complimentary to Saratoga Avenue and replace it with a black surface treated steel rail fence. Section 15-29-060 (d) of the zoning ordinance prescribes fences adjacent to a Heritage Lane be constricted of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The existing fencing does not exhibit the design sensitivity; therefore replacing it with the proposed material will include the design sensitivity. Trees The City Arborist was not consulted due to information provided to Staff, which led Staff to believe there would be no injurious activity occurring during construction. If the Commission finds necessary an Arborist report for the specific area can be required. Staff is recommending an on site certified ASA Arborist be required as a condition of approval. Correspondence There has been one letter from an adjacent neighbor in support of the fencing, which is attached. Geotechnical Review No geologic review was required for this application. Conclusion Staff feels that all of the necessary Variance findings can be made. Based on the above mentioned circumstances and necessity of the fencing for protection of the children, visibility and the protection of the property from vandalism, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Variance request with specified conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Approve the Variance application by adopting Resolution V-O1-001. ~0~0~5 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ooooos APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-O1-Ol CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAINT ANDREWS SCHOOL; 13601 Sazatoga Avenue. WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to construct a welded steel fence within the front and exterior side yards of the property at a maximum height of 6 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, location or surroundings, and safety, strict enforcement of the setback regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that: ^ The height of the fencing does not constitute a granting of special privilege in that in other residences with similar conditions would receive similar consideration. ^ The height of the fencing would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will be serving to stabilize the soil on the site and create a safer residence, and it poses no health or safety risks. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of SAINT ANDREWS SCHOOL for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The fencing location shall be constructed per either Exhibit "A", "B", or a modified plan as specified from the Planning Commission, incorporated by reference. 2. A Certified ASA project Arborist shall be retained to ensure tree preservation, posthole location guidance, and updates to Staff. (Final posthole locations shall be determined by the Arborist). ~~00~~ File No. V-O1-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue. A bond in the amount determined by the Arborist be submitted to Staff to ensure tree protection. 4. A final landscape plan be submitted to the Planning department showing the planting of native specimens within the 50 foot right-of-way abutting Saratoga Avenue. CITY ATTORNEY ~. 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 Ciry in connection ~~ith 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. 6. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. 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. ~00~~~ File No. V-O1-001;13601 Saratoga Avenue. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: -- NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • 000009 • T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~~00~~ • • City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000, 9:45 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton Home 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Peck, Wyman, Hunter, King, Peepari and Koepernik Absent: Anderson Staff: Phil Block, Senior Planner Guests: AnnWaltonsmith, Dave Anderson, John Cherbone, Matt Molocovich, Linda Gates, Arvin Engelson and Kristine Syskowski B. Approval of minutes from 10/10/00 The minutes were approved (6- 0-1 absent) with the correction of the spelling of Engelson and notation that he is an Associate Pastor. C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2. the agenda was posted on December 7, 2000. D. Oral Communications The Commission felt the recent joint meeting with the City Council to consider Saratoga Library expansion alternatives was worthwhile and that more such meetings should be held. E. Written Communications None. II. Old Business None. III. New Business 000011 A. Saint Andrew's School West Fields Project -13601 Saratoga Avenue. • This is a review of Saint Andrew's School West Fields proposed fencing along Saratoga Avenue a designated Heritage Lane. A November 27, 20001etter from Landscape Architect Rebecca Coffman outlined the request to replace the existing 4' - 0" high Chainlink fence with a black powdercoated 6' - 0" ornamental steel picket rail fence. The Commission approved the proposed fence (5 -1-1 absent), but with buffer landscaping that emphasized oak trees. Commissioner Peepari voted against the motion because he wanted the fence to be painted green. B. Lexor Investments, Inc. three lot subdivision -15202 Quito Road The property is not on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory and the application is being presented as an information item only. The Commission noted the item and took no action. C. Discussion of potential improvements and interactive uses for the Heritage Orchard led by the City Manager. The Commission members discussed with Dave Anderson, City Manager, Linda Gates, proposed Library expansion Landscape Architect, and Matt Milocovich, Heritage Orchard supervisor, the trees proposed to be removed, transplanted and new additional trees. Possible indoor and outdoor orchard interpretation displays were also mentioned. The discussion focused on the trees at the corner of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues. The Commission was in agreement with the Ms. Gates and Mr. Milocovich on how they were proceeding with the tree master plan for this critical high visibility corner. Linda Gates will complete the proposed conceptual landscape plan and work with Matt Milocovich to inventory and map each tree. In the near future the Commission will review and comment on a proposed landscape/tree master plan for the entire Heritage orchard. D. Saratoga Federated Church Roofing -14370 Saratoga Avenue (Additional item added to the agenda at the request of the applicant) At the October 10, 2000 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, the Commission considered metal and concrete the roofing as a possible replacement for the existing church clay the that is in need of replacement. Commission members differed as to what would be an acceptable replacement. Three Commissioners did not like the metal sample presented by Rev. Arvin Engleson, Associated Pastor for Saratoga Federated Church. He said he would find the closest match possible in color and shape to the chapel and will use the concrete title. ~~~0~~ On December 12.2000, Assistant Pastor Engleson provided the Commission a letter dated December 8, 2000 from Karel Cymbal, P.E., Westfall Engineers, Inc. stating that the church structural system is not strong enough to support a light weigh concrete tile. Rev. Engleson provided the Commission a sample of the lightweight metal material that the church would like to use. It is textured and colored to look like clay title and is sufficiently light. The Commission approved (6 -1 absent) the proposed roofing material. IV. Items Initiated by the Secretary None. V. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, January 9, 2001 Respectfully Submitted by, • • Philip W. Block, Senior Planner (Acting HPC Secretary) 000013 THIS.PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000014 • W I W V C p W ~ ,~ Y ~ ~ ~ v;- W EmE V V _ W ~ oC F'• Oo • N • C J T N ®, q v~ ~ w„/ W ~ Z ~; r J p ~ V VV W • _ _ ~ •O y ~ P D: aG ~ O p ~~ ~ ` , m Hq ~ ~ J p N .~ u~ ~ s"'~ €~ ~5°0 5agqys5~~ ~/1S~,p4~~o •~ ~a ~_ ~ fat $~6" Z~ESYO ~~K~' ~ 2 b f6 F..op ,2 vg~3~ 5 z~ n;~ ~E~ om~~~~~~~^o~~o~ o E ~m 5 ~~~~~~ ~~p~~V~~~mm.y~~~~m~~ .. n „i v~ ui ~o ri I ..._7 . - -.J ~ v, ~ V1 3 O ai O Q o x ~ ~ ~ L V io O• F- uq. ~y ~ ~~ OV W~ C ~ C ~ Y ro '~ ~ aC i~+ Q/ ~ v~ LL O L C Q t } ~ v`Oi v~ ~ R p 3 a • C O ~ gg c G • i n a MN I a~ ^ M ~ . o U +' ~n 4 ~ .Y r P • ,ti T , - ~ o doh q °` y e ~' n a ~ w ez~ ~~ A e w n ~~ e° ~ ~ W ~ P ~ ~ N r ~~~ _~ ~ N a p ~ a n q 9 a mom as a m ,u m m • m w a k p ~~ Y .. ~ ` ~ m° . e p m q a m ~ pCO rt• y ~ Y $ ~ ..~ D e . M a ~ y a S ~ 9~ a w a G t~ m m ----r ... _ - 1 ~__ =__~ ~.~ . ~ 5~ ~~z ^~°r $~C ~~ ~~~ m~ ~~ 6~ Ys's ~: ~ ~ €U 85E 1= ~~y40 }~~~08 ~E z~ & E ~ 3 ~~ ~~ ECbs fi~~ m E•u M ~ ~~6~c ~ ~° 5a °~B ~'°asS a~ n8~8~23 I- E>~~E O ab .~ N K, r Y1 anN3nv voolvavs ~--"-"- yY M ~ ~ _~~______ ___ ___________ ~~ 2 ~~ ~~ ~~ O~ ~,~i Iii ~~~'I ~~~ ~ i0~lc ~ ~B ~~id ~!Illi ~` ~~~:: '» ~~~ ~~ ` ~ ..., :. ,.r.. -•". ya~ •• ~ ~~ •~ ;~• •, 7! ., ~~. v~ '~ -- ~~ , • 4 ~ '~ ~ ~ . .'.~ ~e ~~ ' • r --•...._ _ 4 1 C~ ~~ ~~ I 9 ~'; I O I y I I V I O 0 Z Q 0 w LL a ® ~ 3 rJ, ., d ~ 2~ ap ~ y{ z v ~ ~ L5S ~83q~ m.°~ ~3a C ~ ~ ~ ~~8~ 3 b ,gy r~'~.4e"~ ~ o~e~~~t=°SSg ~$~ G€ Es~''~ et ,o~, n E CC S z ~ & J°,•o~ ^ I-~ C~JCy~'~ n.. E ~ .x pyppp ~ u II$$-~~,,'c r~rrr- ~ ti ~ 10 ~~~---III ~ o w O~'~ ~~<~~ ~ ~~iV O~~y~j9~L ~~ LLµ15 zoE ~ ~' c" a F ~~~; s m" °. °a~~~e o. w S'._ w .-, N~ V YI V l~ b a ~ .. 3f1N3/~\/ t/701\Rl`dS ,£5S - '~-- --- --------j ~'". l0 ~~ ~ ' o .~~~ A i f ~~~ I~ ~,~ ~~~~ . !!'. I~^ !LL _, _ Z N O J ~ a ~Z Q Q W Q v1 F; I z I ' ~` ' _ i .8 , i ~~ ,~ - I W -~ o~ tI F/' N ~ ' Y R o o I \ \ ~ v tl ~ ko ~ J ~ - ~' ' W C. 9 ~ ,Z . V 1 1 i ' J •,v , !o ~~~~1 ,z Q ~l I I ~I 9 1 ~^ I hull I I n~ -l~ O - ~] p ll { I I , I , I _ ® s~ O - „t • • • Des i gnti+orks v • 5105591034 02/23/01 09:33A P.001 E%(F-o~6T B ~D E S I G N W O R K S TRANSMITTAL FAX ~ ~'~Q~ • ~1 ~ 8~ ~~ ono ~''~ctiv~ Gavtiv~ o ti ~~ FROM ~„ C p•~•.~W l G,1r'1 r • • IDATIr 2, ~y2 ' ~! P~to~eT ~atn..~' ~~.,,~v,~W 5 VIA Fax ^ Mail ^ Ov~rniAht ^ Corooiex ^ OtheR». PAGFS ~aak... , fi~k~ ~ ~ r~ i~ . Cvrv~~tF~~a. A .~',,• y~l~vinl wi l I -~v.~ ~ scv~cQ a h~res,w~~fi ~ "~`~7 ~ a~w~.~ G~L~ ~ I•bok- ~v~ , ~ , .~t ~~,,..iG~ ~-(,,~- .cam ~1V1~ tc~.ca~ .~ ~ ~~i a-~ ti^ ~ ~nvw~( `~.a, 1 or.~ o~ l~.Qt~,e. cti-~+~[1 ll~x dva~ (~c•~ ~.cw~ . ~,t i ~~ Architecture l.andeeapt Plan~.ing 1063 Miller Ave, Berkeley, C.A SW70B TEL/PAX: sio- ss9-1o3a deei~nwoxks 3 ~ e:rthlink.net Designuorks • . • • ,; ~ -~ 0 ~ ~ a c ~ rrr Z 4 ,.~. ~r W ~_ a 0 0 ~- ~~ N 0 ~/ 2' 5105591034 02/23/01 09:33A P.002 Ir ~ 0 f I ' 3 ~ ~.-- ~ Z ~- ~~ ~ s a ~ i ', ~ i ~ i ~i ~. ~~: ~.. r ~o .+I~ Q I i I _ o ~ ~ C~ ~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~~~ ~ ~-~ .~ U~~~ ~ 8~+ i (~ ~~~~ ~ Q~ 1 ~ 'Z r- ~ ~~~ N v ~ -~ ~~~ Designuorks • ~ a, '~ %~ rn v, ~ ~ ~ `~ b O ~ ~ ~ rt c_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~.-+ ~ t? ~ C7 N o ~ a ,~ , rn Z Crr O • ~' 5105591034 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ W .~ ~~° 1 ~' 8" Z' t i I ~ ~ t ~ ~- '~~. r 1 ~o a ~~ so ~ ozX Z~ ~rn ,, 02/23/01 09:33A P.003 m r D 0 -,~ to ~1' -~ ~i' ~~ . a n - ro rn ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~N ~ ~ x cab' S1- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..-, r ~ ~- ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ _~- ~ ~~ ~C2! • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: DR-00-045 ~ SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road Applicant/Owner: LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC. Staff Planner: Philip W. Block, Senior Planner ~ V '~ Date: February 28, 2001 APN: 410-39-012 Department Head!~~ 000001 1~1U1 l~UltO KOaCI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9/22/00 2/2/01 2/14/01 2/15/01 2/8/01 Request for Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.62 net acre parcel into three lots of 45,441; 42,207 and 59,670 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an existing residence and accessory structures and constructing two two- story residences and one single-story residence ranging in size from 5,702 to 6,376 square feet. The site is located in an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map applications with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-00-045 &z SD-00-006. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR-00-045 6z SD-00-006 3. Applicant's letters dated September 18, 2000 and February 20, 2001 4. Ecological consultant report dated February 11, 2000 5. Letters dated October 17, 2000, December 6, 2000 and February 9, 2001 from the Santa Clara Valley Water District 6. Arborist Reports dated October 20, 2000 and December 11, 2000 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~00~02 File No. DR-00-045 c~z' SD-00-006,• 15202 Qvito Road r~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 4.20 acres (gross) &r 3.18 acres (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: LOt A - 8% Lot B- 11% Lot C- 8% GRADING REQUIRED: 398 cubic yards of cut and 172 yards of fill (total) generally to prepare the driveways MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The materials and colors vary somewhat for each of the three residences.- Exterior wall finishes will be either beige, tan or white stucco with wood colored trim, stone veneer and wrought iron accents. Roofing will be recycled clay barrel tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Lot A Lot B Lot C Code Requirement/ Allowance • Lot Area -gross (sq. ft.) 49,683 52,727 68,420 Lot Area -net (sq. ft.) 45,441 42,207 59,670 Avg. lot slope (in %) 8 % 11 % 8 Allowable floor area (sq. ft.) 6,120 6,0602 6,400 Proposed floor area (sq. ft.) 6,096 5,702 6,376 Lot frontage (ft.) 125 186 100 Lot width (ft.) 150 150 150 Lot depth (ft.) 336 342 459 Z 12% reduction to lot square footage if average slope is 11 P:~Plannin~PhiI~PC Staff ReportsU5202 Quito Rd Ixxor DR FQ SD 2.28.OI.doc 40,000 40,000 100 150 150 000003 File No. DR-00-045 ~' SD-00-006,• 15202 Quito Road •I Lot A, Lot B Lot C Code (proposed) (proposed) (proposed) Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 9 % 12 % 8 % 35 % _ Setbacks:. Front 156 ft. 106 ft. 213 ft. 67 ft. 106 ft.l 68 ft.' .. 150 ft.l 67 ft. Rear ~ 80 ft. 132.ft. , _ 200 ft. 80 ft. . Left Side 48 ft. 40 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft 20 ft' 20 ft.' 20 ft. Right Side 33 ft. - 20 ft. 24 ft. 20 ft. Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. ' Detached garage setback P:~I'lanning~Phil\PC Staff Reports~15202 Quito Rd Lexor DR 6i SD 2.28.Ol.doc 000004 File No. DR-00-045 ~¢ SD-00-006,• 15202 Quito Road PROJECT DISCUSSION Request for Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.18 net acre parcel into three lots of 45,441; 42,207; and 59,670 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an existing residence and accessory structures and constructing two tvvo- story residences and one single-story residence ranging in size from 5,702 to 6,376 square feet. The site is located in an R-1-40, 000 zoning district and is surrounded by single-family homes. The site gently slopes downward from Quito Road to a level area next to San Tomas Aquino Creek. Mature Oak and Sycamore trees line the front and rear of the property. Environmental Review Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): Class 3 New construction of limited small new facilities, e.g. construction of three or fewer single-family homes in an urban area.(Guidelines Section 15303); Class 15 Subdivision of certain propemes in urban areas into four or fewer parcels. (Guidelines Section 15315) and Class 32 Certain in-fill development in urban areas. (Guideline Section 15332). As part of the project, a riparian area survey, arborist reports and a geotechnical report have been prepared. Additionally, the applicant has worked closely with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding soil erosion, water run off management and access easements along San Tomas Aquino Creek. All of the recommendations from these environmental evaluations and reports have either been incorporated into the project or included as recommended conditions of approval. Subdivision The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Residential-very low density and limits density to a maximum of 1.09 dwelling units/net acre. The site is 3.18 net acres and allows a maximum of 3.47 dwelling units. Access to lot A is from Twin Creeks Road via an easement through the adjoining property and access to Lots B and C is via an existing driveway from Quito Road. This will provide safe and efficient access to the new homes. The applicant is dedicating 10 feet of right-of-way adjacent to Quito Road, along the site's west property line. The project is consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element as well as other General Plan Policies. The project has been carefully designed so as not to disturb the considerable existing mature ttees and other mature vegetation along both San Tomas Aquino Creek and Quito Road. The R-1-40, 000 zone district requires at least 40,000 square feet per lot. The applicant proposes to subdivide this 3.18 net acre parcel into three lots of 45,441; 42,207 and 59,670 (net) square feet. The minimum lot frontage, width and depth requirements are 100 feet, 150 feet and 150 feet respectively. The projects three lot frontages range between 100-186 feet. Its lot depths range between 336-459 feet. All three lots are 150 feet wide. 000005 P:U'lannin~PhiI~PC SrafEReportsU5202Quito Rd Lexor DR fQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. DR-00-045 &z' SD-00-006,• 15202 Quito Road • Design Review The proposed residences will be located to ma<Yiini e view corridors to the deep rear yards and trees along San Tomas Aquino Creek. The homes will be barely visible from Quito Road since mature trees line the street and because the building pads will be approximately 25 feet below Quito Road. The building mass of the residences fit in. well with the one and two story homes that surround the site. Lots A and C contain two-story homes (including one- story elements) and Lot B would have asingle-story home. The residences are set back a considerable distance from adjacent homes (70-100 feet) and the roof.lines and walls have been carefully articulated to reduce the perception of bulk. The new homes will not impair the existing home's exposure:to air or solar energy opportunities. The driveway approach to each residence has a five foot wrought iron security gate with Knox boxes: Currently the site plan shows three foot inter-connecting fences between the gates. In the future the applicant may request a variance to allow the fences in the front yards to be 6 feet for security .purposes which would be evaluated on the merits at that time. There appears to be justification for this since the fence is set far back from Quito Road and will not be very visible because of the heavy vegetation and sloped site. Staff finds that the project can be supported. The applicant has done a good job of following the natural topography, being sensitive to the significant Oak and Sycamore trees and riparian comdor and fitting the project into the Twin Creeks and Quito Road neighborhood. The rooflines and walls are well articulated and the placement of the residences is sensitive to the existing adjacent homes, as well as the natural environment. Staff feels that the proposed design and materials are compatible with the neighborhood. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department, the City Geotechnical Consultant and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Additionally, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and H. T. Harvey ~z Associates, ecological consultants, have reviewed the plans. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga. City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. ~ Each of the three residences will have .both an attached and a detached two car garage: Grading The total project involves 398 cubic yards of cut and 172 cubic yards of fill. ~D~OQ6 P:~Planning~PhiI~PC ScaElReportsU5202 Quito Rd Lexor DR &t SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. DR-00-045 hx' SD-00-006,• 15202 Quito Road Geotechnical Review The City Geologist has reviewed the project and prepared a geotechnical report dated January ~, 2001 that includes suggested conditions that staff has included in our recommended conditions. Creek Riparian Area H. T. Harvey ~ Associates, ecological consultants, prepared a riparian habitat and impact assessment of the project including recommended conditions. This February 11, 2000 report is attached. The consultants surveyed the San Tomas Aquino Creek riparian area along the east side of the site and determined the quality of riparian habitat and the limits of the riparian corridor and the appropriate setbacks. The riparian habitat vas considered moderate to low quality; however, the top of the bank area is continuously vegetated with a mix of native and non-native plant species. The edge of the riparian corridor was delineated as the outer edge of the native riparian vegetation or the top of bank, whichever is greater. The consultants concluded that a setback of 50 feet, for any new development, from the edge of the riparian corridor will provide an adequate buffer. The project includes removing all of the existing farm structures from this area and locating all new structures well outside this location. The applicant has also worked closely with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding grading, creek access easements and erosion control measures. The plans reflect easement dedications and energy dissipaters that disperse storm water runoff onto erosion mats as requested. Heritage Preservation Commission The Heritage Preservation Commission considered the project at its December 12, 2000 meeting as an information item, although the property is not on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory. The Commission reviewed the item and took no action. Trees The City Arborist reports dated October 20, 2000 and December 11, 2000 (attached) contain recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are 36 trees on the site and 12 trees on adjacent properties that are at some risk of damage by construction. The most significant trees on the site are Coast Live Oaks. There are approximately eight trees that are considered exceptional specimens. For example, tree # 11 has a 100 foot spread. There are also some very large California Sycamores and European Olives. Most of the largest trees are located either along the creek on adjacent Santa Clara Valley Water District land or are co-owned trees on property lines. All of these significant trees are being preserved. The applicant has modified its plans by moving driveways and constructing retaining walls in accordance with the Revised Arborist Report Recommendations dated December 11, ~000~~ P:~Planning~PhiMC Staff Reportsu5202 Quito Rd Ixxor DR 6z SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. DR-00-045 ~ SD-00-006,• IS202 Quito Road 2000. Also, five of the ten trees originally planned for removal (tree #6, 7, 8, 44 and 45) are being relocated instead of removed. This may change the number of required native replacement trees and the amount of the required security. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolutions. Fireplaces The plans clearly indicate that only gas-burning fireplaces will be constructed in the new residences. Chimneys have been incorporated in all three building designs. ' ~ ~ Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion The three proposed lots and residences are designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City ' Code. The residences do not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that they are compatible with the neighborhood. 'The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ` Approve the Design Review and Parcel Map applications with conditions by adopting Resolutions SD=00=006 ~St DR~00-04. • ~000~8 P:~Planning~PhiI~PC Staff Reports~L5202 Quito Rd Lexor DR fQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-045 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC; 15202 Quito Road WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of three single-family residences on a 3.18 acre (net) parcel to be subdivided into three lots; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested pames were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present e«dence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residences, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residences will be partially screened from existing residences by mature vegetation, topography, large setbacks and proposed landscaping. The natural landscape will be preserved insofaz as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that little grading will be necessary, mature trees and other vegetation is being preserved and the site will be fully landscaped prior to completion. The proposed residences in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minim~e the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the structures design incorporates elements and materials that minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residences into the surrounding environment in that wood tone colors and stone materials are proposed. ^ The residences will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent 000009 File No. DR-00-045;15202 Quito Road properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar ,energy. ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosiori control standards used by the Ciry and requested by the Santa Clara Valley Water District adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek. ^ The proposed residences are designed to conform to the design criteria set forth Section 15-45.010 of the City Code. 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 of LEXOR INVESTMENTS; INC for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by. reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: i. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ii. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or ~, Licensed Land Surveyor. - iv. 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." v. A site specific geotechnical clearance must be obtained for each lot prior to Zoning Clearance. a. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. 3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (except for any exceptions provided for in the Arborist Reports) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 000010 P:~Planning~PhiI~PG Staff Reports~15202 Quito Rd Lexor DR Fc SD 2.28.Ol.doc • • s File No. DR-00-045;15202 Quito Road 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yazd shall exceed three feet in height. