Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2001 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Tl'PE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT: Commissioner Roupe STAFF: Director Sullivan, Planners Livingstone ~ Knapp, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PI_FDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 2001 Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2001 Draft Minutes from Study Session Joint Meeting with City Council of July 18, 2001 ORAL COMh4UNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The lawgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussingor taping actio-i on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR GP-O1-001, CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING; -The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2001-02 Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. (APPROVED 6-0) 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 Tuesday, a week before the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2 OCTOBER 10, 2001 1. UP-O1-006 (397-09-035) - MAIR, 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 14 foot high, 450 square foot cabana. The maximum height for an accessory structure permitted in absence of a Use Permit is 8 feet. The 2.59 acre site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Knapp) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. DR-O1-019 &t BSE-O1-023 (503-16-024) - BAMDAD 13250 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,123 square foot two-story residence. The project would require the demolition of an existing 1,929 square foot single-story house. The 15,682 net square foot vacant lot (18,865 gross sq. ft.) is in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The maximum height would be 26 feet. (Knapp) (APPROVED 6-0) 3. UP-O1-010 (403-24-001) -METRO PCS, 13686 Quito Road; -Request for Use Permit approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG~E transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The project is located in an R-1- 10,000 zoning district. (Livingstone) (APPROVED 4-2, KURASCH 8z BARRY OPPOSED) 4. UP-O1-009 (393-21-013) -METRO PCS, 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; -Request for Use Permit approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG&tE transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and nev~~ equipment cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The project is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (Livingstone) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Memo regarding Committee Assignments for Planning Issues COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS WRIT-i~EN City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 24, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Comm~~~~on Meeting of September 26, 2001 Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2001 Draft Minutes from Study Session Joint Meeting with City Council of July 18, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any mcmbcr of the Public will be allowcd to address the Planning Commission for up to thra minute on mattcrs not on this agrnda The lawgrncrallyprohibits the Plarming Commission from discussing or taking action on such itcros. Howacr, the Planning Commission may instruct statJ`'accordingly rcgarding Oral Communications undo Planning Commission dircction co Sraf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA ~"~'*. ~-~ =pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR GP-O1-001, CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING; -The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2001-02 Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Sazatoga General Plan. 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 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 heazing. In order to be included in the Planning Comt„~~~ion's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. PLANI~IING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 10, 2001 PAGE 2 1. UP-O1-006 (397-09-035) - MAIR,19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 14 foot high, 450 square foot cabana. The maximum height for an accessory structure permitted in absence of a Use Permit is 8 feet. The 2.59 acre site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. 2. DR-O1-019 &t BSE-O1-023 (503-16-024) - BAMDAD 13250 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,123 square foot two-story residence. The project would require the demolition of an existing 1,929 square foot single-story house. The 15,682 net squaze foot vacant lot (18,865 gross sq. ft.) is in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The maximum height would be 26 feet. 3. UP-O1-010 (403-24-001) -METRO PCS,13686 Quito Road; -Request for Use Permit approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG&rE transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The project is located in an R-1- 10,000 zoning district. r 4. UP-O1-009 (393-21-013) -METRO PCS, 12383 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road; -Request for Use Permit approval zo locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PGFstE transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The project is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Memo regarding Committee Assignments for Planning Issues COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 24, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 9, 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, OCTOBER 10, 2001 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. UP-O1-009 - METRO PCS Item 4 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 2. DR-Ol-~ • ~. "CE-~1-023 - BAMDAD Item 2 13250 Pierce Road 3. UP-O1-006 - MAIR Item 1 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 4. UP-O1-010 - METRO PCS Item 3 13686 Quito Road 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. [t 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 and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • ~~ / ~ ,1 J' ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4~ ~~ MINUTES '` ~~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION v U DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Hunter and Jackman Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 12, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the regular Planning Commission minutes of September 12, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN; Barry ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 20, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that technical corrections to Items 3 and 5 would be provided during the respective staff reports. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-O1-013, V-O1-013 & AS-O1-001 (397-43-001 & 003) - JAIN, 18630 Allendale: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,850 square foot residence and sport court. The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side yard setback. Maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net) square foot lot is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED FROM 9/12/01) At this time, Commissioner Kurasch recused herself from consideration of this item as she received a copy of the public hearing notice for this project. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Began her report by changing a number on page four of the staff report depicting the first floor square footage within a table as being 5,842 square feet and striking the incorrect figure of 5,689. The grand total of 6,850 is in fact correct. • Explained that this home is considered asingle-story structure per the rules of the UBC despite the proposed roof deck space and the 26-foot height. In order for the roof deck to count as a second story, there would have to be a roof overhead. However, staff is indeed recommending denial of the proposed roof deck. • Pointed out that Code prevents more than one woodburning fireplace. This home will not have more than one. Commissioner Roupe asl~ed staff how it would interpret issues such as limitations on woodburning fireplaces in the future. Director Sullivan advised that if a project is compliant as proposed, issues such as allowable woodburning versus gas fireplaces will not be addressed nor will specific Municipal Codes be stated within the Conditions of Approval. If, however, there is a problem with the proposal, those issues will be clarified through appropriate Conditions. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, continued with her presentation: • Advised that there is a question about the proposal for asix-foot masonry wall as outlined on page 11 of the staff report. • Said that the applicants have met with two neighbors who had concerns about noise impacts from the tennis court. As a result, an agreement was reached to install the six-foot masonry wall. • Said that staff is recommending approval of this residence without the deck feature. Staff finds that there is not enough privacy and that the deck is not architecturally compatible. Staff suggests that the applicant be instructed to bring revised plans back to the Community Development Director, eliminating the stairs to the deck area and reducing the height of the structure by a couple of feet. • Reminded that this parcel was split in 1998 with a separate parcel situated right in front of this subject parcel. A lot line adjustment is currently underway to remerge the lots. • Pointed out that the Variance to allow the tennis court is needed in order to protect trees and the creek. Staff is in support of this Variance to allow the sport court. Commissioner Zutshi inquired if the deck area is counted in the total FAR. Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that within the staff report (page 5) an evergreen vine is proposed along the tennis court wall while on page 17 the more vague term of evergreen landscaping is mentioned. Suggested that if the vine is what is desired, that fact should be clearly stated in the Resolution. Ms. Allison Knapp advised that she was deliberately vague so as not to exclude better options, such as a shrub, should all parties find some other type of evergreen vegetation preferable to a vine. Chair Barry asked if this needs to be part of the approval. Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes. Chair Barry extended her appreciation to staff, the applicant and neighbors for meeting together to work out issues. Advised that the Planning Commission advocates such meetings and is looking to institute a policy requiring such interactions early into a development application. Mr. Jim Morelan, Project Architect: • Advised that the property owners are present, as are the general contractor and neighbors. • Pointed out an error on Page 13, reading 15 feet east of the property line when it should read 10 feet. • Stated that they accept all Conditions of Approval and that he is available for any questions from the Commission. • Provided an alternative plan for the deck feature, which would reduce the deck to 10 feet by 11 feet, six inches, tucked into the roof on three sides with the fourth side bounded by a patio door. • Advised that the purpose of this deck space is to look out at views of the mountains or the moonlight. There is no living spaces or views sheds impacted by this deck. It is well concealed and this alternative proposal is a good compromise to any concerns, • Asked the Commission to reconsider this alternative and allow them to retain a roof deck space. Chair Barry asked for the color board. Mr. Jim Morelan advised that the color board was submitted to the Planning Department. Added that they propose a basic clay the roof with a white stucco exterior. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m. Ms. Martha J. Costa, 18603 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed concern over potential noise from the tennis court. • Said that she believes the proposed masonry fence will help alleviate noise from the tennis court. Commissioner Roupe disagreed, stating that the wall is an inviting backboard for hitting tennis balls and could actually increase noise impacts. However, putting screening vegetation in front of the wall would prevent those impacts. Commissioner Garakani agreed that vegetation would be the best solution and stated that the tennis court would most likely be used occasionally rather than daily. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Zutshi said that while on the site visit she could hear the traffic from Allendale and added that any noise from tennis would be less intrusive than the existing noise from traffic. Chair Barry agreed that there is experience with sound walls actually making things worse rather than better. Said that tree screening seems to be much more effective at muffling noise. Ms. Martha J. Costa agreed that she would be happy to consider landscape screening. Commissioner Roupe suggested that this detail be worked out further with staff, the applicant and neighbors. Mr. James Laflin, left side neighbor: • Said that his only concern has been the proposed tennis court and that seems to be okay at this point. • Said that it is important to he and his wife that nothing is done to screen the sun onto their property as they cultivate irises and roses and they need the sun. • Asked that dust control be provided during construction as his wife suffers from allergies that would be impacted from excessive dust. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Laflin if he is in support of the 10-foot high tennis court fence. Mr. James Laflin said yes. Commissioner Roupe said that the fence could be reduced to six feet instead and that a condition can be added that prohibits screening vines on the shared property line. Mr. James Laflin said that he has no problem with the fence height as long as the sun gets through to his yard. Mr. Jim Morelan: • Agreed that it might be best not to utilize a masonry wall and said that they are open to planting additional landscaping as necessary.' • Added that plans are already in place to install four redwood trees immediately behind the tennis court. • Said that while the owner prefers a 10-foot fence for the tennis court, they are willing to eliminate any vines on the fence adjacent to the Laflins'property. This is a good compromise. Chair 13arry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that it appears that there is no opposition to the roof deck from the neighbors and that she can support the compromise design. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the modified deck design is sensitive to the neighbors and that he will support it as long as it is not obtrusive. Commissioner Garakani: • Asked that the applicant plant trees in the line of site to assure the neighbor's privacy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 5 • Suggested that for the tennis court asix-foot fence with netting above to catch tennis balls could be installed. • Added that the masonry wall could be placed in front of the existing wall at the property line. Commissioner Roupe said that the applicant should work these details out with staff. Added that a Condition of Approval should be incorporated that states that efforts should be made to mitigate noise impacts from the tennis court. Chair Barry said that an administrative approval can be required to finalize the details of the fencing for the tennis court. Director Sullivan pointed out that the issue of deck and privacy issues are included in the staff review. Chair Barry declared that she is not crazy about cement the roof material, finding it to be monotone and monochromatic as well as pretty bright in color. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the color copy of the roofing sample is not an accurate color representation. Chair Barry said that she would still rather see a Condition requiring a more subdued roof the color or one with more variation in color. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved V-O1-013 with the added condition that the applicant, staff and neighbors work together on the issue of deadening sound to the rear and that screening not have evergreen vines that block sun on the adjacent property. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN; Kurasch Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-013 and AS-O1-001 to allow the construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 18630 Allendale with the added conditions: • The terrace structure be modified as presented by the Architect; • That landscaping along the line of site be considered and installed; • That water trucks be used to control dust during construction; and • That the roof tiles be change to a more subdued color and/or a material with more variation in color. T • That the applicant, staff and neighbors work together on the issue of deadening sound to the rear and that screening not have evergreen vines that block sun on the adjacent (Laflin) property. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN; Kurasch Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 6 Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. Commissioner Kurasch returned to the dais following the completion of Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:47 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 SD-99-003(A) & GPA-00-001(A) (APN's 517-13-018, 517-13-19, 517-12-001) SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur): Request to amend Condition No 24 (fence enclosure and grading issues) of Resolution SD-99-003, to adopt Resolution GPA-00-00(A) formalizing the previous recommendation that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Very Low Density Residential and to replace the Conditions of Approval (No. 39a-j, 40 and 41) in the City Geologist Section of Resolution No. SD-99-003 with updated language from the City Geologist. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Pointed out that the language in the adopted Resolutions for this project tied hands, requiring a 10- foot pedestrian easement for a total of 25 feet. It is requested that the pedestrian portion of this easement be removed from the required easement. Said that this pedestrian easement is from a public street to a private courtyard and is therefore not appropriate. There is no place to go other than onto private property. In this case, it makes sense not to require that pedestrian access. • Said that the City Geologist's Conditions are now ready to be added. ~ Said that staff is proposing language for Condition 24 (Grading and Fence Enclosure) that lets the applicant know the target for grading. ~ Informed that Council would consider the Final Map and General Plan Amendments soon and that the Sobrato house is pending future Planning Commission review. Commissioner Kurasch stated that tightening up the requirements was the intent of the Planning Commission actions. Said that the functional area can be fenced while the rest of the area is to be left unfenced. Director Sullivan agreed and pointed out that the fenced area is just the pool area. However, this area is larger that the allowable 4,000 square feet. Added that the grounds immediately around the house are not fenced in. While this area is not subject to scenic easement, a vast majority of the property is in the scenic easement. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:54 p.m. Mr. John Sobrato, Applicant, said that he is available for any questions. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch said that a pedestrian easement provides a way to connect but that she is willing to accept the elimination of that requirement. Added that she is pleased and thankful that the intent of the Commission is being met. Chair Barry concurred with Commissioner Kurasch and stated that the protection of the scenic easement is vital. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved SD-00-003(A) and GPA-00-001(A) in relation to property located at 14800 Bohlman Road. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 DR-O1-026 & BSE-O1-027 (397-24-017) - Sparacino, 14320 Lutheria Way: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 3,442 square foot residence, 936 square foot attached four-car garage and 1,568 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The 20,690 square foot lot is located in the R-1-20,000 zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) Ms. Chesty Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Provided clarification to the staff report in that the setbacks both meet and exceed required setbacks. • Advised that the Design Review application is for the construction of a 4,378 square foot, one- story residence with afour-car garage, basement and a maximum height of 20 feet. The project site is 21,000 square feet and located within the R-1-20,000 zone. • Described the building materials as gray plaster finish, carnage style garage door, white windows, black accents for the front door. • Informed that the project meets all Design Review findings and staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Zutshi expressed concern regarding the FAR. Ms. Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the FAR totals 3,442 plus the garage. Added that the building footprint is different from FAR. Chair Barry asked for clarification that the 4,378 square foot total is accurate. Ms. Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked about the bay window. s Director Sullivan advised that if there is no foundation below a bay window, that area is not counted within the square footage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that light wells are counted in square footage and asked staff about the fireplaces included on the plans, pointing out that it is not noted whether they are wood or gas. Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that there will be one wood and two gas fireplaces. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to condition only one woodburing fireplace. Ms. Christy Oosterhous reminded that Ordinance will only permit one woodburning fireplace and assured that the plans will clearly label the one woodburning and two gas fireplaces. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Architect: • Clarified that there will be but one woodburning fireplace and two gas. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there appears to be but one chimney. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that there will be one decorative chimney for the gas fireplace in the living room. The gas fireplace in the master bedroom will have a direct vent. Admitted that he had left the chimney for the woodburning fireplace in the family room off of his plans in error. Commissioner Kurasch asked to see the materials board. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that the plaster would be a medium-dark but warm gray, with white trim and black accents on the front door. The roofing will be composition shingle in charcoal gray. Commissioner Garakani asked if any discussions have been held with the neighbors. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied no. Chair Barry asked Mr. Spaulding if there is any particularly reason why efforts were not made to interact with the neighbors. Mr. Spaulding replied that with single-story residences there are usually no privacy or shadow issues and that they do not expect that this home will bother anyone. Director Sullivan pointed out that this project is just a couple of feet too tall to be approved through an Administrative Review. Commissioner Roupe asked why it could not be approved through an Administrative Review. Director Sullivan replied that the 20-foot height was 2-foot higher than the 18-foot height that can be approved through an Administrative Review. Mr. Chris Spaulding: • Said that he had shown drawings of the home at both 18 and 20-foot heights. His client preferred the appearance of the residence at a 20-foot height and was willing to go through the necessary Planning Commission review process in order to obtain approvals for that design. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 9 • Questioned Condition 3. • Pointed out that typically only the site survey needs to be stamped by a civil engineer and not the house plans. Director Sullivan agreed that this Condition could be adjusted appropriately. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:14 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he expects the one woodburning fireplace to be designated on the plans. • Declared that in no way is any fencing beyond that allowed under Ordinance approved for this site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 3,442 square residence, 936 square foot attached four-car garage and 1,568 square foot basement on property located at 14320 Lutheria Way, with the clarification that only one woodburning fireplace is permitted and that fact should be depicted on the plans. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 UP-O1-011 (398-12-019) PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY & COFFEE HOUSE, 18832 Cox Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow interior and exterior seating to allow the onsite consumption of food at the existing establishment. The site is located in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on-site consumption of food at an existing bakery with the installation of 26 seats inside and 26 seats outside to accommodate the on-site consumption of food. • Advised that this change creates a restaurant use (in-house consumption) versus a retail use (sold for off-site consumption). • Said that the proposed furnishings will be wrought iron. • Stated that the parking provided at the Quito Village Shopping Center is more than required for straight retail and that plenty of parking is available to accommodate this proposal. • Pointed out that this change will create a greater presence and increase foot traffic and will serve as a compliment to the center's appearance. • Stated that staff is recommending approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Kurasch asked what arrangements will be made to bus tables and whether trash receptacles will be provided. Mr. John Livingstone advised that there is a Condition to keep trash and spills off of the concrete. Commissioner Roupe: • Stressed the need to ensure the maintenance of the outdoor area, including regular power washing of the concrete. • Said that it is important to have a strong Condition of Approval requiring this maintenance and to monitor carefully. Director Sullivan agreed and pointed out that Code Enforcement is now fully staffed and one of their tasks is to monitor and enforce these types of Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff had received any objections to this proposal. Mr. John Livingstone replied no. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Rick Anderson, 390 La Questa Drive, Santa Cruz: • Identified himself as a representative for the business owner and made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Zutshi stated her concern that the number of tables outdoors seems excessive and that they might not fit in the space available. Asked Mr. Anderson how much area per table is required to allow adequate circulation. Mr. Rick Anderson said that the drawing is out of scale but that if the proposed number of tables do not function and appears too congested, they can take one out. Commissioner Kurasch asked about pedestrian access. Mr. Rick Anderson assured that there is sufficient pedestrian access around the exterior seating area. Chair Barry sought clarification that the Commission is to approve the specific number of tables allowed. Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission approve a "not to exceed" number of tables. If necessary, the applicants can install fewer. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the doors open outwards and if so whether the tables proposed for near the doors might be in the way of the doors' operation. Mr. Rick Anderson said that the doors do open outward. Pointed out that the table near the door is a smaller two person table. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the existing planter would need to be relocated. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 11 S Mr. Rick Anderson replied yes. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be possible to move the planter elsewhere on site. Commissioner Zutshi said that she liked the furniture and that it looks nice, especially the smaller tables that seat two. Chair Barry wondered if the Commission should suggest no tables by the door. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the owner will have the liability and if they feel it is safe to place a table by the door they should be allowed to do so. Mr. Rick Anderson said that they believe placing a table near the door will be safe. Commissioner Roupe asked if there is already a Use Permit for this restaurant use already under way. Mr. Rick Anderson replied that they hope to obtain the necessary approval this evening. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Anderson how long they have operated without the necessary permit. Mr. Rick Anderson replied a few moths, adding that they had not believed the change in use would be a problem. Once the owner was contacted and told of the need for a Use Permit, he applied immediately. Director Sullivan advised that the business was undergoing Code Enforcement for sandwich board signs when it was determined that the use had changed in such a way as to necessitate a Use Permit. Commissioner Roupe stressed the importance of enforcing Codes. Mr. Rick Anderson agreed and stated that there was a bakery in this location prior to Mr. Chan and they had erroneously assumed that it would be no problem. Assured that they did not deliberately break City rules. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said that he supports a "not to exceed" limitation on tables but that he does not want to specify the specific location of the tables. Asked staff for direction on how to structure the approval. Director Sullivan said that the Commission should simply pick the number of tables, which will serve as the basis for enforcement. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she is comfortable with 26 seats indoors but that she is more comfortable with 22 seats outdoors with no more than 7 tables, 4 large and 3 small. • Declared that assumptions are dangerous in business and that she hopes others heed the rules. • Added that the rules are important for owners and for the safety of the public. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 12 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the i Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow interior and exterior seating for onsite consumption of food at the Prolific Oven Bakery & Coffee House on property located at 18832 Cox Avenue with indoor seating not to exceed 26 and outdoor seating not to exceed 22. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S DR-O1-029 (503-26-040) -COUCH, 14440 Esterlee Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 2,691 square foot residence, 600 square foot attached two-car garage and a 1,377 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence would be 24 feet. The 12,448 square foot lot is located in the R-1-10,000 zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the application is for a Design Review approval to allow construction of a 3,290 square foot, two-story residence including atwo-story garage, basement and 24-foot maximum height. • Stated that proposed materials include sage horizontal wood siding with light green fish scale shingles and white trim. The architectural style is Prairie style. • Informed that staff had two concerns view sheds and privacy. However, staff has determined that view sheds are not adversely impacted. In fact, the adjacent property owner is in support of this application and finds that the proposal will not adversely impact his property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the added Condition of Approval that existing playground equipment and hot tub are brought into compliance with Ordinance prior to obtaining Building permits. Commissioner Kurasch said that the staff report states that there are privacy issue concerns and that staff did not find that the project complies with all policies. Questioned staff's recommendation for approval this evening. Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that the site visit clarified some issues as did hearing from the neighbor who is satisfied that there are no privacy impacts. Advised that the applicant's installation of balloons helped assess the lack of impact. All unanswered questions were laid to rest at the site visit, allowing staff to recommend approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the driveway wrapping around is a requirement of Fire for turnaround purposes. Ms. Christy Oosterhous said she would defer to the architect on that matter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the fireplaces are not identified as wood versus gas. Ms. Christy Oosterhous said that she is happy to require that the fireplaces be properly labeled on the plans. Chair Barry asked about the neighbor to the rear of this site. Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that Mr. Jacklyn is the property owner that the balcony would face and he provided no comments in opposition. Commissioner Kurasch asked when daylighted living space is counted within the basement area. Ms. Christy Oosterhous replied that the garage itself is not basement space. By Code definition, the basement cannot exceed two feet vertical distance above grade. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Lou Dorcich, Project Architect: • Stated that the applicants live on site in a home that is less than 1,000 square feet with garage. • Added that they now plan to replace this smaller home with a new home. Added that they chose a two-story, with garage out of public view, to maximize the yard area. • Advised that the architectural style is a Cottage Design period style. They have broken up the two- story elements into small mass with lots of details. The home will be homey and less massive, a counterpart to the typical Mediterranean style. • Said that the second story is set well back from the first floor. There are no vertical walls in the design. • Advised that they have worked to protect the privacy of the neighbors to the east and north. On the East Side, the second story begins where the front door is right now on the existing home. • Declared that they believe this home will provide a positive asset to the community and meet the needs of the owners. • Clarified that the driveway is not an access for the Fire Department. • Agreed that each city has a different definition of what counts as a basement. In this proposal, no basement space is over two feet over the existing grade and therefore conforms to the City's guidelines. The basement is accessed from the interior from a main stairwell with stairs on the West Side for egress from the basement as required for safety. Commissioner Kurasch said that the master bath juts out over the garage in a bump out with nothing below it. Asked why this feature is necessary and why it is not supported. Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that supporting that area below would be in excess of allowable FAR. Commissioner Kurasch said that this area looks as if it is floating. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that the drawing is not clear. Added that he intends to change the gable roof and provide a clipped hip over that area which will improve the shadow line and soften the appearance of that bump out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not concerned about the roof line but rather with the fact that there is nothing underneath. Mr. Lou Dorcich advised that the bump out space ranges for 30-inches to five feet. Chair Barry asked Mr. Dorcich if anyone had climbed up to see the views onto other properties. Mr. Lou Dorcich: • Admitted that no on had but that they had walked around the site. • Pointed out that these owners have lived on site for four years. • Added that the site was created with no legal access. The City had to be petitioned for vacation of some right-of--way. • Assured that this home will not impact the neighbors and that the property owners need atwo-story structure to get the necessary square footage and still leave adequate open space. Commissioner Roupe said that the uses for the bump out could actually be included within the structure. Mr. Lou Dorcich disagreed and said that the space used for the master bath has some symmetry with the rest of the house. The bump out space is about 150 square feet. If space was developed below this bump out space, the garage would be increased by 150 square feet, space that is not necessary for the garage and exceeding allowable FAR. Commissioner Roupe said that it appears that the master bedroom and bath are both rather large and the space in the bump out can be absorbed within those spaces and incorporated within the footprint. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he can reduce the bump out. Commissioner Kurasch suggested no more than 65 square feet or 15 feet by 4 feet. Mr. Lou Dorcich asked if the Commission is proposing a flat wall or simple dormer. Commissioner Roupe replied simple dormer. Commissioner Kurasch said that the bump out seems overblown and contrived. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he could work on that detail. Director Sullivan agreed that staff would work with the applicant and architect to solve this issue. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he would like to ask the owner, Mr. Couch, to speak to the issue of due diligence for the neighbors. Mr. Mike Couch, 14440 Esterlee Avenue, Saratoga: • Reminded that he distributed a memo earlier in the evening. • Assured that there are no issues pending with his neighbor Mr. Jacklyn. • Advised that there are no perspectives from the east window to the adjacent property. Only the roofline is visible. The south side looks out to the green belt area. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 15 • Said that there are no issues from the second floor. • Added that he has spent a year designing a house to meet Code. • Pointed out that the bump out feature has been used effectively on other Dorcich designed projects. • Asked that the Commissioners look at those other projects before asking them to change the proposal. • Said that this feature allows an additional 60 square feet. This pie-shaped lot has been difficult to design a home to fit. Commissioner Roupe stated that the balloons gave a good sense of this project's visual impact and commended Mr. Couch for his innovative method. Said that this process might be useful in future applications to avoid the high cost of installing story poles. In fact, this may set a precedent. Commissioner Garakani inquired where Mr. Couch obtained these balloons that lasted so long. Mr. Mike Couch replied that there is a special spray used to retain the life of balloons. Advised that he worked with aCampbell-based company, Balloon-a-tics. Chair Barry asked Mr. Couch if he would be willing to provide something in writing to staff regarding how he implemented his balloon display. Mr. Mike Couch said that he would do so. Mr. Ken Schulz, 15001 Esterlee, Saratoga: • Stated that this home will be beautiful and that he supports its construction. • Said that he hoped to see additional evergreen landscaping. • Said that he wants to be sure that water runoff is directed to the creek. • Suggested that lowering the grade by one or two feet might be good if it does not prove too costly to do this. Mr. Lou Dorcich: • Stated that grading is carefully orchestrated issue and hauling away fill is considered a public nuisance. Additionally, lowering the grade would also lower the house in front, which is something they do not want to do. • Suggested that additional landscaping would be a preferable solution to Mr. Schulz's concerns. Commissioner Garakani asked where water runoff would drain. Mr. Lou Dorcich replied the creek. Commissioner Garakani asked what materials would be used for the driveway. Mr. Lou Dorcich replied concrete or asphalt. Commissioner Roupe said that the standard for runoff water is that it be retained on site. Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that water would be retained on site but directed out toward the creek. An energy dissipater will be installed. Water will be spread out into the soil. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Roupe said that he would defer oversight of water drainage to staff. Director Sullivan: • Said that a project is more difficult with topography. • Added that projects are designed to hold water on site and that pipes will be installed to protect neighbors from any overflow. Chair Barry asked if pervious materials could be used for the driveway. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that turf block is the only potential pervious material and that it has a mixed history of success. Director Sullivan informed that there are new materials now available including flat blocks with pavers. Commissioner Roupe said that since this project is being developed at maximum square footage for the site, it would be nice to ask the applicant to work with staff in considering any viable pervious material for the driveway. Director Sullivan cautioned that using such materials in the sloping areas would be difficult but in flatter areas such as the turnaround it might be possible. Commissioner Roupe stressed his encouragement that the applicants work this matter out with staff. Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he would do so. Commissioner Garakani said that he had no issue on the pop out. Chair Barry said that the house on La Paloma had one and she liked the way it looked. Commissioner Kurasch said that she could not recall the depth of the pop out in that house but said the proposed one for this house looks like it is perched. Commissioner Zutshi said that she likes the concept of the pop out, that it gives the house character. Said that she was sure that the architect would ensure that there is structural integrity to support this feature. Director Sullivan suggested that corbels and beams can be incorporated. Chair Barry asked if this pop out is larger than the one on La Paloma. Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that this is a double pop out while the one on the La Paloma house was a single pop out. Agreed that he could incorporate corbels if necessary in order to soften this pop out but added that he would like to keep it cantilevered as some point to break up the wall element. Commissioner Kurasch said that the house is quite large and at maximum square footage. Suggested the use of a single dormer instead of the proposed double. a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 17 Chair Barry asked how much square footage this could reduce. Commissioner Kurasch: • Replied about 70 square feet and it would be more aesthetic. • Added that it would not be hard to absorb that reduced space within the house. • Said that it is not unusual for the Commission to require a project to be scaled back and that the Commission has done so before. • Said that there are already lots of detail. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said she could support the compromise with the single dormer pop out. Chair Barry asked if the square footage is an issue. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is at the maximum allowable. Chair Barry agreed that this is a big house for this site and is a big structure. Commissioner Roupe agreed but said that the architect and applicant have worked hard and come up with a reasonable proposal that is sensitive to the guidelines. They have done a good job with a difficult site. Said that he likes the idea of a single dormer pop out, which will provide good articulation to a blank wall. Said he could live with that modification to the proposal. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she still finds it to be big. Commissioner Roupe said that it is also important that the applicant be sensitive to the request for evergreen landscaping, particularly to the east in Mr. Schultz's direction. This should be included as a Condition of Approval. Chair Barry pointed out that this project is in better shape to be approved tonight than it was at the site visit yesterday. Advised that she wasn't going to approve the project without neighbor input and that she is okay with the compromise reached. Restated the two added conditions being the reduction of the pop out and the addition of evergreen landscaping to the satisfaction of staff. Additionally, the hot tub and playground equipment must be brought into compliance with Ordinance regulations. Commissioner Roupe said that the fireplace designation must be marked on the plans. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is in favor of the parking area and turnaround being permeable as possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval (DR-Ol-09/BSE-O1-029) to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 14440 Esterlee Avenue with the additions to the Conditions as follows: • Change the east elevation to a single dormer pop out (working with staff); Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 18 • Install evergreen landscaping to the east elevation to screen the full height of the new structure; and • Utilize permeable materials on the parking area and turnaround as possible. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Sullivan gave the following updates: • Advised that last week Council gave a brief review of the Housing Element and authorized its submittal for preliminary review by the HCD without changes. • Identified a student in the audience, Peter, who is attending this meeting to meet the requirements of his Government Class. • Commended the Commission on its completion of a five item agenda this evening by 9:30 p.m. COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment to Public Safety Committee Chair Barry asked Commissioner Garakani to serve on anewly-formed Public Safety Committee, which includes representatives from the community and is chaired by Council member Nick Street. Commissioner Garakani accepted this appointment as long as meetings did not occur on Monday mornings when he has a conflict. Recognition Dinner Chair Barry reminded the Commission of the pending Recognition Dinner set for Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. at the Country Club. Barbecue Weekend with Council Chair Barry reminded the Commissioners to review their calendars for available Saturdays in October and November in order to schedule a Barbecue with Council. The information should be forwarded to the Mayor (and/or through staff). Information from City Attorney re Commissioner Endorsements of Candidates Chair Barry advised that she had asked the City Attorney for guidance on whether members of the Commission can support candidates. A memo is pending from the City Attorney with the reply. Advised that she has learned that it does not represent a conflict of interest to support a candidate. It would be a conflict of interest to contribute to an entity that might come before the Planning Commission. Said that Commissioners can endorse candidates but not on behalf of the Commission but rather just as individuals. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 19 Brookview Homeowners Association Newsletter Chair Barry advised that she had received a copy of the Brookview Homeowners Association newsletter and that the HOA has moved forward to investigate the issue of a single-story overlay district. Pointed out that Los Altos has recently adopted such a district. What was required was a petition signed by half the impacted property owners. If that is achieved, the matter is put to a vote (sometimes requiring a Special Election) that must obtain a 70 percent vote to be successful. Director Sullivan cautioned that the rules are different from city to city. Advised that he has met with the Brookview HOA. They will attempt to secure a petition that will be submitted to the Planning Commission. The Commission can consider adoption of a Resolution of Intent. Commissioner Kurasch asked for a copy of the HOA newsletter. Chair Barry promised to distribute the copies. Definition of Rear Setbacks as They Apply to Single Story versus Two-Story Buildings Commissioner Roupe asked staff to investigate and provide clarification on Ordinance requirements for setbacks on single-story versus two-story buildings. Said that there appears to be a strict interpretation, past interpretation and future interpretation which should be clarified. Director Sullivan agreed that the language of the Design Ordinance doesn't address second story setbacks being less than single story. Said that there are different ways to go forward. Said that it is not recommended to have a loose interpretation of the Ordinance. It would be better to change the language of the Ordinance to be clearer. The Commission will need to adopt a Resolution of Intent. Chair Barry suggested that this item be scheduled on a future agenda when all seven Commissioners are present. Director Sullivan said that the Commission has discussed this matter as far as Brown Act requirements will allow this evening. The matter will need to be scheduled in order to discuss the possibility of adopting a Resolution of Intent at a future meeting. Commissioner Kurasch said that she disagrees with the idea of an automatic setback requirement for a second story. Neighborhood Involvement in Development Review Commissioner Garakani asked for a status report on the draft memo outlining how to implement neighbor involvement in development review. Director Sullivan assured Commissioner Garakani that this item is on the work plan and pending. i Study Groups Staff Assignments Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 20 • Commissioner Roupe asked if the staff assignments are pending for the miscellaneous Planning Commission Study Groups. Director Sullivan said that these assignments would be made shortly. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of July 18, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, October 10, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~_~ • { ~I ,' ~7 MINUTES ~~' ~ - ~ ~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi Absent: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 25, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of July 25, 2001, were approved as presented. AYES:Barry, Garakani and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: Jackman ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 2, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan proposed that the Commission change the order of the agenda and consider Item No. 5 first as it is being continued to a date uncertain. Agenda Item No. 1 has been continued to the September 12, 2001, meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.S DR-01-016 &BSE-O1-022 (517-14-027) - NIJOR, 15330 Kittrid~e Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,301 square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,308 square foot single-story residence. The proposed addition includes 60 square feet on the first floor and a new 2,241 square foot second story. The maximum height of the residence would be 25.5 feet. The site is 466.086 square feet and is located in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. (SULLIVAN) Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 5 at 7:04 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission continued consideration of DR-O1-016 and BSE-O1-022 to allow a second story addition to an existing home at 15330 Kittridge Road to a date uncertain. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Director Sullivan advised that this item would be renoticed for public hearing once the project is ready for Commission review and approval. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 DR-O1-007 &BSE-O1-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN, 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single-story home and demolish an existing 3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,917 square foot, single-story residence with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square foot residence. • Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of older ranch-style homes as well as newer designer-style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type. • Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture. • Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration. • Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project. • Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information. • Recommended approval of this project. • ~~ ~_J Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore: • Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 3 • Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps down. • Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10-foot length at 26 feet in height. • Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodburning fireplace. Two additional gas fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys. • Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns. • Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the perceived bulk of the home. • Advised that the 26-foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9 inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home. • Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views will not be impacted. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10-foot ridge will run at 26 feet in height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact. Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no. Chair Barry asked why that height should not be reduced. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that the design concept is for an elegant architectural porch entry feature that is more unique and traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out. Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing so is possible. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he prefers to have the design approved as presented. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083 East River Hills Drive, Saratoga: • Cautioned that lowering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials. • Reminded that while this is a small section, it is an important element in order to tie in the roof design. • Suggested the possibility of moving the house back another five feet. Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have stucco siding and the roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as does this one. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with , the proposed materials. Chair Barry replied no. She stated that the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want to see two homes directly across the street from one another that are basically the same. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a lower roof height. Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the provision of the wider porch element. Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps back. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between 13 and 14 feet. Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed materials for this house and the next one he will propose on the same street. Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to bring material samples for the next house into the Planning Department Offices tomorrow. Mr. Gre Kawahara said that the would welcome as much in ut on the next ro'ect as ossible from g Y P P J p staff and the Commission. Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner: • Advised that he is the neighbor to the right corner. • Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs. • Said that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home is out of tune with the neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces. • Said that the roof height is an issue and that the 26-foot height achieves nothing but is purely cosmetic. • Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood. • Opined that this is a loud, cookie-cutter design that represents a "house on steroids" and that this home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood. • Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower. • Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors. • Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage more community involvement. • Added that they don't want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood. • Expressed strong opposition to the design. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view from his rear yard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Hari Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home's rear yard. The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this project. Mr. Hari Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature. Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners' use of their new home. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would change this project. Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch-style architecture and change its materials. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no longer prevalent in this area. Mr. Hari Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his property and to the area. Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built. • Pointed out that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area and that not a lot of brick is used. • Stated that "an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent." Chair Barry asked to see the project material board. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder: • Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26-foot height and that this height is permitted under Code. • Suggested that full-grown trees (as large as 110-inch box, 25-foot high) could be brought in without a problem. • Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy. • Stated that this will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture. • Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced concrete. Additionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture. • Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that need to be made happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made happy. Commissioner Garakani asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet. Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors blend as much as possible. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select abrown-toned roof tile. Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish the roof suggests that this is not strictly aMediterranean- style house. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof. Chair Barry suggested something that blends with the color of the stone. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth tone. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Jackman: • Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing neighborhood, it is already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes. • Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one-acre lots and as long as the architecture is well done. • Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well. Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the 40-foot width is rather large and will appear massive. Commissioner Garakani: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in the neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather it is a neighborhood that has changed so much that it can't be stopped at this point. • Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot wide porch would be proportionate. • Supported the further setback from the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the builder. • Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors. • With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objections to this project being approved. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Hari Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard the size of the home's width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 7 Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m. Chair Barry: • Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood. • Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches. • Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commission is to preserve as much as possible of an areas architectural style. • Expressed a problem with the proposed facade. • Supported the increased front setback. • Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well. • Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color. • Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as prominent. • Said that the first floor footprint is huge. • Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers. Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located off of a cabana and will be for use with the spa. Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed. Commissioner Garakani asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project. Director Sullivan stated: • Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring properties. • Use of a the roof material in a color that closely matches the stone. • Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows. • Move the house back by approximately five feet. • Reduce the porch entry in size and mass. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder: • Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet. • Suggested the inclusion of 48-inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not be as visible. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m. Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping. i Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 8 Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the front yard landscaping and asked if the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by Director Sullivan. Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property. Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet. Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping. Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen as a neighborly gesture. Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use of this outdoor shower. Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses. Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this approval. Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower. Chair Barry reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Director Sullivan. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-007 & BSE-O1-011 to allow the construction of a new single-story 5,917 square foot home on property located at 19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and Chair Barry. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 *** DR-O1-015 &BSE-O1-o21 (503-29-038) - CHENAULT, 21345 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,837 square foot two-story residence and demolish an existing 3,153 square foot residence. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new square foot parcel is located m the R-1-40,000 zoning distnct. (KNAPP) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 9 Ms. Alison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 5,837 square foot, two-story residence with basement and demolish an existing 3,153 square foot home. • Said that this is a mixed one and two-story area and many homes are obscured from view from the street. • Said that a geotechnical review was done for this project and it received clearance from the City. • Informed that one rear neighbor has expressed concern regarding potential loss of privacy and views. • Advised that to mitigate those concerns, the applicant has offered to add up to eight redwood trees and eliminate a second story balcony off a child's bedroom to help alleviate any privacy impacts. • Said that staff is recommending approval. Chair Barry asked if the neighbor in questions is on the flag lot. Ms. Alison Knapp replied yes. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m. Mr. John Chenault, Property Owner/Applicant: • Informed that he is a 10-year resident of Saratoga and has taken the last year to design a residence for his family that will fit within the lot and topography. • Mr. Fred Luminoso, 12772 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as an advisor to the Chenaults. • Advised that they have met with five neighbors and received written support from four. • Informed that the fifth neighbor had privacy impact concerns, which they believe have been met through the relocation of two second story windows, the use of opaque glass in the bathroom and the elimination of a second story balcony off one of the bedrooms. Additionally, they propose to provide screening and hedging to benefit the neighbor to the north. • Said that the builders will be Mark Thomas Builders and it is the practice of this builder to fence off a construction site and comply with construction hours and City guidelines. Materials will be staged on site. Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group: • Said that the proposed alignment of the house on this site is similar to the existing house. • Said that in addition to the mature tree formation on site, they propose to add trees. • Pointed out that the garage will be located under the house and that the home is a linear house with only short sides to help minimize impacts on the side neighbors. • Said that this design will blend well into the hillside and materials include a gray slate roof and muted stucco siding with a stone base to anchor the home. • Assured that water runoff will be retained on site and advised that permeable driveway materials are proposed. Commissioner Garakani stated that this is a beautiful design but questioned how water from a 4,500 square foot driveway will be retained on site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 10 Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, advised that through the use of sloping and dry wells. Said that the driveway will consist of interlocking block pavers. Mr. Jun Siliano, International Design Group: • Said that in addition, catch basins will be situated on the low end of the property and that captured water will be used to water the landscaping. Chair Barry asked Mr. Siliano to point out the proposed balcony site, which is being removed. Mr. Jun Siliano directed the Commission to page 6 of the plans and said that the balcony was to be included in a child's bedroom. Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, added that one reason to incorporate that balcony was to allow for air circulation. While they want to keep this balcony, they are willing to eliminate it to meet the neighbor's concern. Ms. Laurie Duran, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga: • Said that this is a neighborhood in the best sense of the word. • Opined that there are no homes like this proposed residence on the street. • Advised that her family home was rebuilt in the neighborhood in 1995 and represented the first new home in the neighborhood over the past 20 years. • Pointed out that the adjacent property to this site is currently on the market. • Suggested that this project should be designed to step down the hill, be tiled and painted in neutral colors, that efforts should be made to work out issues with neighbors, that screening be done using oak trees rather than redwoods, that no deer fencing be installed and that an appropriate street facade be incorporated. Chair Barry pointed out that the applicants have obtained letters of support from four of five adjacent neighbors. Asked why Ms. Duran objected to the use of redwoods and was insisting on oaks. Ms. Laurie Duran replied that in her estimation redwood trees are used to screen ugly houses simply because they grow rapidly. Rather than using redwood trees, a more attractive home design should be reached. She added that she hoped to see that the posts on the front walkway not exceed four feet in height. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Duran if she has installed oaks on her property. Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes and added that she also plans to replace some ailing oaks along the street. Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran if her concern is basically the development of a ridgeline property. Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes. Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran what the applicant could do to make it fit better. Ms. Laurie Duran suggested that the second story would need to be reduced and that the two-story architectural portico features be eliminated. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the second story is have half the square footage of the first floor footprint. Mr. Bill Paceman, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in Saratoga for 20 years and moved into this neighborhood last year. • Expressed main issues (several of which have been satisfied by the applicant), including moving two second story windows overlooking his patio, the planting of two to three trees to screen this site from his property, removal of a second floor balcony, inclusion of opaque glass in the upstairs bathroom and maintenance of a hedge at the property line. • Explained that in the past, the hedge had been inadequately trimmed so as to create a visual bamer to a treasured bay view from his property. Wanted to ensure that the hedges were kept trimmed in such a way that this view is available. Said he has offered to maintain these hedges himself. • Acknowledged that his preference would be for asingle-story home. • Said that he wants to see the careful placement of screening trees in order to maintain a view corridor to the bay. • Said that the applicant needs to be sure that the property line is accurately located prior to construction. Chair Barry asked Mr. Paceman if he can guarantee the accurate placement of his own home. Mr. Bill Paceman said no and added that he just measured using a measuring tape. Director Sullivan pointed out that a standard Condition of Approval requirement is that a licensed surveyor certifies setbacks. Mrs. Marguerite Paceman reiterated her husband's plea to carefully locate trees so as not to obscure their view of the bay. Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group: • Said that the house has been set down considerably, that the second story is half the size of the first story and the house stretches along the front elevation so as to reduce impact on side neighbors. • Added that they placed the house in a way to give the smallest facades on the sides. • Pointed out that orange bunting is included on site and it is almost impossible to see this bunting from the road, saying that he himself tried to see it in order to take photos. • Reminded that the new home will be only 10 feet higher than the existing home. • Restated that 52-percent of houses in the area are two-story homes and that there is no single-story precedent for the vicinity. • Said that they are utilizing redwoods to provide screening as asked by neighbors. Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant's Representative: • Said that the Chenaults want to enjoy privacy on their property just as much as the Pacemans. • Assured that everyone will be very happy once this project is constructed. Chair Barry asked Mr. Luminoso if he knows the height of the Paceman home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Fred Luminoso said that the placement of a window on the Pacemans' master bedroom would be seriously discussed by today's design standards and that it appears that the home is taller than 26 feet maximum allowed. Said this home design would not meet today's standards. Chair Barry sought clarification that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Residential rather than Hillside or Ridgeline. Ms. Alison Knapp stated that the General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Density Residential and the Zoning is simply Residential and not Hillside Residential. Chair Barry asked Ms. Knapp what height differences might be allowed on a Hillside property. Ms. Alison Knapp responded that this is a difficult question to answer. Said that were the site not already developed, a flat pad would have to be developed. This proposal is not being constructed outside of the existing pad. If Hillside zoning applied, the project would require grading and stepping. Chair Barry asked if restrictions on architectural style and building materials apply for Hillside zoning. Ms. Alison Knapp replied no. Said that neighborhood compatibility is considered as are shielding of the home and retention of mature landscaping where possible. Chair Barry said that while this property is not zoned Hillside, it appears to be a Hillside property. Mr. Fred Luminoso pointed out that they met with former Director Walgren early in the development process for this site and at that time atwo-story structure was supported. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that existing neighbors can also screen their properties with additional landscaping if necessary. The burden of screening should not completely fall upon this applicant. Commissioner Jackman stated that the yellow color on the colored elevation gives a wrong impression and asked if a color board is available. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m. Mr. Jun Siliano advised that the paint color is such that it will blend with the stone color. Mr. Bill Paceman advised that he had offered to care for the hedge separating the properties but Mr. Chenault declined his offer. Clarified that the hedge is on the project site and not on his own property. Mr. John Chenault said that the hedge in question is an existing hedge that he is more than willing to eliminate entirely should that be the preference of the Pacemans. Suggested that perhaps they may want to plant an alternative hedge on their side of the property line that they can maintain at a height as they desire. Said that he simply was not comfortable having a neighbor access his property to maintain this hedge. Commissioner Garakani asked about the roofing colors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Jun Siliano reminded that the roofing material is full slate. Commissioner Jackman said that the Chenaults have gone to the trouble to relocate two upstairs windows and that they should be allowed to retain their proposed second floor balcony. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9 p.m. Commissioner Garakani: • Thanked the Pacemans for access and the opportunity to view the project site from their home. • Stated that based upon that vantage, he does not see any issues with windows on the new home. • Suggested that the front entry feature be minimized and lowered. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that there does not appear to be any privacy impacts to the Paceman property based on this new home construction. Chair Barry set that the wall is set back so far that height limitations do not apply for the pillars for that wall. Ms. Alison Knapp agreed that the proposed wall is 180 feet away from the front setback and that there is no height regulation at that distance. Chair Barry: • Pointed out that the applicants voluntarily agreed to move the two upstairs windows as a good faith gesture. • Expressed agreement with the comments on retaining the balcony, saying that if it were larger she would not support it but since it is but three-feet deep, this balcony will only allow access for looking at views and would in no way interfere with existing views and/or privacy of neighbors. • Reminded that Mr. Chenault has offered to remove the hedges should the Pacemans wish him to do so. • Agreed that this proposed home does not look like a Hillside home but neither do many other homes in the area. • Said that it is important to use natural colors and materials. • Suggested that the entryway feature be cut down and said that a redesign to a one-story element may be in order. • Said that use of oak trees is reasonable. • Stated that the architects have sited this home sensitively. Commissioner Jackman inquired how the architect felt about changing the entry feature. Chair Barry: • Suggested directing the architect to work with staff to lower this entry element, leaving the details on how to accomplish that task to him and staff. • Said that the only deer fencing used on site should be to protect specific trees and garden areas. • Supported the use of oak trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Jackman asked if high fencing on a nearby property is legal as it appears to be more than six-feet in height. Director Sullivan said that it does not appear that this fencing is legal as it is located within the required front yard setback area. Chair Barry sought clarification that the landscaping plan would be approved prior to issuance of final. Director Sullivan agreed that this would occur and that the plan will include fencing proposals that are consistent with ordinance requirements. Chair Barry once again clarified the amended Conditions as follows: • That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be approved prior to issuance of building permits and should include landscaping on the east side; • That the front entry feature should be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff so it is not prominent; • That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side and • That the small balcony be retained. Director Sullivan suggested that the Public Works Condition of Approval regarding the Grading and Drainage Plan be amended to include runoff coefficient and volume in a 100-year storm. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-015 & BSE-O1-021 to allow the construction of a new 5,837 square foot, two-story residence with basement on property located at 21345 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following modifications and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval: • That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be approved prior to issuance of building permits, including landscaping on the east side of the property; • That the front entry feature be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff so it is not as prominent a design element; • That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side; • That the small balcony be retained off the upstairs child's bedroom; and • That the Grading and Drainage Plan be required to include data regarding runoff coefficient and volume in a 100 year storm. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Bang advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 15 V-O1-007 (386-18-003) - NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive: Request for Variance approval to construct a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single-story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12 feet, 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants seek two Variance approvals to accommodate a residential remodel/addition. • Said that one Variance is sought to place an addition to an existing bedroom 13 feet into the required 25-foot required sideyard setback for a corner lot. • Added that the second Variance is to allow the construction of a new garage five feet into the required 10-foot rear yard setback. • Informed that the existing garage would be converted into a new master bedroom with a new garage to be constructed to replace it. • Said that the site is 10,788 square feet within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The existing home is a three-bedroom, 2,200 square foot structure and the applicants wish to add 866 square feet for a total of approximately 3,000 square feet. • Cautioned the Commission that it must make all three mandatory findings required under State Law in order to approve these Variance requests. Staff does not believe that the findings can be made. No specific circumstances exist that prevent the applicants from fully enjoying the use of their property. There is an existing functional home on the site with three bedrooms and atwo-car garage, typical for the neighborhood. • Recommended denial of this request. Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on the mandatory findings. Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed out page 5 in the staff report, where the findings are outlined. Chair Barry asked staff how it made the determination that there are no special circumstances since there is clearly a problem backing from this property driveway onto busy Saratoga Avenue. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that when comparing this home to the others along Saratoga, there is no specific circumstance that impacts just this property. In fact, the property has the advantage of being a corner lot with potential access from two sides, an advantage not available to similar but interior lots. Chair Barry questioned whether the existence of the five-foot wide bike lane, narrower than anywhere else on Saratoga, doesn't constitute a special circumstance. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this is not sufficient to warrant a Variance. Commissioner Garakani agreed that other options are available to the applicants. Chair Barry questioned why Variances were more easily granted in the past. Director Sullivan said that the three required findings have been a part of State Law for many years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Jackman asked Director Sullivan if the Variances previously granted by the Commission were inappropriate. Director Sullivan replied that in his opinion they were if they did not satisfy these required findings. Added that staff applies the findings and denies applications if they cannot be substantiated. The applicants subsequently can appeal to the Planning Commission. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what occurs if the Commission agrees with the applicant's position. Director Sullivan replied that the Commission would need substantiate how the findings can be made and direct staff to create a Resolution approving the Variance for return to the Commission under Consent at the next meeting. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m. Mr. David Zamora, Zamora Associates: • Advised that this is his home and that his family, including four children, loves it. They just want to make it a little larger. • Pointed out that when they purchased this home plans had been approved by the City for a new garage. However, this proposed garage encroached into an existing utility easement and could not be built per those plans after all. • Said that they simply want a 20 by 20-foot garage, adjacent to their home and to utilize an existing Kosich Drive driveway for access. • Stated that this is a life safety issue for his family and the community. • Said that the traffic on Saratoga makes backing from his driveway a challenge. • Said they simply want to be able to enjoy the use of their home for their family. Mr. Bob Desparza, Project Designer: • Said that they seek rear and side yard Variances and they are trying to show that the findings can be made in support of these Variances. • Said that the reason for the change is to allow better use of the home. • Stated that this property is somewhat unique since it is possible to enter the property from two sides. • Said that this project will eliminate a hazard on Saratoga Avenue and the existing garage space would be used for a kitchen. The existing driveway on Saratoga will be walled off to provide outdoor space for use by the family. • Pointed out that Kosich Drive has much lower and slower traffic. • Informed that they have neighborhood support and six letters have been obtained from the contiguous neighbors. • Said that the front Variance will allow an interior wall to be pushed out. • Advised that a letter from City Planner Phil Bloch dated May 8, 2001, suggested that the Variance request would be supported. Based upon that letter, the applicants had plans done, demolished some portions and began some construction in a phased project. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 17 • Suggested that they meet all three required findings and will be improving public safety by abandoning the Saratoga Avenue driveway. Added that they are willing to lower and clean up existing hedges along Saratoga. Chair Barry: • Asked Mr. Desparza if they had considered bring the garage forward by five feet so the rear setback is not required. • Added that actually, the rear setback Variance is not the problem but rather the side yard setback Variance is a problem. • Questioned if the front and side yards can be redesignated. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. Director Sullivan added that doing so would simply redistribute the current setback problems along alternate street frontages. Mr. David Zamora advised that there is no other place for the garage due to existing power poles, mature trees, etc. Chair Barry asked staff how they felt the site could be utilized to meet the applicant's desired new space and garage. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that there exists a functioning three-bedroom home with a two-car garage on this property. The owners want to do an addition. There are other places for the bedroom addition but a more extensive remodel would be required. Additionally, if necessary, a portion of the existing home could be redistributed into garage space and required setbacks satisfied. These options are more costly and require a more extensive remodel of the home. Mr. Bob Desparza said that denying these Variances deny the applicants the privilege of full enjoyment of their home. Associate Planner John Livingstone disagreed, restating that there exists a viable house on this lot. Staff is not saying the applicants cannot remodel their home but simply that the required setbacks must be satisfied. Mr. David Zamora presented a brief video demonstration of the traffic he faces along Saratoga Avenue as he attempts to back from his driveway. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10 p.m. Commissioner Garakani: • Thanked Mr. Zamora for his video footage. • Agreed that a safety issue exists and that the Saratoga Avenue garage needs to be moved. • Added that requiring a complete redesign would represent a financial hardship and requiring the cutting into the house by five feet along the length to accommodate a new garage would result in the loss of too much existing living space. • Said that if the adjacent neighbor agrees to the reduced rear yard setback, he would be comfortable supporting the rear yard Variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 18 Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this location seems to be the only reasonable place to place the new garage. Commissioner Jackman: • Agreed that there is a big problem backing into the heavy traffic on Saratoga Avenue. • Pointed out that there are existing tall shrubs on both sides of the driveway that need to be removed to improve visibility. • Said that she is not willing to go along with the five-foot rear yard Variance because while the current neighbor may not mind, future homeowners of that property may not like that proximity. • Cautioned that she has afive-foot setback at her own home, a legal non-conforming situation, and that it is too close. • Stated that she cannot support this Variance. Chair Barry: • Said that required Finding No. 1 can be made on the basis of the narrowness of the bike lane along Saratoga Avenue in front of this property that widens at the next property. • Added that refusing this Variance would deprive the applicant of the privilege by strictly enforcing the setback requirement. • Said that approving the garage Variance would not be a special privilege nor a detriment to the public health and/or safety. • Said that while logic may suggest that the owners should be allowed to square off their home to accommodate the bedroom addition, the Variance for the front of the home cannot be justified. • • Suggested an increase of the existing cement pad. Director Sullivan cautioned that the fact that this is an existing legal but non-conforming house is clear. The issue is that increasing the area that is non-conforming is making that non-conforming situation worse. Commissioner Zutshi agreed and stated that once a Variance at the front is allowed, the applicants may seek to extend that further in the future. Chair Barry said that she can support the garage Variance but not the Variance required for the remainder of the addition. Commissioner Jackman said again that she is not comfortable with the five-foot rear setback for the garage. Chair Barry said that nothing can be done regarding the traffic along Saratoga Avenue, which is no doubt much worse than it was when the house was constructed. Stated that the Commission respectfully disagrees with staff and asks them to come back to the Commission with an affirmative finding for the garage Variance. However, the Commission cannot find a basis to support the second Variance request for this site. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 19 • Ms. Hoa Thi Nguyen, Applicant, asked the Commission to help support their request for a Variance to accommodate a second bathroom in their home to serve the needs of their large family, which includes four young children. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:20 p.m. Director Sullivan asked the Commission to provide the language for the findings to support within its motion. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring an affirmative Resolution to the next Commission meeting as a Consent Calendar Item granting a Variance to allow a five-foot rear setback to accommodate construction of a new garage on property located at 18621 Kosich Drive with the necessary Finding of support for this reduced rear yard setback due to the reduced five foot width of tl:e bicycle lane in front of this property that other neighbors do not have and due to the proximity of this property's driveway to Lawrence Expressway. The Commission was unable to make the required Findings to support the second Variance request for this site. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final and the applicants have the option to appeal this action to Council within that time frame. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Sullivan advised that the Joint Meeting of Council and the Planning Commission set for Saturday, August 11`h, has been cancelled. Asked the Commission to provide staff with available Saturday dates through the next three months so a new date can be set. COMMISSION ITEMS Neighbor/Commission Involvement in Development Review Commissioner Garakani reiterated his request for earlier participation by the Commission and neighbors in the development review process. Asked staff when the draft memo outlining a proposed format would be provided to the Commission for consideration. Director Sullivan assured the Commission that this policy memo is in the works. Cautioned that there are a number of timely priorities and reminded that the department is still not fully staffed. Promised to get this information to the Commission as soon as the draft memo could be accomplished in the work program. S Library Groundbreaking Ceremony Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 20 Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony on September 8`h at 1 p.m. Added that the new library furniture has been selected by the Library Committee. Inclusionary Housing Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the requirement for inclusionary housing is being publicly disseminated to all affected parties. Director Sullivan replied yes. Absences from Next Meeting Commissioners Jackman and Garakani advised that they will be unavailable for the August 22"`~ meeting. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, August 22, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~~ l/~~ ~ '1 MINUTES ~~_ , /s ~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ~ ~ STUDY SESSION C/ CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL MEETING JiJLY 18, 2001 The City Council of the City of Sazatoga met in a scheduled Study Session on July 18, 2001 at the Adult Caze Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Vice Mayor Streit called the_Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development The following Planning Commissioners were present: PRESENT Cynthia Barry, Mike Gazakani, Jill Hunter, Erna Jackman, Lisa Kurasch, George Roupe, Ruchi Zutshi ABSENT: None Mayor Mehaffey welcomed the Planning Commission. 1. HOUSING ELEMENT Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Pazsons Hazland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, would present the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Goldman would address the following topics: • Approval process that the Housing and Community Development Department will use to review the Housing Element. • State of California mandates and regulations. • Issues related to timing, the "numbers" and public participation. City Council Minutes July 18, 2001 Director Sullivan noted that the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element contain the , methodology of how the City can meet the "Fair Share" assigned to it from Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG). Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, summarized the purpose of a Housing Element and the issues he is attempting to address. Mr. Goldman explained that State Law requires that a housing element identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards for a variety of housing types meet the community's housing goals. Where the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels the City Housing Element must contain a program to show how the City will provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households. Mr. Goldman explained that some communities with conditions similar to Saratoga have successfully used residential-commercial mixed-use programs to show how adequate sites will be made available at suitable densities to meet low and moderate-income housing needs. Under amixed-use strategy, residential projects are permitted in specified commercial zones, either independently or in conjunction with commercial development, at sufficiently high densities to meet the "adequate sites" provision of state law. Mr. Goldman explained that there are two approaches to a mixed-use strategy: 1) designate specific commercial zones or sites on which residential uses are permitted with appropriate development standards, and 2) designate amixed-use or residential overlay zone, with separate development standards, that can be applied to commercial zones throughout the jurisdiction. Mr. Goldman explained that the Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals: 1) accommodating the City's fair share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the construction of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households, 3)assisting low-income property owners in improving substandard dwelling units, 4)preserving the current stock of affordable housing in the City, and 5) assuring non-discrimination in housing. Mr. Goldman explained that once the draft Housing Element has identified all of the City's needs it is sent to the Housing and Community Development Department for review. The HCDD will in turn issue an Advisory Opinion Letter whether the Element does or does not comply with state law. The HCDD has 60 days by law to respond. The final step is to adopt the Housing Element, send it back to the HCDD who will issue a final opinion. • 2 Mr. Goldman briefly explained the five goals of the Housing Element and how the city would achieve each one. Goal 1 - To accommodate the City's fair share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Needs for all income groups. This goal can be achieved by designating sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by ABAG under the RHND through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or mixed-use projects on vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind existing commercial uses throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second units, and dwelling units constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. To meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, however, several zoning changes will needed to encourage the production of affordable housing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would not support allowing low income housing to be build in one particular area. Councilmember Baker pointed out that the original Measure G prohibits increasing the density on a particular piece of land. Mr. Goldman responded that according to state law allowing new secondary units is not a zoning change; furthermore state law may overrule Measure G. City Attorney Taylor commented that Measure G did not change any of the existing provisions in the City's General Plan, it just reaffirmed and readopted those provisions, so any place that secondary units were allowed under the General Plan they could continue to be allowed, there is nothing in the language in Measure G that would preclude the City from implementing the General Plan in a manner that allowed there to be secondary units. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Goldman how he would define a secondary unit. Mr. Goldman responded that under state law it is defined as any separate habitable space that would meet the definition of a dwelling unit. A secondary unit typically has a cooking facility, a separate entrance, and physically separates from main residence. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the City would make sure that these secondary units are used as rentals. Mr. Goldman noted that the City would have to set up a monitoring system. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, questioned if existing illegal secondary units would be made legal. Mr. Goldman responded that there is nothing to prevent an illegal unit obtaining a permit to legalize the unit. 3 Director Sullivan added that at a Council retreat in May 2001, there were discussions regarding an amnesty program for secondary units. There would be minimal inspections; just to make sure the unit is safe to live. The property owner would then agree to maintain the unit as aloes-income rental. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, expressed concern that if secondary units are legalized would it affect the homeowners tax base, would their property value go up increasing their property tax. Mr. Goldman responded that the County Assessors Office would have to determine if a reassessment is needed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the of the property owner had to live on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that state law and the City's ordnance on secondary units states that one of the units has to be owner occupied. Meg Caldwell, Saratoga Resident, noted that she supports an amnesty program but must be careful on how the City frames the program. Property owners will be hesitant to come forward for permits if their units are labeled illegal. Betty Feldhym, 20841 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City of Sazatoga contact the Town of Los Gatos because a few yeazs ago they had a successful amnesty program. Ms. Caldwell asked if residential overla was considered in other zonin districts such as Y g institutional and quasi public property, for example Civic Center, West Valley College, Churches etc., perhaps these places could be used as employee living. Mr. Goldman responded that in theory you could apply this concept to those types of properties but it would be up to the Council to consider that option. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 2. Goal 2 - Encourage the construction of housing and affordable to lower and moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. This goal can be achieved by increasing the supply if affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of the Santa Claza County median income. The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law requirements at least 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income household or 20 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units aze designed for seniors. Commissioner Kurasch suggested an additional incentive, to offer inclusionary zoning. Commissioner Kurasch explained the City could require a minimum percent of low and moderate-income housing in all new housing developments or subdivisions or require a percent fee in lieu of building affordable units. This in turn would not require a density percent increase on projects and would allow flexibility in building a fund or making sure 4 J there are definitive number of low income units for the future. Mr. Goldman responded that many communities have adopted inclusinary-zoning ordinances, which goes hand in hand with density bonuses and other incentives programs. In addition, Director Sullivan explained that with the completion of the Odd Fellows expansion project the City will be able negotiate with the owners in order to count a small number of units within Phase I and in Phase II all of the single unit apartments will be counted towards meeting the numbers of the Regional Housing Needs Determination. Vice Mayor Streit asked if whether or not the ten artist studios at Villa Montalvo would count towards the City's RHND number. Director Sullivan responded that there are ten artist units and a caretaker's cottage; all eleven should qualify towards the RHND. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goa13. Goal 3 -Assist lower-income homeowners in maintaining their homes. This goal can be achieved by eliminating substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair their homes. The City will also continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to homeowners earning 80 percent or less than the Santa Clara County median income through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if within this program could the City provide financial support to nonprofit groups who provide affordable housing. Mr. Goldman responded yes. For example, Director Sullivan noted that Council would be considering making a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund later this evening. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goa14. Goa14 -Preserve existing affordable rental housing. This goal can be achieved by: a) monitoring compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to any change in funding or ownership status, b) provide financial assistance for property . maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements, c) identify one or more non-profit entities interested in the right of refusal should one or more of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit in obtaining state or federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing, d) require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding on all current and future property owners during the effective time period. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planrung Commission, noted that recently an application came before the Commission where there were two structures on the property, both were rental units 5 and the applicant wanted to make it into asingle-family house. Chair Berry asked in such conversions, should the City require a property owner keep a secondary unit on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that the primary intent of this program was to preserve existing rental development that were subsidized by state and federal funds in order to keep them affordable. Goal 5 -Promote equal housing opportunity for all Saratoga residents. The City encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen organizations can achieve this goal. The City will designate a Fair Housing Coordinator to monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City. The City will also amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless and transitional housing facilities. John Mallory, Saratoga resident, asked if at the end of five years will the City have another requirement from the state to comply with. Mr. Goldman responded that Housing Elements have to be updated every five years. Marge Bunyard, President) League of Women Voters, thanked the Council and Mr. Goldman for their efforts to designate affordable housing. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Goldman for his presentation. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases.) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED. SESSION - 7:05 u.m. Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Rni.i, C'Ai,t, PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councihnember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey 6 • • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: UP-O1-006;19221 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Applicant/Owner: JAMES AND GRETCHEN NOEL CROSS Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Pl r \~---- Date: October 10, 2001 _ ~" APN: 397-09-035 --~ Department Hea~~ ~\~ ,' / 1 %: /i ~`\ / i ~ ~~ / j oq 2 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GUM_' . /, 1 ~ 14-1 ~ O I I 9 ~, -~ ~i '~ \\ ~ % ~ j ~/ .,~ ,A ~ ;, ,~.~~ ~i ~\ ~>~~ 0 ~ , i ~` ._ i _~~ ~JNNYSIDE I DR. ~ ~ ~ i \~ N '-~ ~ L~3 ~ E i 0 Fee ~~ r s ~~~ ~~ 19221 SARATOGA- LOS GATOS ROAD nnnnn.~ File No. UP-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/5/01 Application complete: 8/15/01 Notice published: 9/26/01 Mailing completed: 9/27/01 Posting completed: 9/20/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are requesting Use Permit approval to construct a new cabana that would be 450 square feet in area and 14 feet in height. An accessory structure is permitted in absence of a use permit by Section 15-12.020 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance provided that the is limited to eight feet (Section 15-55(d)(1)) in absence of use permit approval. An accessory structure may be approved taller than eight feet upon securing use permit approval (Section 15-55.030). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-006. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution UP-09-006 2. Heritage Preseraation Commission minutes dated May 8, 2001 3. Arborist Report dated May 10, 2001 4. Plans, Exhibit "A' • • • nnnn~~-~ File No. OF-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.594 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than one percent GRADING REQUIRED: Nineteen cubic yards of cut and eight cubic yards of fill. Maximum depth of cut would be two feet and maximum depth of fill would be one foot. The grading is required for general site work. Environmental Determination: The proposed project consisting of construction of a ne~v single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14, Chapter 3 California Code of Regulations). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: To match the existing off white and green. See the color photographs attached to the staff report. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) C7 nnnr~n~ File No. UP-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREtitEI~TS Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 35% 3590 Residence 4,810 sq. ft. Garage 1,035 sq. ft. Outbuildings 1,256 sq. ft. Porch/Gazebos/Paving Pool Patio 6920 sq. ft. Tennis Coun 7,084 sq. ft. Driveway 12,821 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) • Floor Area: Main Residence 4,810 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable New Cabana 450 sq. ft. Existing Barn 130 sq. ft. Guest Cottage 676 sq. ft. Garage 1,035 sq. ft. TOTAL 7,102 sq. ft. 7,130' sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirements House -No Change Front 114 ft. 30 ft. Rear 110 ft. 20 ft. Left Side 120 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 122 ft. 50 ft. Cabana-Proposed Front 76 ft. 30 ft.`' Rear 263 ft. 20 ft. Left Side 52 ft. 20 ft. Right Side ~ 215 ft. 50 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 22 ft. 26 ft. 1 For lots over 80,000 square feet an additional 10 square feet is added per 1,000 square feet to calculate the maximum permitted floor area. The lot is 2.594 acres in area (43,560 sq. ft. x 2.594 = 112,994.64 - 80,000 = 32,994.64 divided by 1,000 = 33 x 10 = 330. 6,800 * 330 = 7,130 sq. ft. z No enclosed accessory structure may be located within a required front yard. The required front yard is 30 feet and the proposed cabana is set back 76 feet which is not within a required front yard. 000004 File No. UP-01-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicants are requesting Use Permit approval to construct a ne~~ cabana that v,~ould be 450 square feet in area and 14 feet in height. An accessory structure is permitted by Section 15- 12.020 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The height of an accessory structure is limited to eight feet in height pursuant to Section 15-55(d)(1) in absence of use permit approval. An accessory structure may be approved taller than eight feet upon securing use permit approval (Section 15- 55.030). The new cabana would replace, and be smaller than, the existing cabana that is no~~~ architecturally incompatible with the California Craftsman residence. The applicant is also making improvements to their 1910 Tibbit House, a California Craftsman Bungalow. The changes involve eliminating "add ons" to the house that are not in keeping v~~ith the historic and architectural context of the structure. A 1,032 square foot cabana ~ greenhouse would be eliminated. The new 450 square foot cabana would be placed in its stead that would be constructed to the architectural style of the California Craftsman residence. The 14-foot height of the cabana is requested in order to match the roof pitch of the Tibbit House. A 487 square foot addition to the main residence, a 168 square foot pool equipment structure and 532 square foot trellis and barbcue area are also proposed. Revisions to the driveway, brick patios and walks, and pool patio are also proposed. The proposed construction a total of 1,187 square Eeet is conducted ministerially by plan review and issuance of a building permit. The 1,187 square foot addition, 17 percent of the building total, is well under the threshold of a 50 percent addition to a main house that would trigger Administrative Design Review. Also worthy of note, the proposed project would result in 98 square feet less of building area on the lot than currently exists. Staff has pro~~ided the Commission with color drawings illustrating the portions of the structure to be removed and reconstructed to match the craftsman Bungalow style architecture. Fascia board and trim will be added to match the existing architecture. Wood columns and Victorian Fascia board and trim will be added to match the. existing architecture. Victorian corbel and frieze will be preserved and replicated where needed throughout the structure. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal on May 8, 2001 (minutes attached). The Commission found the proposed cabana as well as all the proposed site improvements to be beautiful. The Commission noted that a 14'-6" height to the cabana would be acceptable to match the architecture of the Tibbit House. The Commission noted that the cabana would not be visible to the neighbors and should not be a concern. The Commission also noted that the property is largely screened from the road. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be within the required rear and side setback or increased in height. According to Section 15-55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made: nnnnnc File No. UP-01-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or v~~elfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and c. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable pro~zsions of the Zoning Ordinance. Evaluation ofFindings The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordina-ice and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The General Plan "Cultural Resources" Section of the Conservation Element identifies historic and archaeological resources as a valuable resource, a legacy that is entrusted to the community for proper development. The proposed cabana that maintains and promotes the historical context of the California Craftsman residence was conducted by the Heritage Preservation Commission as required by City Ordinance and the Commission found the structures to be symbiotic. The requested 14 foot height of the cabana would be keeping with the objectives of the Zoning Plan and General Plan of the City. The cabana would not be visible off the site, and is not proposed to be located within any required setback or yard area. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated o-- maintainedwill not be detrimental to thepublic health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. No changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the cabana being constructed to a 14 foot height.. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed cabana would comply with the setbacks and would not be within any required yard area. Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be approved at 14 feet in height. The 14 foot height is requested in order to match the roof pitch of the cabana with the main house, a California Craftsman. Design Review Although processed ministerially, the proposed cabana conforms to the City's Residential Design Guidelines in that the color and materials will match existing home and the existing California Craftsman architecture of the residence. • nnnnn~ File No. UP-01-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Trees/Landscaping The City Arborist Report date stamped May 10, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of trees on the property .All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. There are over 100 trees on the site and 15 would be at some level of risk due to construction. Tree #7, a 38-inch Coast Redwood in exceptional condition, would be exposed to risk during demolition of the pool equipment and cabana. Sheet A-1.0 of the plans identify tree protection in response to the City Arborist comments. A certified arborist shall be on site during acti~zty in this area. All work within the dripline of the tree shall be conducted by hand. Root pones shall be protected and the tree shall be irrigated during all work. Three Siberian Elm trees (Tree #'s 1, 2 and 3) would be lost due to root damage. The trees are in marginal condition and are very susceptible to elm leaf beetle. Because of this, the Arborist opines that their loss is not significant. A 25-inch Southern Magnolia (#6) could be lost due to root damage. The Arborist suggests a 48-inch native specimen as a replacement tree. Tree #'s 9, 10 and 11, an 11- 13- and 14-inch Giant Sequoias could be lost due to construction. Their conditions are only fair and are susceptible to fungal disease. The Arborist suggests that the trees be removed and replaced. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces ~~~ithin a garage. The project would retain the existing three car detached garage. Grading Nineteen cubic yards of cut and eight cubic yards of fill would be required. Maximum depth of cut would be two feet and maximum depth of fill would be one foot. The grading is required for general site work. Geotechnical Review The subject site is comprised of Sun soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable Ground". The slope of the site is an average of 6.7 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical review was not required. Fireplaces S Currently the site contains two wood burning and one gas burning fireplaces, and is legal non- conforming in this respect. The existing wood burning fireplace in the cabana, to be demolished, would be eliminated. A two-sided wood burning fireplace was constructed with the house File No. UP-01-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road v~~hen it was originally built. The fireplace was damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake and the Mair's replaced it with a gas burning log. The remaining fireplace located in the family room is wood burning would be demolished and re-built. The project as proposed and as a requirement of building permit approval would only be permitted one wood burning fireplace. Correspondence There has been no correspondence from the owner or the noticed neighbors to date. Conclusion Staff has determined that the location of the proposed use, is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance «~th the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-006 . • • r~ ,t.,~.n~,~~ Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to construct a new 450 square foot cabana with a 14 foot height and remove the existing 1,03? square foot cabana and greenhouse; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14, Chapter 3 California Code of Regulations). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single famil}' home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the General Plan "Cultural Resources" Section of the Conservation Element identifies historic and archaeological resources as a valuable resource, a legacy that is entrusted to the community for proper development. Review of the proposed construction of a cabana that maintains and promotes the historical context of the California Craftsman residence was conducted by the Heritage Preservation Commission as required by City Ordinance. The Commission found the structures to be symbiotic. The requested 14 foot height of the cabana would be keeping with the objectives of the Zoning Plan and General Plan of the City. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity in that no changes in land use are proposed. The construction is required to conform to the Uniform Building Code. No health and safety impacts would occur as a result of the cabana being construct to 14 feet in height. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed cabana would comply with the setbacks and would not be within any required yard area. Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure may be approved at 14 feet in height. The 14 foot height is requested in order to match the roof pitch and architecture of the cabana with the main house, a California File No. UP-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Craftsman . ' The proposed cabana conforms to the Ciry's Residential Design Guidelines in that the color and materials will match existing home and the existing California Craftsman architecture of the residence. 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, grading plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Gretchen and James Mair for Use Permit 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. • ?. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance with the following changes: 3. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. a. Show the tree fencing on the site plan. b. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans:" 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 6. No ordinance size tree except tree #'s 1, 2, 3, 9,10,11,15 and a Blackwood accacia adjacent to the entry gate shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. • aOnn~ n File No. UP-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road CITY ARBORIST 7 Protective tree fencing shall be provided. The fencing shall installed prior to any site activities including construction, demolition and grading. 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. 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. 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. d. 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 $14,822 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. e. A certified arborist shall be on site during activity in the area of tree #'s 7,13 and 14 a 38-inch Coast Redwood, a 13 inch Douglas Fir and a 100 inch Eucalyptus. All work within the dripline of the trees shall be conducted by hand. Root zones shall be protected and the trees shall be irrigated during all work. No trenching shall occur within a 15 foot radius of the dripline of tree #'s 7,13 and 14. 8. Prior to Final Occupancy approval six 24-inch box native specimens and one 36- inch native specimen shall be planted. Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye and Coast Redwood are the natives may be planted. The selected trees shall be from this list of trees. 9. 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. 10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. PUBLIC WORKS 12 All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development r~nn~3~ ~ File No. UP-O1-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 13. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the Ciry in connection with the 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. 14. 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 Ciry per each day of the ~~iolation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval v~~dl expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry 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 10`h day of October , 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary ,Planning Commission • ODU0~2 File No. OF-01-006; 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property O~~•ner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions ~t~ithin the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • • Date 000013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00004 7 Attachment 2 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COI~/iMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, May 8, 9:00 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Grens, Hunter, King, Koepernik, Peck, Wyman Absent: Peepari Staff: Heather Bradley Guests: Gretchen Mair, Noel Cross, John Turchen, Gary Kohlsaat B. Approval of minutes from 4/ 10/O1 and 4/ 17/01 rtes were approved 6-0 C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday April 5, 2001 Oral Communications Mr. John Tui~chen of RRM Design Group, Fire Station architects, showed the Commission a revised color board for the station as they had requested at the last meeting. It included file samples for the base, decorative tiles for the tower and roof tiles as well as stucco colors. Commissioners Hunter and Grens expressed concerns with the metal railings that were shown on the color board. The previous color board that was shown had wood lattice railing Commissioners Hunter and Grens feel the previous example was more of a Mission style rather than a Spanish style. Commissioner Wyman moves approval of the color board. Approved 4-0-2 (Grens and Hunter abstain) Written Communications/FYI - Heritage Tree Ordinance article Invitation to Sunnyvale Heritage Orchard dedication Invitation to Campbell tea and walking tour Invitation to workshop Finding and Keeping Members CPF quarterly II. Old Business None III. New Business nnnn~ ~ A. 19221 Saratoga-I.os Gatos Road -The Tibbett House - UP-01-006. Request to demolish an exisrin~ cabana/green house attached to the main residence and construct a detached cabana and additions off the rear of the residence. Staff notes correspondence received from the architect on the site visit. Commissioner Wyman comments on the beauty of the house and property and says the additions will add to the beauty. The commissioners agree. Commissioner Peck says he was surprised to see how beautiful the property was as you can't see much from the road. Commissioner Koepernik feels it is necessary to allow the height exception to build the cabana to 14 t/z feet in order to match the original architectural detail of the house. Commissioner Peck further comments that the structure is not visible and shouldn't be a concern to the neighbors. Commissioner Wyman moves appcbval. Approved 6-0. B. 18888 Hayfield Ct. -The Hayfield House -Progress update on restoration of the main residence and request for renovation approval for Guest House. Gary Kohlsaat, project architect passes photos of the house before the remodeling work began. Commissioner Peck asks if the owners have been in touch with the previous owners. Mr. Kohlsaat says yes to some extent. They would like to invite some of them back when the work is finished. Commissioner Peck says he didn't realize the condition the house was in until they saw the state of the guesthouse. Commissioner Wyman says she appreciates the level of detail and care that has gone into this renovation. Commissioner Koepernik says that the Commission should have been informed prior to the start of work, but he also appreciates the care that is going into the renovation. He would like the Commission to visit the property one more time before it is finished and would like to see the progress of the guesthouse renovation when the stucco is removed. Nir. Kohlsaat suggests this can be done together sometime in the next few months. Mr. Kohlsaat states that they have been careful save all of the materials so they can compare them to the new materials they are using. The Commission al states that they are very impressed with the amount of landscaping and the quality and size of the trees that will be going in. Commissioner Koepernik moves to approve the guesthouse renovation. Approved 6-0. C. 18870 Hayfield Ct. - DR-01-OI 7. Request for design Review approval to construct a new single family home for use as a caretaker's residence for the Hayfield House. The Commissioners are happy with the design of the caretaker's residence and are happy to see the style and details so closely match the main residence. Mr. Kohlsaat states that he is using the same roof pitch as the main house and will have to lower the structure into the lat in order to avoid the height limit. He feels it is necessary to match the main house. Other details will also match including the front porch and windows. The thinks this will be a welcome change from the other new homes in this subdivision. Commissioner King moves approval. Approved 6-0. D. Heritage Orchard Restoration Project -This item will be discussed at a Special Meeting on Tuesday May 15th with Linda Gates and John Cherbone IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Discussion of Mission Statement Ideas. The Commission discusses the Mission Statements proposed by Commissioner Hunter and King. Commissioner Wyman agrees to take a closer look at the ideas and rewrite them. Staff is directed to put some type of brochure together. Commissioner Hunter asks staff to make nametags for the Commissioners to wear to the reception for Tom Sullivan and possibly for meetings as well. nnn~~~ BARRIE D. C...ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIlVIENDATIONS AT THE MAIItPROPERTY 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA Prepazed at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Sazatoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist Apri126, 2001 Job # 04-01-091 Plan Received: Apri19, 2001 Plan Due: May 10, 2001 ~'~ ~ ' L ~ r. N.ar 3 ~~ 200 crr;~~~~~~~•~~.~,,. ,,7 nnnn•~ ~_ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERV~,..JN RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE MAIR PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD. SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to remodel an existing home and to make landscape renovations at the Mau property located at 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, 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. Summary This proposal exposes fifteen trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #7 is an exceptional coast redwood that would be severely damaged by the proposed landscape construction. Plan revisions are suggested in order to prevent that damage. This property is crowded with trees and it will be difficult to find space to replace any trees which are removed. Reasonable replacements are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 40% of the value of tree #7 combined with a bond equal to 20% of the values of all of the other retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are approximately one-hundred trees on this site, but it appears that only fifteen trees 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, which indicates its assigned number. The fifteen trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 3, 15 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Trees #4, 5 Deodar cedar (Cedars deodara) Tree #6 southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Tree #7 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #8 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Trees #9, 10, 11 giant sequoia (Sequoiadendr~vn grgantea) Tree # 12 trident maple (Ater buergeranum) Tree # 13 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzresir) Tree #14 Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptusglobulus) 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. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST APRIL 26, 2001 nnnn-~ Q TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVr~,.ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT ~ THE MAIR PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combinations of health and structure ratings for the fifteen trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S ecimens S imens ' 7 4, S, 13 6, 8, 14 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 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 standazds 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 aze intended to prevent significant decline. Impacts of Construction The proposed patch repairs of the existing driveway does not appeaz to be significantly damaging to the adjacent existing trees. The plan proposes to remove the existing driveway adjacent to the Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees # 1, 2, and 3 and to replace this area of driveway with brick and concrete sections of the driveway. Trees # 1 and 2 would likely suffer severe root damage as a result of the excavation that would be required to complete this construction. If buttressed roots aze severed, these trees would be rendered unstable. Tree #3 would likely suffer only moderate root damage. These three trees would probably not die from the root loss, but would certainly decline. The fact that their condition is already marginal begs the question whether or not these trees should be retained as a result of this construction. In my opinion, the loss of these trees would not be important. The species is notorious for branch breakage, elm leaf beetle damage and damage to pavement by roots. Tree #4 is a 17-inch DBH (trunk diameter at breast height) Deodaz cedar (Cedrvs deodara) located approximately 11 feet from the same driveway construction. It PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 26, 2001 nnnn~ 4 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA..JN RECOMMENDATIONS AT ~ THE MAIR PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA appears that specimen would suffer minor root loss as a result of the proposed driveway renovation. This species is, however, very susceptible to root damage. The plan proposes to construct a new brick pathway completely azound the southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) tree #6. This specimen is in only fair condition, partially because it has been overthinned, partially because its root collar is covered, which is a condition that encourages disease, and partially because it appears to be overwatered. Outside the circulaz planter bed, in which this tree exists, there is a 10-foot circulaz azea containing English ivy (Hedera helix). The removal of the English ivy and the removal of the existing brick edging for the lawn will destroy a lazge percentage of the absorbing root system of tree #6. The excavation to construct the brick walkway would likely remove aay retaining absorbing roots left after demolition. By all of these features described, it is very unlikely that tree #6 would survive this construction. I suggest that this tree be considered a loss. Construction of the circulaz brick pathway would remove approximately 35 percent of the absorbing root system of tree #5. This is considered severe. Tree #5 would in all probability decline, perhaps severely. The plan proposes to remove the existing cabana, the existing pool equipment area, and at least a portion of the existing brick pathway adjacent to tree #7, a 38 inch diameter coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Demolition of these features and construction of all of the new features (too many to name) would result in significant root damage to tree #7. If constructed as proposed, even with the best of circumstances, I would expect tree #7 to decline, possibly significantly. In this event, tree #7 may not die from all of the proposed construction features, but it may become unstable. However, the risk to tree #7 cannot be fully assessed without detailed drawings that would show existing and proposed plumbing of the pool, trenching for irrigation or for landscape lighting, and trenching for utilities of the proposed cabana, proposed pool equipment, and of the proposed fire pit (if any). Tree #8, a 25 inch diameter Monterey pine (Pines radiata), would suffer at least moderate root damage, possibly greater, as a result of proposed changes in the location of the lawn, which involves removing several existing shrubs and a significant portion of existing English ivy. Root damage to tree #8 would be increased to a more significant level if new lawn will be edged in a similar way to the `existing brick lawn edging. Root damage to monterey pines usually results in severe infestation by bazk beetles and subsequent death. Trees #9, 10, and 11 all giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron gigantea) would suffer significant if not severe root damage as a result of construction of the proposed one- story cabana and the new pool equipment enclosure. These three trees aze only in fair condition at this time, and they aze fully expected to decline as a result of root damage from proposed construction. However, this species has a predictable susceptibility to a fungal disease Botryospheria dotbidea, which over time will slowly kill this tree. Currently these trees exhibit no symptoms of the disease, but PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIdG ARBORIS7' APRIL 26.2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA „ON RECOivII~1ENDATIONS AT [} THE MAIR PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD. SARATOGA considering the fact that their present health is only fair, they will no doubt have this disease soon. There is no effective treatment. For these reasons, I suggest that these trees be removed and replaced. Tree # leis a multi-stem maple, which has a severe root collar infection as a result of sprinkler Imgation. This condition will continue to advance as long the irrigation system continues as it exists. In addition to this, this tree has a poor branching structure as a result of competing leaders attached at acute angles just above the root collar. This combination of disease and poor structure is responsible for its low overall rating. I suggest that the owner be given the option of retaining or removing this tree. Because of its poor condition and because of its low value, no recommendations for protection during construction are suggested. New concrete curbs aze proposed adjacent to trees #13 and 14. If the curbs are to be constructed by typical methods requiring a 10- to 15 inch cut into the existing soil, the root systems of both trees would be severely compromised. Both trees would likely be rendered unstable. However, if the new curbing were to be installed completely on top of the existing soil grade, the root damage to both trees would be minimal. Tree # 15 a 27-inch diameter Siberian elm is included because it has a lazge cavity on the west side facing the existing driveway at about 7 feet above grade. The fungus decay inside this cavity is active and is fully expected to continue to advance. Although this tree does not appear to be an immediate hazard at this time, I fully expect that this cavity will diminish the structural integrity of this tree within a few years and render it hazardous. To answer the question of when this tree would reach a point of hazard would require that frequent monitoring, perhaps annually, be done by a qualified arborist. This has nothing to do with proposed construction and is not intended to become a requirement should this project be approved. If the owner wishes to remove this tree, they should be allowed to do so. There is a large multi-stem Blackwood acacia (Acacia rrlelanoxylon), adjacent to the entry gate of this site. This tree has very poor structure as a result of poor connections of trunks to the base of this tree. This specimen appears to have been topped at about 6-inches above grade many years ago. All of the stems have a fairly high risk of splitting out and falling, but those that have the sharpest angle from vertical and have considerable endweight no doubt offer the highest risk. I rnnsider this specimen hazazdous and suggest its removal However since this tree would not be significantly affected by proposed construction and therefore outside of the view of this project, I suggest that this decision be left to the owner. All of the retained trees would likely be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that aze common to construction sites: • 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. PREPARED BY: NIICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 26, 2001 n~~o~1 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVw,~ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT S ' THE MAIR PROPERTY. 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as S 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. The proposed one story additions to the existing residence do not appear to pose a significant risk to the existing trees, with the exception of tree #12, which is in marginal condition. 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. If the brick driveway is constructed as proposed, and if trees attached by root buttress must be severed of adjacent trees # 1, and 2, I suggest that they be removed. 2. If the circular brick pathway is constructed as proposed, I suggest that tree #6 be removed and replaced. 3. I suggest that the cabana and the pool equipment enclosure be relocated in order to prevent significant, if not severe, root damage to tree #7. Should the cabana and the pool equipment enclosure be retained at their present location, but perhaps remodeled, tree #7 would likely survive in good condition provided the adjacent pathways be constructed completely on top of the existing grade. 4. No trenching or excavation must occur within a 15-foot radius of the trunk of tree #7. 5. The proposed concrete curbs within a 15-foot radius of the trunks of trees # 13 and 14 must be constructed~completely on the existing grade without excavation or a footing. 6. 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. 7. 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 determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 26.2001 - TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA, iON RECOMMENDATIONS AT 6 THE MA1R PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA S adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 8. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained tree #7 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. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 11. 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, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 12. 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. 13. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bazk, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bazk of a tree due to the risk of disease. 14. 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. Because this property has few open spaces to plant replacement trees, it will be difficult if not impossible to replace equivalent replacements of the values of existing trees. If tree #6 is replaced, I suggest that the replacement be 48 inch boxed specimen. Although this does not equate to the value of tree #6, which has an approximate value of $9,000, a 48-inch boxed specimen, which costs about $5,000 installed is likely the largest size that can be transported into this location. Vey Crest Tree Company or Trees of California should be asked whether they could instal172 inch or 96 inch boxed trees in that location with a 180-ton crane. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIS'T 'APRIL 26, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT ~ THE MAIR PROPERTY, 19221 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA I suggest a bond equal to 40% of the value of tree #7, combined with a bond equal to , 20% of the total value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Tree # 12 has a value of the equivalent to one 24 inch boxed specimen. Trees # 1 and 2 have a combined value equivalent to two 24 inch boxed specimens. Trees #9, 10 and 11 have a combined value equivalent to two 24 inch boxed specimens. These have a total value of $1,807, or one 36 inch box and one 24 inch boxed native trees. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Querrus agrifolia Valley oak - Querrus lobata Big leaf maple - Acermac~phyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervir~ens Respectfully sub i d, ~~ ichael L. Bench, Associate B e D. Coate, rmcipal MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 26, 2001 nn~ ~n~ r- ' BARRIE D. COr. T-E AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. 000025 Guidelines for Tree Protection 1. Closest location for a trench on one side. 2. Closest location for a tunnel at 3 feet below ground. 3. Atrophied top root. 4. Absorbing root tip. 5. 3-inch layer of organic material covering one-half canopy radius and equal distance beyond dripline. 6. Root protection zone margins. 7. Ideal location of tree protection fence. 8. Florescent flagging 9. Minimum location of tree protection fence. PreDar~d by: BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists ~~ ~._-- -~~~.. C BARRIE D. COATS and'ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, G 95030 The average tree: • has a horizontal root spread that is 2.5-3.0 times greater than the branch spread (a.k.a., the dripline) • Has most (>60%) of its root outside the dripline • has most (>95%) roots in the top meter of soil • has most fine, or smallest diameter roots in the top 0.15 m (6 inches) of soil (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Literature cited: 1. Gilman E.F. 1988 Tree root spread in relation to branch dripline and harvestable root ball. HoR Science 25:351-353 2 Gilman E.F. 1990 Tree root growth and development. 1. Form, depth, spread and periodicity. J. Environ. Hort. 8:215- 220 3. Perry, T.O. 1982. The ecology of tree roots and practical signiftcance thereof. J. Arboric. 8:197-21 1 4. Watson, G.W. and E.B. Himeliek. 1992b. Root distribution of nursery trees and its relationship to transplanting success. J. Arboric 8:225-228 5. American Society of Consulting Arborists. 1989. Protecting trees during construction: Answers to frequently asked questions for builders and property owners. Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Ipp. 6. Harris, R.W., 1992. Arboriculture: Care of Trees, Shrubs and Vines in the Landscape. Prentice Hall, Inc. Englwood Cliffs, New Jersey. 674 pp. Recommends 1 foot soil width for each 1 inches of trunk diameter 7. Morell, J.D. 1984. Parkway tree auguring spectfcations. J. Arboric. 10(5):129-132 Finds that trenching for water main installation resulted in mortality rates of 25-44% twelve years after trenching activity Information supplied by: Michael Gye, Consulting Arborist, British Columbia nnnn~~ BARRIE D. COH fE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 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 may be 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. D URINC 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 S-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 '/:') 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 maybe used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Corrtinue 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. • • • r.~~n~c~ .,, • Barrie D. Coate fr Associates (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 10RTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Radial Trenching The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Tre~lching Beneath Tree Canopies Root Protection Zone 1'/2 times the Dripline Diameter -~ ~. ~fa~h/' . I8 ~ he ~~h es d eeP Irrigation lateral lines may be installed (12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk as opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside Of the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. • •'. ~• _---•-3" ~ ~~ y// .. - _ - _ ..~s_ Shallow ~ -r!yy :~_ - _ ~~~ do ~~-~ absorbing t =~ _ Off. -~ root ti s 13 ~ ~"w ~~~1~~~ '1 t '~ ~~ i -- - es trunk d i a mete r ~,_ -_ --.~ ~ _ ~ /!ice-'.-.'• _ _ . ,; - ~ ~ ~~~-- --~--`: - j tro ~ - - % '~;~-` =-'- =~ : t 0 - ~' Lateral line 12-inches deep ;r~' " ~ . f , . .~_- ~ . •Okay ~;~' ; , ,; ; In Job Title: Moir Job Address: 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Job #04-01-09; Measurements Condition PruninplCablinq Needs Psat/Disease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES o ' " ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ` _ ~ ~ o ~ 353 1052 ~ W i ~~ I ~ v ~ Z FQ- 2 ~ ~c7 ,~ } w ~~ n i ~; ,~ i~~ O i o ~ W i W y~ F~ . f 1 I f I I LL i~ i~ ~~ C7 Z i K i o i (~ i 0 i~ I z~ 3 ~ w D i ' ~ v Q ~} I ~~ ~ I m ~U ~ I a I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ r- ~ I = ~ w O I ~ I Z w ~ a "' I ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ I Z t« GrIr l9GOD i ~ z ~ ~ ~ o ~ O ~ 3 I y ~ i 1 , ~ rw- ~ ~ i x ~ ~ ~ i U t , o z ~ z ~ z , i ~ ~ ~ ~" f v Z { I F ~ ~ ~ i 3 o i ' U i U ~ LL I ~ ~ i ~~ w x i -' I x l='~ l ~ i x ~= m r_ ~ I~ i o I O: Z I m ^~ 3 O , 1 3 1 3 I O' D ; 1 3 O; ~ z I O i~ l m I~ c~ I t w o w l w l I ~c ~ F I ~. z I~, O( 0 rn ; v~ i o o o w l w l t) ~ Key f? Plant Name m l l m m o~ o l o t o w` a x i rn x ~ -- 1 0 I w I v I x m v o: f o: I I o: j w Q m ~ y m ~ ? i m l 0 1 0 w w W U v U m i U l a I F- o f- o: I z z z l m a 1 Siberian Elm 30.0 ; 31 ~ I 35 ~ 35 3 4 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Ulmus mile , ~ ~ ~ I I, i ~ ~ ~ ~ I , I , I , . in 707 X 527/sq . in. = S 19,076 X sp. doss 10% = 51,908 X cond. 30% = S 572 X loc. 40% = S 229 Total Value 2 Siberian Elm 29.0 ~ 1 = 31 ~ 60 ~ 35 2 I 3 ~ 5 ~ ' i I I i ~ i I I I ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ t I I i ~ ~ { I i I . in 660 X 527/sq . in. = S 17,825 X sp. doss 10% = 51,782 X cond. 60% = S 1,069 X lac. 40% = S 428 Total Value 3 Siberian Elm 32.0 = 34 160 30 2 ~ 3 5 = ~ ~ ~ ~ f I ~ I ' , , I ~ I ~ , , 1 , i S , ' I = , . in 804 X 527/sq . in. = S 21,704 X sp. doss 10% = 52,170 X cond. 60% _ S 1,302 X loc. 40% = S 521 Tdal Value 4 Deodar Cedar 17.0 ~ 18 70 ~ 30 2 I 1 I 3 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ i ~ ~ E Cedrus deodare I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I , ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I i i . in 227 X 527/sq . in. = S 6,125 X sp. doss 70% = 54,288 X cond. 90% = S 3,859 X loc. 50% = S 1,929 Total Value 5 Deodar Cedar 26.0 ~ i ~ ~ 31 ~ 60 ~ 35 1 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ ~ i ~ t ~ 4 i I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ = i i ~ 1 . in 531 X 327/sq . in. = S 14,328 X sp. doss 70% = 510,029 X cond. 75% = S 7,522 X loc. 60% = S 4,513 Total Value 6 Southern M ndia 25.0 ; x ; 16.0 ; 13.0 ; 29 130 40 3 1 ~ 4 , I I I ~ 3 ' I ' M nobs ndilbre , , , ' ' in 659 X 527/sq . in. = S 17,793 X sp. doss 909'0 = 516,014 X cond. 75% _ S 12,010 X loc. 75% = S 9,008 Total Value 7 Coast Redwood 38.0; 40 60 40 1 1 2 uoia sem rvirens in 1134 X 527/sq . in. = S 30,606 X sp. doss 100% = 530,606 X cond. 100% = S 30,606 X loc. 80% = S 24,484 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box = 55, 52"box = 57,000 72"box = Sl~ ] =BEST, 5 = WnRS'T 2 O1 PaR~3 Job Titl~air Job Address: 19221 Sara~a-Los Gatos Road Job #04-0~' di~~im LV V1 Measurements Condition PruninplCablinq Needs PesUDisaae• Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES ~ o ~ Z ~ ~ o w w w ~ NOf11353t052 „' ~ z~ i 4a ~ I w o~ 1 „' p o 1 w 1 w _ F I353Sfwuiied ~ LL i w ~ w ~ t7 F ~ ~ z ~ ? o ~ ~ 0 ~ z a ~ ~ v rr ~ p t« G+t«, U 99030 } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ v ~ ~ ~ w Z ax ~ p O w g g Q W W a '~ w I o F- Z ~~ O~ o O O V ~ 3 1 LL 1~ J ~ i W ~ S i~ w f' ' U i p Q ~ I~ l~ i~ i ~' w i I Y ~~ i V I V 1 N i N i~ j Ke A Plant Name Y o ~ m ~ m ~ l i ~ a u~ ~ F ~ o d ~ ~ s ~ ~ ', ~ ~ w ~ a ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o w ~ w ~ w m ~ o t o t o x 1 v~ x l v~ I v x v I U I v l v~ S U a ~ o i~ l~ l o: z l z l rr rc 8 Monter Pine 25.0 ' ~ 128 ' 60 ~ 30 1 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ I ~ ! l I ~ Pinus radiate l I I ~ I I I l l l ~ I l I l . in 490.6 X S27/sq. in. = S 13,247 X sp . doss 30% = 53,974 X cond. 75% = S 2,981 X loc. 60% = S 1,788 Total Value 9 Giant uda 11.0 l i, I 12 l 40 i 15 l 3 4 ~ 7 1 I I I i i S 1 1 3 ; Se uoiedendron ' enteum i l I l I I 1 1 1 ' ' ' 1 . in 94.99 X 52715q. in. = S 2,565 X sp . doss 30% = 5769 X cond. 30% = 5 231 X loc, 35% = S 81 Total Value 10 Giant uda 13.0 ; 14 40 15 3 2 I 5 I ~ ~ ~ I l l ~ ~ l ~ l I I ~ ~ l I l l l I l I ; . in 132.7 X S27/sq. in. = S 3,582 X sp . Gass 30% = 51,075 X cond. 60% 5 645 X loc. 35% = S 226 Total Value 11 Giant uaa 14.0 I = ~ ~ 16 ~ 70 ~ 15 3 ~ 1 ~ 4 ~ _ ~ _ ~ i i I l I l l l l ~ , ~ I _ l l = . in 153.9 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp . doss 30% = 51,246 X cond. 75% = S 935 X loc. 35% = S 327 Total Value 12 Trident M le 11.0 ; x ~ 8.0 l 5.0 l 15 j 35 ~ 35 3 4 ~ 7 ~ j ~ l I 1 I ~ ~ ; Acerbue ranum I 9Z I ~ ~ I I ~ i I i l = l I l I i l in 130 X 327/sq. in. = S 3,510 X sp . doss 70% = 52,457 X cond. 30% = S 737 X loc. 70% _ S 516 Total Value 13 Dau las Fir 14.0 ; x ; 10.0 ; 16 50 30 1 3 4 l 1 l l Pseudotsu a menziesii _ I l l 12. ~ ~ I I I I , . in 194 X 527/5q. in. = S 5,238 X sp . Gass 50% = 52,619 X cond. 75% = S 1,964 X loc. 60% = S 1,179 Total Value 14 Tasmanian Blue Gum 100.0' 108 ~ 60 ~ 40 l 1 4 5 Eucal tus bbulus I in 7850 X S27/sq. in. = 5211,950 X sp. Gass 10% = 521,195 X cond. 60°~ = S 12,717 X loc. 60°k = S 7,630 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = 536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box = 55,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box = 515,000 ] =BEST, 5 = WORS"T Page 2 of .3 ~~UVUU '; , 'P w rn o o "r x x x n y Il a o ~ n z -~ N~~~ O O r ^7 x x n u n < h H fA '~ V -+ N P Q o O V Z'1 'U u m w -i m 3 ~ i Li ~ ~'t71 ~ T ~ ~'w~v ~ ~ ~~~~p T ~ ~ T "' v N ~ OBH N O MULT~SYSTEM _ ~xi- ------- -------------------------------------- DBH ; 4 N DBH ~ ------- -------------------------------------- 3 a ~ DIAMETER ~2 FEET w h "' 0 HEIGHT - cn c°n ------- A 0 --------------------------------- ---- SPREAD N HEALTH (t-5) N ------- A -------------------------------------- STRUCTURE (1-5) n O 7 Q ------- -------------------------------------- _a ~ rn CONDRION RATING (2-10) 0 ------- -------------------------------------- HAZARD RATING (3-8) u ~ CROWN CLEANING U _--_ -------------------------------------- CROWN THINNING ~ A ._-_»_ ______________________________________ C ~ ~ CROWN RESTORATION n ----- -----------------------------°------- n CROWN RAISING c x Q REMOVE END-WEIGHT Z ~ a _--_-_- ------- -------------------------------------- CABLES NEEDED * -------------------------------------- a° a ~ PRUNING PRIORffY (1-5) u INSECTS (1-5) N TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) c ------- ------------------°------------------ o oEAO wooD (t-s) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) W ~ x __ ---- -------------------------------------- o c Q ROOT COLLAR COVERED (t-5) m 3 ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) u NEEDS WATER (t-5) "' NEEDS FERTILIZER c ------- -------------------------------------- 3 ~ ~ RECOMMEND REMOVAL ~ n REMOVAL PRIORITY (1J) 0 C ro 3 ~;' Vr O a >?. a .y ~9 I~ N C!1 .t ty O ~+ r 0 Oa T O tv tl. O Cr O ~A N ~ O N ~ s~ i'3- • • ~J J r.mJr 4.er D. Caste ieee Seney Ad Meeerv~em Rser.y,eo~ 4 Auao•t<e I M 74 Mer Irogny. 192Zi (10!)s33~1031 s"~0n'v Cr Rm r 2353553•na~rt Rod PIVd6 _ lus frEw, U 15033 NDRT3CULTORAt C0N50tTANT ~ fa7 d3entge, Caal3alney ROp44p r' CONSULT3NG ARWRI3T D•4: '126 2001 I SCAI(: ~yQd C ~- TfOt v11nINetS toneapaltd ip melon cllvtls. A)~ 41131C01tl11f ~pA 1133E IaL'YIOYS . ~ °~ ~PeaRa~le. RARRR D fOATt AND ASSOCUTES Nertrtyltvy Ceesulyy /~) 333-IOSZ tee (1q) 333.111! 23535 Swwina Rd lq 6ae1 U 13033 Drip liege ofTlee CRelop) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Prv7eeeive Fee3e~q SITE PLAN NOTES PI3 __ I I ,..._... ...._ is ~, . ac...$I - ,o':`~.ec ~~ o ~ .. ... .. , , (y.;w Y F' 1 a t ab1~ A J. 3~~. Vr.'V3Y~Y u e ~ o T .. ,.o.. _ _ Yr ~- ~ ~, ;. 1 ~ leec.. °ur ~ ` . '°~ r ~ A ~ ~~ilwwrTwq ~ w 1 \ ..° ,'•,~i 33a''' • - _ ~ L E ~~ ; _ it • - ..' 7 e v ~~ +~ ' KCL ~E~ t :a,4' ~ I .. * `C y • \` v -_ 3111 ~A. r.. >' 7Ter pr..l r ~''b ~ _ ,~ , _ ~ , ~ULATIONS +~ _,x'} t 9;:;,'~;' ~, 4 - ~ ~' 4 ._y ~1 w~ - - •~ o ,~ o ~, ..:. -~ - .~ ~- ~ ~' ~-r- c o .' -- w ,!. ply .°„` O B. _ uwE I _ ~~ t ,~ oao .. E•-- ~ SJ, su ix _ S•. , -~ ~ _ iNSO0 -.~- ~ «s1a _... en !1 !~ !l erg ~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • nnn(~: ~4 ~'~ w ,. _ , {F{'. '~ [s~ ~: ~6~~~~~ g~ ~~~s~ gs~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~¢~ {e:$ ~~ ~nE 8 v __ ~ ~~..949 S°~ as ~ ~ taia~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ £ ~ ti D E ~~ R ~~ ~~~~a o ~ ~~ ~~ Q ~~ o o ~ gg ~c~ ~~g~$~ ~ ~ N~. &~.c~ ~~~ ~ r ~ Q ~_ 8 z ~~~`~ ~r s ~ ~ a ~ u~ c u~ .~ B ~ u d~ 5 ° ° ~ U gm~ ~ m ~ y m °3 c Q n a ~ ~. ~ y C O Q K 0 0 0 + b o ~t ~~ , daap~f ~~B ~ s o~~ l~-r ~~fi~~a& age €3~a ~~~g~ ~ p ~ a g °~o ~b ~= ~y~a ~ O O 3 Eo- o ~ n°~B~o t~ ~. :r fr8g~a~ 8~8e ~g~~~ a~68 ~ ~ t, -•4„~T U E~--a' '~.~u 0 o ~ N ~ r "8888r =886" 8 r~ o$ A~~ e S o&~~ A Asp ~ ;: r ~ kQ§O G s ~ ~` ~~ ~ S ~~~~ ~ ~ a ~~~~. ~ 8. s ~ ~@ ~ Q a F s ~~~ N .Yl~$ Y4~i aa$Ya_~$~3l..?Sa S~$deb~ E~FP~~n~ nlpt 5u' Z t ~ ~. ~ ~ e.~o. ?3. 8 ~g~~6 B~E~~~ E~S~o$$bu°$8~8~ $~e$~d f~e86b, s( • F ~~ a s 3 ~8~ ~~ ~g~~~E ~EF~'E ~oB~S a~~nn~ ~ e _~c~#~~€a~ " • " 8 8 8 8- 8 8 8~ 1 8$ 8 s rR a 9 R S t~ 8 3~ m °y .~ _ 5 } ~ ~ ~ ~~ x <<o a << s~< o x x ., m n V .. ti 0 N %i N ~~ ~~ ~~ t • • • TREE PROTECTION NOTES . . TEE PROTECTION NOTES P. lr Nresl y Ikea akEklnepYDm1 r amain Naafrt vaNdya:rnr ..eata++: Nk.r.n.rr rln erpb.a°Jwarr s p•rrwrr a r..wN. ~•a~+'~ ~`~~~. aarMa ~ mYa~ ~ rtY Yb VFENhaWa'( (•R/L1'I6 !(XPO~•f• RAN ~. tnragrpran kam y raak•gra. rtlr.rr `r+awaa o,e.arrae e~+i...rura ~ ~ ar F. r ~ aaaaa.m.a ~~~ ~•••ra~~r,"w a4~ ar'a"t TREE PROTE ~ pN NOTES uaaaiwrmew tk YaYxyra verrtama I dAtMtar..aa~~..ttrk wKard wr t ~.wratravree.arrY n0. trAa aarMraatkpMYYbwMa ae Yr amr.rFa+eaa+rtr+aan btaaswmrearlwt~raaa asy rar~xr~eN•Ira•aNra~ arM 1saaar~~ta .rcP. ~ ~au+WWwtm~or• rn Y • r a ~a :~irlwMmra. iulmrtl M•rMMnlaYC i s Gre. S ~~E~ 4 91i K~~r ~ 243Dr _t `r.D q dabrd F,~e w ~' 4aret aarl, ampasgpadaaWws aN W awro wine br••/b b as f r b plyd taht al rigsav I'IapaYb W dry Ye, ~dl tarore.laba br Nmr.aevilr r wmgch b4arrmf Os, 7 rw+~;M•a+r~.w~y. tv ~d' mt` "q I!'wx_ ~k a. p( r ae vr. ,E '~ N• 6 PCt( ~ \ PP~~\ fYL+r ~~~ e( ' ~ ~ 1 ~• 166 ` l _ ..~ ~ ~~~ Y iplOa ~ \ I C•n~~ ~~~ e• ate ~ a \;, e ~ ~ _ ~ I '~~ )° ~ ~~;~~ V `. I ~ s! ~# ~ \~r ~ i I Y ~~ , ~ , /~'(F,'~~i7rw~ew/~ , ~ ~' I; ~ ~' ~ ~ ,Ip Mdrp~r - - ~ rolM~~i Ib ~A 1 I . ~, ~, `9 ~ ~~ rc/n ~ ab 14cr '~ r , Hie ~ M ~~ e ~ I t TREE PROTECTION NOTES ~ ".~ LTU --~4~-- h4" a veamatr mmw«•W. trrltal nnN 't ~ ~II e: .. -~~ j . v LNaknraN rlmtwkNMWYwtlrewwyr ~ \ tl1 ~ {: Q' Ovatraw maaaa Yrtta wama Dryfn/.' n. d.ntm.n ~m41ei 1tr"Ori«we aiw` ~ tatwaat rKd .! 2e~~i a Ix t'Jp~ ,i tran rt+D..wa•en'.Nra4u.r.o^rF~Dt.,F~~/ i ~~~V~}t~atrr~~v~~e ~i"' ~LQ & DaaMW enaNU Faarrr~MyaarabaewrNb `~• '--Yr"r1rED~-'esr ~ \v\ aaaa lYlluLYw. ~.S' / ~ ~ ~~~~__~S tq W4m[•arYaw ru.wyy0awnmkmmMYlk l' rw`~imi: tr~or.ax nitmtyr"~a.~r°na°AMa awe~1b A wrw"www.. «awrxmmke w`I"ra 0~ ~.~ ~~• ~ ~ ~w ~ e~ •,~,,p, Jy~IO si MnFFM nemwraraM yWalsaa: - LJAUN .. naottkran rawamx, kaa(sas '` ~ ~ i[]~ ^ ~A~~y 4' ~ N'4:. , ~ I .. ~~ /m~' a,' ~ 1~'., ACTUAL GROSS LAT SIZE ni,4gq s/ ~, ~~ ~~ I d ' A=ACTUAL NET LOTSIZE _ ~ ~ ~~ nL945 af. ~ ~ y_ ~~. p a 1V~ ... hhp~~F 7r I = CONTOUR INTERVAL r PT. ` ` ~ e~ q~ ~ ~ ~5 O~y.1 L =AGGREGATE <oataa. kFyta (dxdr kngtA \ ~`' mete / I R ~I ~!~ CONTOUR 5de nao o.4p " 1~ / ~~ ~ ~ IN •~.