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 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. Additionally, all soil erosion and water run off management requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be strictly complied with. This includes pro~~ided the required repair and maintenance access easements. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated October 20, 2000 and December 11, 2000 shall be.followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. A .note shall be included on the site plan and grading 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. d. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of the ten 36-inch native replacement trees. (This number may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to be relocated instead of removed in revised site plan.) 8. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $71,080 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. (The amount may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to relocate instead of remove in the revised site plan.) 9. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, all native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 10. All retaining walls, drivewa ~ construction and other tree rotec S p tlon recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed P:U'Ianning~Phi1~PC Staff RcportsU5202 Quito Rd Lcxor DR fff SD 2.28.Ol.doc ~ OO O ~~ File No. SD-00=006;15202 Quito Road 11: Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 12. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. Provide an on-site fire hydrant or provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the residences. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance .with the provisions of the .City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 15. When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access road way or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installation shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 17. Automatics rinklers shall be installed in the newl constru ~ p y cted garages (_ heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. -- 18. A method will be worked out in order to locate street address sufficient for emergency situations. 19. Provide an approved Fire Department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 20. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across lot C to lot B. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry 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. ®0002 P:~PlanningiPhil~PC Staff RepoetsU5202 Quiro Rd Lexor DR 6t SD 2.28.OI.doc File No. DR-00-045;15202 Quito Road with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 22. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will e~-pire. 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 28`h day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • ~~0~~~ P:~Planning~Phil~PC Stall Rcports~15202 Quita Rd I_cxor DR Fz SD 2.28.Ol.doc • .THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000014 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-00-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC.; 15202 QUITO ROAD WHEREAS, application has been made to the Ad~~isory 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 of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-00-006 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdi~~ision, together with the pro~~isions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated February 28, 2001 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted 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, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it has been determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under Class 3, Class 15 and Class 32 criteria for Categorical Exemptions from CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated December 15, 2000 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a reciprocal access easement from Twin Creeks Road to lot A and the proposed off setting Lot Line Adjustment with the adjoining parcel to the west shall be recorded. ~0~~15 File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 4. Prior to Final Inspection, all landscaping on the approved landscape plan shall be installed. 5. The development shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water Districts request for an easement dedication to allow access for maintenance and repair purposes. The project also must comply with all soil erosion and water run off management requirements. 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Depamnent, the following shall be submitted to .the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a.: Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the Ciry Arborist. b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a .separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. 7. Construction, alteration or repair activities (for subdivision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authorized by a valid Ciry of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a Ciry of Saratoga permit, maybe conducted only on weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project property boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 8. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. 9. ,Dust and erosion control will be maximized onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shall be maintained in a manner to -avoid 'the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets: 10. The final landscape :plan shall be. reviewed and approved by the Community . Development Director prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. • 000016 P:~Planning~Phi[~PC Srall ReporrsUS202 Quito Rd Lexor DR 6i SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated October 20, ?000 and December 11, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan and grading 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. d. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of the ten 36-inch native replacement trees. (This number may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to be relocated instead of removed in revised site plan.) 12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $71,080 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. (The amount may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to relocate instead of remove in the revised site plan.) 13. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, all native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 14. All retaining walls, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 15. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 16. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 17. Provide an on-site fire hydrant or provide an approved fire s rinkler s stem P Y throughout all portions of the residences. ~QO~~~ P:\Planning\Phil\PC SraEf Reports\15202 Quito Rd Lexor DR 6i SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road 18. Earl Warnin Fire y g Alarm System shall be mstalled and maintained In accordance with the provisions of the Ciry of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 19. When open, gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access road v~~ay or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installation shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-l. 20. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 21. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service .and meter needed. to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat; horizontal ceiling.. 22. A method will be worked out in order to locate street addresses sufficient for emergency situations. 23. Provide .an .approved Fire Department .engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-l. 24. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across lot C to lot B. PUBLIC WORKS 25. ; Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the. Public Works Department for examination; the owner. (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or ari 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 Public Works Department, all in • conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 26. The. owner (applicant) 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 Public Works Department 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. 000018 P:U'lanning~PhiN'C Staff Reportsu5202Quito Rd Irxor DR fQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road 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. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 28. 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 Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final .Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 29. 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. 30. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department 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 Public Works Department 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: a . Twin Creeks Drive from Quito Road to the City limits shall be overlaid with 1.5" of asphalt concrete and shall include pavement fabric. Failed street sections shall be repaired prior to overlay of the street. b . Quito Road easterly shoulder shall be widened by a minimum of 4 feet measured from the existing edge line. Retaining wall, a guardrail, and an AC berm shall be constructed as necessary. Shoulder transitions shall be designed per latest Caltrans Plans and Specifications. 31. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 000019 P:\PlanningiPhiN'C Staff Repocts\15202Quico Rd Irxoc DR f~ SD 2.26.Ol.doc File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road 32. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the Ciry in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. - 33. The owner (applicant) 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. 34. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 35. The owner (applicant) shall underground all existing overhead utilities between power pole No. 30201 and power pole No. 29667 along Quito Road. 36. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works .Department 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. 37. 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 Ciry shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 38. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. - 39. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review prior to Final Map Approval. 40. 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 andlor erosion related conditions. 41. 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. CITY GEOLOGIST 42. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final subdivision improvement plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for building foundations, driveways, and the swimming pools) to ensure that the plans; specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. P:~Planning~PhIAPC Stall Reports~15202 Quito Rd Lutor DR fQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc 000020 • • • File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road • We recommend that the Project Geotechnical Engineer consider expanding demolition recommendations to indicate that depressions created as part of demolition and removal acti«ties be properly backfilled with engineered fill. The results of the plan review shall be sununarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of the Subdic~ision Improvement Plans. 43. 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, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for re~~ie~v and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permits. • • The project shall comply with all recommendations in the Ciry Geologist Geotechnical Report dated January S, 2001. 44. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the Ciry Geotechnical Consultant's re~~iew of the prior to Final Map Approval. 45. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the Ciry 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. CITY ATTORNEY 46. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 47. Noncompliance v,~ith any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. P:~I'Ianning~PhiN'C Staff Reports~15202 Quito Rd Lexor DR FQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc 000021 File No. SD-00-006;15202 Quito Road Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair; Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary Planning Commission ~~ P:~PlanningU'hiT~PC Sraff Reports\15202 Quiro Rd [rxor DR fQ SD 2.28.Ol.doc 000 V 22 Le~~ or INVESTMENTS, INC. September 18, 2000 City of Saratoga Department of Community Development Attn: James Walgren, Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 15202 Quito Road Quito Estates Subdivision and Design Review Applications Dear James, Lexor Investments, Inc. is pleased to submit this three-lot Subdivision and Design Review application package for the 4.2 acres (gross) located at 15202 Quito Road. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Very Low Density Residential and is surrounded by singe-family residences. Six structures currently exist on the site that are proposed for demolition; one residence and five ancillary structures. None of the structures are on the City's Historic Register. The site gently slopes downward from Quito Road to a level area nestled next to San Tomas Aquino Creek. Stunning Oak and Sycamore trees line the front and rear property lines. Our proposal includes maintaining the natural topography of the site, respecting the riparian corridor, retaining landmark Oak and Sycamore trees and weaving the new homesites into the existing fabric of the Quito and Twin Creeks neighborhoods. Justification for both the Design Review and Subdivision applications are listed below: City of Saratoga Code Section 15-45.080 `Design Review Findings" are met as follows: (a) Due to the natural topography of the site, the structures will be located at low elevations that will not interfere with view sheds for surrounding properties. The new homes themselves will be located on the site to maximize. view comdors to the deep rear yards and trees neaz San Tomas Aquino Creek. Living areas are oriented away from the existing homes on either side of the site to maximize privacy and fencing and landscaping will be added to side yards to further enhance privacy; (b) The location of the homes will allow for preservation of the natural landscape and grade. Grading will be required for the driveways to the minimum extent possible, due to the natural slope coming down to the building envelopes from Quito Road. We will retain all existing Oak and Sycamore trees and relocate Olive trees affected by driveway configurations; (c) A team of three architects (each employing a personal approach to a respective lot) has carefully considered the existing context of the one and two-story homes surrounding the site. As a result, we propose none-story home and two two-story homes (including one-story elements.) Employing careful articulation of building mass in both one and two story elements will minimize perception of `bulk'; (d) The proposed residences will be in context with the two story homes to both sides and the rear of the site, as well as the one-story and two-story homes across Quito Road. Mass and height of the buildings will be compatible to the immediate neighborhoods. The homes will truly be small in scale relative to the existing 50-100 foot high trees on the site. Since Quito Road is approximately 25 feet higher than the finish floor elevations and trees densely line the property along Quito Road, the homes will scarcely be visible from the road. Due to the large distances between the proposed off-set homes and the existing homes (70-100 feet), the new homes will not impair the existing homes' exposure to light, air or solar opportunities; (e) Current grading and erosion control standards will be employed for the project. The requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the riparian area and associated erosion control will be implemented; and Page I of 2 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard • Los Gatos, California 95032 • 408-402-9877 • fax-408-402-0607 oOOO~~ (t) Examples of how the proposed homes meet the "Residential Design Handbook" are as follows: all homes will be located to reduce height impact as discussed above; exterior light sources will be minimal; homes will be located to minimize privacy impacts and simultaneously preserve views of existing riparian comdor; roof and hardscape materials will blend with natural environment by using recycled clay roof the and interlocking earth-colored pavers on driveways; architectural features such as one-story masses and vertical articulation will break up massing. Findings for subdivisions per Article 14-20.070 are met as follows: (a) The existing site is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Very Low Density Residential"; (b) The three lots proposed and the corresponding improvements are consistent with the General Plan; (c) The site is physically suitable for residential development due to it's natural topography, existing access and utilities; (d) The site is physically suitable for three homes in an estate setting; (e) Demolition of existing structures located within the riparian corridor will benefit the riparian areas now affected by the presence of the structures. Proposed improvements will enhance and preserve the existing riparian corridor as per the Riparian Survey Recommendations prepared for the site, thereby reducing potential for impact to fish and wildlife; (f) The subdivision and proposed uses will not cause health or safety problems. Site access, at the .direction of City staff, has been limited to the existing ingress/egress point on Quito Road to minimize impacts to Quito Road.. A second site access is proposed from Twin Creeks Road, at a safe distance from the intersection of Quito and Twin Creeks. The location of the easement necessary for the driveway has been agreed upon between the neighbors to the south (Mr. & Mrs. Weight) and Lexor . Investments, Inc. A legal description and plat have been prepared for recording the ingress/egress easement 'over the Weight's property, as well as a plan indicating a proposed lot line adjustment to alleviate any impacts the drive may have on the Weight's lot area. The lot line adjustment will be filed with the city for approval contingent upon the approval of the proposed driveway configuration; (g) The application involves aten-foot dedication to Quito Road. A 10-foot easement to the West Valley Sanitation District exists on site for an 8" Sanitary Sewer line, which will remain in place. The proposal will not affect any public access easements; (h) Not applicable because the site is not under the Williamson Act; and (i) .... The residences will tie lateral lines into the existing 8" main on-site, thereby meeting all pertinent requirements. The development plans include a Site Development Plan indicating ali site data, a Grading and Utility Plan and a Parcel Map for the three proposed lots. Architectural Design plans for the three proposed residences include roof and floor plans, cross sections, and exterior elevations. Attached you will also find a Geotechnical Report, a Riparian Survey, a Preliminary Title Report, photographs of the site and surrounding residences and exterior materials board for each proposed home. As indicated in the City "Requirements for Submitted Applications", landscape plans and a shade study will be provided if determined necessary by staff We look forward to working with you and your staff throughout this design review process. Please contact me at (408) 402-9877 if you should have any'questions regarding our application. Sincerely, Kristine. Syskowsla Project Planning Manager Attachments: Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Search, dated August 2, 2000 Riparian Survey, prepared by H:T. Harvey Associates, dated February 11, 200 Photographs of existing site and surrounding residences Exterior Material Boards Letter of Authorization for application agent Preliminary Title Report, dated September 11, 2000 • • Page 2 oft ~QO(~2c~ Le -- or o ~~~o~c~ D INVESTMENTS, -` INC. ~- ~_. ~ ;-' EJ ;'~u 3 Febniary 20, 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fnutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Quito Estates -Planning Commission Hearing February 28, 2001 Application No._SD-00-006 and DR-00-045 Dear Chairman Page and Fellow Commissioners, Lexor Investments initiated the planning process for 15202 Quito Road in September 1999, in coordination with past Director James Walgren and Planner Erik Pearson. After 1'/z yeazs of working with City staff and related agencies, we present this application package for Subdivision and Design Review approval, with the following points for justification: i) Lots A through C and the corresponding homes as proposed conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Requirements; 2) The City's Design Review and Subdivision Findings are met as outlined in our letter dated September 18, 2000; 3) The Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the applications at its December 12, 2000 meeting and accepted the plans as proposed. The City's Historic Register does not include the existing buildings, the plans were scheduled for review as a courtesy to the Commissioners; 4) Riparian Survey recommendations (dated February 11, 2000) are met and exceeded. For example, a 50-foot setback from the riparian corridor edge is required. The proposed home sites are located 70 to 120 feet away from the riparian comdor edge; 5) Santa Clara County Fire Department conditions were issued on October 11, 2000. Adequate water flow is available from existing hydrants and the homes will be sprinklered. The project will adhere to Conditions of Approval for each lot; G) Geotechnical clearance with conditions was granted on January 11, 2001 and the project will adhere to the Geotechnical Conditions of Approval; 7) Tree Survey Preservation Recommendations aze being met as outlined in reports dated October 20, 2000 and December 11, 2000. It should be noted that Recommendation #1 of the first report was revised in the second report Both the Site and Grading Plans meet the Arborist Recommendations. Of 48 trees located on the site, only seven are proposed for removal (including Walnut, Fruit and Pine trees); 8) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) clearance is stated in a letter dated February 9, 2001. We have worked closely with SCVWD staff since June 2000 to develop Site, Grading and Drainage Plans in accordance with their requirements; 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard • Los Gatos. California 95032 • 408-402-9877 •fax-408-402-0607 ~ooOrL~ 9) The Department of Environmental Health issued clearance October 10, 2000 to tie into the existing West Valley Sanitation District 8" line on site and connect to San Jose Water Company's water main in Quito Road; and 10) Our neighbors residing at 18601 Twin Creeks Road (adjacent to the south) submitted a letter to the Ciry stating their acceptance of the proposed plans and the driveway traversing the upper west corner of their lot. They have agreed to a lot line adjustment which will offset the easement azea, allowing for no net reduction in their lot area. We believe that our work in coordination with City staff and various agencies has paid dividends in the form of a site plan and homes that will weave into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and respect the outstanding natural site features. We ask that you make the findings necessary to approve the applications and grant approval at your meeting. Respectfully Submitted, . t.~ < r Kristine Syskowski Project Planning Manager 2 •I •i oooozs • r~ u • H.T. HARVEY & ASSO RTES ECOLOGICAL CO:VSULT.a:~'TS February 11, 2000 Kristine Syshowski Lexor Investments, Inc. 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 9032 Subject: Quito Road Riparian Survey (Project # 1736-O1) Dear Ms. Syshowski, ~~~-~! ~~ F`cB 1 ~ 1~~Q A survey of the riparian habitat and an impact assessment at the Quito Road property adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek (Figure 1) in Saratoga, CA was conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates' restoration ecologist Regine Castelli on February 3, 2000. The survey determined the quality of riparian habitat and the limits of the riparian corridor and appropriate setback area. The survey was conducted using a boundary and topographic survey map (1 inch = 20 feet) containing topographic contours, approximate vegetation dripline, and existing structures. Existing Conditions San Tomas Aquino Creek is a naturally occurring channel in Santa Clara County, CA. It flows in a northerly direction into south San Francisco Bay and is situated along the east side of the Quito Road property (Figure 2). The project is located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Highways 17 and 9 within a moderately urbanized area at 15202 Quito Road. The riparian corridor of San Tomas Aquino Creek receives moderate anthropogenic disturbance at this site. The riparian habitat of San Tomas Aquino Creek adjacent to the property is of moderate to low quality. The bed and banks along this reach of San Tomas Aquino Creek is composed mostly of concrete and is not vegetated, however, the top of bank area is continuously vegetated with a mix of native and non-native species. Mature, native riparian trees such as California sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), coast live oak (Ouercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellaria californica), willow (Salix spp.) and some small native shrubs including toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and poison oak (Toxicondendron diversilobarn:) are present along the banks. Non-native vegetation is also present along the banks including mature pine (Pinus spp.) and redwood (Segttoia sempervirens) trees, oleander (Neritrm oleander), bamboo, Himalayan blackberry (Risbu.s discolor), and English ivy (Hedera helix). The edge of the riparian corridor was delineated as the outer edge of the native riparian vegetation or the top of bank, whichever was greater. 