~ LENGTHS IN ~ gd5.oo a.oo ~ ~~ / ~ *~ 6 - SULE FEET ser RS.oo aoo ~` ;~`' if Ifd' ~ 539 gtg.oo e00 f1a dM~oa am 54~ 33aW o.oo S1a Sgaea dpp f43 178go eee SN 31tAO om s+s dtem opo Hd dil.oo o.oo e47 pr00 0.00 S4B ti/.QO p,tq 519 a o0 total L = 3r745~o0 S=%AVEMGE f40PE _ (o.oaugHlxL7(too): 093% A t. •arab AabA s w.a.tr 4 Ada SITE PLAN NOTES ^ q~{~Cj ' 1. Derlapa6rreal 0. OOrpavap WD~•alparlaa taraatN c Mtard eaapgxaaarmmuan. pDrler ~ 6 ~ k1O0u t~'L pttmw Wn w •trrYab q~ ~ w wwrr a+dr at artapac p++epar ptwukvN rwrtoYe sn' er l x tt~~ "7"'r prataterwaq ll/nr trraway totarNwx e e maM M trFu.nn b. wtaaW~itttryebMrap prdal sAaM4ytanoetevrmo/d'd r f•na'9laeeert a. wttkp lseAgnYaraapemtwwa MaaM paid ad repwanmmremarx rra•Irlaaa•l Oae •,t,IFtN ytnx4 pDay e•mde hernwraaaegMa.pAurox W"~+R `mhemay re WmRa~maf aen aaMna.gapt Real raab,mwrrrpaesNeaahea 0al nquNr/bintw wwra snvWxpr~ela. rmwrmwMat adkMtpa tape s rY M M ra sl tasL Irby Mbk IDIL lrawa4 driwwarartantmetu'lsxrqu+M u k M. F a <aaeatt pYM4 aaeLL bneaara M.xMaadm l h watre nor otter, D//bd. r.e.a eapT rnatvtlbn tlkwM u rorneranfe mnM ay <mamabr, g71ta4 ua. e. e. 4eard safate pasraged}ewm Wars ggad roudt' e r raq, aan sa+a.r [D Oxamae I~rrMwgkyaAu+aa~ebMrenr MYy MtaM}taMwvW D wW' w}IrMMN1 inn. aDwMKaar hdn sea awamm(inn. _~ taarmsiD raax ~(eonM taahl/ar w Grr r D t~ wn wm~+na Wtmartx) PDVrlrpoV;we 4antte u*Yakt a ngoNra. tyfw...no. knmoDdr vmtaud ka kb4 ,r4 N~ban. wd,,. i~ m~ R "a wt r/eiq DY NpN p.(wN 6. Danfi laenyttwabin' M[atrd. oalwxe WnawrmrM ukage I _0 d,}QI _ ` ~ NeheM AN a rq aUn Won aanf'(E)(.e.'wnman rr'uw.IY/ab.un.o f ~.~ ~ 'T" X44 (Akn. no (,e.id1 .di1.n abwnxpadgtro 9atnea tattrr e. E.rrp kpta fyaan a. elfly ttMa Wa. tb j~6° ~ ~~ ~. ~ 1 aawqu~oamWar ~Da.nane ta'am naantbnann rwurv aiaNy apt taamranam. ~, ® - tear .duE .~reDr.ed. eov.. kttNaatY1jginwN m0`n t+eww awatbn ~t ~. ,epM IrGrap Mb: 1 h Dn sh gndrekvtt sM.m on Dba M 1•ay aW W IY ininp seek bM Pebs arcm nmab, ~. I~~ '~P•, I 'Jra .er~p enfnaq extras arch ~n YeN wnF.n E^gua«r wxD•. Mann tMwnm pw~ ' Drwr roDwrnq M x » Dno. q. errwy Wt~Fdl p•DaN Vr.de mwctaprewae ravyr IneoloalolcompstwdF.ioygakpnyfo. ). uMapr/Ingxm protMnstmgl ^d+YiM xd'.q two dpet faxbm MDa wlt sport lproraenMero dydlYaeeb/TIO1abp0a0wy0pp.OldOe~ wsnmteur cW •,1 tD re4 amnd meawnse as mpa [ar er •.. ~ nrr I 1.. b ngr t wn brtetd pli. wge ~ 'uy aq nmmtttnab ~•^rame /~r~vat.crotmn carteroa 1 pn atnert w•t rpr I ~<~. ra. Dusan f ~~ n imaarevM.r .lend iD• aeptn lro ndmunv trawl ar+eb~DC adpyMwm.vEnedrrtlbrNiit ~•,y Dly ~ ttp tvecv[ddld. olCYdM WwCrrwaxN -~- ~~ rrhs MreMat on o/ II gttn Y RDMtte Fr Iml a I d'n Pal.fd 1 1 tD FW Dmmtfd~lewn aw4<Mbwrr wDr IN paaWe ~WmYt wsreo wtlnU wdnen llep Yri~e llpl' 'I I Dro[M enttnq vas drown rr 9 I N•9e dIP'tlff veDab.'Pa,b9ln I ~• YgJn serUMUapepMM damapeeurxigc uclwn OrowaecNw alNMµrua). twmes~tnm brttbn M~ N06 F. G'105'MCrfiER AleI 0 S L Taw tta Matlwt. InY ampwry awatw!fencuy n~M<rp '• fwDDd~ DM I~b '+~ ~' ue r pwnttan dxa.~ Ise dunnq conavriwn pr tne(ry Mpana rlu'Wnrm xtnow^ reM+te unlerground - ~ I Y~we Mlrc[Y^'4~w,df nDwt spoke a't~ol Lrttogr cmlttans DDOI nDInq tM ut Ntmasrryu nd. Maal. rl p :.~I FN7 rses SfaGf' faDDrou+l. r to renartkebcne ~~ t ' from( oltfaDaovedMnmeval DY Dant ~ 1 ~~wall newbn<41~palo n~walh MDaaet weM) ' ~ d n D9+) ~ ~ r'a' pawl and fxd m «h one to n Vgpttb4 -" ~ s~ aY lyd b YD I, uno Dr <4 curtan rounded typual. bawl of wt Dd o/ thkk V -(, F ghnret up lrw4 xetuaam naes4ls w/ G mB hwaY I P t an tl s chamlerd toner Dra4 D/i min <anpMdW od drayage r __.. _. ~ ,.I vin Craw tD ahaawq nae~aboaM w.rrryy)rI _ R'rPr ( InY lentaxtennn9aun wwo+~en fnown~tAan typaal Dew Draka4pwl~hn Ime werv<at ~ rr Q \,~ Y rrma al sn.D. <Nf)aM ro"Nil wall(omrW dta oven / 'J o`" 1 wrl~ dx F v ne. Em~taam gxa. I~V~~ Iabe 1 ". ell rMwor rend arbor m~gate a ng wpaal. - { \ l - •( ~ wnM NOwn al cu<uNrumewrY detans ,t. Sabttl Vax[ttwn VM roMwlaensM Wrapr 1 ~ ID. monbrD nD° prwmrwu<tv kacf. uDd aaaa)vr ryam aau wt ' t Y t / e. UOhVn a. eMeraN. mspett on of D N nq tamr Matbns and Dravlle I /~ ~rcd DV [rtva d<nrx uncle buNttbn. wrnm cMrkatwn atta Du Nag eaMr45 ~ , ~ (( ~ p~ov ~roundNMraalfad n ,_W rM•a,` I s,togae DG&E. t na to new SO amp menpanl fwubna enpa the approM Dlant rYDaal. ~~~'~~u~~~~*c l\\ 1` nrpuredro wpiDpDW pmjal ,g. NH rrelYad av rNwaod lnllttM apM DlNn arvaun E 1.,~ ~LIp Wn4!4a1~. ~ Y' ~ ~r 1 P~ equy tiMOU t~i,~owrcamp main pmel for pool gp eeQa Nea wn wear reexood roWmn,(ro mobs eaabaneeMxwm taDmn,ttmnn noDU)wMmenown at { ~ / . .I ~ ~ \ lGn eR ddraaa water br moo nb n mmxs [rycW, a n.D rgrw kr mar to remaa provke new .\ ~ : ~ ~e , I'll unreeq rb wntr manroneruDtnee y ~oagra I Inx, Dra h i e' ~ 1 pml egmpmmtendoronnrequ redo ar'IK 101 ~w?ro war rwg4 ~DOw~rv r~ 'q I P wrvr aaDDSee qro a,. sat T,~mae nb a Wbrnq butwn4q adnttms. '~-~-;•. •~I ~ .a, d Wbuee wr ny, tra Mttwnt at .n MSrD tW1 ~~ i o~algep'iqu,atmwpt ~neK+~o~ IC' e 1 4 IcWlt" ~~ ~.- ,~D I ~(~ ~ IL y Il ~ ~ I Ik / JJ~. ? ~ . ~~ ~~ r\ ~ ..,w A ~.1 , ~~ ~7~~ lFee prolertion i. oo.a dllwgs.nrrabr gay<Ntw ' ' n 0.14.•7r15N "p ~ *. v, 7Er Trcn arakr ett! ukpmaled raaatrmwn amyeN paam nr prJl ^d rlnataFle IiA dry r ~ db.raaa tanrdrk rWb.bg ~ 4e4Mnp lMw qudsl \ ~ - • ~ I Inadlkaala aM timbre rr llrggin6 (1 nahaeabmlrm ua vk WSm e r L ,~ \ ~,. ~ aor rrtxso k4gra rf lAe ow«ana krxkt. (bl •nDCAMYbmDbareaD l'Iwa ik v aamraawrssmeaaaarr•«nM ,d~ ~ it ~(~f'I] ;' ,__ !;]~,ItrorGDerrt, rc GpRKW,T ~y~yr ~ >• 'JL~~~gy~y. f.'YO ~ n3r O, Sjb I sy~l Y Y^ -~ ~1 Lb ~~ ~ 'io` x ~ P ~_ d e4 12 ~FI~WNOO fi~ ~I ~ B1 pRnt'Wdy (/ ,+n`.o }a~a ~~F~9,1 _~•.f.+~~~' 4.. .,' a'i.w` 3®.~I claw Io .~•' ~~ I~ ~ Y a"a.. \ ~~d// /r o .Y ~.,, a'Y, a"° ' ~ ~: , rpPr9 ~ ~ V u,' ~ .. ' ris . '4r too ;r ~~ ~ ~ ~ M '~\ dTT- - iJ~ '~ ~ I I mtd ~ ~ I "q 0 0 ~`. /CN !LN Takw,m Ilur inn ,. '. ~ ~ _ ~ ,.iw pP[>c rX POrNaEVr _._-(r------~1r` __-rv~-- ~h--.. ~-h _.._._ L '~" 541 yc- srwn' ~~.~ - ~ ~P~ ~ CALIFGt~a:k ~rti?E Ni~JAY a\ f E /1aN fµDe- bRw ur>` IYSr1~ ~ YIiC Ropedr Jvn Mdr Owa~s Grektrn Mdr PIOiBCt '9TZI SafOtoQO Addren Lot Gotoe Road sarotopa. CA 95070 Phone -(409}0567985 Pacel PPN:09]-04035 Sle Fvea 259/Acres ~ 112995sgmre feet) ?orrnp R~I.44000 Selde l FonYly Reddentbl I Ciryotsorato0a Setbacks Front: 30'ff Side: 20'ff Rear EUff Carehudion iyoe V~N ' Ocapancy RJ PROJ C DA I Praecl No. W.IJ dawn 9V NFCfDSKfdMS Checked BY PfC ' Dole ~, ~g~4~ Ravhiorn.- ~~yl 13 AtlGUfiT2P71_ 'S--1lff, FFlfliTrtWr>~ ~.. 1. etararsbriYrr/bkbeha q tvmatw. aankn. a rk Tel euwark 1rW a mb Mera /aiataaelwpd blb. roela a win rrp 1 pose pnk d m N+I. S /u.tNte~~,p({or~ 70[E aifPll.EO MIUA~N11i Lrr1111(R 9J laN 1e9FeL EseYw dDab(dneD R ey0el0rvrs tftiVO®r0 Mvlf. Sheet No. A-1~) aumNb erawv 6g4~~~ oo - -~ - - 0 4q4 - - ~a~ ~~~ - ~ o~~ ~ ~~8 q~a~ o; ~ s j U ~~ ~p~ ~ ~ ~~ qua m ~ F ; F ~s ~ g ; te a .~ ~ t ~~a~~ d d~ a s £i ~ L O _~~ _ _- ~ ~; .. ~ '~~. ,~ ~\ `~ - ~^~ ~F \ -. _._- - --'~ ~~~ ~a ~ , ~ ~. n r - ~. \~ ~ ~ ~~ J ,~ I~ ~- ~ ~ ~ --- ~~~~ ~--; ~, ii~ i i r~~l~ ~ . ...---~ ;; TJ I ~ i i ~ _ ~ ___ _ ~ _ ., - ~~ 1 r, 1 ~ /~ ~ ' I -_-_-- K~JI_ _ K /~ _. N~ ~ ~ i i ~~ i - .~ \ i - i r - I + ..yy`f ~ - .~. ~~ f i ~ I 1 . ~ ,_ F.~- I ~ __ I ~_ __ 1.. _ L----.11..._..~i-----~- - - ' _ _ - - __ _ .- __. _...r ___ ' 1 ' . i_ I ~~ i t I i i I', ~. '' i ' ~'I ~ I 1 •, ' ,~, ~~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ i ,I ~ i ~ ~ i ~i ~- - I ~ T~ ~ I;~ ~ III ~ i ~~ - ~ --~ - ~~y_ $. - - x I~ I ) J ~ ~ ~ -- - ---- l I~ _ .~ - - ~ i I I _.1 ! ICI - - % ' --~ ----- i- _ ;~ - - __. - ~. ~ I i i i 1 - - _ - - - -~ - ~ o ICI ~ i i .~,-- I~~ ~-_ _ _ - ;~ - ~ - -- --------- ~-.----_ ._- --_- _ ~_ ~, z~_~_~ F,_ ~_:•---~~- F _ t= ~ ;~;. ; - ~i ,~ __ ~ ~'' I ; i , - _- ~ - M ~., _ ~~~ - a}=~~I _-: -.: - 4 E ~ '~ ~~ Z ~~~ ~ _m ~~~ ~ o Z ~, m 3° m d ~ ~ o ~ ~ I ~~. I ~\\ ~\ .-- ~ \\ ..,\ ~ \ ~\ ~~ . ~~ ~~ , , _ ~ Z r • -- 1- r ~ ~ ~~~~~ `, ~ ~-~ ~~~ -- __~~~ _ -~ ~ ~~ ,I ~ ~`M I ~, ~ • ~ ~! ~ '~ , ~~ !~ ; ' ~~ ~~ ~ -~ . ~`~ -. ~o ld~ - F ~~_ ,~{ ~~ iii ~~~ . -- - r~ . - - -- _ --- - --------- -_ -_ _ ~~ _ a _ .d L~ • • -~ Vii, I 11_, ~; -: 66~~~~ !R i y ~~ss~ g6g~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ati~~y~~~ yyyiiaa =pq ~bS~BY. 00 •~ ~~O ~}R~R 2 Y' 00 O ~iV~ ~~~ ~ O Z y ~iV •~St3~ ~ Q N-- KSU St97~C g ~ 8 ~ Z gl~ ~a ~~B 0 ~~$ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~m~ a° 3'i r°J .n U O ~~ U O c ,ti i. fi~~i . , ;; ,' ~ Via; -''- =1 ~: i! ! ~f _. s. • ,; I ~ !~ ~ - t-r :. ~i f I;~I~ ~~~~~~ ~• ~~ '~~ `~'~, ~ , !~, ;~ ~~ /~ rr ~" ti Z v H 1 ~ i ~ .:'' ~ ~ .~ ~,, "~~,- ,'`; , . !~`~~ y-j ~w - -- ----~•~JVLLO~tGV ------- ------ RVYI y0-~LZ .. . ~.. ~ ~~ e.av..wma~op~weoraawearKta.e ~~aew~+re Wnem.pa uerap:aeae me aeoeer u b racnea. oM ww oroad as oehNae dNlfau»aatlM[amxlhnMn ebaenc agrt+. aafgl ra a uMa. e`teM a n om. tr o,r woo^ vreiU mn.w. oa o~M`+aa wnnu w+ebnp~Ape Naa i. doss ~eun[tr ui e i RapeM 1mMdr Onnars Grekhen A7d Pralect I9?Y1Saratopa ' Ad6ea los Gatar Road Saafopa CA 99J7p ....... .. .. Phone -(/OB)•356N~i Pacel PPN:997d~5 SAe Prey 2590Aaes 1129~swaefeet aEeUiw(p1DFlq' n 11Elta'.kri1G115, /~ ~ ZorJnp RForri A11a1 ~~~NWNC, ~tWE ~L !1 CNyof9aatopo '.. ... _ LJTomr /`1 -_..--~(A~~TYI~ 11A".I.-0. ~~~~~~ SeMacks fnart 3P-0' I ' 1 LPOYw ~ ^~) Raf-1~ - - - ~ Rea: 50'-0' u~ ~~~~+ /~ Coahuctlon 1ypeV-N .._ ,r ~~.. _. __. r _ - - ! c R7 _ _~ ~ ~. r - -j~kR4 -~--'° ~9d9jr I 1 ', 0 cupanry _ Y ^° 11 ~, JEC _. - ~__. -. - ~- - - - __ . ~•... •_~ Drown NFCIDSK/JNtS _ __._. _ ._. __ - - _.__ Checks y NFC oB -- --..._.__.. __:____ _---- - Jk. ..- ~_ _~ _- ~ l --_--_ ~ 21MLnC112W1 ~.! ~ - -; .._. _---- _ .__.-_ ..., Date U~ `IdMtid. . r---~ ~-----~ ~.~~ I t r P Revsiam ! o ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~'. -r r~i { ~ « ,~ ~ ~ I iji y I r 1 ~ ~ _ ~ I~ i !1 I ~ _If I4 ~ ~ I ;i I ~y „~ ~-ii~MM ~ !~! Il I'~i ~ r 1 Jl i ~~: t!I I~ + L i ~' _ ~ M ~~ I ~ obi ~~ -_...._.-. _ ~ ~. r .3 f. -' ._-' _-__._ '~_ .. ~ i 1 - __ y :_. _. Sheet No ~ j {-~-~~ ~-~1-j ~ yp9~ . 191q~~~. [l~'RM61cCLY~W - ~ FNart: 3, >!~ l~:l sg~tg~ 9 ! gr~o 44q ~a 85 ~ H'g ~ ~~ ~~" Q ~~g~~ ~aa~~~~ ~ $~$ ~ ~ a ~ 8 i! ~ ~~ a ~a ~ a s ~ H ~ ~'~le~~ ~ r___ tI~ r !. ~ f, if ~I -- ~-- i ~ ~ ~1 ~~ `. ~§ ~ ~~ o ..r 8 z 't ~ ~ ~ 8 e Z ~mm L b ` L 5 U D s 0 { ~- ~ al ~~ -- ~, -. _ , F ,ak ;, ' ~ ~~ ~; ~~ ~' ~ -~E- t -~~~ I I ~ ~, ~ I ', i ~, l i I ~`~ ( ~ -___- . ; .~ ~ .1 ~' i ~ x~ ,- 1I ~~ --~ ~~ ~!'_ ;' - y \~ ~f ._-_ I ~_ - _ _~ -_ ~~/i i ~. 3s .., ii I~ ~ ~ -- • • ~ . • E A Iria<Q Y' - "! 7 ' j ` _ -_. . A~CHIIECT n~tov..tr.m. a~aa«utdweaa~mawdaondae rot aa.M atvrara+.ard.w ad,eoa aweo.d riyMUOt atiognratydMMn HpU4 pgla. atlM na a ae4n•.ICY a F pai, 4 vy aiwrt ra wrcn err w. ed apssry rnnaea.mai Yaws pen+ebi tan NOa s. ~ ~d:r r,si o IYIhVK KG~I UOYI.~C property Jim Mdr Omen Gretchen Mdr Roject 19IIlSaratoga Addres R oatl S ~ a ^ ~C aol op 95Nq phone (AD3}~F79B5 Patel PFN:947-09g35 ' SfeNea 25RdAves ' 112995sWae lest Zorirp R~IJg00q Shde Famil RasklenBal CNyolSaafoga Setbacks hmb 30'-0' Side: 20'-0' Rea: 50'-0' Corchutiian Type V~N Occupancy R,1 Project No. BBIJ aaen ey NpcroslcrJMs Checked By NFC Dole Revkians Sheet Na. 1~-fi~i NpRTH ELEYA _ . _ n -ee44~x.r~ exi5n~s 114" • 1'A" gg~~ s ~ ~~$~~~~ 8a`s~ i~g~~~~~ ~~~g~~ ~a°~~~~~ ~~~~~~ \ . : i ~ ~ ,. K ~ x F+ ' ~I P ~. ° ~3 ii ~ ~~~__ _ •1 ~.I ~il • I i'' ~i ~ I it !',i~ ~ ~ II l~~~ ., - ~ 8~ ~ ~. .744 ~ g ~R~ ~'~ '~V ~~SA~ S V NN ~~EV d~C ~ C Q H~ Z Q ~ ~~ g u ' n ~ ~ m $ p z° d S a ~, iv3 ..m, c O S 8 U o eme „O-,~il F „l-i6 ~ ~ t? b L ~ ,i ~. ~, ~, -~ F ~r--- -,~~ ,~ ~ __ . - --- ~, .~i~ i' -b r. 6 t - - - _ ~-81 _- - -.--a~ _~ ~, -- s_ r--- - --- ---- ---------i --; t ,i j I ~ , ., ~ t, ~ ~' _ ~ ~' --- ` -- - __ : -. 4 • b$gas~~~ L~ ~ a ~~~{{{ --~ mc~o ?~t7 ~ OC(~ 83 TS ~S:.D -STR63 . b a ~~ ~~ E ~C z a~ wag ~ ~ ~a ~c~ ~~ C9- b $ o Q gg~gp~~7 ~~ .~o~~ ~ ~ ~=` ~~~ ~~~ ~ o $~p~ ~~ ~ ¢~ L~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roc um m m ~' o c ~ n U W p il pp $ sv S m ~ p ~ d~ dQ a s us ~ H (g O '7 ~s ~~ -. ~~ ~~ -~ ~~I j` , i4' 1,~ O~LL iS{i a ~. 0 E 4 ~ I~ ;b OL _. ~ £~ ° N :Ot O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ,ofd ® ~ N I O ,~ I ~ ~ ,; O o~ ,:. 4e .&~ I r---------YQt~~ ~ L ~, ., I ~ , ~-- ~ 1~ , ~~ , ,~ ; ~I~ ,,. ~' . ~ ,~ '- ~. F Rr ~~ - , .~~i C ~ L_ _•n _ _ -z~ ~nW~vx-_ [ta:.o. Nr 0 ~ ~ j t ~_ ~_ ,41 _~~ c ..~ a ~- - ~ -' _r ~* ®~~ ffi ~ - C~ <~ :Zz qq 6 E ~'~ ~~~~Si~~i!1['~ %~Y>~C~d1y~8t3~4E¢:t¢dd¢Aa~RsyB~ E ~ ~S ~3tjf$~9g~.e~;a~gasgeaga~s~aa=a~8a88a888Ax8 ~ ~ ~ ~ e""" gii+ -~}$a~y#'~lai'~:%;ue~~'~e~~:teaseeessa~asa~a L ` ~-c: ; :rzrtcese:rra.7a?ia€::<:?.~:1<31~5ai< ~~ ~ ~ 9 • g H g. € ~ ¢¢d9~1~tl4~y fS8~~31S;~3t~i~~td;i,§!9•~'~8r a~~agai~s~-6X88 x:a.%a~;gsa$6a;~sss$s~? gg gg b A g g .~ ~c88xxt9xkx~ix 8.98 ~dT~"1 ~888Mxat8~~~~&?{ £iii££g;iiii :aaara:ss:e:i:3F::a i ~ .~ • ~ ~~ U U ~W` 8 i ~ ~]: .. a e ~ ~ o ri m O U U C g'~8$68~> ~' 9 ° - :~^ € @ ~,:3~,p8Sa~' ~, AS,~~~~1~ ~ . ~ ~, ~, ~<artrYp.s ~` Z 3„SSES ~~ i~ ~2 RAY.'-a ~~~~n~Q;°~~::l8 s .~. gg gg.. ~~~a~8,~~.i~.p:a$A.~3A, xkYx x '~:~~ ~~~~l~~~~~~~~~s 'I ,~ !~ °~ I I --,.~ o ~ F ~Y vI~ :41 ~~lfTtt~lt~xdd'£'~t;f~e4iFea~ai~x " ~ . ~,aay.$~.~g~faytl~s 8 ap;e~4a. -aeasa~xgas~i~grxa~ sa~~a¢~ "s a--:~=s V VV ye ".g° oooo" ~ S o Sr "S'a dd~~ddddeo. ~do~ ~~~ ~T~ ~~ ~~ r~ ~y 0 z m > gg 8g88y6.~~s$88}} ~Bq~AYgya ~. A'1i. F w~ R ~ ~ O ~ • ~ ~ ~~;"~~~88$~~ c~~~ ~~ o .. c.r:bassaa ~ ~a ~~ ~~~~~ _ ~E ~ ~ _ 8 R A Ssa jSR ~~ ~ . ~g ~8. ~i ~~ ~ ~ 8~ ~ ~~ a ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ r ~ a ~~~ ~ ~ ;~ t ~ @ e € . Bbd ~ ~g~ex8g~~ =A~~sae~ _ •8x8868 : d •aasssc• s`~~~~# 8 ~ i __ - ~, , ~_ ~,,, ~ a rrr Q. f ~ ~ ~'g ~ 3 ~~~ n v LL A k C~ ~C ~] S -' ~I ? r W _ ~ I 1 N s ~_ ' r ~ }, ~ k{ ,r = ~~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ yo 9~ PLO. !~ S /./ ~. / / r~ ~ ' S~ +~ \ ,. f \ C~e6~? x '~' d - ~ :. ~ ` 'Lgj ~ 'a'te ~`. '..- ~ ~ ~ G~ / ? ' i o- _ _ ,~ s a 3i'- ~ ~ "~~s g`s ro e1 ~ y,~ X, ° K ~. lG ~ ~,~ r1 '~ , ..~~ ~ ~ ~+r, ..:per y.,, ~1`*YY ~j'~. ~, J i ~ts- T ~ t 0's ^ ~~1 fEC--_ µ ~ -n ~_ n ~ V s ! ~ Q. ~- / ~ ~ ,\ ; ~ :~ ~ to ; :;+. '~s \ ' ~ I- ' ~ _~ t' a r . ~a ; f , ~ ~, . -.~/ ~ / P i tS ~ ~~ .~ 1 s 1 9 '~~ ~ / ~ ~~ - ~_- ~ a ~~ ~~ ~ h i~ ;J..~~ ~~ .. c r / `4•, ~' ~ ~. 1/- ~ 't '~~/ 30NW9 0~'/? 13 q.w.N[ see ` r~ `'a `r ~ 4s, ~~ b>~i~s ~ i ~^ ~~ J~ ~I ~I ~.. ~ . r. r ,~r ~ h o ~^ ~ '.w~~0 O ` - , :, ~» ,~ ~,s -_ 3 • ~ Z . ~ s t -------ru----- ~ p 'O u g ~ ~~~~ ? ~~ r ~ ` ~~~ j~ >~~ pp W ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~~ Y ~ • • ~ • •. • existing pool equip. and cabana to be removed new cabana location- ..r~• existing historic home to remain new driveway of interlocking pavers MAIR RESIDENCE Property 1im Mair owners Gretchen Mair Project ~qzz~ Saratoga Los Address Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 existing greenhouse to be removed -~ 1 '-~i'~-< ~~, iP~~ r~ _. Ali x ~G.,.~~ . - .. ~y keep this portion• F r~~~!:~; I I q,~ -keep kitchen portion 15Hx, ~ To ~T1rCi T before .~. ~e m ove ~xisti ng ~~.~~~~Y ~,abana ryLJl '~LL'v1`~VIVI I ~- i ~, I i . ,- i~~ !~ . e nW _ i~~ ,. after MAIR RESIDENCE Property Jim Mair Owners Gretchen Mair Project ~9zz~ Saratoga Los Address Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 ~1I ~:~ ~ti'•~~'1 ~~ ?i~tW ~:~ keep this portion ~,- -~--- -~- -. ~~~~ II~,I= before after MAIR RESIDENCE Property Jim Mair Owners Gretchen Mair Project ~gzzi Saratoga Los Address Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 -keep this portion (M 6 R) !~~%~ ~ M ~ T~~ r4 1G~I ~TM~~ ~ - W~D 7~IM/N-YW~@ ~ r~tr~- ~x~5 ~C~ -r~r ~a nr~°~r~° ~~ .,.__ ,. ~) p~~R TO f~N1aN MAIR RESIDENCE Property Jim Mair Owners Gretchen Mair Project ~qZZ~ Saratoga Los Address Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 --historically accurate victorian corbel & frieze detail to be preserved & replicated throughout NORTH ELEVATION / cabana •August q, 200 • Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga X3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: USE PERMIT APPLICATION Mair Residence (~q~o Tibbett House) ~qzz~ Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJ: ARBORIST REPORT DATED 4/zb/o1 BY BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Dear Commission Members; NOEL F. CROSS ARCHITECT AIA I had a lengthy telephone meeting with Mr. Coate on 7/~3/0~, in which we discussed each tree in detail, clarifying actual construction activities, his scientific observations, and possible mitigation measures whereby we could accomplish our mutual goal of preserving as many trees as possible. This letter and the accompanying revised drawinggs are a result of that conversation. In addition, please find attached a supplemental tree report by certified arborist Ian Geddes Tree Care, Inc., which provides additional relevant scientific tree analysis. Trees ~~, ~z. ~; -Siberian' Elms The owners love these beautiful elms and wish to save them and enjoy them for as long as possible. Geddes' report indicates that they are actually American Elms. which are much less prone to the disease and decay indicated in Mr. Coate's report. In any event, the owners have taken to heart Mr. Coate's dire predictions that these three elm trees would suffer severe root damage due to the relatively minor excavations (approx. 6") for the driveway paving replacement. The owners therefore propose to leave the asphalt paving in place, completely intact, and place new brick paving directly on top of the undisturbed asphalt. Furthermore, tree trunk and root zone protection measures (as outlined in Geddes report) will~be installed prior to construction. These measures should eliminate any and all disruption to the roots near the ground surface.. Tree #a - Deodar Cedar : ~ The same revised driveway construction techniques and tree protection measures mentioned above fof the elms would also eliminate any and all damage to the root structure of this tree. Tree ss = Deodar Cedar Again, It has always been the owner's intention to save and enjoy, this tree. Given that the existing driveway level near trees ~~, ~z, and ~3 will be raised by an additional 6", this new circular driveway would also be •raised by a similar amount. We have reused the plan such that the propposed finished grade level at the new driveway paving wil- be approximately ~o inches above the grade at the base of tree ~S. Therefore there will be no excavation required within the drip line prior to,placing of baserock for the paving, other than some minor hand removal of surface ground cover and mulch. Furthermore, root zone protection measures~and modern tree husbandry techniques (as outlined in Geddes' letter,) wltl be installed and employed prior to and during construction, including a iz" tall semi-circular dry stack stone retaining wall as shown to protect the root collar. These measures should eliminate any removal of the absorbing root system for this tree, thus avoiding the associated '`severe" damage and subsequent decline. Tree ~6 -Southern Magnolia The owners absolutely love this tree and the proposed plan obviously.intends to save and feature the tree with the new circular brick driveway surround. Given that the existing driveway level near trees ~i, +r z, and ~3 will be raised by an additional 6", this new circular driveway would also be raised by a q" to ~z". We have revised the plan such that the proposed finished grade level at the new driveway paving kvill be roughly q to ~z inches above the grade at the base of tree ~6, and is specified as interlocking pavers over 6" baserock (which will allow surface water to penetrate into the soil below). Therefore there will be no additional excavation of the grade within the drip line prior to placing of baserock for this paving, other than that required to hand remove the ivy and re-compact the soil (minor). Furthermore, root zone protection and fertilization measures, and aeration access grates (as outlined in Geddes' letter) will be installed prior to and during construction, and proper watering levels will be closely monitored. These measures should effectively eliminate removal of the absorbing root system for this tree, thus avoiding its decline and eventual loss. (continued next page) 255N. MARKETST..STE.25a SAN,IOSE.CA45110 PHOiVE: 408.287.?474 • FAX: 408.2e0.666s Mair Arborist Letter August q, ~oo~ Page2of3 n LJ More than almost any other tree on the property, the owners absolutely cherish this majestic redwood and the plan obviously intends to save and feature the tree. I pointed out to Mr. Coate that an existing brick walkway that comes within 3 feet of the base of the tree is being removed and moved back an additional 4 feet away, thereby increasing the actual overall exposed root zone. Mr. Coate's clarified his report by saying that the actual removal of existing buildings and paving and the placement of the new trellis structure and paving is not really the problem, but that the resultant trampling. of the root zones around these improvements by construction workers and equipment is the major cause of root system damage discussed in his report. We therefore propose to carefully follow all of Mr. Geddes' recommendations exactly, as follows: a) theYoot zones shall be protected with a 6" thick layer of wood chip mulch, overlain with ~/z' thick plywood panels, which would serve as a walking surface for construction workers and remain in place until the final landscape phase. b) the tree will be irrigated prior to and throughout construction per the recommendations in the Geddes report. c) use of tractors and equipment will be forbidden in the drip line, and only operated .from the patio side, avoiding the drip line of the tree completely. d) excavation, removal, and relocation of the underground utilty piping from the existing pool equipment location to the new location would all of course be performed by hand, without the use of-any heavy equipment, and continuously monitored by a'certlfied arborist who will have the authority to stop work as he deems appropriate. any abandoned piping than can be left undisturbed, will be left in the ground undisturbed so as to avoid root damage. e) demolition and removal of the existing pool equipment enclosure and cabana structure shall be performed by hand within the drip line and root zone of the tree, and observed 6y a certified arborist with stop work authority as outlined above. f7 no grade changes or trenching will occur in this immediate area Additionally, we have omitted one of the new 4 foot square brick planters and reduced some brick • patio paving that was previously proposed within the drip line of the tree (just west of the tree). We feel these compromises and tree protection .measures asoutlined above represent a significant effort on the part of the owners and architect to respond to Mr. Coate's concerns, and will accomplish our mutual goal of preserving this fine specimen of nature. Tree #8 -Monterey Pine The owners propose to, remove this tree, as no one, including the' owners, Geddes, and Coate really place much value on this species. Happily, the removal of this large tree will make 'room for the planned relocation of trees #q, #~o, and #~~ (discussed below). Tree #o. #~o, and #~s -Giant Sequoias The owners originally planted these trees approximately three years ago, and now propose to relocate these trees as shown on the revised site plan. The removal of tree #8 should pprovide adequate room for these trees to flourish. All tree locations will be professionally excavated by Tree Movers, Inc. using the guidelines established by Mr. Coate; q" to ~z" of root ball for every inch of trunk diameter. t3y t e way, there are three additional sequoia trees (6"; 7", & 7") that are not "protected"'by the City's minimum diameter requirements,. but that will be affected by the proposed work, and will also be relocated in the same manner anyway. free ~~~ - MaQle The report makes no "official" recommendations, but the owners appreciate the information regarding root collar disease caused by irrigation, and which have been, corroborated by the Geddes report. This tree will be removed and replaced. w Tree #~~ -Douglas Fir The concrete curbs near the base of this tree are actually existing, and will remain unchanged, thereby eliminating all of the concerns outlined in the report. . Tree ~~a - [clue Gum Eucalyptus The owners have elected to keep this~tree, will leave the existing curbs intact, and generally leave the driveway asphalt paving in place. Some paving removal will still happen as indicated on the plan, but great care will be exercised during this process so as to ensure minimal root damage, especially to the large structural base roots. (continued next page) Mair Arborist Letter August q, ~zoo~ Page 3 of 3 • Tree #~S -Siberian Elm (actually American Elm) The owners have elected to have this tree removed, as recommended by both Geddes and Coate. Tree by Entrv Gate -Blackwood Acacia The owners have elected to have this tree removed, as recommended by Coate. Tree Protection Measures : - All of the tree protection measures outlined in Mr. Coate's report (items #~ through #~q.) will be strictly adhered to as they apply to each tree. Additional tree protection measures, watering and fertilization programs, and construction monitoring by certified personnel as recommended by Geddes will also be carefully implemented. Tree protection fencing will be installed,~nspected, and signed off by the City prior to commencement of any construction activity, and additional wood chip mulch and plywood walking surfaces will be installed where construction personnel would be anticipated under the drip lines of trees immediately adjacent to construction areas. Conclusion We feel iic pertinent to point out to the Planning Commission members that the owners have planted well over one hundred new trees on this parcel during the past three years, bringing the total number of trees on the ~,.7 acre site to well over three hundred. Additionally, the mitigation and protection measures proposed above clearly demonstrate their commitment to preserving the natural resources they have been blessed with. Clearly the Mairs can be characterized as responsible, perhaps exemplary stewards of the City's natural environment, white at the same time implementing a major effort to return their historically significant home to its forYner glory. Surely these facts merit significant consideration as the Commission evaluates this project in its entirety, and determines requirements for tree replacement value and the proposed improvements. • The owners understand and support the need for the City to enforce the tree ordinance, the intention of which is to guard against : , ~) 'indiscriminate removal of significant and beautiful trees, as well as 2) the potential long term damage to these trees unwittingly caused by even by the most responsible and well meaning citizens. 1im and Gretchen Mair most assuredly do not fit into either of these two categories, and respectful)y request that their project be evaluated within the context of their obvious respect for - the natural ~ man made resources on their property, and their equally obvious efforts to protect and enhance them both. If you have any 'nor need for further clarification please call me immediately. Thank you. S' , . ~ ~NgEO AR~y7~ /NOEL F. CR096~ Noel F. oss ,~, Architect .I.A. 'k ~ N0. C OI$234 cc: James and Gretchen Mair ' J, REN. j9rF OF r. a1.