00002'7 ? ~ jt) .Almaclcn Expressway. Suite 115 • San J~~se. C:~ 9> I I S • (-t()x) ~~S-9-t~0 • Fax: (~()K 1 ~l~l~i-9=-5-1 Setback Recommendations It is generally advisable to minimize human activities adjacent to riparian habitats since the close proximity of human activity and the placement of structures adversely affect wildlife use within riparian corridors. Riparian setbacks are the principle means of minimizing impacts associated with human activities. Riparian setbacks of up to 100 feet are often recommended by the resource agencies (e.g. CDFG and USFWS). These setbacks are typically measured from the top of bank or the outer edge of riparian vegetation whichever is greater. The pre-existing development (house and associated sheds and garages) on this property encroaches within 2 feet of the riparian corridor; however, these structures will be removed prior to development. These structures, in combination with the development on adjacent properties, qualify this as a moderately disturbed urban area. It is our opinion that a setback of 50 feet (for any new development) from the edge of the riparian corridor will provide an adequate buffer. Figure 2 shows the limit of the riparian corridor and the boundary of the proposed 50-foot riparian setback. Landscaping Within the Riparian Setback Area All future landscaping within 50 feet of the San Tomas Aquino Creek riparian corridor should consist of native. trees, shrubs, and groundcover that naturally occur in the riparian habitat. near the site. Plantings within the setback area should include dense riparian vegetation following an approved- revegetation plan. Landscaping should include a mix of - more drought tolerant, native species such as coast live oak, valley oak (Qcrercus lobata), and Mexicari elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). A shrub layer should include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), toyon, and coffee berry (Rhamnus californica}. Only minimal hardscape or fencing should be installed in the setback area. I hope these recommendations will be helpful for your planning needs. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me. . Sincerely; ~~ L7 ~ ~~ Fes: ~~ Eric Webb, Ph.D. Project Manager Project Number 1736-01 • ... _. 000028 H. T. HARVF'Y & rISSUCIr1TES a W ` s \ ' Wpm ~/ ' GRANDE DR. l °' ~ h \ '~" ~" c o~ ~ °' a`4 1 ~ o ~ , ~• ~ I _ ~' " / v ~~~~~ a '' uw C1 c ~ 4CFARUND AV~ ~ YARTW i AV. ~ < ~ }.<. ° 4000Y AY DLE450N AY E SWAiITHNORE DR. I .•ti_CA 4cCOr_ o ~r Q J = a, ~1 s - 4 ~ 1 oi~ ~ a LXiE OR o tl ~ i , ,..e -- 90 ~ y. Detail h .AUr t ~T33 ~+'9 ,t~!`? ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ,y ~ < 00M ~, J'+OG~ °< A ¢ a ~ g MONTREAL y R U $ £~ ~` ' !~ R $ ~ TISDAIf--W-Y. ~o 1 3 ~ .~ `.`^ I ~ /-~-tee'-. ~ CMEaro ~ ~ 0 ~F ~ p I 6~q_ t ~ f c~ m ~ , 1I ~FrJ < WY. 1=., ,yq't'h a t h/ ~ NI 9 '•' ~ i _ ~ ' _ f v t t p or ge /t/~ y~~~~ ~~ P I 1y>.r #; O,- ~9 9f, ~4~ P 4 .~_ 4 j E PO,ELA'pP 4 q ~ [~ ~ '4 tE~,~ s I p DR. 0 J OZ ¢ rn ! 1 ` YORK o ~ $' ~~Op .~ M'Y ~L1F~} ~ ~''~ • V 2, ~• `_ 1 _ I ~ ~..~ /p , ~ ~~' o yLASA BUN U, Sqy ~ M C F'anC~5C0 ~ Oakla d A ' ~9'~~b '~~ ~ ~ ~~o' s~4 ~ym * EN ~ ~~P _ ~ ~ RsvE~ _ ~nEt ~ c1. '~ _ r:. DR OR q ~~ ~ t40~ ~ S $ 1 ` LiveRnore _ 5m. ~IUa> HN1E 4~4 < PO Nh',RLE10M ~ ... . g EMI1M ~ ~ rF 7 \ / ~ , c ~_ 'ht; A LONOOM ~^I I ` .Bay co ,-980, 'SPO AtHOS ~~' ~ ~~ o ~_ ~g ' q ,4.qr* ~ 3 ~ e() W gERf00 g wr ~c µONZ 'Y 0 ,E~y A Y1r. f ~ \ ~j of o ` sE•uA °Ce 1 CIy~ ~ ~ 1 :290 %'. 'Ole' Project Vici it r~rr.,u mrr clNr. • • LENDALE . ~ ~ ~ AV. \ o f, [ ~,w 4 eF' F R. l lC ' n y .,pp ' ' gAVENSW000 w c I ~ r "DR. / OP' . i"ASpa~wascr. J E, twsnwESa ' ~. 1. I 95 an Jose OR. Ohr AUK WEST VALLEY .wear .uier.+am. z w ~ 1 '~ "~ >; MARSH, ^' L ~ oum r .wnmwu a. t ,. wr ~ i Los eweurrm n. y /ow• 3 ~y °s PD pLS!' • a 9 4 i; L oo+w1. ocu oer. ac 0 `gyp ,q,,~~ ab ~ ~ .y v°j "4 >°' '~ P lN. ~?r r ' n'a °s _ ~-„ , ~~' R ~ G' Vy13 .~ XEWVII(F ! ~ ~ t 1 • $L COLLEGE c r a rA~ -c>l ~ ~` , ~ ~ .c g. a L ~^' 3, ~ f ~~ ,; ~~ R N I o: ?acifiC Santal r, ~y _ ~s09EY 'v rf~ RD. ~ ' A ~~ ~a~p ~ Ocean CNZ~~, 152. sz ,,~ -`Q. ;+ g p - F ~ CA lN. ' ~ .Q o RD. ¢ l v15u 0 < e 1 ~ .\ lD i ~ ~ ~ . 1 J _ _ _ _ _ __ ____. SAN MARCOS ~ PD. ChE > W fq ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ l ¢ w b ~ ~ P1`+~ tr` a. ' 0 ~` . 10 Milla 25 101 \,. VE SAILLLS ,oyUNDY i . rnar _ ; Nc~~~ ~ SI ~ „s EN. _ ~ ~s ^ ~ o `N' ~ Monterey PfO eCt VlClnlt 1 Y 0~ a+ l ~ f VESSING ,ooa RD. F y W S RWELL ~ AV w i ~ H04E a .~ ~ ' q0~ qY ~ I q Wwo"_ Rp '% ~.~ wr^'c~a' 5~~ 'lc o I _ aolr [alaf 3 pESUN6 L Tw~l . _ _ _ _ , fIkY OF •~ S ~ ~ • rlw r.l,r ~ W G2 'Y Mg ~ ~ ~ I YlNi 1 Z 1 S ~COCR ~ i COUMRY ~ 1 'o ~H ff ~ ~~ ` 0~9 r'i ^ "' Ad•lC~ ~ tb0a wDODMNK ~ lr Y' S '~ p ' y~ y T 90 i l5w ~ LIMB -, V' ~ \ ~? ~ , ' ` -E ~S 'FV ~ u ~. ,~OP1SV~ ,Y ~ d ~~~y V p ~ ~ Y- R0. ~S ~ V ~_ t ~ ~ ~~ CLUB t ~, 0 ~ } { E wFtI AY sr A ~ ~ ` 4 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ p ~ ~~ a o - 'a11'ttn urrr S r, ~ 4 ~ o U RIN ~ ~" CA~ " I L` yy R OAKS Yn, ca gyp. ~ Project Site ~ _ ~ ; ~ s` ~ ~ [~ ~Ei : , g10 ~ AIOMrE SER / ~ a l ~ wn+r j n i0' , r ~. L / ~ ~ \ o > 7 • j < ~ C ` > . ~ ~. d' ~ ~ p fNg _ ~Y s ~ > _ ~ J ` ~ u'Mn LJE. ~ J'E'r 1 I u '90 ~ °"" i Y .~_ W Sf p oR. ~ = ~ ~-T ~ q o ,h~~M~ .N y DE AY. ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ U C' o ° m M ~ 0= EI~I.R.N ~+ fey ~ j R[60wr 1~ y Pp. ~' fp ~ ~ ONN cbsvtwon ~T .gyp ~ ~,~ , '~ .: /a'~" d' °9~ $ v4 a~~ ~ f 4 hJ ~ ^ I lp ~ .,~. . ~ p s. d! ` JU V/ -. _.- _ i~ RO TW/ - ~ ~ ' i y Y'A EMGe[1p• ~Vp 3 ~ ,. y ~p ~ g ~ lM. ~~t~~ _~l'„3~ Its Vason NA •u h Sr CTruewo 7~ S , ~ q DR. ~O ~~~ ' `~ UTADBOIiR'~ ~ 1 S YINEERND~ ~1 i q ~~ ~euq ~ '~ a+rr, ~ 1 R GL ~ ~ OR. v N VW' 1 ~ pR,o ~ ONlFWO~ ~ 1t ~, UIIMYSIDE c ' : ~ 4 ~ _ C' p i ~~ ~' ~ o ~ '~ o o ,qu p A w AV ~° u : TFR. ~~rT~/,~~, ,.I l ~e/A+ / f. YINfEµO.Y I eserooir Q,. g WY `T' o ggV 0~' L JS ` 011. g d ~ / a /~' ?; -\ VFS ~ RhCgA fWNf 9T RO C El RAA'CN VAS ~ NA .roor w. \~r ~`P ~.J ~~ "PJgq ~` 8/ (as ~ iflti`~ y ~., '2 V . ~ yl ~ ° ~f(~/ ~ _° ~'~ s O ~ u °FELWrN ~ ~ 9 il tE d,FN P 0~ g Nl arw l`i l d r. Aifyo '~~ ~ 6 `E A ~COq~ ~ O la /0 ~ ~ J~ y q£ i~~0,,~ `~RY F ~~ _ l E ~MQr sO~r ' r Q,TN t ~ °~P ~•.~ ~y,~ o,A ~ 4i SEgREESd ~ 'V AV, oQ 32 ~ ~ .. v, mr orc ~ I ~ai ~~ ~~K ¢ R. ? _ F 1 OR' ~ ~D H o L\ ~ ~ .~ a o a t pg'~P i ~ / . ~.tg ~. ' , ES' ° ~ H ROJ IIAVINE \ v l t ^` O' A o !P ~~ • T ?'~ y a"'r aAtr T ~, ~~ Rv o swEU. ~' _ /4 : ~ C BRr~ ~J is ii fRl ~j, `3 '~~ y 4r ;r^ CO. ' ~ f A 'M1 y p. ~c W ~ Q I J E I ~ ~ 4~ l ,~ ~ / s , + V = 3 Q f o! J~ 1 'hj + ~Cr CS - 1 r O p ` ~ : L~ z h ° Eep'P V ~ ~ OE~~~°/~ r ~ ~,,•°~~. , a,,, 1. PARK~,+ ~:~ ! o l ~ OR' ~ ~ ^ lh~~ , ~ : s ,~ ~, w,oo:~ ~" I ra^ ~ s O 90 ~ ~ ~ ~ f 9 ~ QYS / ~ F~S ~OV, M1LL ,7 W&1"', f40V. ~ fffT ./ t/ I E~~ p~',~~<Egn, ~ `7'b h/ / wrl "'F i , ~ 2 T~ B V 3 lff a J i ~i• G~' MI d- 15' 1 o r.`' . L P ~ h Ih. w . Q 0 .. ~1 ~ / " NLE A p ° ;~ ~ I ~ CROAT S ~ ~ oq t ~i,. ~l'RSr~ gOeYgr n /O r p f ~ O is~ I ~/\ ~i ~ 1 R ~E~ ~ \.>p M' ~ . _ ~,t;~ aD 31 of I t~~ I 8¢ i~ ~ F~f ~ RFC,~`OGE s -'M~1 ''~~, i4~ ~ y` o, <~ `' ~~ RO t hhy0 ,}ya- Ar VIA BONnA GIENFO'0 ~ ~~'+ S~,S/ ~lEl~ ~`{a "~ l~ o,rt+l `" Y st '~' <"'~ .~+'~~° ~ 9O.,t~ ~ s I' • t •"Y„~+ ~ ;~' , CRE E 1SY' 4Q' <iCti~j oa.. Mf SEP6~ <D. ~ s u. L y ~ ~ ,o L ~ > H T HARVEY & ASSOCIATES _ ~+' ~r l i I N . _ ~ ;` ~~ y~ erg, 3 N YLV d ...- a(i *~ Ep1 ~a ~ 0 o.s miles ~ELD ! s UOREL A. ,~+ ~ ~~_'° ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS ~ ~ DN Po \qt,1 ~ wwuairR scale in miles ~ ~'+ s Base map copyrieht 1997 by California State Automobile ~ o AY \s k¢ Quito Road Riparian Survey: SiteNicinity Map ~~ `~ Association, reproduceEl with permission. s ~ File No. 1736-01 Date 2/$/2000 Figure 1 1 lr `. 000029 .~~ ~~ ~I. ~~ 41 i .~ tPd .. O~ ~. '~ ` \ fr_., ~s e~. 9flj~ a ~% ~ ~o n m ~ eP I . ~ f ~ ~ s n . ~ n ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ _ ~ ~ 'r Q a 2 9 6~ ~ ~ a. I f I m ~; ~, ~,~ oa ~ ~~ ~~i m o A~ m c ~ ro _ d n g a~ ~ i ~ x~ o o g ~ ~ ° i i ~' + D ~' = 1~/ m $ ~ ~,>- . , + // a~ I. ~ ~ ~ ,. _ ~ _ - ~- fin. ~~ar~~ % I ,~..° rl ,~~'^~~ "; `I I c r q,: ~ !' /'rY • r ~ • { I ~ °~ ~ r I I ~. 5 ~ I I ` ~' 2x.71. ~..,,~'_1~",~/ .tl I ~ •-'1 ~' 1 -• ® ~ - ~ N o .~ -~. ~ ~ G ,r, ~. ~ I y~ p ,y -r d n Z _ ~ m 'w' ~ a ~ o ~ ~ e 'm n ~ '~ n ~ ~ o > w H y H °i h n o a ~ tr. :n co ~I II_'l Il, I- ~ rn o s ~ E. 4 '' ~, ~~: ~ ~L~ ~, )~ ~ ~i y c~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~~..--I ~~; TAY - - ,n +-~~~r~~ 71IB Bc ~s, ~ ~~ -L~, ,} ~ n,~ '~~• ~~;:` ~i 9 ~~ G~,- •i •i 000030 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95 1 1 8-3686 . TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACIMILE (408( 266-0271 www.scvwd.dst.ca.us . AN EQUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER October 17, 000 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: SD-00-006 and DR-00-045 Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff reviewed your transmittal and tentative map for this project, received on September 29, 2000. According to the Federal Emergency Management Flood Insurance Rate Map, the site is located within ;~ Zone X, an area of 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot and areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood, and Zone AE where the water surface elevation is approximately 403 feet MSL during the 100-year flood. The developed areas on the lots of this project are not located within 50 feet from San Tomas Aquino Creek. The existing structures to be removed and the 6-foot high wood fence are within 50 feet from this District facility; therefore, in accordance with District Ordinance 83-2, a District permit is required. From a recent site visit, it was determined that erosion has undermined the existing creek bank in some places, but no slope failure beyond the immediate creek bank was evident. There was evidence of failure to the existing retaining walls along the creek. The District currently owns right of way at the back of the property, but it does not allow for adequate access to repair the failed retaining wall and bank erosion. In conjunction with the development of the site, an easement for adequate access for future repairs could be dedicated to the District. Repairs may also be done by the project proponent in conjunction with the development. We have been discussing site runoffwith the property developer. Outfalls into the creek are acceptable but not preferred because they may cause damage to the creek bank. Preferably, storm water runoff should go to the street. Since the site drains away from the street, storm water runoff may be directed to energy dissipaters placed on each site to disperse flow into vegetative areas. To avoid potential erosion to the creek bank, storm water runoff may also be pumped to the street. The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County ~I1~ through the comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, costeffective and environmentally sensitive manner. 000031 ~Zadies and Gentlemen 2 ~ October 17, 2000 We recommend implementing urban runoff pollution control measures in order to reduce the amount of pollutant conveyed to San Tomas Aquino Creek. Such measures may include vegetative filter swales or storm drain inlet filters. Other measures for this design are included in the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association document "Start at the Source." We-would be happy to provide a copy of this document. . ~ Our records show no registered groundwater wells on this site. If wells are found during design or construction of this project, they must be registered or abandoned in accordance with District Ordinance 90-1. For additional information regarding wells, please call Mr. Dave Zozaya at (408) 265-2607, extension 2650. If you have any. comments or questions, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2273. Please reference District File No. 25223 on any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, -~¢~ ~, ~ .. . Sunsla~ne G. Ventura Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: Ms. Kristine Syskowski ~ _ Lexor Investments, Inca .15585 Los Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95032 • 000032 5750 ALMADEN EXPwY SAN JOSE, CA 95 1 1 8-3656 TELEPHONE (4081 265-2600 FACIMILE (4081 266-0271 www.scvwd.dst.ca.us AN EQUA! OPPOD.TUNITY Eh1P!OYEP • • December 6, 2000 0~~~0~1~ Community Development Department D Planning Division ~ ~ ^ _ ~'',~:,i City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 - . Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: SD-00-006 and DR-00-045; 15202 Quito Road Please refer to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) letter, dated October 17, 2000. The water surface elevation for Zone AE was inadvertently typed as 403 feet MSL. The water surface elevation for Zone AE is hereby corrected to read 398 feet MSL. As stated in the District's October 17, 2000, letter, the District currently owns right of way at the back of the property, but it does not allow for adequate access to repair the failed retaining wall and bank erosion. In conjunction with the development of the site, we request the dedication of an easement for adequate space to construct future repairs. Repairs may also be done by the project proponent in conjunction with the development. The easement should extend from the creekside property line to a point determined by a hypothetical 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope from the toe of the bank or retaining wall to natural ground, plus an additional 5 feet. To allow for access to the creek for maintenance purposes and repairs, the deed should also include ingress/e ress rights. The granting of undefined ingress/egress rights should minimize the impact to the loss of developable area on the property. During an October 5, 2000, site meeting with Ms. Kristine Syskowski of Lexor Investments, we stated that the failed retaining wall at the back of subject property in San Tomas Aquino Creek should remain in place until a permanent solution is completed. All information in the previous letter, dated October 17, 2000, still apply. If you have any comments or questions, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2273. Please reference District File No. 25223 on any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, Sunshin G. Ventura Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: Ms. Kristine Syskowski Lexor Investments, Inc. 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95032 orc : s soon CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced qualiy of living in Santa Clara County ~,1~ through the comprehensive management of water resources in o practical, costeffective and environmentally sensitive manner. a ~OQ~~~ 5750 ALMADEN,.EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 951 18:3666 TELEPHONE (4081'265-2600 FACIMIIE 1408) .266-027 www.scvwd.dst.ca.u AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER February 9, 2001 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: 15202. Quito Road Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff has reviewed the updated site and grading plans for the subject project, received on December 29, 2000. As stated in the District's letter of December 6, 2000, the District currently owns right of way at the back of the property, but it does not allow for adequate access to repair the failed retaining wall and bank erosion. The updated plans. shove that the easement to be dedicated to the District extends from the creekside property line to a point determined by a hypothetical 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope from the toe of the bank or retaining wall to natural ground. If the District chooses to accept the easement, a plat and description must be provided. Please note that per discussions at a meeting on December 6, 2000, with the project proponents and District staff, the deed for this .project should include ingress egress rights to allow for access for maintenance purposes and repairs. Indicate the location of the ingress egress area on the plans. The updated site and grading plans correctly show the easement dedication and storm water runoff to energy dissipaters that disperse flow onto erosion mats. These plans are acceptable to us. All information in previous letters, dated October 17, 2000, and December 6, 2000, still apply. Two sets of final plans, including the plat and description and location of ingress egress, must be submitted to us for approval and issuance of a permit pr-or to the start of any construction. If you have any comments or questions, please call me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2273. Please reference District File No. 2223 on any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, ,. , ti.~, ~Zv2~.w: ~~ Sunshine G. Ventura ~ ~ ~ ~, Assistant En ineer D Community Projects Review Unit FEB 1 ~ 2001 cc: Ms. Kristine Syskowski ~ CITY OF SARATOGA Lexor Investments, Inc. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95032 The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County through the comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, costeffective and environmentally sensitive manner. ~iy~ M • • 00003 •~ BARRIE D. ~OATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY 15202 QUITO ROAD Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist October 20, 2000 Job # 10-00-249 • OOU035 TREE SURVEY AND PkoSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY Assignment At the request of Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this -report reviews the proposal to subdivide a small faun into three large lots, to demolish the existing farm house and out buildings, and to construct new homes on the proposed lots, in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions 'contained in this report presume that the locations of the trees on the plans provided are accurate. Summary This proposal exposes 48 trees to some level of risk by construction. The unusually well-drained soil of this site will allow construction closer to trees than in areas with heavy clay soil. Ten trees would be removed byimplementation of this design. Replacements, which equal their value are suggested: Procedures are suggested to mitigate-the damage that would be expected. A combination bond equal to 30% of the value of a few trees and 15% the value of the majority of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks: :,, Many of the largest specimens are on or adjacent to Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation Department easements. Theseinclude the large California sycamore and the largest oaks. Observations There are 36 trees on this site and 12 trees on adjacent properties that are at some risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows ~ - the location of these. trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. In addition to these, there are approximately 25 fruit trees on the interior of the property that are in fair to poor condition -that are of little economic value. Also, a dense stand of small coast live oak trees and a Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) specimens exist on lots A and B, adjacent to Quito • = Road. There are so many that none of these will ever become fine specimens ' unless they are thinned oUt. I suggest that alt of the-Trees of Heaven saplings and smalh treesbe removed,' because this species (Ailanthus altissima) is a virtual weed that will shade out the slower growing oak trees, if allowed to persist. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. This information is • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000036 rc.t ;,{ TREE SURVEY AND P1.~3ERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2 AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition, to aid with planning. Further, 1 suggest that the best small coast live oaks be selected to preserve as a screen within the stand, but that the majority of the small coast live oak specimens, which are smaller and typically fairly poor specimens be removed. The total 48 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 15-26, 35, 36, 47, 48 ` -~ - -- -~' Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #3, 10 English Walnut (Juglans regia) Trees #6, 7, 8, 44, 45 European Olive (Olea europea) Trees #9, 40, 41, 42 Apple (Males species) Trees #12, 33, 37 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 13, 14, 28, 29, 30, 31 California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) Tree #27 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #32 California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree #34 Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) Trees #38, 39 Fig (Ficus carica) Tree #43 Peach {Prunes persica) Tree #46 Jelcote Pine (Pines patula) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition. This is intended to aid with planning. Exceptional S ecimens Fine S cimens Fair S ecimens LNarginal 5 ecimens Poor S ecimens 2~ 4, 5, 11, 1, 6-9, 14, 12, 13, 15, 32, 33, 34 3, 10, 46 18, 24-26, 16, 19, 20, 17, 22, 35, 37, 44, 45, 21, 23, 27- 36, 38, 39, 47 31, 40, 42, 41 43 48 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used.. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural .standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 00003'7 TREE SURVEY AND P1.~SERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees located on adjacent properties which would be affected by this activity must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition: Most of the largest trees,including those below are either on adjacent Water District Land or may be co-owned trees on the property lines. There are several trees that are both large and indigenous to this area. Trees #il, 13-17, and 25-32 have trunk diameters of 26-inches at 2 feet above grade or larger. Of these, trees #11, an 85-inch diameter coast live oak and tree # 14, a 75-inch diameter California sycamore, are the specimens that stand out among the others. Trees-#11 and #14 are certainly among the -- larger specimens in the_Saratoga area: The health and structure of both are excellent, despite that fact that the structure of tree #.14 is downgraded slightly because of the tendency of its species (Platanus racemosa) for limb drop, especially as they mature. This is the only reason that tree # 14 is rated - as fine instead of exceptional. Tree #13.a.California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) has two large leaders, but the smaller of the two leaders (34-inches in diameter) has died and must be removed. However, this leader has a serious artists conk fungus infection (Ganoderma applanatum) at about 2 feet above grade. Upon removal. of the _ dead leader, it may be possible to determine whether or not this disease has .spread to the larger and apparently healthy leader: 'If the disease has spread to the larger leader, it .may also require removal. Tree #32, the California bay laurel, has also contracted the fungus disease Ganoderma applanatum at the root collar. it is not possible to evaluate the _ advancement of this disease without invasive procedures that would likely spread the disease within the trunk. However, the tree must be considered hazardous. Its removal depends on the usage of this area of the site, which is up to the owners. Because mature specimens of the California sycamore species commonly develop massive internal cavities, three of these trees #28, 29 and 31 were examined using an invasive 1/8-inch drill procedure to check for possible internal weakness. 'No internal weakness was encountered at any of the locations drilled, which probes for a maximum depth of 12 inches. Two probes were performed on the opposite sides (roughly) of each of the three trees, which were selected primarily because they .are leaning. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000038 TREE SURVEY AND PneSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY 4 Trees #14, 17, and 27-29 have their root collars covered by sail and/or farming debris. This may expose these trees to root collar diseases. The root collars must be cleared by hand. Impact of Construction Demolition of the existing buildings pose a significant risk of root damage primarily by soil compaction. All of the trees near existing buildings are at risk. Lot A Grading of the entry road poses a severe risk to trees #3 and 46, both of which are poor specimens. Replacements for these two are suggested. The other trees on this lot (#1, 2, 4, 5, 47, and 48) can be easily protected by construction period fencing. Lot B The most significant specimens #11 and 14 exist on this lot. As previously noted, these are at risk of severe root damage during demolition. These are also at risk of significant damage by landscaping activities, such as trenching for irrigation, construction of adjacent hardscape, soil preparation, sprinkler, and other landscape features. Tree #15 is also a large fine specimen that is at risk of minor root damage by construction of the proposed driveway. Although trees #16 and 17 exist on Lot C, these are at risk of significant root damage by proposed driveway construction to Lot B. The health of trees #15, 16 and 17 have gaps in their canopies. This is an indication of stress in years past, no doubt augmented by the fact that their root zones have been subjected to annual discing to control weeds. However, because their health is less than ideal, they will not be able to tolerate any significant root damage. Considering this fact, construction of the proposed driveway between trees #16 and 17 must be done completely on the existing grade without a grading cut. It will be essential that no grading or excavation occur within 30 feet of the trunks of either tree. Removal of trees #6-8 is proposed. Replacements are suggested although tree #6, a European olive, could be transplanted with high expectation of success. Lot C Trees #27-36 are at risk of root damage by demolition. However, these trees will have a good chance of survival if all of the recommended procedures are followed. Trees #42, 44 and 45 are in conflict with proposed construction and would be removed by this design. In addition, trees #41 and 43 would be so severely PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000039 TREE SURVEY AND PkcSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY 5 damaged by construction activity or by landscaping that they could not be retained. Trees #38-40 may also be at risk for the same reasons. For any of these that would be lost, replacements are suggested, However the European olive trees. #44 and #45 could be transplanted. Trees #22-26 may be at risk, especially #25 if significant grading will be required to construct the house as proposed. In addition to -the specific risks. noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2: The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. . 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the . canopies. 4. The excavations° for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 5. The trenching across root-zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 6. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too: close. 7. Landscaping; including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree raot zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root . zones, grading to create contours, and virtually any other landscaping features inside a tree's root zone. . ~ ~ Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, .so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these .plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. Trees #16 and 17 must have an area of undisturbed soil of 30 feet from each of their trunks. Inside this limitation, there must be no grading, trenching, or excavation. If the proposed driveway to Lot B cannot be .• constructed with this limitation it must be relocated. 2. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily . PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000040 TREE SURVEY AND PkESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 3. Demolition equipment (i.e. tractors, excavators, bobcats, trucks, etc.) must not be used inside the driptines as they are shown on the attached map. A backhoe may be used provided the tractor remains completely outside the canopy perimeters and the bucket is used to reach inside the protected area to lift and to pull items outside. the protection zones. Where this is not feasible, materials inside canopy perimeters must be removed by hand. 4. Immediately following demolition, trees near demolition activity must receive irrigation that supplements the natural rainfall. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #11-17 and #27-37 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. 5. Immediately following demolition and prior to the initiation of supplemental irrigation, the entire area under the canopies of trees #11- 17 and 27-37 must be covered with 3-inches of mulch, preferably wood chips. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. Note: Although trees #15-17 will not be affected by demolition, assuming construction period fencing is located as suggested, the mulch and supplemental irrigation is intended to initiate recovery of their health, which would normally take 3-5 years for a full recovery if all goes well. I also suggest that these trees be fertilized in the spring. However, if fertilization is done, it will be critical that- the supplemental irrigation be maintained on schedule without long lapses of time. We suggest a subsurface injection of the fertilizer Greenbelt 22-14-141 in November, 2000. 6. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the canopy perimeter of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements the city arborist must be consulted. 6 7. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy perimeters of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by the city arborist. • ~ Greenbelt 22-14-14 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000041 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY 7 8. A.platform buffer must be placed between construction of the house on Lot G and the protective fence, for root. protection of tree #25. A platform buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets); tied together, and:secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 9. Excavated, soil may not be piled~or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be:.allowed to slide down slope to cover. the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. 10.Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards.. 11.I suggest that the smaller diameter leader~of tree #13 be removed. 12.Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the - canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 13.Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be._made:if the trenches reach.no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopyZ. 14.Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks _ of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 15.Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20%, of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 16.If landscape plants are ~to be. installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 8~0, Oakland 94612. Z Trenching Beneath Trees PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST , OCTOBER 20, 2000 000042 ' TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS g AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY 17.Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 18.Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. 19.I suggest that the root collars of trees # 14, 17, 27-29 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an ISA Certified Arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with the procedure. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. Trees planned for removal (#3, 6, 7, 8, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46) have a total value of $13,136, which is equivalent to ten 36-inch boxed native trees. Replacements are suggested, throughout the project, not necessarily on the lot from which trees are taken. I suggest that a combination bond, in which the total would equal 30% ($47,055) of the total value ($156,850) of trees #11, 14, 15, 16, 17; and 15% ($24,025) the value of all of the other retained trees ($160,167) to assure protection. Wherever tree protection fencing can be installed and retained undisturbed beyond driplines, that bond could be reduced to 10%. I invite the developer to search for ways to fence as many trees as possible beyond driplines and notify my office so that bonds can be reduced. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak -Quercus agrifolia Valley oak -Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aescu/us californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully su fitted, Michael .Ben , ~ soci .~, ` Bar a D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 20, 2000 000043 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROPERTY Enclosures: Tree. Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing , Greenbelt 22-14-14 Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST 9 .I .OCTOBER 20, 2000 000044 v ~. 0 -O f0 O O I N N 'O .a Q O O X ~_ H 0 "') Ire) u~ao~ad'nrnaw.~a a E Trnow3a aN3wwoo3a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ > ~ > n > E N __ ---- ° ~ a3Zillla33 S033N ~y ~ ~y ~ w ~ w ~ w 0 ~ w 0 F (S-t) a31VM S433N n u u u u u (S-L) 3SV3SIa atlll00 lOOa 0 $ $ $ o (s-L) o3a3no~ avno~ loos ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ x x x x x x e d (S-t)AbrJ3O ~Nflal __ __ o eo O (S-t) DOOM OV30 mm co m n orn In. '--_" O N N N W_ m O a Pf -- .- N ro (S-L) 3SV3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 w w w w w w a ~__~__~_~__w~_,__ (S-t) S103SNi II II N II II q - (s-c) A.uaolad ~NlNnad A o a 0 g 0 o a # 43033N S318V'J c ~ c c c v Z - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1HJ13M ON3 3AOW3a ~_______~_~_____ x x x x x x `JNISI`dil NMOaO v e c NOI1tlaO1S3a NMOaO c ~ _ ~ n ,_ o m m o a ~JNINNIHl NMOaO n W N N 07 w w Ni w a i W JNINV3l~ NMOaO 0 II tl II II II (6~) ~JNI1Va OaVItM ~ _S o _°o e ~ o o_° o _°o e ~ c (OL-Z) JNLLVa N01110N00 v m ~ N m m m m ~ N m ~ N ~ ~ o w ~ v ~~ u v ~ ~ v v c ° ~ (S-L) 3af110f1a1S °~ m a v m m m N a x x x x x x ad3ads n ~ n N ~ N ~, (V ~ (V ~ N M • N 1H`JI3H n w N w N w N rA ~ w N w ~ 1334 ~ a313wv1a n II °' u m II n n E e H80 0 ~ c - '. c - c ~ o c - '. c c ~ ° "'-_""- m m `* m ' m u_e m ~ H8O O m h N w p ~ n N w ~ n N w - O m n N w O ~ n N w n N w x x x x x x W31SAS'111f1W x x x x x 133j UL d~ a313NM0 o 0 M ° o r ~+ o r `r° ~ n ~ 0 n 0 ~n m W Vl c W c 10 c 10 c N c Ol c O ~"~ O V ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ m " ~ _' ~ ~; 10 ~ O ~ m m ~ n a ~ ° ~ i4 C ~ C O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ m m A J ~ J m Z °_' ' J ' m J o ~ U U W N U tp V Q W O 'ft ~ N rf O ~ m -- ao ~ o ~ m a W m II r O pO V1ocN~0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ a u x x w~~~ ~~~~ H a Z O W N ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ U ~ n n n g., xxx. a ~gg8 Q'th N <r 000045 rn v N d 0 0 .Q O Oi O d N O N t[7 N .a Q O O J :~_. H O trt) ulaoaia ~v~craa m E ~~w3a aN31NN1003a ~ m ~ > N w ~ j C a 7 j N ro 7 ~ N a 7 ~ ~ a3Zflila3d S033N o N _ ~ o _ ~ ~ 0 0 (S-L) a31VM SO33N u u u ~u u u (S-L) 3SV3SI0 aVT10J loon ~ ^ n A m m m (S-L) 03a3N00 atlT100 lOOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a ~~ _____ x X 'x X x x (s-L)AV~3o ~INnal ~ - m a (S-L) OOOM OV30 N ~ N m c ao Q _~~W _--____ . a N l ~ ~ ___- ~ m -__---- N (S-LI 3SV3S10 NMOaO 33x1 w w w w ~ w (S L) S103SNI n n i~ n u u (S-L) JWaOlad ~JNINnad o 0 0 \ ° o ° \ a a , i v m v i n ~ # 03033N S3l9TJ < Z 1HJ13M-ON3 3AOiN3a c ~ c ~ c $ c $ c ~ , "-"' c X X X X X X c a `JNISIVa NMOaO V -- c NOI1VaO1S3a NMOaO . ~i ~ tQi a°o m °a 'JNINNIHl NM02YJ ~ w n en w ~ w JNIN\f310 NMOaO ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ' (6~) `JNI11/a OaVZVFI o e o o o o ~ ° °° e o+ m ~ C ~ (OL-b) `JNI1Va N01lJaN00 ~"' m m ~ m m N m ~ m m W ~"~ m ~ < m W v __ v v c~ v v ~ e ° V (s-L> 3an10na1S N m N m m N m N m N m X X X X X X (S-L) H1lH3H ~ v N avaads -__~_- N -_ ^ N ~ ~ ° °a ~ ~ ~ ° ° m ~ N ~ 1H~JI3H N p .. N Y ~ N N ~ p e4i m ~ -- ~ n m ~ ~ K ~ ~ m 1334 7.~ a3l3MYV10 `t n ~ u ° n a n m -- u ro u E ~ H80 o c c c c c c c ' m -" ~ ~ - m ~ H8t] ~ ~ w r°~- n h n ~ -- m n ~ n w X x X X N X X W31SASi1lnW x x x 133 ZJL q ~ a313WMO ~ ° c v $ m o °D ° . ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~n N c --- v ~ "' c c c c c c ... H m m m ~ er ~ ~ ~ m 0 Q ~ ~~ Z Vf C q ~ DC = ~ ~ . a i ~ O `° ~ m ~v J c m ~ a 3 ~ ~ ` q v W ° ~ W m - a ~ t 1° c W a o U m °o m ~ m U ~ A m m o N Y t- ao 0 " a W fY1 II O N O M ~ ~~ 0 9 0 W W ~ O W qj = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F... O N m U ~ u u~c u ~~N'OVA 000046 v 0 '~ N O O .~ h to N -O Q O 7 O ~_ ~-- .a O 7 !s-LI ulaolad ivnowaa v ~ E ~rnowaa aN3wwoaaa m o ' m ~ ~ o ' a ~ m ,. ' m ~ m m ' m ~ ~ g ~ a3Zlllla3~ S033N N o ~ o ' bN' N ~ m N o ~ p w r a w w (S-L) a31VM S033N u n n n a u (S-L) 3SV3SI0 alfll00 lOOa e n o ~ o m ~ m a m o m ~Y m (S-l) 03a3n00 aVll00 lOOa ~ x ~ ° ~ x ~ ~ a __ x x X x x x d (S-L)A1/J30 ~Nnal a - - m m m (S-L) OOOM ~O o m v CD ~ ~ o O ~ N o ___ m ~ ~ N O N (S-L) 3SM3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 a, ~ w w M w (S-L) S103SN1 n n a n a n (S-L) ulaOlad ~JMINnad m ~ 0 n 0 m o A O ~ O # 03O33N S319V0 - ___ ~ Z ~ ~ c 1H JI3M~N3 3nOW3a x x x x x x _______ am °JNISIVa NMOaO V a ~ NOIlVaO1S3a NMOt:YJ c 2 --- v m ~ r m .a a JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ ~ ~ w w w 9NINtl3l0 NMOaO n a u n n u (6-E) ~JNIlMa OatrL1~H o n g _ ~ _ $ _ o o_ c r (OL-Z) 9NI1Va NOILONOO "' m m `'' m m ~ m ~ ~"~ m m ~ m ~ N m ~ ~ . ~ __ v t~ t~ (~ T3 'tS C ~ (S-L) 3anlOnals ~ m N m N ~ ~, N m ~; x x x x x x (S-L) H111~H N N N av3ads O ~ m ~ n A O N n ~ N O ---~~--~ t0 h - O CO Q N N C7 O N N 1HJI3H n _~_ ~ COD ~ ~ W p ~ ~ v W N p 133 Z~ a313WM0 m m "' - u ~ u m u 'p u ~' ~ n ~ u 6 H80 c c o m c c c r' c c a m ~ m m h ~ H9O ~ ~ w ~ h w ,~ w w X x N X X N x x W31SASilInW ^~ x x x 1334 Z/L > ®a3LaW`dl0 o ~ m m 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ m a o ai ~ o r; a o ~i ~ N m M N r7 _ N ... c m c m c m c m c m c O ~ N C ~~ m V V g m a~ ~ ~] e m oe 4~~ `~ eL o O o 0 oe -Q ~ ~' ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U 4 ° U a m U a a ~ m a m a to v ~ m n m O W m ao 0 m m a O fAOCNq ~ ~ ~ 11 II Il U.I cWp ~ ~ ~ chi ~ 0 ~ N°$ ~~~ U ~ o u n g n x x x a w a a ~° ~ ' N Q' ~N ~ ~ 00004'7 rn v N O. O 0 O a O ~' O .~ O N tf') r ~` a Q 0 O X 0) J LN r o Ic-LI ulaolad ~vnowaa c E T/AOW3a ON3WW003a o m ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ °~ a3Zlllla33 S033N ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ F ~ ~ `~ ~ F (S-L) a31VM S033N II n u u u a (S-L) 3Stl3Sl0 atf1100 lOOa ^ m °\o °o ~ n o -°--------------•----------------- ------- -- o m m m (S-L) 03a3/~00 aVll00 lOOa ~ o 0 0 0 $ a ----------------------------'---- ----^ x x x x x x a ----- - - -- (S-L).l`d030 NNnal m a _ ----------------------------------- - - -- ---- - - --- m -------------------------------- ------- r> ---- ~ ----- ~ __~ ~ _»_ ~ - _»____ N "' m (S-L) 3SV3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 a --------------=--------'------------- - -- w vs u9 us w _ -- w (S-L) S103SNI II a u' u u u (S-L) .WaOlad `JNINnad g ~ 0 0 0 ° o ~ # 03O33N S3l8WJ , Z 1HJI3M-ON3 3AO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e W3a -------------------------------------- ------ ------ x ----- X ------- c x -'---- X ------- x ~ 'JNISIb21 NMOaO V -------------------------------------- ------ ----- v c NOIlVaO1S3a NMOaO e 2 ___-__---»-»__»_»__---»_______ -_-- N '-____ m '_____- N '-_' a In »-_ N »_'-_ N a JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ ~ m w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ---»---- ~ -------=--------- ~ w `JNINV3l0 NMOaO II n u u n u (6•£) °JNiltla OabrltJFl 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 o 0 ° _`_--- _~»»______---»__-»» _»_»' o c o _ o _ o C r ~ (OL-Z) `JNIlVa NOILoN00 ~ ~ m _-_-__ ~ ~ ~ _»-_ ~ ~ ~ • ~_~ ~ N ~ _»»- ~ ~ ~ -____-- N N ~ - -------- -- ------------ ------ - v v - - - ° V (s-L) 3anl~nals N ~ ~ ~ N m v m N m ~ m (S-L) H1lV3H r' . ovaads n ~ M ~ N~ N lN7 `~~ N N ~ N ' 1H`JI3H N ~ N ~ N ~ f07 ~ M ~ N ~ m 1334 Z~ a313WM0 '~ n°I N ~ ~ ~ N » II II II m II II II ~ ~ H80 Y l - N - 'M - N - - ~ W m --------------------------------H80 ~---- o. ` w ------ h ~ ----- I~ Nw ------- c m I: ~ --- N ~ ti ----- ` n w --------------------------=---------- ----- K ----- x ------ x _ - =---- .x ~ -- X ------' X W31SAS-IllnW x x x 1333 Z/L 4 ~ a313WM0 ~i ~ ~ ~ c . ~ ~ ~ N ___ ~ _o »- ~ ~ .. F.. .~. . c M c N c 'N c dl c N c tll' ~ I` ~ ~ r ~°g m V V ~ .dam ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ W f/) ~ ~ ~ W ~ r 8 a ~ O lY0 O lY0 O lY9 O YN O N O J J ~ J J J J ' _ ~ U N U N U ~ U to U N U ~, Y of o N N N N N ~ ~ ~ o ~~ Ir, a H W m II • fQOMO ~ ~ ~ II II W ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ F- C Z o W N ~ m U~ I~i u n gllooo a m.a~a fY~N~n CI~U448 rn N a 0 '~ f>3 O 4' O Q N N Q O `o X ~_ 0 '-'~ (s-~) ulaolaa wnow3a m E ~rnowaa aN3wwooaa ~ n > W "' m c ~ v ° v "' ° E ------------------------------------ ---- o --- o > o > ----- M > --- ~ > ---- m > ° a3Zlllla3d S033N N w o ~ ~ w o ~ ~ vi o ~ ~ w o ~ ~ w 0 F us 0 ~ K ----------------------------------- ------ ----- --_-___ -_ (S-L) a31tlM S033N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-L) 3S`d3S1O aVll00 lOOa o m e ~ o o 0 o 0 n 0 n -----------------------------------~ _~- ~-_ a m (s-L> a3a3no~ aVno~ loos U ° U O x ~ X U O x ~ C7 O _ a ----------------------------------- ---- X _____- X ---- X -- X --- X ----- X a (S-L)A1!'J30 ~Nflill a ----------------------- -------------- ------ ----- ----- ------- ------ ------- ~ ~ (S-t) OOOM Ot/30 ~ n N ~n N N n 1° m_ _ 0 O -------------------------__---------_ ---_--- N N ___-__ P7 r ---- w ~t r ---__ O~ r ~-- c n m r ___-- o N r (S t) 3St/3SI0 NM02lO 33a1 a _ ---- ~ ~ ~, w ~ ~ (S-L) S103SNI ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-6) AllaOlad `JNINfIad 0 $ 0 °0 0 0 0 0 w w W w ~ m # 03033N S318V0 -------------°-------------°-------- ------ ----- -_ v w --- v v _ ~ v Z 1H`JI3M~N3 3AOW3a c ~ c ~ c ~ c ~ c ~ c ~ ~ -------------°----------------------- ------- X --- X ------ X ----- X -- X ----- X _ a `JNISI`da NMOaO V -------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ---- ------- a c ~ NOIlVaOlS3a NMOaO -------°--------------------------- ----- ---- n ° ----- n _ e R ---_ ~n r _ - r> m 2 a `JNINNIHl NMOaO Ol N N ~ m m N m /h ~ ------ ~ ----- v- ~ w w JNINb~3l0 NMOaO ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (6-£) JNIlVa OaVZ!/H 0 $ 0 °o 0 °o o n o c -; (OL-Z) `JNIlVa NOILONOO N m N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '° c ------------------------------------ ----- _ ° ~-- ° ------ _ ° -- ° ---- ~ ----- `Z ° V (S-L) 3a(110f1a1S ~ ~ N m N m N m N m X X X X X X (S-l) H1ld3H Ot/3adS -----__------------------------------ ~°n -----_ w i°n ------ N l+f °m ---_- m m m ------ m O °v _--__ ~ N °e -----__ c O 1H`J13H v N y~ ~ yi v°~ _ ~ m ~y m y~ ~ ~ 1333 Z~ a313WMO cmn ~~ N -- a -~ n v --- ~~ cm+> ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -----------------°--°---°-------° ------ c ------ c ------- c --'-- c c -'---- c ~ H80 m m m .n m » °~ -------------------------------------- --°--- ~ ------ n ------- ~ ----- n ------ n ------- n m ~ H80 ~ X ~ X ~ X ~ x ~ X ~ X W31SAS-Illf1W --------------------------------=---- 133 Z/L b ~ a313WM0 ------- O ~ N ~ ----- O N v ------- O N ~ m ----- O ~ ~ ---- O ~ ~ w ------ O ~ ~ n _ W to 4 W c M c N c Cl c N c N c N - F O Qr~~ m v V~ b m o `~ ~ s Z ~ ~ ~e ~ d a~ d _ W Vl ~ eM.~ C7 W lY0 fY0 O DC ~ -- r g a ce O ~ O ~ ~ y ' ~ to y ~ e m U m U m - ~ ~ ~' ~ - U ~ - U ~ - U a Y N N N N N M ~ ~ ~ `o >~ ~ ? ~ O 11 d W m N S fnOC'~O ~ ~ N ~ II II W ~ Q' ~M ~ o$ Z ~ o W N C ~ W ~ ~ ~ A g ~ 11 I. 11 11 O O O a m ~ a a d' ~N~~ ~~Q~ ~ 9 N O O 0 X N J H 0 • (r-) ~llaolaa ~rnowaa m E . Trnowaa ON3wwoaaa ~ > x N ,', > ~ ,', > W > m m > E _ ~ __ m _ ~„ •- m a3Z(llla3~ S033N w b~' F- ~ o H ;9 ~ F- ,y o H ,H w o F K - -- (S-l) a31dM S033N a n n nl u u (S-L) 3Sd3S10 adll00 lOOa ~ x ^ ~ m ^ ~ -- ----- ----- - -- - a o - - (S-L) O3a3n00 adllOO lOOa ° ~ ~ ~ - o ~ a ~_~__ W x x x x x x E n . (S-L)JldJ30 ~Nfl»1 m a a a (S-L) OOOM Od30 ~ o coi m m n ------ m - ~ O O N ------_ aD ~ (S-l) 3Sd3S10 NMOaO 33x1 a ~ M ~ ~ w r (S-L)S103SNI a n n n u u (S-l)1W2101»d JNM(lad ° m ° ° 0 a m m m m o # 03033N S319t/'J ° ° ° ° ° ° Z 1HJI3M-ON3 3nOW3L( c $ ~ - c $ c ~ c ~ c $ ~ _ ___ x x x x x ___ x a 'JNISIda NMOaO V - ---- 0 5 NOI1b~aOlS3a NMOaO o ° ° 2 ~ ~ ~ r --- ~ a `JNINNIHl NMOaO ° A A ~, v Y! W N M f9 W °JNINd3l0 NMOaJ u u it u n u (8~) 9Nllda Oabr[VFI A ~ A ° ~ ~ ~ (Ol-Z)'JNI1dL1 NOILONO:1 ~ a ~ IQ a m '~ m m o m W M o w ~ -~ -- ~ y ~ t~ (-S (-S U V --_-_ C-S C ~ ' (s-L) 3anlonals N ~ < ~, N m ~ ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ---------------=------- x x - x ____ x ___- x (S-L) H1ld3H ~ ~ < -_ .. Od3adS '___ ~_ ov m ~ °m A ~ r. O ~ r O ~ N ~ v off ~ _ .- ~ Q N . N __'__- R __ m 1HJI3H m.. w . m w ~° ~ °v ,A m y~ m _ ~y 1334 Z®a3l~nnna N 11 N 11 " ~11 ~ 11 r 'v II ~ N 11 E _--____-_„.__~__- c c c c c - c ~ m H80 ---------- ~ m m - m . ~ _ m HSO ~ N w O ~~ N N N N N w O p N en O nj N vi x x x x x ~+ x W31SASi1lf1W x x x 1334 ZIL b ®LI313Wd10 o. N ~ o N ~ 0 o 0 ~ 0 o v? m o ~i ~ ~ o N ~ $ c c c c c c ~ W ~ H o~ ~~~; ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ V ~ m Z G ~ ~ ~~ Z W i/7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DC ~ • H aB o 3 ~ ~$ c~ ~ 3 $ ~ ~o °3. . ~~ E 1 E S U m ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ E , $ 8 ~ $ ~ V D o U U -m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ w ~ a W m II • O f/!O~ ~ r- M M 11 11 ~ ~ x x ~~~~ 2~ W ~ U w u n n g_ooo a W ~ ~ a W °D v :ao r ~ihc~lvl~ oooO~O rn a 0 f0 O O r N N N .a '~ Q O 0 0 (rL) ulaolad ~vnow3a E Trnowaa ON3WW003a ~ ~ ~ > ~ > m > m > ~ a3Zillla3d SQ33N w ~ w ~ w o w ~ w o w o OC -------- - (S-L) a31VM S033N ~~ 11 11 11 u n (S-L) 3SH3SI0 aVll00 lOOa ^ ^ n n n n (S-L) 03a3N00 a1T00 lOOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~__ X x x X x X (S-L)AV030 )INflal m ,~ (S-I) OOOM OV30 ~ m ~ ~ m m ---- n d (S-L) 3SV3S10 NMOaO 33a1 w w w r- w r- (S'L) S.1.03SN1 u n n u u u (S-L).WaOlad `JNINfIad $ , ~ ,°~~ $ o °o a v m ~+ a # 03033N S318tl'J _ __Y- c ~ c c Z ` $ ~ c 1H JI3M-UN3 3AOW3a ~ x x X x x x ~ °JNISIVa NMOa0 U ~_~ _ 0 ~ NOI1VaOlS3a NMOa0 C ~__ Y~Y~ ~_ Oi N N ~ N m -~- m h ~ m ~JNINNIHl NMOaO $ us vs irs w ir- w ~JNINV3l0 NMOa0 u u n n u u (6~) ~JNIlVa Oa1fLFIFi A $ $ °w $ 0 c o (OL-Z) °JNI1Va NOILONOO N m ~ m m ~ m m ~ N m ~ in m ~ N m ~ y _ _~_ ~ ~ v ~ c~ c~ c V (S~L) 3af110f1?31S m v m v m ~ w in m ~ a x x x x X x (S-L) H1lM3H N N N av3ads Q N ° ~ ° ~ ° o r --------- _ V to l+f N N 1H`JI3H u~i w N p N w N w N w ~ w ~ 133d L® a3J.3Wtll0 r n N u N n ~ u ~ n N n E - -"'- c c c c c c ~ m H84 a m o ~ a o a o ~ a °D `w p ~ H8O N en C o N w G ~ N w ^ ~ w A ~ w ~ n w X X X x X x W31SASi1lfWV ------------- - x x x x x - 1334 UL b~ a313NN1O o N ~ v o o m ~ o ~ o r °~; N o o $ ~ $ c c c c c c W V) 4 ro a m ao a m ~ 0 ~ r ~~ m Z o~~~s d A ~ e`o •C C L 'fl ~ m ~ U v V LL LL m - m - m - Y m ~ M Q ~ 7 O n O H W 07 0 m e~ a O pOp fAOeNOO ~ ~ ~ II n I1 ] ~ x x W q~ B B ~u~yc~~QQQ H O Z a W N tp W ~ ~ ~ ~ ers n a a n C x x0 a ~~~~ ~N ~ ~ 000051 v d 0 O '~ O O .~ Q O N _~ rA W N v Q O X J H 0 (o-L) ulaolad'1'v~owaa a C ll/AOIY3a ON3WNO03a N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ o ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 3 E ~ -- _ ~ _ N _~ J ~ ~ N ~ v 4321111433 S033N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (S-L) 431VM S033N u u u n n u (S-L) 3SV3S10 a1r1'100 .L004 a ^ o . n o ~ 0 e o 0 o o 0 e m ~ O m (s-L) 03a3noo avnoo loos ~- U - U U ~ ~ S x X x x x x _ __ _ ~ - m a (S-L) OOOM 01!34 ~ ~ - m --- - ~ m -- -- -- a '~- -_ - ~ N - M - N Y l0 m (S-L) 3SV3SI0 NM040 33x1 a ~, ~, «, «, ~, M (S-L) S1.03SN1 u n n u n - n (S-L) JW4014d `JNINt14d ~ c c o o e .~_--~_ -------_ om -- o o a v o o °° ---_ ~ # 03033N S318VJ ~ - v - v v v c Z 1H`J13M-0N3 3AOW34 c ~ c ~ c $ c cg c c~ c ~ _ _ x ' _ x x x x x a 'JNISIHa. NM040 V ---- --_ ___-__ 5 NOI1V401S3a NM040 C -r _-- ~- _ OD h GD N 'm ~ - m --___ ~ N ~ ~ JNINNIHl NM040 w w so» in ~ ~ en °JNIN~d310 NM040 u n u a u u (6-£) ~JNIlb2104V2VH ~ ° W ~ ° n o °o e °o ~ ~ (OL$) ~JNI1V4 NOILONOJ ~____-_-__________- •'~'' _-- m ~ N. _- W v N ~ v m ~ v c~ ~ v r~ v v (S-L) 34f11Jf1a1S rA ' ao m N .n m t~ a X X X X X X _ ---- - -- -- (S-L) H11V3H N v 0V3adS r c ~ ~ n n p°l n C N m ~ a - w_ m n N h N - _-- N - __ 7 __--- - ~f - _"- l0 1H~JI3H N ~ N ~ N ~ N y~ M ~ N w c 1334 Z® ?J313Wb70 N~ 11 ~ _- _N-__ : oo n n v m a n II II II c c - c c c ---- C ~ ~ tl H90 ~_ q 0 m ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ `N N - tl1 W ~ H90 N w ro N w -~ - o n eNn _ -~ - °- n w -- _. .1~ w ____ y ~___ ' X X X x X X W31SASil1(iW ---------- x x x - 1333 UL b~ 4313WM0 ° 0 m ^ - m ° c _ '~ ~ tO ~ n ~ ~ ... h c m c m c m ~ c w c m c m O<N~g 5 V V ~ ~~ ~ o~m~s - ~ ~ W < ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m W O C OC ~ ~~ o o ~ o 0 r a o a ~ ~ ~ a w' o w' m ~ ~ ~ v ~ v ~ v v ~ ~ 0 ~• a H W m II • O fAOCNo ~~tH~ ~ u u W to $ o p chi INa H Z O W ~ p eNe~ W /+j to U to 11 B 11 a ~o~~$ ~_ a'thN~~ oooOS~ __ - ~ - - 'QUITO ROAD - ~ --- _ -=- _ - - tI . _ . ~_~ ~.,~a.a, i - -- _ -~~ ~':r~ ~ i 1 'r .a~a~„' j~~ _- ~-~ - 1~~ ~7 ~ it s 1( i ,. 4 5 1 1 ~ ZO ~ _ ~ ~ 30. ~ _ 6' ~ r~r' 'I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- 31• .. ~ I ~~ nnl ; _! --~ --I ~ I i . H~ ~ ~/i' ~;. ~- ~ i ~, 7 ~ i ,m.~:-~ ~r ILOT'B' ~ - - I ~ i ~~~ ZZ i ~ ~ ~~~ I -f LJI ~ ~--~,• Z3 ~,na ~ ~ ,. 44 ' .a. USE. ~ ~ i I 8 ~ m ~ ~I-i % ~. ~- "-' -- - --- - ~~Itslocots Fefidfig~ ~~ ~ a`; ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ 41- '. Z6 ,~• „ _ ~ \: ~,~ ~ Following ~ ' r~` '.' ~~ _ ~_ 40 . ; : . o I D~molilion a~„~,~ ~ ~ 13 14 ~~~ 1 ~ ` ~ ~ ~`` ~ ~ ~ ', '" ~•- 3 \ sroar .oLUarc GyrACe .. ,1_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - . _ _ __ _ ' • . yygB~~ s.F. 9W S.F. i. P~ ~ ~ EL ~ ~ ., ~ •/ •~•~~~aaR1 -~~y sP~ ~~ .\ \ ` ~ 1 _ ,~ ~ ~ t nz ,< :~:,: ,. -~ , - ~ ~;, G . . + Proleetive Fencing ; 3Z Zq Z7 <~ ~ y. -»- Protaelive Fencing ~~• ' " ~ ~' ''~ `Q °~ For Trey: ~1i-14 and ~tZB-37 33 eame D, Cdte .. \ - ~ TmP.,a.~.A„°"°°""`°'R°`~'m°""°'" During Demolition i'hosc • 34 , .