\F~ • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. PROFESSIONAL ARBORICULTURE P.O. Box 2962 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 374-8233 August 5, 2001 Mr. Noel Cross Noel F. Cross, Architect AIA 255 N. Mazket St., #255 San Jose, CA 95110 RE: Tree Stock Review Mair Residence 19221 Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Deaz Noel: • Thank you for the opportunity to become involved with the project at the above referenced property. Following my site visit and meeting with yourself and Mrs. Mair on 7/19/01, it became clear that the Mairs wish to retain as many of the trees on the property in a healthy and vigorous state to contribute to the property for the long term. I have been provided with topographic and development plans, as well as the tree preservation plans as prepazed by the office of Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated 4/26/01. The report identifies fifteen trees which aze likely to be impacted by the proposed remodeling of the home and landscape features. My assignment, as I understand it, is to review the development, pass comment and make recommendations to preserve and protect as many of the viable trees through the construction phase. This review follows the same numbering format as the Coate report and will serve as an alternate opinion to that provided, detailing changes which will have a more tree fiiendly approach. • A SC Society ~ R" ~' A of ': t . _ COMMERCIAL AMERIUN ~ CIE?Y OF ARBORICULTURE CONSULTING ARRORIST$ n National Arborist Association • Mr. Noel Cross 8/5/01 Page 2 Tree numbers 1, 2, 3, and 15, identified by the report as Siberian Elms, aze actually American Elms, (Ulmus americarrra), and are less given to the problems identified by Mr. Bench on page 2. Nevertheless, they are prone to the same decline and stability problems following root severance that most trees are. Removal of the existing drive and its border aze indeed likely to be damaging to the roots of trees 1, 2, and 3 and to eliminate such damage, plans aze being changed to leave this in situ, constructing the new brick paving directly on top of the existing surface, thereby eliminating any form of root disturbance in this area. Assuming that normal tree protection measures are adhered to on the eastern side of the trees, there is no reason they could not remain indefinitely, which is the wish of the owners. The same would also apply to Cedar #4. In attempt to cause less root damage through grading, plans are being altered to actually raise the grade in the vicinity of Cedar #5 in accordance with the now raised, finished ' grade of the driveway. While it is true that this is likely to decrease the physical severance and removal of roots, it should be pointed out that this procedure is not entirely without detriment. A certain amount of soil compaction will occur in the filled azea of the trees' root zone, limiting the soils' capacity for oxygen exchange and the trees' ability for . nutrient and moisture uptake. A diminished return of organic material to the soil will also result. These changes in the trees' rhizosphere may contribute to the lessening of vigor of the tree, but should not result in significant long term decline, especially when coupled with modern tree husbandry techniques, including, but not limited to, fertilization, mulching, pruning, etc. It should be noted that filling should not occur in the vicinity of the root collar, as such conditions encourage the development of foot or collar rot diseases. A small retaining wall, effectively boxing the trees' root collaz in at natural grade, is recommended in this instance. Tree #6, the Southern Magnolia, has been cazefully considered as integral to the redesign of the landscape. A circular brick pathway has been designed to circumnavigate the tree, which is a central design feature. At present, the tree exhibits a reasonable state of physiological well being, bearing leaves of an expected size and color and shoot extension appearing within normal parameters. The tree is attempting to re-foliate as expected following excessive thinning, (or more correctly, stripping out), of the interior foliage. The tree is also quite well structured and shows no indication of pest or disease. Ivy at the trees' base is competing for moisture and nutrients. • ® IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. • Mr. Noel Cross 8/5/01 Page 3 Taking the redesigned, (now elevated), grade into account, I am informed that no cut-type grading will occur in the vicinity of the new design. The foundation of base rock for the final surface is to be laid directly upon existing grade. The Ivy is to be removed by hand and the small brick retaining wall is to remain. Again, root loss in this instance is likely to be minimal. A waning of vigor of the tree is likely, but its foreseeable demise in the neaz future as a direct result is unlikely, especially if care is taken to apply correct horticultural practices, which should include installation of watering, fertilization and aeration access grates. This species is regarded as an aggressive rooting tree and is a frequent offender with regazd to damaging hard surfaces. It is quite likely that within a relatively short time frame, damage to the circular driveway will become apparent as a direct result of tree root activity. Tree #7, a 38 inch Redwood, has been taken into account as a long term living design ' feature. Its value is acknowledged by the owner, the architect and this consultant. The design features, which aze to surround this fine tree, should be of little concern to the long term welfare as long as those who perform the work aze aware of the sensitive nature of their task. To this end, I suggest that the dismantling of the existing cabana and other • features be done by hand under the supervision of a Certified Arborist. Available rooting space for the tree is being increased by four feet by the removal of the existing brick wallcway and only trellises, which require no significant footing, are being erected in the immediate azea. Grade changes will not occur in this area. It is imperative that no trenching occur in the immediate area of this tree and that all existing underground services be left or removed by hand to avoid root damage. The area beneath the tree should have a six inch deep layer of woodchip mulch installed, covered with half inch plywood as a means of physical protection for the soil, which should remain in place until the final landscape phase. Frequent monitoring of the situation by certified personnel, with the authority to stop work for necessary changes, should occur. Tree #8 is a maturing Monterey Pine which is vulnerable to several life threatening disorders by virtue of its geographical location. It presently enjoys a moderate state of physiological health, although its future life span is likely to be somewhat limited. Long term prognosis is likely to be decline and death, especially if its root system is compromised. It is worthy of perhaps short term retention, although expensive retention efforts aze not encouraged. It should be removed when it becomes unacceptable to its owners or prevents upgrading of the landscape with more suitable plants. • ® IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. Mr. Noel Cross 8/5/01 Page 4 Trees 9, 10 and 11 are all recently, (three years ago), planted Giant Sequoias. While the condition of all three can only be considered fair, the owners propose to relocate all three, utilizing modern tree transplanting techniques, performed by a qualified, experienced company. Tree # 12 is atwin-stemmed Maple which is exhibiting a poor state of health, coupled with questionable structure. A serious basal wound is likely to cause either failure or death of one of the two stems in coming years. The remaining stem is likely to be structurally unstable and vulnerable to failure, assuming it survives. It is considered of low value and may survive for a few yeazs yet. Modifications to the home in its vicinity include only upper story additions, therefore no ground works are required. Standard protection fencing should be erected at the dripline to protect the root zone from errant contractors as a matter of course if the tree is to remain, which should be at the discretion of the owners. Douglas Fir #13 will remain unaffected, no earthworks are projected in this area. The existing curb and hazd surface are to remain intact. • The large Blue Gum Eucalyptus, (tree #14), presently surrounded by a raised concrete curb is also worthy of retention. Following discussion with the architect and owner, a consensus was reached that the feasibility exists to repave in a similar manner to the area of the driveway by the Elms, (#'s 1, 2, and 3). This places a new surface on an old driveway and eliminates the need for curb removal and grading works. Root disturbance is likely to be minimal. The proposed brick walkway should tie in at existing grade, leaving the tree with little, if any, subterranean compromise. Tree # 15, and American Elm, exhibits a cavity at approximately seven feet on the western side of the trunk. Its physiological health appears unaffected by this condition, although physical strength in this area is compromised. Structural compromise of a far greater significance exists with regard to the overall stability of this tree. A cavity at ground level was probed to expose significant basal decay, sufficient to categorize the tree as hazardous. The threat of complete and catastrophic failure will exist as long as this tree remains. Its removal is strongly urged as a matter of safety. Assuming that standard cultural and protective measures are carried out as outlined in the Coate Report, and on the assumption that on site personnel are informed of the need to L` IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. a • Mr. Noel Cross 8/5/01 Page S exercise care, coupled with supervision and guidance from a Certified Arborist, there is reason to believe that this project could be realized without significant harm to the existing tree stock. submitted, ~(n Ge , ONDH (Arb) MInstD. AS A Registered Consulting Arborist #308 WCISA Certified Arborist #0593 - IG:Ig • • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. M • • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-021 Fst BSE-01=023;13250 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: BAMDAD/MOORS Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contrac fanner Date: October 10, 2001 APN: 503-16-024 Department HeatL~ ''~ ~~ '' ~ , ----- ~ ~ ~, _~ ~~~ ~ _ ,~ -- , ~- __ '~ ~- - ~-- -- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~'~~ ~ '~ i ~A~ ~~ i ~~ VE. `~-- ~ /, ~, _- ;, ., ~~~~ `~ ~~ ~~~ \ ~~~ -' ~`~ '~ ~ i 'DA,e ~\ ~'~% ~ ,•'~- ~,'_, ~~~ ~ ~ i ~---~ N~\ w _~' `~ ' ~t ~~~ s-% ~ ~% ~ "~ ;~ ' /, / 'i 13250 Pierce Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5/9/01 8/9/01 9/26/01 9/27/01 9/20/01 The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 4,123 square foot two-story residence on a 15,682 net (18,865 gross) square foot lot. The project would require demolition of an existing 1,929 square foot single-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. A swirnining pool that meets the requirements of Section 15-80.020 (b) is shown on the site plan. No basement is proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-Ol- 019 &r BSE-O1-023. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-019 ~ BSE-O1-023. 2. Arborist Report dated 06/13/01. 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" t • • File No. DR-01-019 6z'BSF 01-023;13250 Pierce Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Low Density (RLD) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 15,682 net square feet (18,865 gross square feet) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.7 percent GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill proposed is 1,420 cubic yards. Of the total, 350 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 12 feet would be required to construct the swimming pool. The remaining cut is required for general site work. Two cubic yards of fill is proposed. The remaining 1.418 cubic yards of material would be hauled off site. Please note, staff worked with the applicant to reduce the area and amount of grading from that originally proposed. More of the natural slope is proposed to remain along the left (eastern) property line as a result of the revisions. Approximately 200 cubic yards less grading is proposed in the current site plan. Environmental Determination: The proposed project consisting of construction of anew single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14, Chapter 3 California Code of Regulations). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and, consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Clay roof file and goldenrod stucco walls is proposed. Window and door trim is proposed to be white with some green accent. Rope columns with a capital anda base are proposed. Wrought iron light fixtures, a copper roof spire and arched and divided-light windows are proposed. A color and materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Sample colors of the proposed paint is also painted on sections of the existing house (rear elevation) which is available for Planning Commission review during the site visit. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) A \PtcrccRd Bamdad doc nnnnn~. File No. DR-01-019 F¢' BSF 01-023; 132SO Pierce Road • Proposal Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Building Footprint Driveway/ /Paving/Patio/Walks PooUPool Equipment Bar-b-cue/Fireplace Garage TOTAL (Impervious Surface) First Floor Second Floor Garage (Basement) TOTAL Front (house) Rear (house) Rear (pool) Left Side (house) Left Side (pool) Right Side (house) Right Side (pool) Pool EQuipment -left side -right side -rear Residence 35% 2,158 sq. ft, 1,804 sq. ft. 1,003 sq. ft. 57 sq. ft. 4ss sq. ft. 5,487 sq. ft. 2,127 sq. ft. 1,531 sq. ft. 465 sq. ft. (0) 4,123 sq. ft. Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35°r~~ Maximum Allowable 4,128 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement 30 ft. 30 ft. N/A.' N/A N/A N/A.' 32 ft. 8 ft.; 14 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. 8ft. 8 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 26 ft. ' Section 15-06.430 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance states that "A lot bonded by only three sides will not have a rear lot line". In spite of not having a rear lot line on this lot, it can be seen that the pool and pool equipment is pulled back from the apex of the lot (25 feet and 43 feet, respectively) sufficient to conform with a six foot setback line if one did exist and sufficient to protect adjacent neighbors from potential noise impacts associated with the pool use. Swimming pools and pool equipment may be placed in a rear yard but no closer than six feet from the property line per Section 15-80.030(b). ' The lot is substandard lot in lot area and lot width. Therefore the minimum side setback is calculated on 10 percent of the lot width (i.e., 8 feet) r~ u • A.U'icrceRd -Bamdad doe ~nnnn ~. File No. DR-01-019c~z'BSE 01-023;13250Pierce Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a nev~~ 4,123 square foot tvvo-story residence on a 15,682 net (18,865 gross) square foot lot. The project ~ti~ould require demolition of an existing 1,929 squaze foot single-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 coning district. A swimming pool that meets the requirements of Section h-80.020 (b) is shown on the site plan. No basement is proposed. Design Review The neighborhood is a mix of newer constructed one- and two-story residences and some single-story ranch style structures. Building materials aze a mix of wood, stucco, stone, lap siding. Some of the older residences in the azea exhibit deferred maintenance and some of the older and newer residences in the area are well maintained. The subject lot is triangular in shape. As noted in the table above, no rear property line exists as defined by Code. The site slopes to the back and to the east (left) property lines. Vegetation is sparse with some mature trees. The residences on adjacent lots are older homes. The setbacks between the existing adjacent structures and the proposed site plan is vast largely due to the topography, shape of the lots and the emplacement of the built structures. The current driveway configuration requires that cars back out onto Pierce Road to egress the site. There is an approximate one foot of shoulder running along the front of the site. On street parl::ng is limited. The proposed site plan would eliminate the need to back onto Pierce Road, as the garage would be placed perpendicular to the road. Therefore cars would drive onto the site via a 58 foot long driveway and turn right into an 18-foot long parking apron which leads to the gazage. Cazs could also be backed up on site and access Pierce Road in a forwazd direction, thus improving the safety of the maneuver. The auto court also provides for additional off-street parking. • A U'ierceRd -Bamdad doc (~(1()(1~(1S File No. DR-01-O19~'BSFO1-O23,-1315OPierceRoad FvalUation ofDesign Guidelines The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #4: "Minimize Building Height". Approximately one third of the structure is 16 to 18 feet in height. The roofline is varied on five different planes. The perception of height is reduced by the use of arched windows and columns on the ground floor. Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #5: "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The neighborhood is a mix of one- and two-story structures both newer and older construction. The newer construction ranges in height form tall one- and two-story residences ranging in height from 20 to 26 feet. Building styles range from more formal architecture with announced entryways and stone columns, Spanish-style and Ranch-style houses. Fenestration includes aluminum sliders, dormers and arched and rectilinear divided light windows. Building materials include lap and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the area with the arched and rectilinear divided light windows, stucco fascia and the roof. The project includes a formal but not overstated entry way and lighting. • Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulh, Technique #6: " LIse of Architectural Features to Breah-up Massing". The varied roofline, use of the vertical columns on the ground floor and the vertical fascia trim and the second-floor level and the subordinate size of the windows proposed on the second level break up the massing of the building. The placement of the garage perpendicular to Pierce Road, the height of the garage at 16 feet and the windows that are proposed to read like living area along the front facade adjacent to the second-story element of the residence also breaks up the massing. The wing walls and lighting proposed further reduce the scale of the building. Policy 2 Integrate Structures with the Environment, Technique #2: "integrate all Structures on a Single Site". The land plan is designed with an attached garage the steps down from the two-story element of the living area. The garage includes fenestration that Meads' from the street as part of the living area. The fenestration partnered with the wing walls, lighting and continuity of materials integrates the structures on the site and reduces the overall perception of massing. Policy 3 Avoid Interference with Privacy, Technique #1: "Control View to Adjacent Property". The site itself is in a hollow and at a lower elevation than the surrounding residences. Privacy to adjacent sites would be largely protected due to the topography. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire District have reviewed the application. Comments from the City Arborist and the Santa Clara A \PierceRd -Barndad.da aoooo~ File No. DR-01-019E¢'BSF01-023;13250Pierce Road County Fire District are included as conditions of approval. The Public Works Depamnent approved the BSE on June 8, 2001. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have a detached 464 sq. ft. t~vo-car garage. Two additional parking spaces could be provided in the auto court area and driveway apron while still allowing for adequate back-up area out of the garage. Grading Total cut and fill proposed is 1,420 cubic yards. Of the total, 350 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 12 feet would be required to construct the swimming pool. The remaining cut is required for general site work. Two cubic yards of fill is proposed. The remaining 1.418 cubic yards of material would be hauled off site. Please note, staff worked with the applicant to reduce the area and amount of grading from that originally proposed. More of the natural slope is proposed to remain along the left (eastern) property line as a result of the revisions. Geotechnical Review i The subject site is comprised of Sun soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable Ground". The slope of the site is an average of 6.7 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical review was not required. The City Engineer has determined that a staff level- gradingpermit shall be required to be reviewed and approved. Trees The arborists report dated June 13, 2001 notes that there are seven trees that are at some level of risk due to construction. Tree #'s 1 and 2, a 10-inch and 14-inch- Modesto Ash, would be removed due to construction. One 24-inch box native specimen is suggested as a replacement tree. Tree #'s 3 and 7 are a 10-inch and 15-inch Coast Live Oak that are in exceptional condition. Tree # 7 is located on the adjacent property. The arborist recommends that these trees be retained and not sacrificed for the creation of flat space. Along a similar note is an issue with tree #'s 4 and 5, a 14-inch and a 12-inch Coast Live Oak. The trees are shown to be retained on landscape plan. The landscape plan has been revised to eliminate lawn and the proposed fountain from underneath the dripline of the trees, which as originally proposed would have damaged the trees. (Please not, the architect inadvertently left the fountain on the site plan. However, the fountain is eliminated from the landscape plan.) The issue is not the fountain itself, but that the fountain was originally proposed under the dripline of the Oaks. Staff recommends that if the Commission finds to approve a fountain that its location be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development A \PierceRd -Bamdad.doc nnnnnw File No. DR-01-0198z'BSF01-023;132SOPierce Road A tree preservation bond in the amount of $10,880 shall be posted prior to issuance of building permits. All the recommendations of the arborists report shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Fireplaces Three indoor and one outdoor fireplace are proposed. Only one fireplace would be wood burning. Correspondence No correspondence was received by the date that the staff report was finaled for Planning Commission review. 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. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks except as requested, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-019 &r BSE-O1-023. A \PiecceRd -Batndad.doc nnnnns~ Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-019 &~ BSE-O1-023 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA BAMDAD; 13250 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application Design Re~~ievti~ approval to construct a nevv 4,123 square foot residence on a 15,682 net square feet (18,865 gross square feet) 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 e«dence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the_ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Title 14, Chapter 3 California Code of Regulations). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; 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, ~~hen 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 site itself is in a hollow and at a lower elevation than the surrounding residences. Privacy to adjacent sites would be largely protected due to the topography. Additionally, the subject lot is triangular in shape the site slopes to the back and to the east (left) property lines. Vegetation is sparse with some mature trees. The residences on adjacent lots are older homes. The setbacks between the existing adjacent structures and the proposed site plan is vast largely due to the topography, shape of the lots and the emplacement of the built structures. • The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and m;nim~ing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minunized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that total cut and fill proposed is 1,420 cubic yards. Of the total, 350 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 12 feet would be required to construct the swimrriing pool. The remaining cut is required for general site work. Two cubic yards of fill is proposed. The remaining 1.418 cubic yards of material would be hauled off site. The grading File No. DR-01-O19~sz'BSFO1-OZ3;1325OPierce Road plan was redesigned to reduce the area and amount of grading from that originall}~ proposed. More of the natural slope is proposed to remain along the left (eastern) property line as a result of the revisions. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimise the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment in that the project includes a formal but not overstated entry way and lighting the varied roofline, use of the vertical columns on the ground floor and the vertical fascia trim ant the second-floor level and the subordinate size of the windows proposed on the second level break up the massing of the building. The placement of the garage perpendicular to Pierce Road, the height of the garage at 16 feet, and the windows that are proposed to read like living area along the front facade adjacent to the second-story element of the residence also breaks up the massing. The wing walls and lighting proposed further reduce the scale of the building. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 in that in that the neighborhood is a mix of one- and two-story structures both newer and older construction. The newer construction ranges in height form tall one- and two-story residences ranging in height from 20 to 26 feet. Building styles range from more formal architecture with announced entryways and stone columns, Spanish-style and Ranch-style houses. Fenestration includes aluminum sliders, dormers and arched and rectilinear divided light v~~indows. Building materials include lap and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the area with the arched and rectilinear divided light windows, stucco fascia and file roof. ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires aCity- issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #4: "Minimise Building Height"; Policy 1 Minimise Perception of Bulk, Technique #S: "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2 Integrate Structures with the Environment, Technique #2: "Integrate all Structures on a Single Site Policy 1 Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #6: "Use of Architectural Features to Break-up Massing"; Policy 3 Avoid Interference with Privacy, Technique #1: "Control View to Adjacent Property". A\PierceRd -Bamdad.doc rlnnn.a n File No. DR-01-019 ~rBSE 01-023;132SO Pierce Road Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereb}' 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 BAMDAD for Design Review approval is and the same is hereby granted subject to the follov~~ing conditions: A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference except as modified by the following conditions of approval ?. 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. All the recommendations of the Ciry Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. 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." 3. No Ordinance-size tree with the exception of tree #'s 1 and 2(a 10-inch and 14-inch Modesto Ash) 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. 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. 7. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community • Development prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, site activity or building permits. Tree #3 shall not be relocated in order to grade the site in this area to produce flat areas. The landscape plan shall exactly mirror the place where the retaining wall may commence in order to save Tree #'s 3 and 7, as shown on the tree A ~PierceRd -Bamdad doc nnnn~ ~ File No. DR-01-019 chi' BSF 01-023;13250 Pierce Road key map. A fountain may be approved provided that its placement does not interfere with the drip line of the Oaks or jeopardize the health and longe~zty of the oaks. The landscape plan shall be designed to protect tree #s 3, 7, 4 and S (a 15-inch, 10-inch 14-inch and 12-inch Coast Live Oak) and also incorporate these trees into the aesthetic and health of the landscape plan and to assure their longe~~ity. Plant one 24-inch box native specimen as a replacement tree for the removal of tree #'sland2. No retaining walls shall be in excess of five (5) feet in height. B. CITY ARBORIST 7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 6/13/01 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. The sheet shall also include the key map of the trees prepared by Barry Cotes 6z Associates. b. 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. c. 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. d. A three to four inch layer of tree chips shall be installed in all areas beneath the canopy of trees before actual demolition begins. 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 $10,880 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 9. 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. 10. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. • A \PiecceRd -Bamdad doc ~'- /1 !l /1 .w A File No. DR-01-019c~t'BSF01-023; 13250 Pierce Road • C. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 11. Review of this development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 1?. The required fire flow is 1,750 gpm at 20-psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s), which are located at the required spacing. 13. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on al new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street and or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 14. An approved automatic fire 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. 15. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure installed per Ciry of Saratoga Standards. D. CITY ATTORNEY 16. 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. 17. 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. A \PierceRd -Bamdad.doc nnnn~ ~ File No. DR-01-019 c~'BSE 01-023;13150 Pierce Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10 h day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Ovti~ner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Plaruung Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • A V'ieseRd -Bamdad.d« nnnn~ ~ • BARRIE D. COA i E AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BAMDAD PROPERTY, 13250 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared. at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 r~ LJ Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 23, 2001 Job # OS-OI-I l5 Plan Received: May 14, 2001 Plan-Due: June 14, 2001 • i ~i~~~d~ ~~~, l} Ji l JUN 1 3 2001 U cn v ~~r sniin r~u,;, cn,,,A,r~~rn~ n~~~~r~ r,n„i ~~ ~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7. _+ RECOMIvvIlETiDATIONS AT 'fF1E BAIvIDAD PROPERTY, 13250 P)ERCE ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment • At the request of Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct a new two-story residence 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 trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes seven trees to some level of risk by construction activity. Two trees # 1 and 2 are to be removed by implementation of this design. A replacement tree which equals their value is suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 80% of the value of trees #3, 4, 5 and 7 combined with a bond equal to 25% of the value of tree #6 is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are seven trees on site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. In addition to these seven trees, there exists a twin trunk silk tree (Albi==ia julibrissin), located behind the existing house near the west property boundary, but the specimen is not large enough to be controlled by the city ordinance. There is also a coast live oak, a blue oak, and amulti-stem purple plum, located on the adjoining property toward the east, but it appears that these three trees are located too far from construction to be significantly affected. Their locations however are estimated on the enclosed plan. The seven trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2 Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina glabra) Trees #3, 4, 5, 7 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #6 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of l to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability . to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIJG ARBORIST MAY 23, 2W 1 • • • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7~...J RECOIvDviErIDATIONS AT THE BAMDAD PROPERTY. 13250 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the four trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exce tional S imens Fine S imens Fair S ecimens 3 7 1 5 2,4,6 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. Tree #7 appears to be located on the neighboring property toward the east. Impacts of Construction Trees #l and 2 are in conflict with the proposed driveway. For these replacements are suggested. Tree #3 is in conflict with proposed grading and the construction of a proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property. In order to retain the specimen, either the design must be changed or the tree must be transplanted by a qualified tree mover. In the event that the tree is transplanted, its health would likely decline somewhat even with the best of circumstances. Trees #4 and 5 would suffer at least moderate root damage should the drainage swale on the west side of the property be constructed as proposed. Since the majority of the absorbing roots are typically located in the top 12-inches of soil, a grading cut of 4- to 6-inches across the entire root zones of these trees would destroy a significant proportion of the absorbing roots, depending on the depth of the cut and the equipment used. Tree #6 would sustain minimal damage provided that construction period fencing is provided and located as shown on the map attached to this text. Tree #7 is in conflict with~construction of the proposed retaining wall and the proposed adjacent grading. Tree #7 would not survive this construction or the grading. Since it is an exceptional specimen, it not only must be retained but must be retained in its present condition. The objective appears to be to maximize the usable space by converting the existing slope to a flat usable space. Trees #7 and 3 must be not sacrificed for this purpose. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 23, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7 ~.~rT RECOMMI;'NDATIONS AT ; ' THE BAMDAD PROPERTY, 13250 PIERCE ROAD. SARATOGA 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: l . 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. 