~ 4 Assaciatu AI TTe Isaw Inaemnam Pivgeaty 13202 Quno RdE \ I (90A) 3531032 ~ e 23333 Summit Rand Psqured (a: """~\1`Y/ _ ~_ 36v Los Gatd, U 95033 Ciry of Sarnaga. Camoiney Plaeevig Dept. HORTICULTURAL COAWILTANT (DATE: OCbp•r I1, 2000 / COPIWLTING ARB00.LR o0l10-06219 ~ '-`gP G~ Dial 4: ~P/0:1 'f ail ;.' W+[ Tsex numbers COrtespoldbewluBlion [huts. GRAPHIC SCALE ~ QUITO ESTA uawr a •cr All dirnetssions eod teee bwions I:, a+o°De• tueRppeoRimate. t' ~ ~ SITE DEVELOP6 uawrro w. am(~~ ti 1 2992!5 - "?tnAan a-x_c~ ' ~a`° • '° " SARATOOA 000053 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000054 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033. A REVIEW OF A REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROJECT 15202 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Phil Block City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist December 1 l , 2000 Job # 10-00-249A D CITY OF aARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT • 000055 A REVIEW OF.A REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROJECT' 15202.QUITOROAD, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Mr. Phil Block, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews a revised grading plan prepared by Saudis Humber Jones dated l 1-20-00 for Lexor Investments, Inc., regarding the property at 15202 Quito Road, Saratoga. The trees at this site were evaluated i.n a report by this office dated October 20, 2000. Observation'and Recommendations This revised grading plan proposes to construct retaining walls on both sides of the driveway that would pass between trees # 16.and 1.7..If the trees are accurately located as shown on this revised grading:plan, the retaining wall located on the west side of the driveway would be 18-feet from the trunk of tree #.16, and the retaining wall located on . the east side of the driveway.would be 10 feet from the trunk of tree # 17. However, a-working space is commonly required on the "backside" of the retaining wall both to construct the wall and to-provide drainage:. No details of how these retaining walls would be constructed:are provided. Most retaining walls require a working space of 2-4 feet behind the wall on the "backside" that will_later be filled: Even a retaining wall that would be constaucted only from the frontaide requires a minimal cut of 12 to 18-inches on the "backside" behind the wall in order to allow room for construction. As far as trees are concerned, the actual location ofthe~cut plus any additional surface grading are the critical elements that determine the volume of root loss,-not necessarily the location of the proposed structure. Thus, .the additional space that would be required for construction in this case may be significant to the survival of both trees # 16 and 17. The actual cuts, therefore, would be at least 16-17 feet from the trunk of tree #'16 and at least 8-9 feet from the trunk of tree # 17. The exact location of the trunks of these two trees in relation to the proposed driveway must be assured in this case, because 1-2 feet may make the difference between survival or not. The trunks of trees # l 6 and 17 may be accurately presented on the maps provided. However, if the accuracy of the trunk locations is.off by even 2-3 feet, the risk of proposed construction may be increased or diminished: Barrie Coate stated that. he believes that these trees (# 15, 16, and 17) may have deeper than normal root systems as a result of the soil texture of this site. During the onsite meeting of October 1.1, 2000, Barrie stated that the location of the driveway would not be .excessively damaging to these, trees root systems if a l S foot distance between the trunks of the trees and the edge of the driveway could be maintained because of the presumed . depth of the roots. Construction at this distance presumes .that there would be no other root damage whatsoever. The difference between a cut at a distance of 12.5-13.5 feet from the trunks of these trees compared to a cut at a distance of 15 feet from the trunks of trees this size is not minor. In my opinion, the .root damage would be significant, if the driveway cannot be relocated exactly between the trunks of trees # 16 and 1.7 and at least 15 feet from the trunk of each tree leaving a 17 foot wide roadway. PREPARED BY: BARRIE COATS AND ASSOCIATES DECEMBER i 1, 2000 0~~~56 A REVIEW OF A REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR THE LEXOR INVESTMENTS PROJECT IS202 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA 2 The suggestion that the base material for the driveway between trees # 16 and 17 be constructed with "structural soil" is not an alternative. The use of this material would not change the fact that a severe cut would be made involving root loss, possibly significant root loss. Also, structural soil is .designed for the new planting of trees. It is not designed for use over the root systems of established trees, despite claims that it could be used for that purpose. There is strong scientific evidence that structural soil promotes vigorous root growth of newly planted trees when properly mixed and installed. There is no scientific evidence that structural soil can effectively be used over the root systems of existing trees. Structural soil is designed as a soil replacement after the removal of the existing soil for the planting of new trees in areas that have poor success of growing trees, such as city streets. The depth of the structural soil must be a minimum of 2 feet which is the depth of most soils, within which most roots exist. Applying a few inches of the structural soil mix over the top of an existing root system of a mature tree as a base material for a driveway in our opinion will have about the same effect as any other base rock material after compaction. In this event, most of the absorbing roots under the compacted rock will die as a result of compaction and will not likely regrow through the compacted soil into the thin layer of structural soil mix. An alternative may be to sacrifice tree # l 7 which is rated as a fair specimen, in order to retain tree #16, which is rated as a fine specimen. It appears that this alternative could assure the survival of one tree in lieu of posing a risk to both trees. If it is decided to retain tree #l7, the grading plan must be revised on Lot B to assure that no grading or excavation would be done within 25 feet of the trunk. This would require a retaining wall adjacent to the proposed structure to achieve the 25 foot required clearance. __ , Trees #19-25 There must be no fill soil within ] 5 feet of the trunks of trees # 19-25 located adjacent to the north property boundary. A retaining wall adjacent to the north side of the driveway on Lot C will be required to prevent this occurrence. The location of the proposed new water service line must be relocated (see attached map). An energy dissipater is proposed within l0 feet of the trunk of tree #i 1, which is one of the better truly large coast live oak specimens in the Saratoga area. Tree # 1 l located on Lot B has a trunk diameter of 85 inches at 2 feet above grade and a canopy spread of approximately 100 feet. If this proposed energry dissipater requires excavation of even 6 inches, the root damage to tree #11 may be significant. There is no detail drawing of this energy dissipater. There must be no excavation or trenching within 45 feet of the trunk of tree # 1 I . Tree #37 an exceptional Deodar cedar located on Lot C, would not survive construction of the storm drain and energy dissipater at the location proposed. There must be no grading or excavation within 15 feet of the trunk of tree #37. PREPARED BY: BARRIE COATS AND ASSOCIATES DECEMBER i 1, 2000 00005'7 A REVIEW OF A REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR THE LE?COR INVESTMENTS PROJECT 15202 QUITO ROAD. SARATOGA Enclosures: Maps BDC/sl Respectfully~sub d, ~--- Michael L. Bench, Associate ~, _ Ba oate, nnclpa .I •i PREPARED BY: BARRIE COATE AND ASSOCIATES DECEMBER 11.2000 000058 5 • nUIT~ ROAD ~ , _ ~ ~ ~~ •~ ~ ~~ ~~r- - `\\ ~- ! ~ of 3 .aid _-~, _ _-_ ^ ` ~ x ~,J'~. _~~ ~"~ ~ ~ o~~ ~~ ~ l i ~`~;~ i ~ I ~~N . r`=_] ;,ate . ',~:., ~.` : I ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - y r it -- ~ ~\ l .u,,~,~:'~ a I I'~ 1 C Z! i ham:.,:. `~~,•- P! i ~ ~ ~J` ~ + [ i _ - ~ ter, ~ a ~ '~ LOT ~q~ :~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1~ 1 ~ __ ~ ~- ~ ~ ' ~ , ~, L, ~ .. p ~... ~ I .i ~c.x~° f n ~ \ ` ` ~j i Il o `I'I I p 1'~ Y C• O D Y ~ i i ~~ ~ IL /~\~,/~ ~ ~!G k ~ c 1111 / / H I i ~ /~v~/// 1~ ~ ~ j 7 ass-; ~, ~_ ~ v ff T -E ~ ~~ m i/~~y /' GRAPHIC SCALE - ~ ~ ~ „~ I~ z ~ ~ ,. _ :.s ~ ~ /h . !~ Icy ~<5 `~~ ~,..:-~~ :~s. , -.. ,p „E ,.;~ CZUITO ESTATE 11, ~+~ ', CiRADINO A~ UTILIT 19215 ~ n.o.. ._„_n. 000059 ._- _ A Review of the Ncw Grading Plan at the L~ Barrie D. Coate 6 Associates i Investments Pro erty, 15202 ~ p Quito Road. Saratoga (408)353-1052 23535 Summit Road ~ Prepared for: Los Gatos, CA 95033 I City of Saratoga, Planning Dept. HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT I DATE: December 11, 2000 CONSULTING ARBORIST ;SCALE: ma reduced ob lf10-00.249A 1 ree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. 4 , ,,:. ,:. RQtai~jn~ V1/c~ll Ind ~..." .t ~~ --- __ ,e- t ~ -~~~Y ~® pct v~ F :~ . ,, ,:. . ; ~ F 17 ,.. r: r, (~N ~ Q . ... ~ . '1:'~ ~ ~t~. .. „~:~,_' ~ .~:":~'t~i~+#~':-1,'ty''e!~;::4x'~:7i~cr.r Sa•fu'~i*-~~ ,r. ,. ~- . - 4... ~_ h --- - - . i .-~;~ ,~ ', , ,1 LOC®tj®f1 ®~ ®~j1I~1AI~~. 000060 _: -~ ,~ s ~_.•--: i.~tiv -~'wOZ2 uuo <ce ~~ W ~ h doh Hu~F~ _ 2 ~ 3 a ~^ ~O W ~` ~ ~ i ~ q Z 2 ~ aR ~ ~~ wG ~~W oy~c ~ ~ gW 4 i ~ 2~~ _ W ~, ~~h c x c~ 24 ~ z 2 W~ °~ V' , za v J v W W., W >u~u, ~RpFCC2.-~yo ~ C7 ~~ ~m c~ H~ eta uc~~Y7 y:.n€ Q J c< v, V ~ ~~ VfZ v y! ~~O ~~~ ^ ~a ~ ° 2 sir ~~ ~~ W aW j "O 2 X 2 4 W J ¢ W W 8° '- ~- ~- " W 2~ xc°,':~motZc~'L~~¢ W yl~v~~iua ~~ooo ~~ - - ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ •• _ ~ ' :- .. _ -- _ _ __.__. - -- ------- ~\I _ I .. ,.. . ~' „ ~ ., .. .. . _ ., ,: ~ ~•~ r~~., n. I _ h ~ ~= _- _ ~ ~ ~ '~ \ ~{ i~ 1~ ~ ~.wa~ ~ / ~ Her • L@@ .~ " _ ~ 1 a _ .., ~ :. ~ - - y _ rr~.- _ _ _ ,~. It , ,- ~~ / y b / / / O ~~~ ~~ Xi\Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~V~ L r. V r ~~ ~• ~ ~ . ,. , :.• :.; i° a \.. f 7f I~~. 1.~,: inf.' ': M. C -_ ~'~. ~~.~~•/ r~.i ~.~c'c'~ , SPN . I I '. UI ~ .~tl I Y ~ o l :,_ - j. - /~%. ~ y~.r,~ Iii O ...~ i a + r,~r ~ r~~ _ ~ I ~ il~• ~.; . I ~ .•I i 11..1 }: - ~ _ .._ ~ '_ - f:. ~4/~/~ d ~~ I ~. ' i1~1 1 - ~'• i J ~ k --~ ~ ~EY ,, . ~j / \ I~$^ • I i I ! h~ _ ` I ~ ~) I i a p ~ ,j, • ~` z I I f!1 ~I + ~ _ I -w-,4 ~ h ~ f -Yd \ ) ,, 0 II ~ 1 i I ~ I . ~~ '~j ~ ~' $ g10 \ ~ I 1 f ma Cfid .. - nra•m ". - -.. \ C ~ ~ ~~\, Nbs\ ~, x~ I , ~ 1 ` s 1 ~~~" 1 t , 1 ~ _ ~V` -J -- u ~.IV~~='Y ~' 1 \ \ _fyZ C~ ~ / !'t I ~` f ~ ]~ ~, tt' •` ,, i / \ I • \~ y ~ r_. 1G71'~ ~ A ~ h~\~ I \~ f ~,n ~~ • oe a. ~ J1r'~ .. ~~, ~ e ,. ill.! ( u--~---= ..n..o.¢~.e:-~~ ~ r~ ~ ~ =I r u ~. , ~~~; ~I, I, S' 4 6 8 ~;, '.3 dw` _ I .~",'~g~ - _. a~.3 >~ .. ..Y _. 1 4WD •. (// I{ w < ~i VO1Vi O u Ic ~6 ~3+ 1 1 1 ~. ., R _\ ~` ~ \ ..j ._ maa ~ ~ H BOO \ ~ . ~c • WWW WW~ W 3 emu Yu ~~<i _: n., t4i. ~ . 2O I iiS vi~vi-Vlvi vi_~i '`~ J0 000 ~I CO00 • R,i ~._. ~.1.Y 7~.. ._'-_' •~ ~ ~~\ UI aONNb I~ b J Vj ` -+ 2~ k~OU . * .. Q~O~. .. J \ `8 O bOyuaO l ~ c~~ q ~I W ~OG . ~l ~ 2 ~ b p v14 W .... ._... _._ _. _._ ... ~ ... J ' .. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~' Q ~~ e WWW ~ .I WW ml cm+~~.°2... W~ m ^q^1 mO W W $ ~ W ~ n a ' _. ~ ~~ ~ .~ - ~ 1 ~ O huh i ~~ O H "~ ~ /~yLl ~ O .2 a W,i ti ,: ti ~ tV N kOkim ~ L4 ~~ c.-%~; ,. ~ ti p a0~.0 ._ h Ui Vi VI ! V1N VI ~ ~=~ O S F.'~ ~ r'~. ;..: ,.! ry ^N ~< 8 WWW WWI: W °~ ... .,_ I...j ~' ~ ~Y mod/ ~ ~ .._O ..__-._~ gblp W "gfhb ~~ j0 W ~~~~' ... ~ O h ' ~ Uh _~ ~ -\ ti ._.W w I ~. W a~~ 2 I g~ W~ 2 ~~ W ~ ... 'W 2~ H~ __ UUU UUU O i0 U WW ~ O C . y~W InWW °.y ~._._ 22x2 222 W° ~d ~° U ~ ~O y o ~ ~ ~.k o .`5~~~~ ~ ~ ' o00 0 o~S m ~i mz v 20 W ~? _ HI ~po ~ Nu ° u oW~. mW °p 1'1~^~ mmm mmm < 1W.~ m-~ ,°nu ai 2 °~ o ~ °UU .. ..-__ _... 1•I W ~ WC 2 C ~ ~O. o022W_. ... 'O~ .mU ~ <mU W UI<mU 7= °~ d NW ~ ~ Jo 2N ~1 W ~' ~ ~J WO O ~ m O ' - Z h p° 3K O ~c ~'N 2000~ip p~Cl iv' 000 pp 000 ~I000 O~c OW W~ k Wi < < OW NW Ai U•-I~hh.l ~..In2 ~--A. v N ~ In < W Wln JI W~ b b CC _.. _ .._... r, •~ 3_15-_ T = ~ V ~ i N Wz Q~ M- o V~ -~ W W Oo ~_ W ~ ~ N al a w ~I g Z= O~ c5co `' ~` Z= ~' Z, ~1 ~~~E~~ '>~~~ ~'~ ~q S~ ~ s • • 00-Lt-LI b•~'MJ-) N - N _- ._ - _.._ .._ ... _ ,~ e _ ... W ~ -- .- V ~' ; - o, a~ ' ~ z~ ' ¢F o ~: € a R j E' ' ~ ~ a t U V 5 = Y ~• • U i _ _ - F- ~ ',_.' .~ _ .~ ~~ • :1 I. ~ ' r . ~ .. .._ n~. _ .. 1' ~~` } ~~ \ ~ Y - \' ,. _ ~ m _ ,. 'nr ap y > 9 `i I I I r I~ - ~ ~, ~ ~' I I vl.~ ~ I ~. ~~ I~ Te ~; - r, ~ _. ~.. r ~ _ ti - ~ ,. _ r •_ _ 1, tr it i + I. ;a- ~ .. __ - .., -~ F~. 5'- E I ~~!! 1 , ~I fit t ~I I~C'.r ~ I t ~ ( j~~ •~ ~ -... s ~a a_J ''/ I ~~ ~,,; _ , I ~ _ III 6 S F- } \ i ~ r _. i ~ r ~ ,y , j /1- I }JX}ll -~ 11 ( ( 1 •~ ~~~~ _ i~ rn_ _ i F / i I~~ I t~ ll 1 i i~~ I~ , ~ z ~ ~ ~R : ~ ~ ,~ t. _ _.. ~ i w ` ' I;~ I li ~' i I I I ~ ~ / I ~.Y I! t $~~ t LF ~ ~ '.' ~~~ +/ r. l I !II ~ i I ~~ ..I ~ ~. ~ I~ ,. ., 4 ~~a I I I, 1 ~ 1 ~, ,, ~ ~.. q ~ 1. `~_ lily ,II I \#.~- .~ +~~__~ ^ ~ IG ~ ~•^--~£' Q~ F' ~~. _. tl ~tlli 1 \ t 1 t t v v ~... -_~ ~ P ;y ~1 i ~.r t~ h ~ ` 1 J.. L" :. •` .-. ~ 1 ~ '~ I v ~ ~ ~ ~ r I r A , 1. v _ wr __ _ a k _ I ~`°" `~'. _ }. + 1 I ,..i ill '..... ~~, r \ ~ r •~ ~ _ _ _ I ..; I I. ~ ~ `` t ! I I _ r ~ ~ III ~ I r •fv 1 ~ v' II ~ g6~ ~ ~ , ' ., ' 4 e a ` t v I •~~ r i"`~ i it ^~\ \ t t ~,'_ ' - ~.I_ ~ ~ I -~ •~ ~- ~ - p • `,\ l t ;;999\ l , v ' , 1 - v. ,~ ,~'7/;'_. I _ ~~. i IMy ~~ _ ~:: III i 1 ~, ~ I ~ !l l l t: 1. M ~ @ ~'~~Y!'• ~ II Ap _ L ~. _ ' I I i •1 a ~I ~ 1 •i t . ~~Y ~`~ -~I ii d \ I / v;'/ °- ~ g Tf.i •' it t z 11- 1 + ` ~ ;` ~ i• /% ~I~ y/r - ,'',~~~'` ~$O `$ ~ y~ \ ', ,~;~, r f \. ~ ~~ ,i I I " 1 ~ --- - -- - _ _ ~~ _ ~~QQ gg 11~~ '' i j,' ~~~ a u 3 3 ,:` ,, ` - l.. F 1 HH ~ ., gh~ C O~._ s~ a a ~u- --~ -- ,-, --- --- O: ~u- i ~~~ap~a" ~ ~~ ::. - --.._...___ __. 4 _~ ~p~ ~ .,._ ~._:,. ~ _ .,< r _.._ ~ ~ _ ... a- ,. Z r ~~ ~~b Y ~Itl ~~ -~~ ' - ~ 1l~98 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 6 ~~ _. .. ~---- ~--- - ~ S~ 's 5 • • • pp-SI~LI j ~Ij ~I III I +y'~~ III ~ II i Ili,, 1 Ili e ~I ~! I I i I^ ,I ~ JI ~ I, i~ti~1F ~~ ~t ii ~ -- I a Q C aRT N C Z ~ U ~ U a ~ ` U '"." _ ~_' y". t2 r 4 ,~,\ ~ '~ \ ~k ` ~ \ ~ , . ~\ ` ~ ~ >I ' } ~ j J'. 1 1 9 l ~~ ---~-, ~ ~ ~~ 1, ~ r / : ./ r i r ~ ~ -~ >~-;~,~ I 4 ~y I ~1 ' i 1 ^' ~ K i y~ ~,i' ~ i~ I i t I I I f_i f ~, r.'~ ~~r~l f iI ~~ 1~1 r I~ / ~1f j r f~ . I I /~ r i l /• µ '~\ ~', 11 ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ I' I ,t I I' ` I 1' I ~ J' ~ 8 a r I_ E ~-' f 3~ ~'r I I i I I !~~~~ I ~ I ~ I I I' 1i II 1 I I ~ j i i :~'~t'S i ~`~4_., ~ \ }~~ \\Y `~\~ c ~ \ i w: \, ~~ ,, 1~ Q ~...~ ~- " ~;` d ~ ~ ~' o . ~ ff., ' ' . ;M1..4 I f 5 / adE~ r ~ ~ J 3Y~~~ t " 3 ~ 't` y~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~tY _~ I 1-- - , ~~ ~ . ~r~-+- / ~ ~ .If"4' ~7 ~ i I :t ~a ~ I ~' ' ~~~ ~\ i I % / ~ "~I / ~~ ," ~I^, ~`i yd .~ ~ , ' ~: ,...._ ,. ~ ~~~~ I • - , .: . '3 y~ \ ~ ~ \ ` ~\` 72. }+.N, f k E ~~~ ..' ~y ~~,V '~ ~,~ - _ '~ ~ ti ~~ _ ~' 1 ae, i a..w- r r ~~ W~~ 3: i Dui i i~q~~,i ' ~ Gl'~ o~ ~ ,gyp 8~ 1 ~.~~.~Yq'' I t~ f r1.u~~~ct ~ jl 5 1 ~ ~1~ {1 ` + dd ' \ 9Y J - ~ I / ~ ^~~'~ ~~ ~y {~, 5 ~ ~e r .~ n~ i . N 1 eki y q ~-7. ,I ~ ~.4 ~ 1 i '~ ~i re vc. ~- ~=a~-~ Er.. ,sJ u b 1 .~ ~$'}~~}, ~ ~ ' ~d7~,'p ~ I .~ `ek'e ~ ~ ~ "'~ t r, ~~;, ~Y , 1 i , , y~ ~~y~c-•' ~ _ ~, J" ~i~, ~~ ~~ . .A I ~ Y" i, ~ % `~ ~ ~ ~y ~I ,` /t I ~ k3 ~ I ' ~ ~ r ' i6 I ". _, _ \ i ;fir' ' ~w N Q Fi M ~++ ~ l o~ LL 0 J V Q W V/ U~ ~ Q Q F. a~ ~W a~ !~ a a N= ~~ m' .' N ~= i L/1 ~~~ s ~ $$~ ~ ~ _~ ' 2:a, ~ ~ •\ tV N ~' ~~: \\~ l 1y~+ ~• , `~` \ .~-- ~~ ; \ ~ I 1 '~ ~\ ,' II I j ~' ,`.. ~ ~ alt ~q ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ rr ~~ ffi g 7 ~g"a ~~`~^ g ~ao~i ~ S g y~ )i g d ~ `2 y~U~ y~b~ ~~_~~ o ~ ~ 8 0 ~ a 9 a ~ ~ ~ ~ I II I I ~ y~ o W S J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~»~i~u€~~ ~ -~ I I I II o ~ k 1` 4 ~ _~\ ~_~~~i yr• , ~~ I I ' I x ~ r I _' ~ n ; j ~\\ _ \ Q ~ '~ { f ~~ I ~ ~ t ~ 1 `J ' '~ ~ ~ t, w ..,.; ; ~~ y ~-;, ~ _~ ~ ",. ' )t _~~ { \ S" ' Ll: ^ ~ ~ . ~ ., ~~, t, J] -~'~ , ~_) y it• 1, ~ ~~,~ i L; /~/ -~` "~ti.. i ~t.l i~~ ' • • • i m ~ ~ ,. I I I ~ Q ~n 3. I ~ ~ - f I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ J I ~ i ~ i i ~ / '\ I -~-- I \ I ~ I I ------ /I _ I I ~, I I ~ I 1 I '~ I I I ~ I I ~~ ~~ ~~, > I i ~. L I >/`\' ~ J r---1 I 1 I I i I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ V I ~ I I , I I II I ; ; 1 ~ I -- z I I {I ~ I I -- .~ _ I I I I o _ . ~~ O I I _ L I _____.__.__, I I ~. Z i~; ~ I I ~ J - I ~ i O~ ~ ~ I ~ J I W~. OD ~ ~ Q I I !OY i I I ----- -~`:^; - 6 i' ^ i i i I I /~ I I I / II I m I Q ------------ I II II II II II II II II _ I I II II II II II II II A ~ Y a - a ~' ~ A ~; 3 a a °~~ ~ ~~~a ~ o~Q< ~ r r Y Y'Yg ~n~ n , _~ ~~J ~ ~~ ~ T J ` WW F a W O ~ ~ Q ~i II II II II II II II I ~ II II II II II II II II I Q „a,ez o~ W~ ~~ ff 0 a • • o ~o a N 5' fl O ~ V~ ~I U ~~ 4 .. ~~/~~a o ~ I--1 < ~ I m r____I I I I I~l I I Q ; I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I W I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I >,~ ~ ~ t ~~; _ O II s~Q~~o ~~ ~ ml I I . II II - o ~ ~ J N .S 1 IN I ~---- N W m O m i L__ ~ Y r ~ tffY Y ~ 7 ~~~Is O U --------T---------~ I I I I II ~ I I I I ~` I I n II / I---------J - I N II I I 11 I I ~ I I O I I L---------- ---~ I I I I I I I 1 I I --- I--- ---~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I ~---------------- ---J ,~O-,OI .4-~OE O ~i w • • -- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • O; Q 4 ~< ~~ a~ ~~o~~ ~-1 0 9 ~ {~.. S ~~~a ~i 8 ° ~~ ~ o~ Q~ ~~ §R ~? _. a. m ,: o• 9: i? -: _ ~_ L ~' I i § R '~~ ,~ ~ a~ ~ 's a ; ~ i i v~ r: __ ~ roan ~GaY ~ ~ ' ~ I ~~ I ~ -f I ~ ` ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~ I n I ._ ~ ~c I ~^ I ~~ I ~ ~ ~_~~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ - - - ! ~ j-+ § 1i ~ ~ ~ §~ ~: _ ~ I og ~, ~_ g °~ ~i i~ =" ~. ii ii ., ; . ~4 S~ i _ -- - GG JG~ - _ O ' I i ,~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ „m. ,, ~ i ~ ! i ~L ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ o i ~ ~ ,a„ n I ~: I ~ I i I~i I 'L ~ ~ I~ ~ . i i ~ §R ~ ~ ~ ~ aQ of ~-_--~ '°®' ~ S 9L n n° i ` s 0 • • • ~: m z ~' ~ < `'~z~g< F ~ Fez ~zo~d33pp z }pw-~~~a~DF--uQ~~¢y,aG m~OFuZiFV aCQ~3 ~. ~m¢~Y~OC`np0. ~ ~<~°aUO~g$ag~ G vFiUa3m333U3vEi z v C F_ J F O; NI ~: z 0 ~. z 0 >' u~ u~ 3 --- t \, ~i d' o ~_ ° ~ z O ~ ~; ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~aF ~Z ^~~a o~ QQ < ~~ ~. _~... t w L l=' c~ a z 0 .a ua 0 • i • y m x > g Y -~ ~, ~ v ~`-~ $ ~ z~So3~ ~' x < vz~c< a aza ~-'3az3 ~ F~z~zoQZ3 ~ o~yo~~,~(-~YFS o myUFVt=V<a m U}v>>G~GGyov O ~ o:0a'~Oa'OS;OF? G fn'va3m333U3vi z v ~ am~ous~s_-,m ..:> _^. a ¢: m. ~:. z 0 .a F. Q w LLl 1 O O Q ~s ~ z O~ Q~~~ ~o .p ~~ n~~ < ~ a~ Q O U C .. F u~ .z O ¢. w~ __. H oc 0 z • • • 0 ~D a O ~ a S z 0= Q'; ~~ Q ~ C~ ° . 0 ~ ~;, ~~ ~~ ~ o~ Q~ I .o-.vL `k •^' as .ra ~ C~p r ~ ~ 5 o I °. I I I F I I = I J I I .t/6 L-.Q ~ I m h' ~ I I I .rr a .na ~ I m k I k : °I Q o c ~ c n I r a I I or ~ ~ I I I m I of I I I I I ~ I I = I ~ I o I I I I I ~ I ~~ ~ I I fl~ ~ I I 0 I I I I ~i A9 M1 ~ I I I I I I I ~ I U I I I ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ I I F I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ Ern i e I . ~ 3 I I I vL I _ I •I: I I I ~ I ~ I '~ I ~ I I I I I I I ' I fl~ I i ~ ~ I o I v .r,a I 1 k - I c I I .ra I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I _~^J I V ~A V • • • o ~~ s~ 0 ~ ~~ L~ fl ~' 3: a ~~ 4 t ~a ^~° ~,b-,ZL „b-,99 ~ X0-,4 m fV ~ ~, ~ , ~ \ - ,, ~~ ~ 1 ~~ Q _= O ~ - o}c I~ m ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Q ~\ m ,o ,, -w~ ,~ ~ 0 0 ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ o _ - -- n I n II * ~ - I j ry ~ __ ~~ _ ~ ~ I I z r c e o I I ¢'ST7 Y ac ~ is s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ / ~ ~~ - - \ ~ ~ Q ~ 0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ U I + ; ` I , ,~, v ~ I r I / C ~ \ z I z I , I ---- - o --- _ ~I ~ _ Q Y i I~ d I ~ ~ w . ~ ~ J ' ~ 0 ~ II OC I ~_ ~ Y - __O_ 0. ___ ~ Oµw~ _ J I a lIl . II II ~ Q ' Q _____ ~ J '~ ~ ~ r-------- -- I ~ -a>, J ~ p i ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F- r.----. I ~ i J _ ~ ~ w Q Ul i Y! _ ~ ~- - -- -- - ~ II ~ i O i ~ 7 i m ~ i ---- - -- ij; - - L ~_____-_____- I ~ _____________ I I i I I I I Q I w~ m q~ Q '- - I I --------'~ ~ OC ;o ----------- Q 1~ 1I I , I F~1 I ~~-;~~ i I I ,~Z-,L9 39`dT~V9 Q3H7V13Q Ol „0-~6L • • • °~~~ o~ ~ ada fl~;~ ~ ~° a~ U 4 ~~ 8 a ~= ^1 "~ o (/may U o~ Q< ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ §~ r r = q: o. ~~ ~, c s s ~ ~- - - ' ;- `c ~ 4 n ` I"' _ i I ~ I ~~ II 1 ~I~ i I ~ ~ i i II ~f ~ §~ u~ - I ? ~ ~I it I~ I ~ I I l___~~/ ! i' y ~r ~ ~o ~~ I~ I I I ~! iI I I II II ~-~ I II`-~I ~(~' ~ s I 'I i~ I ' i I .~ ~; ~i II I; ~ ~ hI ~I I ' -i-, -------------- r - _ -~ _~ v~ ~~ ------------ --------------- --- -~- - 1` '"" I ~. „m„ , --- ;--------- -- ~ ~ - h ~ L i ~I ~ ---- li ~ aL i I; s I ~ ~ / I I ~;~k §o I ~ ~ °' O ~g I I I? ~° a II I ~ I ~E s I U .~ §s I I ,r §5 I C I I -° ~ §'~ 6Q I I 60 ~ ,, .>y ~>; I '~ O s - ~ 1Jf ,r I ,~ ~I bo i I ~ c LIY=~~~ ---- I i ---- --- I ~ II ~~~ ...~ ,. _ - L J._.. _._ ~~~~ loan 0 \ \ i _ ~ r________ _~ I ~ .I ^ . ' ~I j.V` ' ._ _~ ~ I I -- I ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~ _ I o --- L ~ ~ t- I I 9L ,\ c ,, -- s ~~~ s c~ e5 - ~ I I +~ '~~' to tq I. Dq D° •. 9. ~ I I I i I i u ' ~ B ~ g __~ I I _______ _____ ' u ° ---'--------- I c d u ° I~'-'-'- ~r -- ~~ , I I ~ I it s :.. --.. s E ---- ~ ~.~: • ~ Y u w C j vv~} o ~ X30 ~ o dSQ g F~ o d3r ~~ zp~- O~viE"~cncn'',~ U dppp~YOO ts. 7 j~ O Z y 0 0 w q' rFi,Ua3~s33~ z m .................. ~ dmUGu7 oa.V S. 0 0 ~ ,,,,~~ : ~ O i O I~I V c °y Gig, ^~~o o~Q< ~ ~~ ~1 O w ~~~ C p~~< ~~ . L. .-. vz DO 0 a ~. z O ,~ ~. E~ ua 3 c~ a • • • i 4 .o N .6-.4I 1 ~~/1 I µV z 0 a L1] IJ W d u~ ~ ~ ~' °o `'' c z L > ~~} O :a: ¢ O ~ p Z ¢ ~ F .7 ~ U c ¢3y E V >-~;~~ ZO~Ow Z G~ O~ p a F 'f p m~ U m U 6 U~ 2 ~ U ¢ppp O~G Gpp O...1 ~. 7~m0<~OOm c vF'iUa3~m33~ z ~~ U ., ~ r~ F+ ~ ON ° O ~ 3..~ 0 3~ 0 v ~ t~ ~~ ~ ~~~ o~ Q e ~~ ~~ O T=-1 _ U w C f ~ ., V ._. __.. ^ __. I_ /F '•W' W11 1~ z 0 a w J [1.1 M~M W O W U O w a • • • T O ~ ~" 0 0~ Qao~ C~ - ~r " ~~ u ~ ~~~a ~ o~Q~ ~ § ~ as ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ i i i ~ -- ~ , i q i K ~ ~" i as ~ ~ nr ~-- i~ ~ r ~. ,,, , ~ O 1 I ~u I~ '~ V aV ' 8G I '~ I I ~ C i m I I ~_ I ~ i ~ I ~ ~ I ~ a ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ AJi ~1 OS i M V~ .[A t-.K F • • .9-. b -----~ - I I I I I I I 1 F __ E- ~ r-----r------ I 1 --- ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ I 1 ,;,> ~ i I I I ;N,~_ I I Q ~ I I I 1 i ~ p p ~ I __ 1 I OC _-- j I I -- -- 1 I -- "-- I I I I I z I II _ f I ~ O 1 _y-----L------ I I j I I ---- ---_ ~ QQ I ` O I ---------- a I •~ ~, ''y --------~------------ - ' ~ , j~n 1 I ---• u_ '~s__ ' _ ~ ~~ r._._._ . ~ _._._._._._._._._._._. ...i ... .. _\ 1 ~ ~~ i ~ - -- o o -- -- 1 =_ ~ -- ~ I ~, , I ~ _ _ a ~ i m 1 Q II / 1 ~ I ~ _ _ 0, l~~ I I I I J ~ -~ a Z ~ ~= i 1 I ~~ ~~ d Q II ~ > i 1 I i j-1- I ~ ~ I z~ I I ~ I I I J I I I I I _ I I -- ~ -- -- -- ~I ~_ I ~~ ~~LL I I m~ I ~\/ JI h I t~ / ~ - I ~ ~~~ ~ ~rt lI I b-,bl „Z/I Z-,bl .9-, LS ,Ny b ~ ~ g G g O ~ U QaQ~ c~ o ,_ a ~4~~ ~ ~~ ~~~^a ~ I o ~ 1--I c ~ I I I I I I I I I ..~-,g~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ '~ \ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~\ \ 0 Q w Q ~ \ \ I I w ~ \ ~ I 1 ~4a \ ~ ~ \ o Q W Q ~ I n w `~ ~ ~ I Q I ~W~ ~ I w ~ ~ ~ I I Q \ I -----~ ---- I ---- 1 1 I I ~! ' I a ------------- ~I z O U ,~ i ~ r ~ Y ~~~ ~ U • • • __~ o \~ .~ . ~ 0 0 Cj CY O d' a ~~ ~ O < ~I' U °~o~ 8 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ o~ Q~ ~. ~~ ~R .n o. :. .~ .~ ~~ _ O 6 L__i `o r--I r`I ao ___~__.~ r I I ~ ~~ ~ i - II _._ ~ ~ er ~ \ ~ ~ I i ~- , I~-I{ I I~ I O ' ' I - I 'I ~I I WdO IIJW I I o• a I~r--~-j ~ ~L _ ~ I 9 c I I (' ~i~ i ~ I I I r I -- O I I I I i ~ --- I I I ` I I I I ~ - - ~~I _ - i ~ i ~~ JC 0 ~ e O n Fk ~~ I~ .I I I I Li I I ~ i o~ I I 4o I 1 .. ~ ~ I _ ._._._ _. _. _'_ _'_'_' f_. Q U r --- I I . ~ _._'_. I i~ I I 1 o I 1= ~ ~ ~ c I I ~ 1 ..= I I I~ I I i i t §~ ~ I II ~ ,L__4I I I I I 1 q• I I I I I ~~__ ~~ I / V i i ~ ~ I ~ ~g aR ~. li ,I I I II ~ I - I I - I I I 1 ~ - ~ §~ R o- ~n o` §~ ~ ,o o. 9~ ~~ o a _ ~ I ~ '° I I I I I I 1 ~L I I I I I I -~--- i ~ ~~ ~4 i ~• J ~a .~ • • • 0 z 0 a ~. z O w u.a w 3 u~ o ~ o; ~ ~ Ox ~~ S ~ ~-+ ~ o ~, ~ Ou a ~0 9~ c~ c7`G<~3~u~. a' 00 ~¢gOZ ~ ~ J ~ U }ttt~tzzzz~~~~OZZ7r~~O~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~QF~yS~~cF I+~y oil 4~-1< ~~ ~ o`°¢oa~ca`~~ O ~~~g<~O°ca~ o mUa3U333U3 Z v ~CO.~ --v.._ 1~ U c~ z 0 -- w. w w F ' O w • • U 0 ~, .o-.vz 5 a a 0 _ ~, ~ ..._ -~ ua N S ~' ~°z ~`~ ~ a 8o z~$o~ ~_< `~ ~ ~z~a ~ ~-~cz_z°~_o~QO~ O ~~.,~~~aF~~~F aF~~,-w~a<.-. yu.a, m O~'v0~000~'O 0000 ~ ~ vF3v~a3v333t~.~3 z U ~~ Z Q~ ~~ s ~o ~ ~ ~ ., 6 ~, wa ~~~/'~~~ o ~ 4..a < s ~~ 3~ _._ . ~1 O ~I ~1 U c ;.. , ~- ~. z o__ .~ 0 z U I i O • • • ~.~?:.., n y P ~ Y ~ ~< ~~ ~U 9 ~0 3i a ~~ ~~ ~~ 4 ,. 0 ^~~a o~ Q~ ~~ pN W I I I .6461 II .hV ~. A.p R I G ~ r O I I I ~ ~'.'~~ II N ~II o~ (~~ ~ i ~ \_.9 I pl ` 6.« LL / ~ dRk .K P.1 -_Opppp a yi A'` ~ A.q V 4 C C I' ' 1 I I I _ I I I ~~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ,~ ~ I I I B I I I I ~ I I I I I I I ~ I ~ I I I I O ~. I ~L ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sL ~~ ~ I - .~ ~ I I I I I ' i I V I I I I I I ° ° ° I I o .na w,s ua .o~a I 0 ~ ~ I I I ~ 1 I I I I I I I -- -----------'----'- --- I '- -----' --------------- I I I I I jq I I oL I I V I ~ I U I- u I ~ as ~ I I .inn ~ I • ~ '~N1 ~ ° a E ~ llB6-7Ai (80i) ~nogd~~~y 16056 B1nr03iIBJ 'oO1o~ +~7 WBADI°O9 ao~e~ 4~'I 58551 o I I ~S ~, , ~ _ y ~ x ~~ s ° ~?_~ ~~ a a[ e ~ a p~ t n g a o Y a q 2 ° I I ~ ~ ~ `~ y ~' ~ ~P O~aNi Cfg Ad~~~D~ O~~ll~ ~~ ~ ~ I I ~ OZ ~ ry 5 ~ FF '~ F ° Q 4 Q <~ <I 4 I ~J Q h ~ ~n ~ ¢ 4- ~H ^>. ~~~~~~~~ a c ~: • Ss:)-ha) ~: Z J 1 ~_ G U ~N Q ZG i~ ~ii~~~~yy~~~ E C" p"' W U ......... - - - ~ o ~ ~ a 3 : _ - ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ e:~~~~~i~~~ e y, II I I ~I I \\\\~ '_ ~ \ ~ 16.57 ~ '\~f_a. ;~ ~~ °" D e 9~~ ~ 9~f ,NW ~ ~N ~ ~ ~ a ,, _-_ `~~~~~ ~ lY 50~6 \ _ - / ~ I a@ ~ ~i~~rgsk~~ ~ llll r ~ ~8~ ~~z_ -- ~_ p5 ~1 pr 3 ~ ~ YJE8852339 1V'~I N~~' ~ ~~~ ~ a ~ ; ~/ ~~ .F ~' ~ti ark: n e .r'+~'~ I~ b" ;.Z ~ ''. ~ .;x."'" w I/` I J 1 , I i 8 I"'d\I O o l.; Im o ~I of (' ~ r-m , ~ i^ ~~ ~ i I I I ~ ~ - ` '~' 1 ^ ~ ~ I ~I I - .~ f I{` j I II /;- Y~~ _~ _~ ~ /~~- / j ,~ ~ °~ V' ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ i z ~ e ,' a ~ VSa°~ I ~ ®® O / ~ 1 ~ J ti 7 ~ I y U = a ; I / / r Z N ~ ~ ~ ~b U ~ i ~_ -~ ` o I f x i ~ 4 ~ IJ I , .. ~- ~ ~ - ~ +p ~ ~`~ ~~~f~ ~ S S I r~ i's' ' ~' 99' I b is '" iii'~~`:. a ~ I .,.. ;rr I I /I nr'~_ ~ ~ \ k u! ~ • . _ .f {~ ;~~ o ~:1~ ffI ~ I .~, ~k I ~~ J ~ ~ G h~ \ \\ 1111 \ \..+~y ' I °~ i~ I ?qtr 1 ~ / 3.. ~i: b~ ~ ,'~, .~. T ~ ~ I ~~r 1~ ~_` ~ 1 ~_ X ~ ~ ` ~ , ~ ~ \ Y ~ I i j -- a w v z 0 U ~ . ......... ..... ........ ......... ~ s ~~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ p id 0e ~ }g~y t y 7 ~ ~ ~~ 7F ~~ '~ i ~ k~ ~~~~~ ~~~ d ~ e >[ [ i. ~~~~~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ A ssxlsSSxsi~$~3R3~3~+ ~13sa ~~~~~Xa~s7. p ~q s O O O Q ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ggSS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~j ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ N gg3 66 {~ ~ U ~~${ Q6a t Y ~ ~ ~ ~ 6be ~ 6 71 U~I ~ ? Y ~ V ~ q e FI O I ~ I o I • • • __ ~, LL86-Z0~ (BOi) aaoydo~oy ~ i g e a ; z~osb ~~JOnia~ •oai~ ~ wa„~~~ Qo,>a~ ~ seat o .. ~...: . woa~Waga>t,~o :rou.] .cope-092 Igor) :•e3 pOpB-OpL (purl :au°'~a ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ a z+i l w Zrp, tl3pfH,w 35NJJil 9Z,p6 rJ '150f NvS O, t •,~ 'IS 6u~ppaN ,aa~r. L96 ~~In~;~~l I H~2~b' ~db':JSaNd-l , D j B J O p 1 1 Q Q J O Y~ 7 O ° ~` h I ~ N S31t/IOOSS~d N~dW~~OH sa~}n~}s~ o~tnZj e~o~ ~e e s ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ } g . ~ i Q Q Q a Q 4 Q 4 `~ F y ~ _ a I N 3s~ss ~- 3 w Z . ~ yZ~ 4. ~QQ Q ~~ z ~ G N 4 ~W !~i 'i; .I•:I is s ~I;!' ~~ !. ' \ ~ .. '=~ • Y ~~ ~ e?I ~ ' .~\ Q`=.yy~ ~ ~' 0 0/~~, l :~ i - ~~ ;: ~~ - ~_r'. , 3e~ :!I' ~: '- ~' r .~ .. NaRZH __ _.--- R i ~ O __ =,~; ~~ f W .. ~~ .,~~ II <,~ m '. ~~ ___i - , -_ I, __ - ~ __ ---- -- - - ,-- ~~e ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ 7¢~~ ~~e WI6§~ ZI ~$~ l i I / - \ ~; ~ T j ~~ ! -' --~ _'- ~' ` ~ ~ ~- __ ! as ~ ~ "~ ~'•.~ ,~ ¢m ~ 4;j a 7, I (''~\ ~~ i- I. ~i - ~~ i \ oa i~~ / p a ~ I p ~ o aie ~, ~~ ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ! %,5.. 7 ~ ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way Applicant/Owner: HALL Staff Planner: Mark J. Connolly, Assistant Planner Date: February 28, 2001 APN: 503-56-010 Department Head o North TA N S I -f~ ~ -- 1 W J .. f J ~. . ~~ y ~ I s e LN ~ - - - --- -- ---- - ---- ----~ -- ----1--~ - -- --/- -- - -I - - - 13410 Old Oak Way 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12/11/00 2/1/01 2/14/01 U1U01 2/8/01 The applicant has requested Variance approval to construct an addition to match an existing non-conforming structure, within the rear yard setback, over a slope in excess of 30%, and greater than 26 feet in height. The existing structure is built on piers with a maximum height of 44 feet. The site is located on a 40,075 sq. ft. parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution V-00-023. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V-00-023 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • ~00~~~ File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,075 sq.ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4~3% GRADING REQUIRED: There is no grading required for this application. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Wood shingle siding painted dark tan. with either dark brown or dark green wood true, charcoal gray composition shake shingles. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. - Existing and Code Requirement/ Proposed Allowance Lot Coverage: 10% 35% Floor Area: First floor 1,846 sq. ft 4,830 sq. ft. Garage 660 sq. ft. Second floor 1,552 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,058 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front 100+ ft. 30 ft. Rear First floor 48 ft. 50 ft. Rear Second floor 48 ft. 60 ft. Left Side 38 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 50 ft. 20 ft. Height: Residence 44 ft. 26 ft. 000003 P:\Planning\Mark\PC Staff Reports\V-00.023.doc; Hall II File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Variance Approval The applicant has requested Variance approval to construct an addition to match an existing non-conforming structure, within the rear yard"setback, over a slope in excess of 30%, and greater than 26 feet in height. The existing structure is built on piers with a maximum height of 44 feet. The site is located "on a 40,075 sq. ft. parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. The existing residence is unique in that it is an existing legal non-conforming structure built on piers before the current zoning ordinance. was in place. The applicant is asking for ' three Variances that "are required due to existing conditions, and to match the existing structure. Typically, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the application for "Design Review in conjunction with the Variance application. However, in this application the physical changes are simply matching the existing structure and the scope of work would otherwise be an Over The Counter Design Review handled entirely at the staff level. Variance 1: Setbacks The structure exists within the rear setbacks required for first and second stories at 48 feet. The first story setback is 50 feet, and the second story setback is 60 feet from the rear property line. If strict enforcement of either of these setbacks were required, the proposed second story remodel and addition of a master bathroom and, closet would be precluded. The addition is designed to match the existing rooflines; architecture and materials. Variance 2: Slope The residence, excluding garage is completely built on piers that exist over a slope underneath the footprint of 43%. Section 15-12.061 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the average natural grade of the footprint underneath any dwelling unit shall not exceed thirty percent. The addition to the structure is also anon-conforming condition, thus requiring a Variance. Variance 3: Height The Height Variance is necessary for the Southeast portion of the second story addition. This structure exists at a maximum height above natural grade of 44 feet. The proposed second story addition" is designed to match the existing rooflines, architecture and materials. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property including location in the rear setback, the residence being constructed on piers, and existing topography, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. P:\Planning\Mark\PCScaff Reports\V-00.023.doc; Hal1I1 00~0~4 File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way The granting of the Variances will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. Many of the homes along Old Oak Way were constructed on piers prior to the current zoning requirements. The granting of the Variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The residence is located in one of the more rural parts of the Hillside Residential zoning district, and the siting of the house is well spaced and screened from adjacent structures Staff finds that the project can be supported. The size of the lot is nearly an acre, and is heavily screened by mature vegetation both on this and adjacent properties. The proposed remodel poses minimal view and privacy impacts, and utilizes smaller windows. The proposal is largely an expansion of a bathroom and closet on the second floor, thus having little impact on the neighbors to the rear. The first story is mostly interior to the structure, but does add to a nook and dining area on the exterior. The rooflines and design are well articulated to match the existing conditions. Staff feels that the proposed design and materials board is compatible with the neighborhood. The Public Works Department, and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will retain the existing detached three-car garage. Grading There is no grading proposed for this application. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist due to the residence being built on piers. The Building Department will ensure that the existing piers are structurally sound for the addition. Trees No ordinance protected trees at risk on this application. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. • P:\Planning\Mark\PC Staff Reports\V-00.023.doc; Hal1II O 0 0 (1 ~ C File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood, which has many residences built on piers. The proposal further satisfies all- other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage with the exception of the Variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ` Approve the Design Review application by adopting ResolutionV-00-023. •I •i •i P:\Planning\Mark\PCStatf Reports\V-00-023.doc; Hall II 000006 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-00-023 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HALL; 13410 Old Oak Way WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has.received an application for Variance approval for the construction of an addition totaling 4,058 square feet to match an existing structure, with a maximum height of 44 feet located on a 40,075 sq. ft. parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence will be partially screened from existing residences by mature vegetation. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to minimize tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimised and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that there is no grading proposed and no ordinance protected trees are proposed to be removed. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment the structure's design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes within this area. ^ The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ~~00~"~ File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. 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 of V-00-023; HALL for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by~reference. - 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning. Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following: i. The cross sections shall be stamped by the architect showing that no interior height exceeds 15 feet. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height and three feet within the front yard setback. 3. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - 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. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 6. Review of this Development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply, and the fire department has no conditions for this application. P:\Planning\Mark\PCStaff Reporrs\V-00.023.doc; Hall II 0 0 0 0 0 L7 • • • File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way CITY ATTORNEY 7. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 8. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation . of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each. day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • • P:\Planning\MarkU'C Staff Reports\V-00.023.doc; Hall [I O o o O O J File No. V-00-023;13410 Old Oak Way PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • • P:\Planning\Mark\PC Staff Reports\V-00-023.doc; Hall II 0 OOO ~O _ x ~ j,. ~/ ,, ~ I`II;~ ICI I I ~/ __ -~~ ~~~ :I ;1 L a > /,~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .--gyp m .~, ~ J_ ~ I I' I ~,'I I,. I' .I_ I ~ I,,:I I ~ S" may, `~ ~ . y ~°` /(`~ izanns/'.% i ~ \, ~----~-~ ~D~ j IF, ~. ~~ .. I,~~I' I I_ 1~. I I~~ ' 1.1 on'°1 ~ /', q'..~ ~z, y t/',~ ; / ~~ \ \~ .T { ,"~.~~: I . 1OI' , : I I I .. I ` \ ` o // fug, ~ a ~y/ / ~~ ~ / / ~ \` ~_ ~.`' '{}._. ~ ~ 1L ~ ~ _ / / w `V / ~ ak I it .. / o ~ : + ~.... Q ~` \ ~ /, ' "~ $ ' ~, / ? ~ ~ - ~j- O If` , ~ O `'I'mo o //I i , I\\~`/ , ~h / /~ ~n ,``I III 1.,c~ N ~ / ~ \/ ~!l I I ~l I I hI ~il~ I ~/ ! e _ ~~~`~ /~ /API°~I IIiI~°~,- ;-~o J ( (~ ~~10~-i; \~ -__J / „~ o ,bw~°9~ / / ~ ,' I I I I I ~ ~~W ~ '~ ~4 J I ~ I / / ' ~ ~ OBI ~ {~ ~~ ,~_ \- f ~ \ '// / a~/ / / •~ / I I l ~ `~ I` I ~~ / / ~ oe° I I I I F'•~° O .. 1 I ~' - - IS ~. ~P / ors' I I ~ ~ ,~ , `` ~ 7 ~/~~j / `. lm .0~(y ~ I I. OJ i O' I I O ~ ~ ~1:1 1 << add - ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ %~ ~ ~ 0dt ~ ~~% / ~ , ~ _ .~ 1 i ~ I Vim., ~ 1 I ~ 1~ N. t ~ '7. 'wiy _ ~/~j /~ / ~ '/\.y\/ //'~/ ~O :' ~ ~ ~ Y' l-_-' O ° ~ ~p.JM' • • r t i i S 1 f ~f t { i 3 __.~....~_._._._.:_.~ ..........:.....:_~.___....___.._.___. .__ w 5z = z . ~~ 0 N l9 1 I ~ _ _ _ ~~~' ~, ~, , \ '.. I - j ~~ III III ~ ~i~N ~ I J}2 F I jjlfii_I; 1 '' I ~ ~ ~ N'S+:.. '~ r -~--~ ` ','~_ ~ M Imo. i I k ., ~~ I I $ `. x `; j i~ .- ~ - .-;~ ,. -- ` ~ ~ i O~~ t _ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~: ~ - I F ~ I O l~ ~ LLj 1 ~ ~ ... ~ I --~ J' II; U U'. a~ _ ... :., a ~ o No.. • ~~~ : . ~ ~ ` ~ ~ P''' r . ~ ~ ' z 3 ` _ ~ _ ~~ , ~ .~ I - .Y a ~. ~ o . ~jls ~, ;. _: ~I . -- t dl- t ~ ~ i o~ ~, ~._ ;~ ~~~ ~~ ~. m _~ m ~ ~ ~ N = a No-~uaci~_ ~S_tto~-f ..d~so~a~~ • • • m N O N W a -, 0 J ° ~~ b~~~lholb~:~eM `~bo ago Qlb~l..._ _ ~ s _.._ _. w NO~CJa\. ~ci`r?U+=f a~yO~lo~bd. _: ~ z ~ a a' A n ;~ ~~ .i i ~~ ~~ .i i 4 i i N„ 4 1. Q i ~~ 11. ~ ~~a ~~ • p~F- _: ~; , Vii' - i i ~ I ;: _~._~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ -- - - -.1 I - ---- -- ~ - ~ _ __..~ , I Z ~. ---~ ~~ Q hI Dui .. 1 l ~. d Y x ' • • • • ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: DR-00-036; 15315 Sobey Road Applicant/Owner: SATHAYE Staff Planner: Bob Schubert, Senior Planner~~ Date: February 28, 2001 APN: 397-07-083 Department Head: 000001 l.~.jl.~ .5'obeyl~oad ,J CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12/4/00 2/5/01 2/14/01 2/15/01 2/8/01 The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,066 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,009 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is approximately 43,680 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The proposal involves the demolition of an existing 2,476 square foot, single story residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR- 00-063. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-00-063 3. Arborist Report dated December 18, 2000 4. Letters of support from neighbors 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 File No. DR-00--063; 1531SSobeyRoad • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,680 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 920 cubic yards of cut (to a depth of 3 feet) and 1,152 cubic yards of fill (to a depth of 7 feet). Additional excavation will be necessary for the construction of the proposed basement. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be gray stucco with wood trim painted bronze and stone and brick veneer accents. Roofing will be slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 14,862 sq. ft. (34%) 35% Floor Area: Living area 5,229 sq. ft. 6,080 sq. ft. Garage 837 sq. ft. Basement (2,009 sq. ft.) TOTAL 6,066 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front -15t floor 37 ft. 30 ft. Front - 2°d floor 40 ft. 30 ft. Rear - ls` floor 58 ft. 50 ft. Rear - 2"d floor 60 ft. 60 ft. Left Side - ls` floor 32 ft. 20 ft. Left - 2°d floor 53 ft. 20 ft. Right Side - ls` floor 112 ft. 20 ft. Right - 2°d flOOr 125 ft. 20 ft. Height: Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A ft. 12ft. P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc 000003 File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad PRO~CT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,066 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,009 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is approximately 43,680 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The proposal involves the demolition of an existing 2,476 square foot, single story residence. The proposed roofline is well articulated and the placement of the residence is sensitive to the adjacent residences, as well as the natural environment. Although the proposed residence is relatively large, the stone accents and articulated roof brick and stone accents on the front elevation will reduce the somewhat massive appearance of the structure. The neighborhood has a mix of single story and two story homes and staff feels that the height of the proposed residence will be compatible with the surrounding area (i.e., Sobey Road has some large, new homes and older, lower profile homes with wood shake roofing). Consequently, staff feels that the proposed design and materials are compatible with the neighborhood. • There are several existing and proposed trees on the property that will serve to screen the proposed residence from Sobey Road and neighboring properties. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan (see Sheet L-1) showing proposed trees along the front of the residence and within the rear yard area. To minimize potential privacy impacts on the neighbor to the east, the landscape plan shows a total of 10 new trees, ranging in size from 24-inch box to 48-inch box, along the eastern property line. Following the initial submittal, the sizes of these proposed trees were increased in response to the neighbor's concerns. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached three-car garage. Grading The proposed residence requires 920 cubic yards of cut (to a depth of 3 feet) and 1,152 cubic yards of fill (to a depth of 7 feet). Additional excavation will be necessary for the construction of the proposed basement. LJJ P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.da 000004 File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist due to the stability of the site. Trees Six existing trees (i.e., a 20-inch Deodora Cedar, 18-inch Colorado Blue Spruce, two 9- inch Coast Live Oaks, 13-inch Fir and 8-inch European Olive) are proposed to be removed. Four of thee trees to be removed are located near the center of the site within the footprint of the proposed residence or the proposed circular driveway. The conditions of approval require that the site plan and landscape plan be revised to save Tree #15 and Tree #31 as set forth in the Arborist's Report (i.e., a total of four existing trees would be removed). The City Arborist report dated December 18, 2000 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of the remainder of the existing trees on the site. There are approximately 34 existing trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, the majority of which are Monterey Pine, Coast Live Oak and Siberian Elm. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Fireplaces The plans indicate that awood-burning fireplace will be constructed in the new residence. In addition, there will be one gas-burning fireplace. Correspondence Four letters from neighbors in support of the proposed project are attached. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR- 00-063. P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc O oo OO C • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 0~~0~~ • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-063 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SATHAYE; 15315 SOBEY ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,066 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,009 square foot basement on a 43,680 square foot parcel; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence wi'1 be partially screened from existing residences by mature vegetation. ^ The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the proposed design and materials are compatible with the neighborhood. The roof is well articulated and the placement of the residence is sensitive to the adjacent residences, as well as the natural environment. ^ The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulls and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimise the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the proposed design and materials are compatible with the neighborhood and many existing and proposed trees on the property will screen the proposed residence from Sobey Road and the neighboring properties. ~~00~~ File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad ^ The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. ^ The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Now, TxExEFORE, 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 of SATHAYE for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. The plans indicate that there .will be no more than one wood-burning fireplace. If awood-burning fireplace is proposed, it shall be equipped with a gas starter. ii. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for staff and City Arborist approval. iii. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed. • iv. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. v. The site plan shall contain a note with the followin lan a e: "Prior t g gu g o foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall P:\Planrting\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc 00000 File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist and this Resolution as a separate plan page and showing existing and proposed contours (after any cut and fill), arrows indicating flow, and any creek easements. 3. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed (with the exception of Trees # 17-20) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - 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. 5. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 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. • CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated December 18, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised to save Tree # 15 as set forth in the Arborist's Report. The adjacent patio must be relocated or redesigned so that a minimum of 15-foot radius of soil from the trunk is not excavated, graded or trenched. The adjacent path may be constructed at the location proposed, provided than any portion of the path within 15 feet of the trunk of Tree # 15 is constructed completely on top of the existing grade without excavation, grading or trenching. Soil compaction must be limited to 80% in this 15-foot radius area. c. The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised to save Tree #31 as set forth in the Arborist's Report. The proposed wrought iron fence adjacent to Trees #25 and 30-34 shall be constructed by a pier and beam design. No roots over 3 inches may be severed during the digging of the piers. P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc 00000 File No. DR-00--063; 1S315SobeyRoad d. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. e. 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. f. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of the native replacement trees. 8. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $9,975 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the Ciry Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 9. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, two 36-inch box and three 24-inch box native trees (an alternative equivalent is nine 24-inch box native specimens) shall be planted as replacements for trees # 17, 18 and 19. All 36-inch box trees shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 3-inches and all 24-inch box trees shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 2-inches. Diameters are measured 1 . foot above grade. 10. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective .measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 11. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 14. An approved, automatic sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard # 13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. ~DODgO P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad 15. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residence. A 4head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 16. The applicant shall coordinate with the Santa Clara County Fire Department and provide an on-site fire hydrant per Department specifications or provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. The fire sprinkler system shall conform to National Fire Protection Association Standard # 13D, 1994 Edition, City of Saratoga Ordinance requirements and Standard V- 1, as approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. At the time of building permit application, applicant shall stipulate which of these options shall be utilized. 17. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches, minimum circulation 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 D-l. 18. 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. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incun ed 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. 20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 000011 P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Reports\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc File No. DR-00--063; 15315SobeyRoad PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28~' day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P:\Planning\Bob\PC Staff Repom\DR-00-063 Sathaye.doc 000012 • • • ~~~ BARRIE D. ( ATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15315 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA ~~~~~D o~~ CITY TY ENV R~N~~ CCMMUN • Prepared at the Request of: Mark Connolly Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist December 18, 2000 Job # 12-00-301 • Plan Received: 12-07-00 Plan Due: l -07-01 000013 TREE SURVEY AND pRES; 1TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15313 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Mark Connolly, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home with a large basement in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides infonmation about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes 34 trees to some level of risk by construction activity. Three trees (# 17, 18, 19) would be removed by implementation of this design. Replacements, which equal their value are suggested. Several trees would be severely damaged. Some would be damaged to the extent that they would be considered a loss unless all of the mitigation suggestions can be implemented. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are l 9 trees on this site and I S trees on adjacent properties that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The 34 total trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1-10 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) Trees #11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 2l, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 13, 25 California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii) Tree # l 4 Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Tree # 15 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # l 7 Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens 'Glauca') Tree #20 Fir (Abies species) Trees #29, 30, 32, 33, 34 Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) Tree #3l European Olive (Olea europea) PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 000014 TREE SURVEY AND PRESI \TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15315 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition. This is inrtended to aid with planning. Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens l 1, l 7, 21, 22, S ecimens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, S imens 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, S imens 14, 33, 34 S ecimens 2p 23, 26, 28 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 30 22, 27, 29, 31, 32 ~i Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further~decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees located on adjacent properties which would be affected by this activity must be treated as exceptional regardless of condition. Impact of Construction Trees # 17-19 are in conflict with construction and would be removed by implementation of this plan. Many of the other trees are at risk of significant if not severe root damage as a result of adjacent construction. These are listed with the mitigation procedure that would be required to retain each specimen without decline. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18.2000 000015 TREE SURVEY AND PRESF . 1TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THESATHAYEPROPERTI 15315 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA 3 i ree ~ Aa scent construction Miti anon Procedures 1-8 driveway construction/grading fencing/irrigation 8; 9 I footing for brick wall I fencing/pier and on-grade beam footing/irrigations 1 S I patio/stone path/pergola I fencing/relocate patio and poo1.15 feet/ ~ ~ construct path on grade/irrigation/mulch 16 ~ footing for adjacent patios + fencing/platform buffer 2l, 22 circular driveway/entry revise grading/fencing/relocate driveway 3'/ path/grading on-grade entry path/irrigation/mulch 24 circular driveway/grading revise grading/fencing/relocate driveway 3'/ irrigation/mulch 25 ~ adjacent wall/grading/drain !relocate wall 15' from trunk/revise grading./ fencing/relocate drainline 26-30 ~ grading ~ revise grading/fencing 31 I pool/steps/patio/grading I revise grading/fencing/irrigation/mulch 32 ~ grading ~ revise grading/irrigation 33 ~ iron fence !pier and beam fence design [f any of the trees must be pruned significantly in order to provide access for the adjacent construction feature proposed, the canopy loss and the root loss are considered in conjunction. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 • • 000016 TREE SURVEY AND PRESET rION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 4 THE SATNAYE PROPERTY 13313 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 6. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 9. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage: If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. To prevent loss of tree #8 and significant decline to tree #9, the proposed adjacent brick wall must be constructed by a pier and on-grade beam design for at least that part within l 2-feet from the trunks of both trees. There must be no grading whatsoever inside the 12-foot area from the trunks. 2. Iftree #I5, is expected to survive in reasonably good condition the adjacent patio must be relocated or redesigned so that a minimum of 1 S foot radius of soil from the trunk is not excavated, graded, or trenched. The adjacent path may be constructed at the location proposed, provided that any portion of the path within 15-feet of the trunk of tree # 15 be constructed completely on top of the existing grade without excavation, grading or trenching. Soil compaction must be limited to 80% in this 15 foot radius area. Otherwise, tree # 15 would not survive and would be considered a loss. In this event, replacements are suggested. 3. Iftree # l 6 is expected to survive construction of the adjacent patios, protective fencing must be installed directly adjacent to these construction features or a platform buffer must be used to protect virtually the entire root zone under the canopy. 4. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 5. In the event that a platform buffer would be used as an alternative to protective fencing for the protection of root systems of tree # 16, the platform buffer must be . installed and maintained throughout construction. A platform buffer consists of 4 full PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 00001'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESI ~TION RECOIr[1VIENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15315 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by l inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 6. In order for trees #21-24 to survive, the proposed new circular driveway must be a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree #21 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of trees #22 and 24. It appears that the driveway would only require relocation 2-3 feet. However, this presumes that the trees are accurately located on the maps provided and that all other sides of the root zone of each of these trees would be preserved without compaction and that the existing soil would be undisturbed for a minimum radius of 18 feet for tree #21, a minimum radius of 15 feet for trees #22 and 24. The minimum radius required for the protection of tree #23 is 20 feet. The proposed drain achieves the clearances required; but there must be no grading closer than these required clearances. Thus, the grading plan must be revised to achieve these required clearances. Otherwise, the survival of these trees would be put at risk. 7. Also, in order for trees #21-24 to survive, the grading plan must be revised so that there would be absolutely no grading inside the distances described in Recommendation #6. 8. Any portion of the entry path that would be inside the minimum distances (noted in Recommendation #6 for the protection of trees #21-24) must be constructed completely on grade. 9. The proposed wall adjacent to tree #25 must be relocated a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk. The grading plan must be revised to indicate that no grading would occur no closer than 15 feet. 10. The proposed drain located on the south side of tree #25 must also be relocated a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk. 11. The proposed wrought iron fence adjacent to tree #25, 30-34 must be constructed by a pier and beam design. No roots over 3 inches may be severed during the digging of the piers. 12. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 13. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTllYG ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 000018 . TREE SURVEY AND PRESS TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT 6 THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15315 SOBEY ROAD. SARATOGA determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 14. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees # 1-8, 15, l 6, 2l , 22, 24, and 25 (assuming all of these would be retained) during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree, laid 4-inches or more away from the trunks. l 5. Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root zone exposed to construction activity to trees #1-8, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24, and 25 (assuming all of these would be retained). Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 16. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even-temporarily) under the canopies of trees. l 7. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree that this cannot be achieved our office must be contacted l 8. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. l 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the cano ies of P trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 20. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 21. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 22. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 23. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 24. If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 000019 TREE SURVEY AND PRESi 1TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTt 13313.SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA 7 obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 25. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 26. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Trees #17, 18 and 19 have a value of $3,909, which is equivalent to two 36-inch boxed specimens and three 24-inch boxed native specimens. An alternative equivalent is nine 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable native tree replacements aze: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of all of the retained trees is $39,902. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($9,975) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection. Respectfully submi d, . aA~ Michael L. Bench, Associ~a~te ~, ~.~"`~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 000020 TREE SURVEY AND PRESI ~TION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE SATHAYE PROPERTY 15315 SOBEY ROAD, SARATOGA Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 18, 2000 g 000021 0 M 0 N r-1 .Q O '~ .N.1 OJ O t-1 M lf) OJ i~ '~ 'Lf A O 1~, GJ .+ .~ O ~-, n ~p Is~ L- ulaolad -IVnowaa -~ y E IVAOW3t1 aN3wW003a ~ ~ j m ~ > ~ ~ c a3Zllila3d SU33N ,A ~ ,A ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ (S-L) a31t/M S033N n n n u n n n (S-L) 3sv3sla atrnoo loos o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ __ m m m m m m m (s-L) a3a3AOO avnoo loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~3 ~3 $ x x x x x x x o- (S-L)AV030 ~Nflal m m ------ - --- ____- ~ (S-L) OOOM W30 ~ ~ c c N M~ ~ v - o ~ r- (S-L) 3SV3SIU NMOaO 33x1 (S-L) S103SN1 11 V q M 11 h II 11 (5-L) AlJaOlad JNIN(lad ~ ~ ~ ~ a° o 0 ---- ---- ~ r ~ r ti ~ ° -- _ _ - _ 1° ~ it 03033N S318V0 m '-'-- -------------- - ---- c - c ____ - v v ~ v Z 1H913M-ON3 3AOW3a $ _ ~ --_- v c - X X ~ ~ ~ $ _ m °JNISMa NMOaO v ° NOI1VaO1S3a NMOaO c -_-- ~ ~ O. _-------- `JNINNIHl NMOaO - ~ ~ ~ v 0 ~ 0 o _ -- o n ~ _____ ~ ~ w v, ~ v ~ s ~JNINb9l0 NMOaO n n n n n n a (6-£) JNI1Va UaVZVH ~ ~° ~ ~ ~° o ° o ° ~ c ~ c ~ M o c 1 +1 ° ~ (OL-L) ~JNI1Va NOI110N00 ~ - W ~+' ~ v ~ v ~ e ~ v W ,n ~ ~ __ w_______----____- _-- ~ ~ ZS ZT ~ 73 ____ _ c __- ~ ° V (S-L) 3af110(lalS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w co ro ~ m c~ w r~ w x X X X x x X w (S-L) H1Td3H ~ N Ov3adS v ~ R N ~ Q N ~ (° N m f~ N N N ~ o N ~ `--------_-__------------------- ----- EO --- aD --- ? N N 1H`JI3H 1~ ~ 11[ ~ ,~ sf ~ ,~ Q ~ ,~ 47 ~ - ~ co ~ --'-'- ~ O ~ 133 Z~ a313WV10 N p N e r aD __ r r ~ `O r „' -_ Nw . ------- -----------'-- --'- ~ p 11 11 II 11 E c c ------- c c -- c ----- c - c g H94 ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _____-~-_ x -____ X x X X X x - W31SJlSyllflW x 133 UL 1• ~ a313WM0 o N v c~ o N v cn o ~ e+~ ~ 0 ~ 1~ ~ o m N o co ~ 0 N 0 ~ ~ N 1 c c c c c c - c ~ ~ ... ~ ao m ~ O _~ N ~ V V ~ s I o~~~s Z ~ 1 z~ W i g d ~ ~ ~ m c ~o m c c c c c c ~ ~ m ~ a ib ~ ~ a i° a a a a s ~ ~ ~ I 1 c ~ ~ L y Y N c~ e o m ~ R ~ ~" x 3 a 11 p, an F W OC n r, • ~ O M ~ ~ ~ ~ II II II x ^x r~ ~~~~ O Jvi n n n u x x px t, a AAA U - G~N~cN. 000022 ~-+ o N e-~ .~ O 'C GJ .G O N G1 A O v e~ F"I .~ F~ p I>v Nulaou~d,ln-owaa E ivnowaa aN3wwoaaa ~ ~ e ~ j ~, m ~ = ~ ~~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > > > ~ > ~ , > > E _ ~ °u a3Zlllla33 S033N ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o y~ o ~ ~ ~ ._-_ ~ (S-t) a31VM S033N II II II II n II II (s-t) 3sv3s10 avnoo loos 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ o o ~ o m ~ m m m m m (s-t) 03a3no~ avllo~ loos _ _ _____ ~ __ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _____ ~ a _,_~____~___________~ ___ x X x X x X X 0 a (S-t)Ad030 ~Nflal e m O -- ----------- (S-t) OOOM OV30 --- N O - - N Y r°'i - WY N to ~i O aD GD 47 Q1 N •- r r N - a (S-t) 3St13S10 NMOaO 33x1 ~ ~ w ~ a ~ ~ (S-t) S103SN1 n u u u n u n (S-t) AllaOlad JNIN(lad ° n O ° - o ------- r °' t p r n o v ~ 03033N S318V0 __ ~~ Z - ~ ~ _ ~ $ ~ 1HJ13M ON3 3AOW3a x x x x x x x ~ JNISMa NMOaO v a - ---- -- - -- ~ NOIlVaOlS3a NMOaO e o ~ ~ a __ _ N ~ ~ ~ "' ~ JNINNIHl NMOaO c .i v o~ N c+ i m - ~_____~ w s vs w en v~ vs - °JNINV3l0 NMOaO II II II II U II n (8-E) `JNI1Va OaVZVH M ~ ae ~ o° °o e c o o , (Ot-Z) ONI1Va NOIlI0N00 1°' ~ v ~ ~ ~ --- N ~ ---- ~* ~ ------ ~ ~ ------ ~ ~ 9 _ U U U (-S (~ U U C ° ~ (S-t) aanl~nals. Q ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q m x x x x x x x Ov3aa$ M ~ ~ N m O N O O N ~"~ LL'f N m 4] ~ O O N O m 1H`JI3H O c ~ O co eH to co ~ O N w O N us O c~ ~ O c+~ ~ ~ dt 133j Z®a313WM0 N II ~' y II ~ U N U ~ u N u ~ u E -- c_ - c c c c c c H80 i a ' v ~ w w ° ~ w v w N ~ H80 X x X ~ X X x ° u s x W31SASillflW x x x 133 7Jt b ~ a313WM0 o e o ~ ~ `°- o N m A '~ o ~ °' o m ao 0 ~ N fo m N ac c c c c c c c m O<~~~ ~ V Q ~ • ~s G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o pC ~ ~ ~ a ~ al c c p e p ~ ~ ~ oC 'v a a a > J '° > J m ~ e ~ ~ ' d d d ~ C J G ~ ~ ~ U O U ao ~ m ~ ~ ap O O N C7 Q Y O a ~ F d' C4 ~ O ~'' 3 m N p„ E-F W 00 u fA O O O ~ S .a~a;v Q u n ~ u x x w e`~ a a ~ M ~ H OOe~VII o~ffff (~ ~ VstAd~! U En u u u W b ~i ~ N ~ n 000023 0 0 !V .D O i--, '~ N O f/1 N M PI v~ 0J '~ F"1 d ^1 h1 (cN ulaotad ivnow3a E ivnow3a aN3wwoa3a ~ ~ W ~ N ~ ~ m 0 ~ a3Zlllla3~ S033N w ~ a ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ - (S-L) 2l31VM S033N u a a n n n n (s-c) 3sv3s10 aviio~ loos o 0 0 ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ° ° _ (s-L) 03a3no~ a~mo~ tooa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~_~ x x x x x x x P _ _ a (S-L)~v~30 ~INnal m b a, m -» (S-t) OOOM OV30 - ~ v m ~ _~ c°~ uNi m i C r Q N O n n a (S-l) 3SV3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (S-l) S103SNI n n u u a a u (S-L) JWaOlad ~JNINnad ,°~° $ o ~ o o °o --- - -_ r - w °' n m c~ a # 03033N S319110 ~ -_ _ m ~ ""_' c -- ~ v c __~ v Z - 25 ~ ~ $ tS ry t5 ~ 1HJI3M ON3 3NOW3a x x c x x x x x ~ w ~JNISMa NMOaO v a 5 NOI1VaO1S3a NMOaO - ---- - - n ~ a ~~_~.-_ M ~ ° rn r -- ~ _ ~ r g ' ~ ~JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ r i a i N - v ----~_________---- en w u- u- v~ w v- °JNINV3l0 NMOaO a n a - n n a n (6-£) JNI1Ma OaVZVH o °o ~ o °o °o c ° °o c -; (Ol-Z) °JNI1Va NOWONOO --- ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ V m ~ ~ ~ ~ ---- N W ° V (S-L) 3an10nalS N m N w N w r> w C7 `n y X X X X X X X (S-L) H1lV3H ~ N N N < Ov3ads --- ___---_-~------------- ~ -- ~ N -- ~ N -- Q N - n ~ n N ~ N ~ m rD C7 ~ ~ ~ c7 ___ 1H°JI3H v W N fA o M M o N ly 0 N N 0 ~ !q 0 N fy ~ 133d Z~ a313WM0 N Y ~ rn °~ ° ~ r A E ----- ~~ a n a u a u c c c c c c c a H90 ~ ------ -- y - ~ - ~ 0 m ~ H80 ~ w ~ -- w ~ w w X X X X X X X w3ls~silinw _ _ 133j Ul 0~ a313W1A0 ° N ~ co ° N o m N - W ° m ---- W m m ° O ~ ~ o~ O ~ c c c c c c c ~v ~~ ~ o~~~s Z ~ a .. ~ ~ l0 ~ Y _ t0 Y Y Y ~ ~ a V R3 CyJ O O O o ~ O oe ~ m v ~ t4 > J 2 > > J > J y J ~ ~ ~ m O m ~ m aD o v ~ ~ m v a ~ v LL Q ~ Y ~ n) r aD O N N 0 ap ~ H ~ a~ u ~ a W n • a O ~ O a~~~ p b 11 ,~ X X w e`~o a a ~~~~ ~'M~ ~ 1~ W U en p w Q' p x x x ~ ~ ~~p OC ~ N aD n o OOO~~ Y-I o O N ti .G O ''L3 O i an m d '~ ,.}7 O t0 O p (rN un~ouyd ~-nowaa E IVAOw3a ON3ww003a M W v ~ m W v ~ o ~ o ~ In m o 213ZIllla3~ S433N ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ `~ +- - -^ (S-L) a31VM SU33N II 11 11 II 11 n n (S-L) 3SV3S10 21V1100 lOOa o n ~ n o o A m (S-t) 03a3/~O~ aHIIOO lOOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ---------------------- -- X x x x X x x P _ a (S-L)~1V030 NNflal m • m (S-l) QOOM Ob'30 0 ~' ~ c m ~ °' Q O N N (7 N N 4Y a ~_« ~ •- ~- ~ ____ N Q ~ '- 1A (S-L) 3SV3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 a ~ ~ to rA w ~ ~ (S-L) 3103SNI 11 11 11 11 II n n (S-t) AllaOlad JNINfIad e o ~ o o e m o ° de o ~ 3° o _~_ rn m rn n ol W _ _ ~ # 43a33N S319V0 ro c c c c v ° v Z ~ - $ $ $ ~ t5 c $ a e 1H J13M ON3 3AOW3a _Y-_ -----------____ _~-_ X ~_ X X X X X ZS X m `JNISIVa NM02lO ~ NOI1VaO1S3a NMOLIO N C __~~~---------- -- --- - N N 0 ~ n I 2 N -"' N I a JNINNIHl NMOaO ~i '- i N rwi ~ ~ ~ --- _ _-- .n s~ vi v- u- w °JNINV3l0 NMOaO u u n u n o n (8-E) `JNIlVa 021bIZ1/H e 00 a° °o o o ~ a' °o a° °o aE °o , ° (OL-Z) `JNI1Va NOILUNOO °' W N ~ u"/ ~ In ~ o~ ~ v W rl ~ ° V (S-l) 3af110f1a1S N ~ w v y v w N ao ~ m N m _~~ X x X x X x x -- (S-l) H1lH3H av3adS ______ N N N ----- N N - N ~ ~ N m O n N N ~ N 1~ Q r ~~'~--- t° 1H°JI3H O cn ~ O co ^ ~ LL7 N ly O to ,A O vl e9 O y~ Y'f N /y C ~~11 133j Z~rl/ a313WVIU r N II N II N~ .- II N r ^ O r ~- O O n n 11 II 6 _____________ -_ c c - c c c c - c m H80 ~ ----- ~ m • ~ H9U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~.~._ ~-~~ X X X X X X X __ _ - W31SJlSi11f1W _w~__ x 133 UL 6 ®a313WM0 o- 0 ~ ~ o N ~ ~ o o ~n co o m 0 N o In n ~ m o n r N °, ~ v, ~ ~, O d `.. ~~ V V ~ ~g V^Y ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~~ a Y s Y a Y a Y a Y a Y a g ~-_ ~ ~ ~' ~ J J J ~ J J J U 1 p O U pp 1 O U fl c0 Ia p O U ( ~ O U ( ~~ O U u Y N N N N N N N O p ~ F '~+" ~ o O "' 3 R x p„ E-H W 00 r. ~o~~ Q~ n~ ~ n n u x ~ ~ ` `~ F .~-I e~i uN~, ~ (oy1 W M fN ~ fA U~ vi a n n ..1 ° 0 0 0 W ~e0o~a ~i 1[f N ~ n 000025 BARRIE D. "~OATE ~\~ and ASSOC:tATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations. which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for Pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction . equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should.be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that . an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. i • • 00002631 A 1-inch ~ ,wood and Wood Chips Pla._ arm Buffer for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic r~ u Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate £~ Associates Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 00002'7 ~__ 0 a R A ~~ A A ~ ~ A r - _ - O p _R R 0 p 1 1 ,~ A A ~.. o ~ ~ ~~ a p _p • ~ a ~ '" j V~ ` \ R ~ , A • ~- ~ ~ R ~`. - _ O ~ • ~ _ - . 'D ? ._ d M o~V ~ - A R _'~~ _ _ ~ A _`_ ..« _:- ~p =_ ,~ =_ .~ • • I I I I ~~ _. ~~r ~~ / N PI I • '_ . o o Q~ ~ O w ~- s ~ ~ A_ A ~ ~~ 10 ~t .W • . 0 .! e E' d rf? -~ 1 i* _ Jy y '§ _ D ~r`I.r'~ ~ r ~ - '- , e ! 7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y F j -I- ;; .~ _ ~ ~~; .. - ` _ _ ~ •~. ~~!-T ~.j ILA a J _i p T'~ _ _ .i ~ ~~ ~ I „Yy.1.. ~.~' '~ *'~ _ N. ~ ~~i 11 _ 1~ a o ~o O ,, _2JI ~ 7 ~{-~ %y~ jj/ ~ O 't •~ D O ..~ ~? p to • 4 bt _- _N ~ ~ / ~" w -A _~_ ~. '-_ ~~ q • q p' V_ _ e o I --~-- -_., _ q o ~O ~ 1 ~b . o cF I w ~'~ ~~ ~ _. ~ ,, _ 1 ~ / X71 ~ , ~ - i --,~_ ~' -~.~ '•. - _ _ - --~ --- I o ,.:,~ , . ~~__ A_ ~ , ~ ~ ,. _:~ y~ <i' 6/ / ~_ ~.--~ f . ~~ / ~ a ~~ ~1 / •a ! / ~' ,~ I • ; • ~ ~ _ • ? M O ~ w 4 ~~ o o w.. OA '! ~ AR ,, ~_ ~ A q w ~ ~~~~ :: i ,1 ~,~ l ~ ~ ~ . ,'ter <a. ~ ~ _ -- _ -- ~ ~ O -'-- _ _ -- ___ --.cr-- R - - _ r/ w/~~ --_ A __~__ -4 ,~ _. p - -- __._ __ ... ~~• O 0030 ,~ • ~~. w~ ~1 ~ 1 R ;~ A ~ ~ y ~ $ ':i A_ x ~ 1f ~I' 10 ~~ . ~..... t'~, 1,, ~;'..~,I O 1 ~ ~-~ . ~ -` r r ~ _- ~ ~ t ~ ~= ~A -p "? ~i?~ ~~ ~ r -- _ 7 ~ "-' - - O A ~ R T 1 ~_.~ O p A ~ '~:_ R A `~.. ~ d I A / ` A p p ~• 1 W a~0 ~ ~ R N~ ~ \ ~ A R d ~ R ~ r .. 4 M 000031 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000032 Arthur & Janice Iversen 15315 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 January 4, 2001 The Conunissioners Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir/1Vladam, We are the previous owner of the property at 15315 Sobey Road. The Sathayes purchased the property from us, and are proposing to build a new home on~the property in place of the e~:isting structure. We have reviewed the proposed building plans for the house that have been recently submitted to the city. We believe that the new house plans, and the significant landscape screening along the rear and the sides of the property maintain the rural feeling of the neighborhood. Tl~e new co~~st~-uction will enhance the value of the property, and the value of houses around it. We feel that the Sathayes' new home at 15315 Sobey Road will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. inc -ely, Janice Iversen Arthur Iversen 1 o ~~~~U~~ D FEB ~ 0 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 000033 January 4, 2001 The Commissioners Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir/Madam, We are one of the neighbors of the property at 15315 Sobey Road. The Sathayes are proposing to build a new home on the property. We have reviewed the proposed building plans for the house that have been recently submitted to the city. We believe that tl~e new house plans, and the significant landscape screening along tl~e rear and the sides of tl~e property maintain the rural feeling of the neighborhood. The new construction will enhance the value of the property, and the value of houses around it. • We feel that the Sathayes' new home at 15;15 Sobey Road will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely, -,.,, ~ ~~ Our Address: /5 a-o-~ ~i~c~ C~ ~-~l - FEB ti 6 2001 L~ CITY OF SAR,ATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 000034 • January 17, 2001 The Commissioners Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, We live behind the property at 15315 Sobey Road, where the Sathayes are proposing to build their new home. We have reviewed the proposed building plans for the house that have been recently submitted to the city. We believe that the new house plans and the significant landscape screening along the rear and the sides of the property maintain the rural feeling of this area, and their new home will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Since/rel ~. i~ R. Darr 11 Boyle 15231 Qui d Saratoga, CA 95070-6228 408.395.5480 o[~C~I~0~1~ D FEB Q 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 000035 t LAW OFFICES OLSON & PIERCE AN ASSOCIATION OF LAW CORPORATIONS DENNIS D. OLSON MARK H. PIERCE January 15, 2001 Planning Commission Saratoga City Offices Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Sathaye Application Dear Honorable Commissioners: 1570 THE ALAMEDA, SUITE 101 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126 FAX (408) 298-3605 TELEPHONE (408) 298-1 1 1 1 Our family resides at 15295 Sobey Road directly across from the proposed residence of the Sathaye family at 15315 Sobey Road. We have had an opportunity to review the building plans. We find that the proposed home appears well designed and very appropriate for our neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission to approve the Sathaye's application for building permit for their new home. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, MARK H. PIERCE ~ ~, rat / ~` DARCY PIERCE ~~~~od~~ FEB 06 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT • 000036 ~~ w J w_ Q J ~I ~~~~ 4~ x 3 ~ ~ U C i ^ O 'O v 1 w w Q a~ w `T~\J V T~ O D 6 ,~/ W [W !~ rO V 1 ~7 u s p o o 3 ~ o (~Ii o o U ~ p~ `u y p F~ a o .. ~ t u ; a ~ z °^ ~ ~ x ~~ z ~ ~; ~~~3 0 oks ~G~€ Q~ ~ ~ ~ u m N ~ ; a ,~ N ~ ~ i l I ~ Z ( i ~ ~a I Q F _:._. ~/ ~ ~ ~/ a ~~,~ O z V v- _© ~ Q a' V ~ -- --- , ~ (( ~~ ~~ ~~ ~vul ~";• ~i ~ Lr? `-~ ~ z C~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~Y~-~ i U L__ U O G Y U ~ 0 a W~ S~ ~ ~j _ O v~ a0.ii w W _ J F 3s F O 0 ~ o ~ tt ~ o ~ z O z O z Z O ~ ~ w>a' z ~ w w w o~WW W ~, W~~~ d' Z Z X F Q c~ Z ~ ..7 i- d g Z O W X W~ a w ~ a _ Q~ z r,,,~ opazUlx-=wW a~oa f- wu OOi-Ouwi ~~F=~=z =~¢LL iwc~ic~tiO~w wxzZ W a~~o x a ~nc~aw~~yz~?ug3 v ~c~Z¢ J w~ 3 a vwi H~ O x o o O a °~m ~ z a~ U~ ~ w rn rnmLL cnrn~ ~° W o X W A O .- N O N c7 ~ N ~ N M p r y f Q ~ ~ fV N fV M l'7 ~ e~ v .q N ~ O ~ N (7 F ~yi Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q J U U U U yF~ 1~1 U F U ~? 2~m Uj "'""R `~ ~ wu ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 3 0 °.~~~~ 'a ~°5 W g~~$ c ~~~~ . oo{ss ~ <~3~ o ~~ +~ t~~~g ~ ZZ ~' s~sg~ R k$Ea SY~ `~ €~`~Y Ci °xn~b o ° Y a S g s ..°s ?+ $? 2 E r d ~~ ~~ x U = x , ~z L3.v B o~R R ~ ~ ~, d ~' v se 0.i J ~, W ~ g CS°~o~ ag ~ S F-~ PC < Q t ~ W A ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ `~S V ] a ~~$ ;~ _ ~~~~ 000~~~ ~ {{{ V °~e'~c$ W ~i~ ~5~fi6~ ~8~^ ~j ~ f~ d < z sgjq~ F+ Z Q Q o ~~ ~ m e~ ~ b ~ o§ES Qa `` O O ~ , .4 d1 d~u.s U ..1 U 3 ~ g+s'a i i ~ ~ o z _ Z o ~ - o Q. F u ~ v uw - gg ~ Y J n u d u u Z v I ~ ., : u> ~ ~ ~, ; u> z o ~ J { - v ~ ~ o O ~- N oa ~ ~ u ~ J u~5 i ~ `J, 1 ~ o ~~ 3 O u 2 ~ p ; 0 O I ~~ U II c u~ °` 0 8 U a 3 ' § ~ I ~ / ` ~! I I I ~ 1 ~ /, ' O ~ bI ~ ' ~._ __.__._ _^ ~ 1 'P 11 ~ - I • • • ~ ~ W w J H w = U a O <~~8 ~~~LL W w z oa ~' m x C ~b o F vii oG _ y z 0 a wa U "'; .~ o .•r $ W o ~ ~ ~ z o ~% 8 ~i - i .I I I i I ' ~I ' I I i ~jtil~ ~'LL~ tl~l j~ ~I~~jj~!~j~ j4 ~ ~ t ~ Imo; ~ ~ ~ 1~ i ~~i~j~l~l~l~ ~I~j~l ~ I~I~ iNjN~~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ j~I ~ ~I~j~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~I~ ~~ ~ I i a I e Y v ~ fi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a m~~jjo~;~~ o~~~rl I~ .I~ia Flo ~ "I ell to s31r' ~~ ~ o ~Imi^ ~i~ "i S °m~ r o ~ ~' SY ~' ~' ~' ~' S!' $' ~ el i"I'° =i i ~~ _I AIM ~;~~~n ° I" 1 =I"- I i,.l I I .s .s `I I^I°'i= ml ~~ ~ a~ Q y~ ~ I I i l l i ~ '' i l l i l l ~ i i i i I I i- m 1 `t ~ x a~3 .3 o d o~ ~ i I I ; I I I ( j j i i I I j^ I I ; 1 i I ~ I 1 1 i ~~ < a ~ .~r ~; .a .a I I I I l i i i i I i l ~ I i N I! I I i ~ I l l i l j I j i l i j i i l=I ! I ~ I I =~ V1 I I ~ j l i ; I l l ~ j ixi ~ i I yz Q illi iliiii III IiiliIj^iII ij!~ !jIii Q m F I I I! i i ~ j i i I~ i I I I i i ~'I ~ j i! i ( I l i ~ a Q I i l! i j j i~ i j i i I I ~ ~ j~l I i o ~ ~ l A q a i I;'i i l l ~ ~ ;oi l i i ~ i j i i I. o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a I I I w ,~ !Nj i ':, I !- ' I I I I I I I I j~ I ~ I i < 3 i E"' °Os V Ixi ~ I i 1~ i~`i I ' I( i I I ~ ~=ixl i i I ~ ~~ I ~ I ~ I W uo Q ~ '~I I C I ~~ i I I l I I l j I ~°I~"' i ~ i I a ! ~i 1 "~ wo U z !\~ l I l ixj I I' I~ I I C~xj I I ~ ~< i l i Q Gz O z i iryi i i of ~ I ~ i I i =1 I ;'ICI i ~; o z , j l I j a~ ffi? a Q F~ i !.i. i; j i z, i 1-1 ICI I ~ I ~I I-~'~ ( I I I c o z i I ice; a ~ =z `~ ~ w a a i °1=i iNj i. j°i ~ ~I~ ni~ni~ICl ! Ix i~ I~~ I~j I i ~ m F ~~ Irl, i~l-~I x ~ v ~ ~ q`~ ~.q~ 0.i O .g7 •q ql^'I ~ ~~Ix'°'el ~xi ~ .; ~ f , ;- ~.' ICI-' =~~ ~Ix~ I ~;~I°I ~ ~ z ;, '°ixl ixlxi ~ ~ Kw w < a < < pu Q ~ W I^~i\Ixjxl\ ia~l~i\I i.a x ~iHI~~~I~l~ I% v' xis ~' I O xlxi`"I ~ w (~ ~'~i w x G~ a g v a C a x1"1_1 i-!N - "I~ mIx'r I-~~I < I.i"I ~ S xl_ Iii x ~ ~ x .~ a z Q w i xI•=, I- it a ~°7,'7I ;' i°°I;, ~!-~° ~ a o;.clo w yw _ - (<. -C ~ -im ., Im: a w t- r~ v~ < 8 G"'ii O U i i1",'j` .~I-o'i-oi~i~ I-~ w ._ .'17 li, ~ 17IT' ; < .-!~ ! I O f m ,' : ~i O d h ao a .~ ~ < ~ ~ ~jmi-~i~~i ±~ I I~ - ~e ~,_I^:cl-ml-~1~ ~ o ~ e~°': o w w p ,~ m a ~ I ;;.I_j~l l i 3 mlel- I I-I I -~<iv,l i "j~!-_I ~ ~I~ m ~I [.. i v ~ ~ w w° ~j pz 5~ z p7 '° i t l i I I I I I s ~! ~ l i l i l i Q~j ~ a 2 O Z wQ ~ K Cj m 7 w C ° ; ; ~ i ; ~ ; : , 1 uy~+ C z~_x! Z< O pCqo ~ O ~'i uwf <~ w y Q 4 I I i i I ~ I i i ~ i II i I i ! ! I ! ' i I I I, I I i I -a' < O W N ~ mF °a. ~ ~ m > ~ ' I„e~ I ' ! ~ I j i -_1„~ Iii ~ ~-~ I_ I ~Nj I i 1 ~ jn' jnl o _ _ _ _ _ I I < w H _lo,j :~!~,n'm',m-i ! NI I I Imo! ImIp~~IN~N!NI I i rlrlNi HIH~RI i~in: C C C z Q a a Z ~ a O 0 a ~ F~ w Z aG °U w ~ 3 w o a a D 3 3 • • • o U W w J ~ w Z j U O a J ^ <~~~ ~~~~° W ~ W U ~ z ~~ < W x G ~g F H al O4 _ ~, D uc~ ~ o~ ~&~~ rJm~ ~< ~~~0 n <W t ~~~~ ~~ W o~~~ a~ o w ~w~~ = ~W~ O a~~~ ~o ~k3 ~~ '~ 3 ~ g c ~{~ ~~ ~a ~~ ~o ~ b ~ m J 6 J N Z ~ ~ J a Z F Z U w Q o ~ N ~ w z a ~ N N .o ~ ' • va ~ W ~ LL ~ o N ~` ~~~Z ~o z a a w /~1 g~ ,.• • • U w W J H. w = U O ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ w z&° ~~ c T. G ~,~' F '~ Yc y oC 0 0 ~. 4S ;; w z ~a f~l - o o _ _ S ~ • • • U w W w = U C O a J ^ ~~~~ ~~~° ~g w o ~ z ~~ ~ W >cai ~x,, o _~ ~ .ti h C1i .-. .n a o° a< a ~a .~ '~ N - \ o ~ 6Y v` o fS ~~~ ~~ z Q a a ab O O a w x w a a ~I • • • U W w J ~ W = U Q J . ~~~~ y~ ~~ J ~ £ ~ ~g {t7 0 ~ z ~~ ~" W u H O ~_ ° N ~i _ ~n z w H wa ~ cV a z v , ~~ ~~ ~~ I I ~ r ~ I ~ I I - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ <~ ~ ~~ LL~ ~ ~~ i i i ~ i i I ~ I I I~ I ~ ~ -- J r --------- z Q a a H z w w • • • U w W J t. w = U K 0 ~~~~ ~~~° ~g z 0 H U W w o ~ z ~q W G F y ~8 W vi AG _ H y z o _ W - F S y M ~ ~ o i ~ z 0 H U W D a 3 ,.• • ~ ~ _V w w J f,. w = U K 6 J ^ ~~~° ~~ W o m z o~ w ° y N ~ ~Q oV F W a _ ~, " ' ° ~ ,~ o m ~ N M o _ i o Si 3s i 1 I ' ~ , i ~ 1 1 1 1 , , I ~ , , I I ~~ ~~ 1 I 1 1 ~ 5 I I ~ i, f° 1 ~ 1 I I i ~~ I f ~' ~ ~ a r g e i ~ / ~~ I ~TT~eeI 41 Y3 ~ 1 ~ ~/ ~ 0 / m / / ~ W ~ .: ~ n o~ ; ~ ~ - ~- 1 ~ / °i ~ ~ I I v ~ 11 `; ~ j. ~ i ~ ~ LLI y ' I ~~ I ~ ~ ; 1 1 1 ~ 1 / / I ~ ~ I 1 1 ~I I / ' I nj 1 ~ 7 j~ / 1 1 I 1 ~~ x/ / ~'1 1 c I ° x ! d' I ~; 1 I J p o l ~ I • I/ ~ h Y I W I p i t 5i ~i h ~ ~ i L O VI ~' S' ~i d ' ~ ~ n. ~: ° / ~ a 'v,. i ~ i ~ ~ yam ~ ~' ~ 1 °. °. ° . ~ e i 1 I %~% ; ; /~ ~~ \' ' y I 1 ml i ~ ---- - _ --- -- ,f• < I 1 I ~ °~ ' 1 1 0- 6 I 1 1 , v \, 1 ~ ~ G ~ I \~~~; \. ' 1 / ~ 1 I ~ . . 1 I \' \ I is `t ~ ~'`~~~c ~~?~:~~~ ~."~~<~: ~ i 1 11... `.~,\ Ott ~\~~!\\~ `.~'<' <o.. ,. s:, ~z 1 o / , ~ J' ~ , ~ :~ r~ II .. ~ ~ ~ ~ , % F ~ , "~ I I li ~~. ~< h 1 tr ~ / LI n' I 1 ~ .0-.S .0-,f ~~~.\~~ ~ '~~ ~ 1 I ~ I ~,. I I 1 1 ~ 4 m J ~ v\~ ~~~:: ,~\~' I I I I ' ; - - i - -- -- ----- -- ---a - ~ ~~ -- 1 1 ; ~ o I 1 I ~ .9-,Oi W . ~/ I 1 ~ ~~ I j I F i ___ ,0-,6 j a ~ i Y I ~ `~ e m ~ I ~ z .o-.o; ~ ~ .o-,ol i 1 ' I a ~ i I ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 I 1 ~ < = ; I I ~ g 1 ~ 1 W ~ I I I w N ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I I _ Y ~ ~ W W I 1 = = I - - -- _-_ - '-_ 1 -_ - -_ 1 I I I -_ -_ <~ 1 ~ i .o-.s ~\ ~ 1 I ,C-,6 1 i .0-,Ct ' 'y~i ~~ 1 ~\ ~ 1 i i I I i U ~` ~Y / .. . `i I a \%? 1 ^ ,•. .. I ' -''-- I ~ \\ \ .. ~ 1 jam:=T/ `~~~ ~ ~r ~i~~~~. ~ 1 = 1 c„ ~ ° 'i w 1 I ~ ~ I I 1 ~ ~ \ ~i~ c 1 I I ' a I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~~ I I m 1 I I I I I ~., ~ ~ I \ Y'~ I i y..., ~ z ~ I ~ I I I \ 1L ~ Css ~, I \ I m ; /~~\lT ~ ~!' ~I 1 i _ I ! o w _ ~~ z S h 1 I Q W 1 V I a I 1 a 1 ' z 1 o i o l ,., ~I s ~~ H ,u-,m m 3 1 ~ • • • i tL w ~~~~ J ~ s w ~~~LL ~~ ~ O < i J ^ ~, I 1 1 I w ~w &< F y ~~ y a _ ~, V 6 0 + K .a SS S 4 i '' m ' S z 0 H d W W .- x H 0 H z 0 x- w • r ~ of ~ ~ ^I 1 O ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~ ii U w w J ~ W x U K O a J . 67 W ~~~LL ~yg N 1 ___-_______I________ 1 I I I I I 1 I I O ____.___ 1 I I I I i I ~ ' ___________r-___-_ 1 1 :I 1 11 I I I 1 1 I I II I I I i Ii i I ~ I ~ ~I ii I II ~ t I i ~ i I i I ~ ~ I I i I L l I ~ i I I ~ll II I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I II ~. 11 1 11 ~ jI fi i j i ~ I j ii II ~i i ~ I ll ii l I i I i i ~ i l~ '~ ~ II ' Ii ~ I ~i II I ) ~ ~ i I III iii I II fi I Ii w a U ~' w & °' y , F F G ~~ v`~ ~ .~• V~ i J _ in _~, ~ a ~ ~, ~ ~ t ~` 1'~~ zl I y _•, ~~ - - -----------i'I-------- ~~I N 11 ~I ~I J wl 11 xl I ~~ ~I .t II ~~ I~ 1. hl GI ~I x d~ oil °~a IV i n ~- n 11 II II m it !! I ~I f. .1 I it I~ o - ~ o o rv ~ m W ~ i S~ Y ~ ~ c S 3t 8 ~ C F 1 ~I I I i I 1 1 m ~~ ~! ~I 61 O of ~I `/ O W W r 1 11 O '~ z I.' x ,, ~. W- I~ 1 1 11 1 ~I ~ • • x aFCaz zoo a< «w s xww • D r~ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL February 7, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-784560) Conference With Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case). • Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 18870 Allendale Avenue Negotiating Parties: City of Saratoga/ Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator regarding price and terms and payment for real property lease. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Mayor John Mehaffey • ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services ~~ City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 ~~ John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Irwin Kaplan, Interim Director of Community Development REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 7.2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 7, 2001 was properly posted on February 2, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Agnes Gregorian, 18867 Montewood Court, addressed the need for affordable housing for teachers who serve the City of Saratoga. Ms. Gregorian requested that the Council hold a special meeting to discuss this issue. Ms. Gregorian also noted that she has collected a lot of data that indicates what other municipalities are doing to address this issue and has surveyed all teachers in Saratoga Union School District. Vice Mayor Streit informed Ms. Gregorian that this topic was scheduled for the March 7 City Council meeting. Dave Anderson, City Manager, suggested that this issue be addressed at an Adjourned Meeting, perhaps on March 27, 2001. Councilmember Baker asked if they plan to include people who had concerns other than Saratoga Union Elementary School District. Ms. Gregorian responded that at this point only people in Saratoga Schools were contacted to address this problem. Ching-Li Chang, 19486 Burgundy Way, responded to Councilmember Baker's question. Ms. Chang noted that all teachers who serve Saratoga residents, at schools within Saratoga city limits, should be included and affordable housing made available to all public servants. Consensus of the City Council to address this issue on the March 27, 2001 adourned Cit J Y Council meeting. 2 3 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items on this section will be acted in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar. lA. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: JANUARY 17, 2001-REGULAR MEETING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled Item lA from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker noted that on page 3, item # 2A, should indicate that Councilmember Bogosian pulled this item from the Consent Calendar not Councilmember Baker. Councilmember Bogosian requested that on page 14, item #7, the following be added; "Councilmember Waltonsmith urged ALTRANS should contact the City if they run up against any problems with the schools not willing to participate in the program." Councilmember Bogosian requested that on page 19, under Council Items, replace "statistical information" to "only statistical information". Councilmember Bogosian requested page 18, item #11, replace "use of Christmas lights" to "long term use of Christmas lights" Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that on page 19, under Council Items, the following be replaced: • "all bus stops" to "major bus stops" • "in the elements" to "out in the elements" BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 1B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the check register. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 1B from the Consent Calendar. 3 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian questioned the payment for unscheduled traffic signal maintenance with the City's contractor, Signal Maintenance. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, responded that the charges are for time and material. Councilmember Baker asked Director Cherbone when was the City going to perform all the traffic signal maintenance. Director Cherbone responded that the City does perform most of the maintenance throughout the City, except for various quarter and half intersections, Big Basin Road, and Highway 85. Director Cherbone also indicated that at the next City Council meeting, Council would have a chance to vote on a new. traffic signal maintenance contractor as a result of a recent RFP. Councilmember Bogosian questioned the payment to West Valley College for $912.00 for printing letterhead and business cards. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the City had a contract with West Valley College for this service. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, responded that the City does not have a contract with them, but when Staff requested quotes a few years back, they were the cheapest. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 1C. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 2. COMPETITIVE SALARY SURVEY RESULTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept results of survey; approve resolution; approve changes to MOU's. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 85-9.126 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION • • 4 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 85-9.127 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION N0.85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-008 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FT 2000\O1 BUDGET Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. Mr. Anderson reminded Council that last fall they directed staff to begin a salary survey comparing the City of Saratoga's salaries to neighboring cities. The City authorized Geoffrey L. Rothman and Associates to perform competitive salary survey using eight comparable cities. Based on population, proximity to Saratoga and size and/or form of government, the cities that were selected to survey were Los Altos, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Campbell, and Newark. Mr. Anderson indicated that the survey process began immediately, and consisted of contacting each of the eight cities to receive their salary ranges for each of the positions, which that City uses. The top of the range was used for comparison purposes. After the raw data was collected and compiled, the salary ranges for six of the eight cities were reduced by 7% to be comparable to Saratoga because salaries in the remaining two cities are higher because the employees pay their own PERS. Mr. Anderson summarized the results noting that Saratoga pays at or above the survey average for only five out of forty positions. surveyed. Director Walker mentioned that Saratoga's monthly salary was lower than each of the eight cities surveyed. Mr. Anderson indicated staff recommends that the new salary ranges become effective February 3, 2001, which is the first day of the current pay period. Councilmember Baker asked why the City of Newark was considerably higher than all the other cities included in the survey. Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director, explained that Newark is at the top end with the cities that Saratoga compared to but the City of San Carlos was not too far behind Newark. Director Walker noted that Newark's salaries were even reduced 7% because the employees pay their own PERS. City Council Minutes 3 February 7, 2001 Councilmember Waltonsmith asked when the City of Saratoga is fully staffed how much money will come out of the General Fund with these rate increases. Director Walker responded about $33,000.00 will have to be allocated for rate increases. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SA.RATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON- MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY 2000\O1 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he fully supports the results of the salary survey. PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL AND STAFFING CHANGES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report; approve resolution; approve changes to MOU's. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-009 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY 2000/01 BUDGET TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 85-9.128 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. • • 6 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 85-9.129 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. Mr. Anderson noted that this report reflected a combination of miscellaneous organizational changes to improve customer service and efficiency and cut current staff workloads. Mr. Anderson briefly summarized the proposed changes in the Community Development Department: • Reclassify the Senior Inspector to Building Official. • Add a third Building Inspector. • Add an Associate Planner. • Broadband the existing Plan Check Engineer position to allow the position to be filled at a lower Plans Examiner if a qualified applicant cannot be found at the Engineering level. Mr. Anderson noted that the funding for these positions are available from M building permit revenue, which are higher than budgeted so far this year. Mr. Anderson briefly summarized the organizational changes in the City Manager's Office with the intent of establishing a level of support appropriate for coordinating numerous policy-level issues and special projects: Create an Assistant City Manager position. Eliminate the Senior Analyst position and one of the two Analyst positions in the City Manager's Office. Transfer an Analyst from the City Manager's Office to the Public Works Department. Mr. Anderson noted that the savings from eliminating the two positions offset the cost of the Assistant City Manager position. Additionally, the possible replacement of the Administrative Services Director at a lower step will realize additional savings. Mr. Anderson noted that it would cost $137,000.00 for the changes in the Community Development Department, which will be covered by Building/Planning Development fees. The City Manager's Office changes will be at no cost to the City due to the elimination of one Administrative Analyst which credits the City Manager's Office $3,800.00. Vice Mayor Streit noted he fully supports the organizational changes, which will better serve the community. 7 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Councilmember Baker questioned what duties would the Assistant City Manager perform. Mr. Anderson res onded that the ro osed Assistant Mana er's osition would P P P g p supervise the Economic Development Coordinator and would be able to work on special projects assigned by the City Manager. Councilmember Bogosian noted he supported this position indicating that it would increase the responsibility of the Manager's Office. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY 2000/01 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. WALTONSMITHBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING A MOU BETWEEN THE SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 4. AZULE CROSSING DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Irwin Kaplan, Interim Director of Community Development, presented staff report. Director Kaplan noted that this issue was brought before the Council due to a letter of complaint submitted by Jeffrey J. Walker on January 23, 2001, in regards to the lack of compliance with conditions of approval at Azule Crossing. Director Kaplan updated the City Council on the recent conditions that Mr. Walker pointed out and which Mr. Griffin has recently fixed: • Installation of the privacy louvers • Azule illuminated sign boxes turned off at 9:00 p.m. • Installation of security lights • Temporary fence moved back -providing more parking on site • Applied for a sign permit for the two non-permitted signs City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Director Kaplan noted that Mr. Griffin was present tonight to answer any questions that Council might have. Councilmember Bo osian stated that he found this re ort confusin and g P g requested that a matrix of the issues brought up by Mr. Walker, and how the conditions of approval, the violations, and the remedies all tie together. Director Kaplan responded that he would provide such a matrix. Dennis Griffin, The Griffin Company/Agent for Azule Crossing, noted that he did not understand what the problems were and noted that this project went through the City's entire review process, went to the Planning Commission, and to the City Council. Mr. Griffin noted that a few of the issues Mr. Walker addressed were due to the construction of the residential development project behind his commercial project. Vice Mayor Streit reminded everyone that this was a unique situation where you have two separate and different projects going on simultaneously, which was ordered by the City, and two different crews sharing a common parking lot. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that the neighborhood surrounding the project should be the least impacted of all the groups involved. Jeffrey J. Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, noted that the issues he brought up in his letter have been remedied. Mr. Walker thanked Director Kaplan for his efforts. Don Johnson, 19997 Seagull Way, noted that there has been an increase of construction trucks using the neighborhood streets as access to the two projects. Mr. Johnson noted that on January 31 he counted one dozen construction trucks on his street. Mr. Johnson noted he contacted Director Cherbone, who in turn took care of the problem temporarily. Mr. Johnson requested the City Council install a temporary sign prohibiting construction trucks on the neighborhood streets surrounding the Azule Crossing Development projects. A discussion took place on ingress and egress of the neighborhood streets to the construction sites. Director Cherbone noted that Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is tied to the Gateway project and will be addressed in a couple of months and noted that some of the trucks are so big that they have to use Seagull Way in order to turn around. Vice Mayor Streit asked Director Cherbone if he would send an inspector to the site and remind Devcon to avoid using the neighborhoods streets. Vice Ma or Streit re uested that the Public Safet Commission examine the Y q Y long-term daily misuse of Seagull Way and report back to the City Council. 9 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that if Council desires to do so the City could implement some types of traffic calming devices or pass a MV resolution. Councilmember Baker re uested that the Chair of the Public Safet q Y Commission report back to the City Council within thirty days. Councilmember Bogosain noted that there were two issues that Mr. Johnson has brought up concerning Seagull Way; the temporary impact on the neighborhood due to the construction and the current misuse of that street. Mr. Johnson agreed with Councilmember Bogosian. Vice Mayor Streit thanked everyone for coming tonight. PUBLIC HEARINGS None Vice Mayor Streit noted that Director Walker requested that the Council move Item 6 before Item 5. Consensus of the City Council to move Item 6 before Item 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that the citizens of Saratoga voted to approve the sale of $15 million general obligation bonds on March 7, 2000, to fund the Library renovation and expansion project. The City needs to have the bond proceeds no later than this coming June, before the City starts spending large amounts of money on the Library construction. The sale of the bonds takes about three months, so the process should begin as soon as possible. Director Walker noted that it is recommended that the full $15 million be sold in one sale. If the Library is built for less than $15 million and funds remain after all the costs are paid, the excess proceeds can be used in a subsequent year for the annual debt service payment. Director Walker explained this would reduce the amount that would need to be collected from property tax payers in that year. Director Walker noted that Mr. Morales from Sutro & Company was present to answer any questions from the Council. 10 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit asked how long the process would take if Council approves the sale of the bonds tonight. Rich Morales, Vice President/Sutro, responded that once Council approved the sale of the bonds he would start the process immediately, which involves getting the City's bond rated and finding the lowest interest rate. Mr. Morales noted he would return to the Council, approximately in May, to request permission, to initiate the actual sale of the bonds, in the form of a resolution. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROCESS OF SELLING 15 MILLION GENERAL BOND OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 5. MID YEAR FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR FY 2000/2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Financial Reports; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-010 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAHING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY 2000/2001 BUDGET Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker noted that the financial reports represent the revenues, expenditures and fund balances in all City funds for the six months ended December 31, 2000. The financial reports include actual revenues and expenditures at the mid-year point, as well as staff's mid-year projections. Director Walker indicated that overall revenues were higher than expected at this point in the annual cycle and expenditures are slightly lower than budgeted. Director Walker indicated that General Fund revenues are about $700,000 higher than expected as of December 31. This is due to higher sales tax, transfer tax, construction tax, interest income, and motor vehicle license fees, as well as an unbudgeted on-time grant from the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) that was approved by the Governor's budget. Director Walker indicated that development revenues continue to be higher than budgeted and revenues in all other funds remain approximately as anticipated. Councilmember Baker noted he felt $25 000.00 was an excessive amount t o improve the City's website. 11 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Dave Anderson, City Manager, indicated that he plans on doing some scoping of the project and will not spend the money unless necessary. 7 Councilmember Bogosian noted he feels that it was a reasonable figure to make the City's website user friendly. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MID-YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY 2000/2001 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR TEMPORARY SERVICES IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: A. AGREEMENT WITH IRWIN KAPLAN, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR B. AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN AND ASSOCIATES C. AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT SCHUBERT, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreements. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. Mr. Anderson briefly explained the contracts for the following contract employees: 1. Irwin Kaplan, Interim Director of Community Development. 2. Robert Schubert, Senior Planner. 3. Phillip Block, Senior Planner. Mr. Anderson noted that these contracts are temporary until full time staff is hired. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH IRWIN KAPLAN, ROBERT SCHUBERT, & PHILLIP BLOCK. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. REPORT ON ABAG HOUSING NEEDS APPEAL COMMITTEE ACTION ON THE CITY'S APPEAL OF THE ABAG REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. • • Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. 12 • City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Mr. Taylor provided an update of the City's efforts to appeal ABAG's decision on the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). Mr. Ta for noted that the Cit of Sarato a a Baled the ABAG determination Y Y g Pp based on two primary factors: 1. ABAG'S projection of anticipated job growth in Saratoga was not correct. 2. Inaccuracies in ABAG'S projections regarding household growth in Saratoga. Mr. Taylor noted that ABAG Housing Needs Appeals Committee met to consider the City's appeal on January 25, 2001, and rejected the City's appeal. Mr. Taylor indicated that the ABAG Executive Board would meet on March 15, 2001 to make a final decision on the RHND for each jurisdiction within ABAG. Mr. Taylor reported that City staff plans to request that the Executive Board reduce the City's RHIVD at that time. Betty Feldman, 20184 Franklin Avenue, requested that the City of Saratoga make every effort to supply our fair share of affordable housing. Ms. Feldman reported that The Town of Los Gatos, in conjunction with the Community Housing Developers, would be celebrating the grand opening of the Los Gatos Creek Apartments on February 16, 2001. Ms. Feldman noted that this project was part of the Town's efforts to build affordable housing in their community. • Councilmember Baker stated that the allocation of affordable units in Saratoga set by ABAG is too high. Vice Mayor Streit noted that all the City is asking for is a reasonable number that the City could actually meet. Vice Mayor Streit indicated to Ms. Feldman that the City Council would be holding a special meeting on March 27, 2001 to discuss affordable housing. Consensus of the City Council to direct the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate correspondence to the ABAG Executive Board. 9. ORCHARD RESTORATION PROJECT - PHASE I AND PHASE II STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposal for transplanting trees and authorize City Manager to execute agreement to prepare an "Orchard Master Plan". Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. Mr. Anderson noted that at the January 17`h meeting, the City Council had the opportunity to review the schematic design plan for the Saratoga Library Expansion Project. During the presentation, it was noted that the expansion of the library building and parking lot would require the removal of approximately 110 orchard trees. Mr. Anderson noted that the intent is to transplant a portion of those trees. 13 City Council Minutes February 7, 2001 Mr. Anderson explained that Matt Novakovich, the City Orchardist, and Linda Gates, the landscape architect, have walked the site to evaluate the existing trees proposed for removal and have identified 48 trees as potential candidates for transplanting. Mr. Anderson noted the candidates for transplant are a mixture of prune and apricot trees varying in size. Mr. Anderson explained that Mr. Novakovich recommended replanting the orchard trees on the Fruitvale/Saratoga corner along Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Anderson noted that funding for both phases is available in CIP 0101 -park Upgrades. Mr. Anderson indicated that Phase II of the Heritage Orchard Restoration Project includes the services of Linda Gates and Matt Novakovich to work with the Heritage Preservation Committee to develop a master plan for the rest of the orchard that is not a part of the library project. Mr. Anderson noted that Norman Koepernik, Chair/Heritage Preservation Commission, was present tonight to answer any questions Council may have. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the City would be putting signs up in the Heritage Orchard noticing the restoration project. Mr. Anderson responded yes, signs would be placed in the Heritage Orchard and an article will be in the Saratogan. Vice Ma or Streit asked Chair Koe ernick if he had an comments on the Y P Y Heritage Orchard Restoration Project. Norman Koepernik, Chair/Heritage Preservation Commission, emphasized that the Heritage Preservation Commission fully supports the restoration efforts and Noted that now was the time to replant the trees. PHASE I BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH GATES AND ASSOCIATES. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,050.00 FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH MATT NOVAKOVICH. ORCHARDIST. IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,587.28 FOR EXCAVATING AND TRANSPLANTING TREES. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 14 City Council Minutes PHASE II February 7, 2001 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH GATES AND ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR PHASE II ORCHARD MASTER PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,120.00. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH MAYOR MEHAFFEY ABSENT. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if staff has handled the following: 1. Commendation for Mason Sakoda. 2. Proclamation for the Peace Corp. 3. Response to Marcia Ferns in regards to her recent email concerning school traffic. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, responded that both the commendation and proclamation have already been prepared. Mr. Anderson responded that Ms. Ferris's email has been forwarded to the School Site Task Force headed by Bridgett Ballingall. Councilmember Bogosian requested a joint meeting with the Saratoga Union School District to discuss their efforts on traffic control. Councilmember Baker reminded everyone that at the January 17th meeting he discussed a random phone survey in which he participated, but questioned the validity of it. Councilmember Baker reported that he finally received a return phone call from Dennis Trujillo, Deputy Director/CALTRANS, who verified that the survey was authorized by CALTRANS and was being performed by a contractor CALTRANS had hired. OTHER None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Anderson requested the City Clerk to remind the City Council of the date scheduled for the Council's Retreat. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, stated the scheduled date for the Council's Retreat was May 5, 2001. ~J 15 City Council Minutes ADJOURNMENT February 7, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and wished Mayor Mehaffey a speedy recovery._ p ctfu y-submitted, _.a __-.._......_... _...--~-_~ 1 en B er, City Cler ~ ~ ,