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. Utilities are not shown on the plans provided. The locations of trenching for underground utilities must not be left up to contractors or to utility providers for any trenches inside the driplines of trees. The landscape plan proposes to construct a fountain, to install a lawn, and to plant shrubs, trees, and ground cover where trees #4 and 5 exist. Although this plan is Preliminary, it does not recognize the existence of trees #4 and 5. Additionally, the proposed fountain / and the proposed lawn under the canopies would be highly detrimental to the health of ~/ these trees if located under the canopies. The landscaping plan and the landscaping procedures must be compatible with the requirements of an oak trees' environment, if these tress are expected to live for long. 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. In order to assure the survival of trees #7 and 3, I suggest the plans be revised so that: a. The first 60 feet of the proposed retaining wall on the north side nearest Pierce Road be eliminated. b. No grading is done within a 25-foot radius of tree #7 or a I 0-foot radius of tree #3. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 23, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVA7 ivN RECON~uiENDATIONS AT 4 THE BAMDAD PROPERTY, t 3250 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA 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 moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 3. 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 determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office 4. I suggest that the landscape plans be reviewed and approved by the city arborist before implementation of any landscaping. I suggest that the landscape plan address all of the recommended procedures in this report that focus on landscaping. 5. I recommend that the proposed drainage Swale under the canopies of trees #4 and 5 be relocated a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of either tree. 6. There must be,no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the canopy driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed) unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirement our office must be consulted. 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #3, 4, and 5 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with lO 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. 8. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 9. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 10. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 1 l . 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 trees trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 23, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAI. . ~ RECOMlt~NDATiONS AT THE BAMDAD PROPERTY, 13250 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA 12. 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. l 3. 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. 14. 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 810, Oakland 94612. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, or 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 # 1 and 2 have a combined value of only $462, which is equivalent to one 24 inch boxed specimen. This replacement is suggested. I suggest a bond ($10,523) equal to 80% of the total ($12,566) of trees #3, 4, 5, and 7 combined with a bond of 25% of the value of tree #6 ($357) to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macroplryllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully sub , • ~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 23, 2001 • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATlur1 RECOr9vfENDATIONS AT T}IE BAMDAD PROPERTY, 13250 PIDtCE ROAD, SARATOGA MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Barrie D. Coate, Principal L)~ C~+ _ cat Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • .7 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 23, 2001 6 Job Title: Bamdad Job Address: 13250 Pierce Rd. Job # 05-01-115 Mea surem ent Con dklon Pru nln /Cabllnp Ne eds PesUDlsease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D, COATS I I l ~ { ~ I ~ ` , ~ ; ~' I ~ ~' I ' I and ASSOCIATES ~ I , ~ c ice ! °' 4 ~ ; I ~ h = ~ `~ ~ ~ O ~~ ~ ~ J io ? ~ ~ i z ~ ~ ~ i x ~ NOp3S3~1052 23535 fuaai Rad ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 3 ( Wo w ~ ~ o z ~ Q ~ rr ~ ! w ~ I LuCabr U 95030 ~ ~, k w x z ~ J ~ x v i w N I i I w a ~ 3 o O v g ~ ~ ~ ,. o ~ D: z , H x i W !~ Q ~ W O ~¢ O o O O ~ ~ ~ o z z 2 ai y = J x t ~ S~ ~ ~~ ~ es 2 ~ O O O O ~ mJ j W i W W ~ z ^ ^ ' O G O ~ Ke #~ Plant Name m o O ~ m o m W d I F - O K ~ K Q: l W < K H 2' ~ ~ ~j ~ W W W y o p x H x to v 2 c~ c~ p c> z c~ a ? ~ o ~ x o: z z a: ~ 1 Modesto Aah 10.0 x 10.0 9.0 18 30 25 1 2 3 ~ Fra~dnua velutlna labs I . In 151 X S27/aq. In. = S 4,077 X sp. loss 10% _ $408 X cored. 90% _ $ 387 X loc. 75% 275 Total Value 2 Modesto Ash 14.0 18 30 20 2 I 3 5 . In 154 X $27/aq. In. = S 4,154 X sp. loss 10% _ $415 X cond. 80% = S 249 X loc. 75% _ $ 187 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ; 11 j 25 20 1 1 2 + ~ ~ j ~ 2 I _ ~ ~ Quercus rifdia ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I . In 79 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,133 X sp. Gass 1009'0 = $2,133 Xcond. 1009'0 = $ 2,133 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,800 Total Value 4 Coast Live Oak 14.0 x; 12.0 ; 20 25 ~ 25 1~ 4 5 I I I I ; I I I ~ i ~ I ; ; I I i ~ ~ I I I I I ; . in 211 X 527/sq. in. _ $ 5,697 X sp. class 100% _ $5,697 X cond. 80% _ $ 3,418 X loc. 75% _ $ 2,584 Total Value 5 Coast Llve Oak 12.0 ~ x ~ 11.0 111.0 ~ 21 ~ 30 ` 30 1 ~ 3 4 ~ I ' I I . in 208 X S27/sq. in. = E 5,616 X sp. Gass 100% = 55,618 X cond. 75% $ 4,212 X loc. 75% S 3 159 Total Value 8 Mon Plne 24.0 28 80 45 1 ~ 4 5 Plnua redleta t I III I . In 452 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 12,208 X sp. Gass 30% = 53,662 X cond. 80% $ 2,197 X loc. 85% = S 1 428 Total Value 7 Coast Llve Oak 15.0 i 16 j 30 ; 25 1 1 2 ~ i ~ 11 I I E s I i i i ~ . In 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. Gass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 100% _ $ 4,769 X loc. 809:0 S 3,815 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = Sib 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = 55 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 51~ • Page 52301 • 1 Set posts and excavate a 4' x 4' trench upslope along the line of posts. ~- - ~-- _ . ~~~~ -. - 3. Attach the filter fabric to the wire fence and extend it into the trench. ~~ Silt Fence Detail 2. Staple wire fencing to the posts. 1 ~ ~~ _ r ~ /~ ~Z~ J -+ ///_ 7' /' .,/ A • ~1 3. Backfill and compact the excavated soil. Extension of fabric and wire into the trench. Fifter Fabric ~re ~~~ r~~._ - r ~ ~~ Prepared by: I3ARKIE U. CUA7'E ANI) ASSOCIA'I'FS 23535 Summit Rd I,us Gates, CA 95030 (408)353-1052 Itnrln ullnr;rl ('nn•,ull,nu~ ( ~nr.ullin~• /~rl~~ui•.I ANI) ASSO(-IA'1'I~;S F'rot_c~ct i ve Fencing 2.1515 ~ununit I2d Los Gatos, Ca 9501(1 - - (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists i~ ~ \ t / ~ I ~ 9' ~ i ____. Top o_' fence hung with fluorescent flap.gine tape every ]0 feet. 6' chain link or welded wire mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pine or T-anp.le post ' ~ Fence placed at dr1D line I /~~_ or 50% greater than the tree ~ canopy radius w•!-ere possible Foadway conslruction is to take place beneath a ~anopy on one side, the lence should be ,2--3 feet beyond Ihat conslruction but r~en conslruction he Iree Irunk FPnc~ t - -(~-~- t"fy si t ins ( ~ ~ l~nir,~ruclinn lu~nt~~1 lirr~lr~i Iinri fru Irt~r~ ; r,htnrltl ht' f~rovidt~d ht~lurt~ yr;rduiy or <~Iher erluiprnenf is allowetf on the properly. ff construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencinP\ - t o 23' ahove Prrnrnd on y it ~ ~~ 1'. trot's whr're ccrn;tructit~n t' r~t Q~ will take plant, hr~nr'atl~ ~ ~__ t r V t hr' rant,)~y t" '~r I ~~' ~~ ,~ ~~}~~ ';fl BARRIE D. COH fE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem,and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. d000tis BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES ' Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 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 may be 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 '/:') 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 plarrts beneath tree canopies. - - - --~ Barrie D. Coate £~ Associates Radial Trenching (406) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation Los Gatos, CA 95033 Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist Root Protection Zone 1 % times the Dripline Diameter -~ e I8 ~hc hes fee P rrigation lateral lines may be installed 12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas :ontaining shallow absorbing roots if he trenches are at right angles to the trunk ~s opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside ?f the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet he area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. • • _..-! ~_- __ _-~ -- --~ pr = ,-~ -..~_3 z .v ~~'. _~"~~-~`-^-^ -,_`=' ~~- _ Shallow !'y-' ~r~~- tio~ ,~-~ absorbing = %~%r` - - -~ root ti s >> O~ .- - - ..-_ _-y S :.- - + y r 5 time s trunk diameter ~~-` -~"` is .~...~.~.. ~~ i i r; ~ ' ot~ :1 r-,. ~ /J ~ ... - - ~' ~~~~ ~:~ -' .- :~ Lateral line 12-inches deep ~-.. - - , . •Oka~ i i;.,, In _ SiI IOSOr4 P'^R r I .r. r,. r unrrnr -- - ----- laoi ~r~( -31Ya x+u urs,EO~ .rrr ° '^ „/ - xcu.,,dv., bxa~,, y/, +sE rxr Inv~7nEryp~mf1 Eluu/ow ,. ,r.o..rr . r,. x N Oa~d+S, ffOS6 YJ'snU•J SOI x° ay,~ rx . -- - Pu/!!roans Sf SFi ~ [TMir~ixr ~m~ rararr,.rl. I°X nad OSifl'<ua6~S, iS01~E Sf (/OS) `•'. rxr rrs r rVrr~ rr - _ 1'[I'r^II'rll rv aalnwrsy 4 x " r.r.. xpurxuna„raw+.x.V Vrrr b.rrSy ~^'~ Owury . r nrrer n u., r +~xr r r r r i rl ~ \ ~,^~ r.+.~.ri w. • . r r r wr .r r,.rr. 1,ui`i. u,rr .. .rrn« r.., -- o - ~ ~ ~7dMS ~O ,. ~~~ +~ wO ~i~J ---; -- --- NOI.LdOO~ ~SIA~?I fi J ~ ~O -,~~_ - ~-~_ ~` '~' r ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~. ~ `~~~0 . ~ ~ A' ~ ~ ~ y Oj 0- ~ •~` ->. ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 'c.~ ~ ~~/~ ,~~ ~~~ enn nlEm ~irar ~narrXna ~ -f ~. ~~ ~ ~~ :~~ ~'. ~~ ~~ .i: ~,~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Xf r,iaE+ ~ , ~- ,`~ Po ~ ~2 ~`'r rMLI1dr1, M/,. ± dr ~,, ~ ~,p~~ . A t/ / ` T C >.r « I'd ~ i. ' (~ ~ Iq~~P I ~ ' ~.A ;, /~s ~ ~ ~ n~, ~L•dl '~ / ~ ~ ~ ~y )~n d~ ' ~Ir `'~~ C~ ~ ~ s ~~'. ,r~ ~. .~ ~~ ~~ ...~w.w... ~ ~~ ~ p i r -,., `Ti ~ I ,. ~- - s°E ~ - - -'Rr- - ~ - ~- - - ~ - ~ ~E~f~~`.a--,~~. -. --t'a'r, -- --~ _ _1 _ 1~-• -- -1- --"- _ ~r~ ) __ _ '~ ' _ .r.rErr.. „ . r o...: '';~~°' ~ d,r,r~.11 ~N~11 , •~ "Ia1t~A1 - ~~ .L \~ ...,, ,~ - ..I . *%~ .E ~ '17dM J ONINId,L~a 'r.. • i - - ... `A,~ WESTF1itt NG '1'?lt'.LS ON `~ II .LL„~, „~~ ~RADD I NG DRA I NA ,. .. .,. . , LANDS OF RAFFI BA ! "" '• IJ750 RIFRCF POND. SPA i0f • • a e ~e t~~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S t ~~~~~~~;~ ~~ i ~ p ~ a ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ o~~ ~ ~~0 ~~C~C~ SEP132001 ~ ~~3,~~ a ~~~;~~'f~ ~r ,. ~~a ¶ e o CITY OF SARATOGA U~~ 1~® ~~1~~~~ ~®6~~ ~ ~ ~ Y®~ ~~ ® ~ ~~: ~~.~~~~~ C~ ~1 . ' ' " . ° COMMUNITY DEVELQPIIF'JT ~~ "fs [ 1 e. " y S,t t 1~~f~~~~~r Af L tt~~t ~ a;F 5 Yt~3l4C~rs ~4 GENERAL N®TES: PR® CT ®ATA: PR®JECT SBTE jMAPI ~ a ~, `~ ~ t ALL UFWriBI DifTglOllS SINLL TAIL PaECEDBICE OrER SCALED DF'8451ON5. ~ (~ ~ arc D~REPaNaES sHAU eE ela~urt4r To THE aTTENTION aF Galer MOOR: aw As9OCIaTES PRIOR ro uAtIB4r~Me4r a aw ao au WORK EXISTNG STRUCTURE ARE FOOTAGE: 1929 FT. SQU SQ. it -~ ~ ~ ~ s. GEIE4PAL OONTRAOTOR x CLNANOTKN u~ CIRERS AND SIIB•OLNTRACraRS Is ro vFPoFT LOCArI0l4 cR Au urr.trES AND EKL41kG camlTla+s ar SITE ZONI~(;: R-1 40,000 OCCUPANCY: R-3/U s~eiutcw.w~+vae~aerumrv ~~~ p~ , ~ + PRIOR ro eroDxG a4o ca~rENCe~4rt of ca1sTR4OrIDT~ CON$TRUCTK3N TYPE VIN r 4 n ALL WORC B ro eE x cDIFOR1aNCE WTTN tIE t931 EDRIQ45 OF THE wPOR1 AN) iFE C°DE wFaa•I PLU1e-w CODE _ LIVNK; AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE: 2 ~ , nse ~tla~cR r 1) 1ST FLOOR UVNG AREA: 2,127.000 SQ. FT ~ ~ ~' a. nE d1LDER SHALL PROYOE nE DuILDII~ CaBR MAI4ACER ANO nE oRIGNAL 2.) 2ND FLOOR LNNG AREA: 1,531000 $Q FT TOTAL UVNG AREA: 3,658 . FY, „~ ~0°~" ml~ ~ ~a ~ s OCGr°ANTS A LIST Q i1E ENERGY•SAVNG CAtlER/ATION FEATURES, DEVICES, MATERALS AND CCrPoIB4T9 WTALLED N riE BIrLDNG AW N9TRlCTIOtE ON HOW t0 usE 1181 GARAGE AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE 465 . FT. cmN nu ,,,,F EIfICENn7. SUCH FEanuES xaWE 1EarNG, coaor,, WaTER HEATr4G AND LwurING COMBIJED WCJG & GARAGE AREA 4,123 . PT. s7smis, As u~L a9 x81ILATla{ WEATIBQSTRPPNG, uxoaW SHADES AND tHERTwL MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA: 4,128 S . FT. "''~ naTERALS. GROSS PAR(A SQUARE FOOTAGE 18,865 S~. FT. 5. aLL fpISTRICIICN &WLL LQpL7 W 901E xYESTIGATKN As PREPAFED FOR NET PARCEL SQUARE FOOTAGE • 15,682 SQ,FT. FYA AW KATH7 bYDAD, 8150 PEACE ROAD, 9ARATWA, CA •95010 A5 PREPAAFD BY ear ARSA GEOIECNNICAL GROJP, 950 NDUSTRAL AYE. ~ BASED UFON PIERCE ra~AD EASET'ENi PALO ALTO, cALPORIA •94303, PROJECT FILE Yval •A ®Rf1N6NG BNDEX ®INNER~ D~a 6. EARL? UW4NIIYe FIpE ALAR1 STSTEM (EW4'$A • EWAS 5NALL BE NSTALLED N COPPLWlCE Wlril IFPA 11A AVD SARATWA Cltt GRDr4A44CE w-bo. T-1 TITLE /COVER SHEET i - nE aLAR1 coNTwuTOR sHaI.L PROVE)E TUp cOPES cR nE WCRCNG DFLVUF4f>5 ro rHE APPR7PRATE FIRE DIBTRCT FOR fEvEWI AND APFAOVAL Raft & Kathy Bamdad . tH R F 13250 Pierce Road - E I E DISTRCT rusT 1861E A PER11T PRge TO THE NSTALLATION OF T1E BUAS CML ENGI~EERRIG AND DESIGN • ~ coNTRACiaR M15T NAPE A CITY e416FESS LIC9BE am Wor~R's COMPEN9a11CN C-1 SITE PLAN SardtOga, Caffomia 95070 C-2 GRADTIG & DRANAGE PLAN (408) 741-0900 ° 1, N9TALLAiICN OF RepJRED AVTCMATIC 9PRTIfLER 5T91EM • AN AUTCt1ATIC BPRNCLER SHALL EE NSTaLLED M ACC NF Ai AN A S A A 1 ~ CE W! P lm AR G1i ORD 3D uTr ormxaNCE 16.8090 ARCHffECTURAL • FAST R:SFONEE RRe sPRxnER HEADS SHALL BE NSTALLED N THE GARAGE A!O ALL coNrruous AREAB WITINN TVE STR1gfIlE UTILIffD AS WORC9NOP OR BTORACf PURP05ES. N CETFTAx GdCEB, A-i Ar4~ite4;tural Slte Plan A-2 d Fl Pl STRUCTURAL DESBGN DE AUTp1AiIC SPRNQER BTSTEM SHALL BE N6TALLEp TIROUGIIOUi ENTIRE HOU# A4~ 1St. LeV oc an +~ ~~ A-3 2nd, Level Floor Plan • tlE SPRPKI.ER coNTRACTOR 91wL PROVIDE 1Up COPIES CF THE Wolacrt~ DFt4C4NG9 AND cALaLarla49 TO nE RR: DI5IRJCT. A-4 Exterior Elevations ~ ,~,;,,~ WestfaN Q ~ • ry • ~ • TIE RR8 DI6IRICT MU6T 189fJE A PERMIT FRIOR TO 1IE N9TALLAiION CF THE FIFE BPRNCLER A-5 Exteror Eevatons p, ~ Victorian V~dg C ~ ~ ~ b SYBTETM ~ ~ MJ9T HAVE A Lltt d15RFS9 LICENSE AND LL~R'0v Goss-Sectional Elevators A-6 Covered Patlo Plans A-7 Roof Plan 14583 Big Bash Way Saratoga, CaYforria - 95070 (408) 867-0244 ~t 9'~ o~c 8. TIE 9ETeACK6 61wLL eE VERPED PRICK TO Fou0aTI0N x6PECncN eT A RCE oR LL6 AIO WRTiB4 General Notes & Deta~s ~ ~ ~ cERrACarloN THAr TIE SETBACKS AFE PER clrr CODE aFE Ab SHOUN CN nE AFRBJVED DRAWV1Yi6. ~ c 9 RFE DEPartnENr REOUIli819+T8 ~ 4 p l RENEW Cf TNB DEVELORQ4T FAOP05AL L5 LMIIED i0 ACCEPTABILITY OF SITE AOCE56 AND WW1ER SUPPLY a91IEY PERTAN TD FIpE DEPARTMENT OPERA1104ffi a40 SHALL NDT BE LANDSCAPNG L-1.1 Pre6rrlhary Planting Plan CIVIL ENCBNEER $1 ~ o °b ,g , CCNSiRED A8 A 9Ue6T11UTE FOR FORMAL PLAN RENEW TO DETERINE Cd'PLLW4CE WITH ~ ~ ADOPTED MODEL CODES. PRIOR TO PERFORING ANT WOpC THE APPLICANT 6HALL MAKE C~rR CTI~011 P9~11T191ECfIVE FPOhI, r1E e91LDNG DEPArtThB(T ALL APPLICABLE WeSifd~ o Y 7. R:OWI4ED Fib ROW nE R9aureD RRE ROW FOR THIS PR?lECT HAS BEEN CAI.OJLa1ED AT 1,150 GFM AT t0 P91 AESIDIIAL PRESSURE. THE ADJUSTED FlRi FLOW 19 AYAJLABLE FROM AFEA Victorian 14583 Big Bash Wa y WktER MAxs AND FIRF HYDRANT(S) WHICH ARi LOCATED AT THE REpIIR~ SPACxG Saratoga, CafforFiia - 95070 (408) 867-0244 3. GARAGE RRE SPRNTLHi SY51EM REGHRED: AN APPRDvED, Al1TC41ATIC RFE 6PRNO.ER SYSTEM DESKJ4ED PER NATICHdI. F91E PROTECTION ASSOGATION STANDArD'BD A!S) LOCAL ORDNaNCES, SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TIE GARAGE. TO ET15lFE PROPER SPR/KLER Of ERATIQ~ TFE GARAGE &W,L HAVE A 81'IOOTN, RAT, FIORQONTAL CEILNi /. EAR.T waR4ra FIRE ALARIBTSTEn REpIIfED; PROVIDE AN oPPAOYED EAR.Y WeRIAG S~.S ENGBNEER ENERGY C®PAPLIANCE C®NSULTANT RRE ALAR1 STSTBi i11R01Y,140UT ALL PoRnaNS of TIE STRICTURE, NBTALLED PER Cltt ai SARATWA STANDARDS. S Bay Area Geoteclrrcal Group 950 hdustdal Ave. Yamiia Vera Kemet & Associates 15131 Perry Lane ~ ~ ~~ Pab Rho, Calif4xrtia - 94303 M an F1R, Caffomia - 95037 ~ ,~a ~~ (650) 852-9133 /FAX (650) 852-9138 779-5402 (4N Project File rF644-A °RA~` M0 T-1 /' ~,, , ,:~ I ~~,~ ,~,, ~; i , I 1'~'0~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ EOUIPFENT PAD LOCATILN (FW _ / ~ EG1~P'ENT TO LCIFOR1 / ~ i / ;/ Pf7DPERIY ~ i J~ ~ I WJ SECTIp15PID®30 (hA 1 ~ ~ LLNE / ~' `+ 1 ~/ ~ ~ 1 ' / ( / / / ~ ~O DU 5Pd 10 PFHED 7 C / i ~~ i , oeD"t wa mree ~ I - / i r , ~ .~E rt I ,~ ,/ i i ~ / I i i 4~ / / / / ~ i ~ / i i , i POOL :~ ~ LOG1gN ', FOOD PFffP. ~~ ~ ~ O" WID'c LONCFiEIE AF~A / ~ i / POOL COP1W EDGE i . i i / / •" / / / ~ ~I I ~ / ~_ _ / /i ~ _. 1 ams~ro Ka / // ~ N'-0'M0.0' / . 1 Pf3OF05EDNEW6'•0"- // /-~ - Oa ~ NIGH DECORATIVE / PA TlO / / I WRCUGHTIRCI4FENCE W! 14'M4" CEMENT RASTER ~' ~% AFEE - 3'-axr-o• c[N[~tE 1 1 ~6'•0'HIGHF@~E ' PILA5TER5 ~ 11'•0' 00. / / STNDNS ~ / LdNDSG - I WI 74" X 74" CEMENT RA5TERPI A51ER5 1 i / i ~ ranoxD / LCeAiILN - / - ~ . I I ~ D'-0" O.C. 1 ~ ~ I W ~ ~~ /FROP09ED NEW b'•0" ~ 1 / / ~ NIGH DECORATIVE I / ~ ~ y / /~ LLR~X~HT IRON FENCE WI 14"k74'CEMETJI ~- y~~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ /~ RASTERPILA5TER5 ~~ 1 ~ ~P~~LL-/~ -- W ~ / / Y1iwM I " ~ ~ / ? ~~ ^`~ - ~4 I SIDE gF~ / / ~ I l i Q ~^ / i ~ / o w~ I 3,•0:,x:-0,: ~ i ~ I ` COFCREIE i i ~ v „r, / / / I / / µRp Cq,F,7 ,~,T NOTE: HICDEN LINE T •nJr4 I PAD PRDP05ED NEW 6'•0" N~~GH DECORATI'ff / ~ I---IRETAINNG / MDICATES PERIME ER WALL 4REA5 OF - WRCWNT ICI FIIICE / j l~CU ~~ WALL Ex1511N'sN0U5E - -- y.IrW w 3~ / i LOCATION i , _ _ _ _ _ ~ WING WALL ~/i i i / / ~ ~ / / ~ i ,/ DWVEWA7 ___________________________ ___~________J ~f~I~` 8 0' DIAMETER p ~~Rtt ~~~ CONC. ENTRI' LANDMG ~ LME IT•0"DIAMETER ~LONCRETE ENTRY I'-0" WIDE CONC. ~~ WALK W/ FCIMAM EN1RY WALK raNE 9iFff1 L~f~ 1 `' 0 ~ 24" iRE~. - N07'18'00"E ~ _75196' - - -- -- -- -- ( O-~ - 2< RFy J ~B~(~ ~C~~l ~9ER~E R~~~ SCILE: 1'•10'-0' ie ~~~~'i§ ~~~ ~~ °a~~~~~i~ ~a ~~~~~~Qa ~~ ! a~ ~ ~ Q~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~;~ 8 O ~ I~ ~~~ mfr- C ~y ro~ ulJr. Karoo d0 ~~o~ ro N ~~N~ ~~ ~ € . ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 0104-B A-1 zaNG RI-ImmOm oft+ 503-6-011 L07 51¢ bb67 SpFi. ALLOWABLE FLC~R AREA 4J28 50.Gf. AVERAGE 517E SLOPE: b 1A FIRbT BOOR SQR: 7 01 5pFf SECOND FLOOR 50Pf: 15315pPT "dNCLLDES RON.DA dREAJ GARAGE AREA: 165 5Q FT. RAPI BAMDAD fS!!0/0V AREA Gf COVERAGE DATA TABLE: I.J PROP05ED LOT COVERAGE: 35A 1l MAxIMUM 4LLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 355 3.J SWIMMING POOL: 91950'fE' 4) FOOL EQUIP. GONG. PAD: ;150. FEE' 5 J DRIVEWAY AREA: lpb9 50 FEET bJ COVERED PATIO: 7g95pcEE' 1.! FRONT ENTRY WALKWAY: 31150 FEE' B.~ BAR-B-QUE ~ POOD PREP: 36 `A FEET 9.1 WING•'WALLS AND COLUMNS: 1150. FEET 10.E FREESTANDING FIREPLACE: 7150 FEET IL: FAMILY 1 DININ's ROGMS CONCRETE LANDINGS: 4750. FEET 12: BEDROOM '4PORGNAREA~. 485pFEEi 13 J 157 FLDOR LIVING AREA: 7,0150 FEET 14 J GARAfsE AREA: 465 SQ FEET 5,461000 50 FEET 5,486.100 50 FEET MAXIUIM ALLOUIED ~~ NOTE. THE ROTUNDA IS M EXCE55 OF b'•0" M HEIGHT - iFE ROIWDA WAS CALCULATED T1O TR'~5. ONCE FOR 157 FLOOR A2A AND AL50 FCR 3EC0~ FLOOR AREA THE 5gJAfffi FOOTAGE 15 IN CCtFOR1ANCE UN SECT'LN 5.45D30 CF 1HE ZONING ORDNANCE. GENERAL NO1E5: :J THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR b, TO 1N5URE THAT FINSH GRADE'SLOPESAWAY' FRCt1 HOUSE A MINIPAI" Gf b'•0" FOR P08111YE Gf?4rJAff ?ND 15 TO N51RE AGANSi FCNGNG. ZJ THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR 15 i0 LOCATE 41L U1ILITIES AT JOB 5 TE PRIOR 10 CG'P'IENDING UpFIC 3J ARRgIb (-~) MDICAIES DIRECTION 0: HNISH GRADE AND DRAP4AGE. 4.1 PRIOR TO THE 155JONCE C° BUILDI1Yi FER'f1T, AN ENCROACHMENT PERSIi 15 ft-CllIRED FRIOR TONE CatENCEi'ENT LF ANY AND ALL WOPoC WITHM THE CITY OF SARATCGA WGHT CF WAY (RWJ 5.J A.L H05E BIBBS APJE TO BE FATED WI NLN•REMOvEABLE BACK•FLOW F'FD:vENTICN DENCES A5 DIRECTED BY THE CITY Lf SARATWA. 6~ A b'-0"NON-CLIMBABLE FENCE 15 TO BE =NSTALLED A.L ARDIJD THE PROPERTY ON TIff PROPERtt LME. 1J PROR 10 FOLSDATION M5PEC110N BT THE Cltt, THE ROE, OR LL5 CF RECORD S4ALL PROVIDE ~ URITTEN CERTIFiG4TI0N THAT ALL BUILDIPY~ SETBACKS AFE PER THE APPROVED BANS. Bi THE SETBACKS SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FCLhDA710N IN5PELTICN BT A RCE OR LL5 AND IURIIIEN CERTIFICATION iHAt THE SETBACKS ARE PER CITY CODE AND 4RE A5 SHCIW ON THE APPROVED DRAWINGS. NORTH (FROJU ELEVATION REFERENCE NORTH z i ~~~~~~~~ ~, ~~ ~ °°~~~I°~ ~ ~~l~ ~ ~s~~~l~~~d ~~ • 0 ~s ~~~~ ,~,m,~~. J \ ~J~ r~ i i L__J - 'ADIM 11,06RMN WI/014 A ~ ~,~ ~~ o~~ ~~s~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ s~ O~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ B NJ. ~~ A•4 d•5 .a-, / i .~~ i ~ r---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L____ r i n I I Wc~masmwgs ~ --_-.J -.-- ®IIRI~MVID - ~~ ..,----T------- -- I I ~ W PIEJ10 y1 I ~ ~ I ® L064154CE I 1 I ~~ I I I I 5 ~ I I I I ~ I I I ~ ~ I I I I I b~ #~ I I i ~ I NIOE I ~ ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~--- - ~ ~ I I k I ~* I ' ~ I i - _ ~ ~#Z ~ 0,{,,,, C°'1"' ii frl~. blue ~ K W ba#3 ~~ I ~ I I ~ I , „ ____J _ ~_ I I ~'~I-- L ---'--- bCtR NIf ~ --, be~aam #3 ,~ ~ ~ I I j I I I / I L l f ~ I I -f I - -- - I I I I ~_J I ~ I I J I I I I I ' I ----------------- I I --J 2nd level floor plan (X13 50 P P 5 . , N WI LGORE~EVATION47NDLE4EU 6 L.11~~ Ill' -- I 1 I I 1 ~ ~ rl ~T 1 ~I I 10lf~L lNlii 4l4~ DN400 WYIE 191 AtlAKY 11N 1fl61lMAD MD If Mp 0 M NKQO Ll~B LM5 M4101M~ 70f4q N C<NdM~Mf[ W I61Y.Nl~0010 and mrs aowxai r= gtLE180.00RMN 1A1NE0.R. J J r~ I I L__J - ra Las Matn,w BNa is n ~~~~~ ~~i~b ~~ ~1~ ~ i' I„~~~~ ~I ~~ $~l ~ ~a~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ s O ~ ~ I ~ ~•~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ W4~ N~ ., y(~~' K ` (7 iB NQ ~.~ . • -OlR4M1RdRR ,.~,- ~~,~ ~~ f>~ nEn•rn Hauer calaltm ERgEII~ eEa•7oeE)s - . - _, stmESEr.~ ~ wLrpull emlcm Han CORK 1R1 ~ n1119t t~11.fi GWI1[v7R • 10 eWtC4 Cows1[ nn r rqT 1 uJE 61IdME p ~ ~M1q&IIILL MY[ ~11Nra r oeRY waEelrour. - - - QYEQg,~ wa a tt ` - ~ m io ~ ~ xranan~cE IIEtJEr mu E.~iEww~ cornrtrra4wr~m.rr 11n1r ~ EEElEYA1E71 ~~E~ tIX~ ~w~ ~ ~~ - - fr nt el ti ( th)' eva on o nor nacEncarEeR n.xlaeuawRr aEEEEr tR+ aalrrwon~ IAt@M711R1glt \ ww.wwEKlw WPAMMW E 1~- -07!tl 117EIDA t 9N~ ' rlAr+lCwn M1A61LiRiI1L4 n1n gl~oeea wn+eE--- ncaRruw EpEllr r 1Ee1 EEOpIn Eql WLL EEOK[ - _ _ _ - N'rE01YJ tflK EPNK d111EliCRW YNEIl1' Mue•. Ala cue E 1R1 E 1'6L fIECIA(ERI~t ~/ IOUE MIRMIq}M W DI fAtO11 E0.W WrAMRMN q~' gEY ~ _ - __ Al fb LEEB~ rllf.Mi ML7ER li tb i4Ed 1181 IIEtIII OQCR7[ IEDCW I OOORIIM I a nl(KCRM ~ 1'I.uRt11Rl~ / \ ® EralNE wt >s•1oE ~ rcer ~ I ~ 1 ~~ - _ _ T F1EE01rj 11EW Mlnfifl rR4W ' ~ nILYrCMORR MMl0.WI1/IEZ YOLYE79t GIT OI%0l LEE CPl !OlaP711H1 MRIOM/L EOrNI AEOrE r4KT1 ROPRMnSW h d l " IR11 Cqm ~. ~ e 11140ILE M11N&41. ~°a rig t si e e evation (east) i !~~ r~ ~~ ~~ `~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ FP99H LEGEND: n EkIQ4'R NEW ~ lYa41 EMCIN IYNR OBEM 11.u1E! w n w EpNIRlp rpgl yo'mw. Enxta EFIr116WDQpE U.FWe111E T)',I(HYLi 4NUl[O GNEG ruse 'run AWIErO R'EWDAFx' pp 1 EueraE11er4Ertla[awe vRV ~ fuRU wrlncRn nE S+~L• 9a M11EMmnL4IOR [W11LA K Elllpll Eld E1kY4Mn 1R1 ~LW?RtlErIK{ui CCIE7EIE t1r LDl TKJR MERIN IQR EOWI ~ yuY ICQUw ~ 6. /11EM WEY11 1LN' KIT~rOM1 ET ECEa. EE..11EG11 ARIPN ~~ 1111 fL116'AWIWRWILO MIGI IIE{AEl ~ ~ CQtlER egg11I MCEElEYaKM _ F • exterior el~vati~ns SCALE: 1~4'~a I'-0" ' rOLtl NI111' 1LY8 - - _- ~REEIIROOI18tY. ~10.A'W07LL 11EWOIWOF M'411CN W KMM1101E UYT b xa, Q~ AEUIO W0 A - - :"Lk~1 +~~w. a v .EG7[FfRYppl ~ - >,x~W~ ~ 1RENE1E11. i EEe 1141 WW 1~1E11 ~ r.EweaEa~E a11EEERRxncae .. LxErcauxS,r E4EIaEW ~ n~oole ~ EElm1EXt/RL161 1W~L 4JRUEEWL Ul EE1'uC fpRR1EDCr06f iAn Y 017NC116E1E1e ~ ~lppqQ~~MTwUGA EubIR/rJA lOAIG rrunEEEEU1uw - - - - - - - - - - -- -- 0 - - -av~o RlnaaeEEn. ° nc++eraeoEEwaE ~ ~ 1p00E 1>lYp10E' - ~~ EtW01, pp71 Rn a TEOC E116•CAellr MPle11W 1YL mpartleerRtAlr W:~, ~E. EUIr' lilfl ~~' _ ---- - - - --- -- -- _ - W~M~, _ _ - - - "'- ~ -- ~- - __ n T - - - - - aumene rnEarem c cald~rE an wan 9nar Dale er rreES1®u.fEe EEXLIRI10.YtlRl 9-g llEr arRrt ~ W14E ~EODaaTAELEII® WCE 9EwrEN 5 F+nKIED REY11E1Gf LIE M110(ILL911' Al0.4 UMIM IEEI46EYATPI MAIM 111171() HEYAf lp! rRtAn Ew I!9l/71E7<11 ~~ n ~~ • • ~~AI"" r ~~~YI~\~ ~ ~~~~A rear elevation (south) d.a 5 KR%IW ~ 01f:MiWgOb lIlfA(EE8'BIf P.kQR d n W rH/#IRpfAflr NaD Ol. BNSO iFitrY W DACE lArEl irt'E 9' dEpU11 l/NEN~ tµplW PMER MIItMWIEi01E 1NfY.0AFY' 6YlapL MM Id1 EaWl mr~nArrAaaEWrrtareY~• (•AiIE%~ er rw ramuu r10! ~ WnYtYllt PEiA67 cagEh MAf 01'G01,TYC4lAppylQ[aur). r several ~ fKtrJOM~erIH(q.WG,NpCAlrptlicw tar EaBV tW t%w ro reia na.wr CQIdlI[ ~MM I ET! 9EV47a! ~~ fE E ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~a~~ YJd i=H R ~4 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ B Na. ~~ YWlNgIaRiR -~ faw MlpUab W 7i.i1W larA YNIRfl~I r pll- r~Ynnrwwa wt ~ - e6tt _ _ ~7PJ~SAKrS07r ~tiN,... taraornuaimiWta earmnn~caca I 11%iUr®RYtt ~ CM%611-1a tMfaIgEL1A@!0 IIWI •tRylllq[ nnAnaW pa.dr r wt IRtJN W[JFR roiwrtr ttn - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -°u-t yteoeaA+rAxs v 7wa'nnex ~~ ~"" ~4 YOl tYp191111t rpr[raeruab Y W BIIG1lOYO rntn+R ner.%i dacwrtArEOAUr+een ~~ _ _ _ ~ - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - ~ ID - 'I II IItTP oxaWtr~E nwut rni WLL ecaKe / \ ~wrt romp ~ r~Kx MgNt v~ ~,,,u~, ner.%icgx4 LWrimunreAe ~nrX ,~ ~ti~ RIYI%YI![LNA1Y?! _ _ WNIIfM %al[AW1r _ _ _ IUfAAt (/1pM0ert1tIN01 an6r,reE.nr~rwar ewoumErormw WME WWIO iHE7 rKtYaatMMIXW reoarlwBrEUe tnAwi~roturw /kSMl fpq![ Ea17lrE tKllal UKWWRE rwu rr WeEter sxw cwaeR troYE'cau« nap Wa',a•euE rarhrAE %'xPNp6rr PJ8iER Wµ EKierwWre. cWracartdr,rr+ `+eus Ni.letM~m WolRCMttN M11WiMMyp ERD1% 11M •tM1Ii1pE //MMMMttWIAIYdAIbtE/Ntr ILNAi1011 • ' ~a ~ ~ Ta.+aewro4l[ GpuwrM•Ru I ruaeR m~iG:~iu~ I woR~IG nlalrtree Go I ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I patio floor plan -~--- I ~ I I I II I I ~~ I I ~ I f ~ I f ~ I'^ ry I ~ 1 I r I electrical plan covered patio 6CAL8: 1l4 I'-0' ns c~Gn ro anu u wue _ "~GMlrro•r NI01 Ai ICIG[ deco ~1 caaFn wa - RGGI1jNR front & rear elevation teelr rvaee ~~ hell 9U/!Ge) NGa rntriolentte l7rY? Pel/ cross-sectional elevation ~! a ~~ na mu u e e wr7rieo l g R - "°'• ,~a~ we re la. RGItgM ID MrGgI Y6IRIIGYrRe1 IGGE weGUa7x Gewwa. ~~ v""' attic area ~~ ~~~ Z ~ rruGlllr - yGr ryp t ~ ~ 1 - nY~~ neuewwaelR ~~~~iE~~~ ~ ' j ~ ~ ~ ~M6 dlt ~ d~~i ~ ! balcony galery . master bedroom sine ~.~~, `~~°`~'°""` ~I~~s~~~3e ~l ~YR~ ~~~ ~•~~ ~~ W@111Y RN rneRrGw ,,,yam vW~~~ - wroGn urcoxtinao esnacR aye Yo u~a 7~ 0 C~ oRClmnRw ~ raWae uE r ~W4 ' A ~ ~ - I I I I t7 6 eoro iy I I I I ~TJ ~q gM ~ ~ d `~y~~ ~5~3 y I I ~ I I area t=1 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I sf ~~ daturri ~~ I I I I I I I I Wccxti~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ V A la enln.arsel erae~ ^xrlerlet ,~,~~ N$7.RQ7 Y~C M19AC (R'YN1 • 1~'nrln uaRR+a RArMIdRllOpl~ ~~~ S.IIIGr R.wR MllAlgl rtH cross-sectional elevation "A-A" ~~~~~" ~~ 6ln1KN~R NGRkYRG atr. MRRtlMIi GE1M UD ,per Y1N5 4H IpGRItlL p . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WL Rd IRI LO OOY. lfleb G 4 Rp RNIeG eGila11M11 1aR ~~p I~p1IG1~ W a1aAW MRWR~ ~O~R IIOa R~4Ni , QtPMltflyygppr N1KW~Le NNI ~ AIRRLGfQl1/RR/ll1ffq-0qyyMf~ d~6r~at ~Y~ 6~rtR~G77YDG,lYAd Yt11R l z ~mean,w+niuawnca ow Kart _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ^' _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o- ~l~ rrcoxKrcm Ra Rrdnwa R ~ . Gu 1RVe11 ~ar t 5arma ~ r Rain Rnw I I bath #- bath ~`2 gaNcery I mast ckt • u v4ur I , I ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ -YGLlIKYOUIl51 aetr~rwweoRo ao nG+ ~~ -IMpAGO110M GOW -x loe • re llr+ GamrcaenluGln RWR -RDytRa=lwUlr mao -b1YGlr0 wNglR R~, P 'I^^• u~'coxR 1 rs+iaRe 1 ~~"~~ ~{¢ a y,Ev_. yr bmuiuu + ~` I I lo Go I I Rarranearaim I ~ wee nw. nwle 'gam ~rt ~ ~t beotaam f~ bar ~ j . ~ f00d parry ~ nf~Jru Y°1R1~ ~~'r ~~ec[~a iw~Ge~ 8111 R.V41E1 I Y/'GDx M1nULO ~ WG7x RntlOD 1l~IttR GARLgI Hlfl~ ~~ ~RN~VI . - - u wyl e[VdRIH GL101'1AF R/bRG OPFLI®MIW 4RIGG l1E cross-sectional elevation "B-B" ~v~, ~~ cross-sectional elevations ~. roof plan right and left side elevations ~~~~~~~~ ~~ei4~es~ ~ ~! ed ~j~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~R !€~~l4~~e ~~ • • GErEI¢4L NOTE5 t wlwwameiiNegt: i1M ~ v.6N.v. Nai MinIW IR NaIl MIIlN i YL W IDfrYrMNM ro R 710161LV. M7M ~ N 1tVD' MI1R x Nl.7fY1NWII.Y[ ro s-n roaNamsuwRmY aewrtruNraYxw Mllpwl l ILL M1lMf N)ME y IO~W7® a1111iCNM1 iY0 M P~IK11 w°Nri~u a N°~rrrn`yws nan ~eNin,,w Nuu.,wttune MRilm s niwkanxie+rYror.rra'lamuu a/pR qAr Raw K TMML' NTlN ~ CQa! MIYIIIWr4 i MR~IOYIl0Y1~Clgla ~ Ra YaI f~S/y. i Ra NA4 Y M @ 40lalY NTmI i Yoa O.fiwYrauue rox wwa. N RaYYaNemsrwa IO.Ilgpt@S NIWi1MUMnD 111111L1 YYYIip IY.f INOYiIYlU IgIM il! YM Y rlt YNG rae w~i xnnttea®dwrn~Yem AML 4EHTILATION SCNEDUIE: GARAGE A1TIC: Roew~ ~iwau uxaw.xaunrt.a~an~ x9Y nn.%N110ll•NNOIin NN11IK11® ~- • 11A vYrti h MIIi1W1®) IprLE fW~vM Mk411EM[MI`All1.411iQ NIIQ Iqi f111i1 n Rl NOJSE A1TIG RpMl.1 .w,~ rwwv.Ynunn.ararRanp YIIN n n. %YI MiN • )sown N Mp Ram •~ .NY11 YiAi fi61Ai11 RYYm/ IR4R~ 4N~lkN'MYIISIdN1f116.IJ10n MII~MG IY7Y1nnJ ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~A~b~~ R ~ ~+~~ ~~ at rub I ~ ~.~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ .y ~~~ r/ ~L ~ I~,a 0 50 150 200 LEGEND w.or. nAe m arr. ,..~, ..[r~~r:.5 wtl ,,, ,~.~.,KI, :~~„ ,, RI~„~ rv v..~.r .,>.~,,,,,K ~: ~,~„a E%ISIING AND PR(If06ED USE- RESIDENTIAL NET ARIA OF n¢ LOT • 6/ ACRF3 AVVIlRAACE IAi SW~E (~ S<0.0Bffll/A h I F00T L-IIAFEET A-0A ACAS N-ux Auo+PAas.LOOFIAn, IItA S.F. I /~~J ~~ V~~ \\ / 4\ A / ~~ ~/ 0~ A~ / I ~~ TI i ~ ~ ~ I I~ f. Afrr \\\• \~ ~.W 1! ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ \ \ `\\\, ' ~ ~ d~0 ~~ \~ P` f Id. ~/~\~ \~I \ ~ ~ ]o \ R i ~ ~ \t ,~ ~ ~~ / ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ . nil, RQ vAVq >~ /; ~ ~` ~ vipN,pSi~S ~ i 6.f xorss t. SLOP65 OF 21 OR GREAT EA AMAY FROM 171E FOUNDATION SHALL BE MAIRFAIN ALOMG iilE ENTIRE PEA1lRFEP FOR A DISTANCE OF 5 FEET NININUN. 3. ALL ROOP DRAINS 7'0 B8 DIlC7UACED [N7V CLOSED CONW]T SYSTF71 AND CONVEYPD I'0 THE CRAVIn S70RN DRAIN SYSTflI, 3. IN,9'IALL 9U8-DRAIN AROOIE 1118 PBRIlO1F8R POIIIIDATION AID RPTAINING HALL IN ACCOROAII~ NI7N SOIL6 BNGDI86R'S R80BIB~ATIQ1 Alm pNP1 RIS D[RBCTION. 798 SUB-DRAIN 7D B8 D]SCHARG® INTO THE SOMP. 77Q DISCHARGE 'f0 BE BQUIPPW MITH A BACAPLON PR6VBIF[Q. 1. PIMAL SURFACE DRAINAGE GRAUIHR SHALL BE PLAMNBD AND BUILT SO AS TO DIRBR MATER ANAY FRpI 7718 BUILDING6 AND FptAmATI0N3. 5. GLANS CART ADJACENT TO PoUMDATIdIS SHALL SLOPB AYAY FROM TN8 POUNMTIONS. \ \RYI) \ / \~\\ r' !,/~~\ \~ ~: ~`~ ~ B \J ~ M.tl Ox ~~ ~~ I '~ I \~ ,\ ~ ~ _ \ l~~ . A ~~ I ~~ ~~ ~o ;~~ 1 ;' ~ ,P ~1 \9d ^~ ~ z ~' ~ ~~ i ~H ~ 43~F E,ARTHW'ORK QUANTITIES VOLUME OF CUT 1070 C.Y. VOLUME OF F1LL Z ~.Y. yOLJNE D~,VI ipR 'p7- 350 ~ Y EXPORT t41e C.Y. MAX DEPTH OF CUT 6.0 FEET MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL 05 FEET hAr~ Af°TN DfCl7 fON hX1L IP FfFl ,.T '% 1 ,.p / / P ~~ $ ~d ~ ~ ~ w /~ f~~eAr pIEAIf ~~ r/~ 'Mad --/~ ~\ 0 ~\ ~ ~,AM ~~ ` =yam t •aeaJ_ -"~- \ \ ° .apt- - __ to "~---~ \ I~ ~ \ .nn \ S' • NIN ` 4 Alts a ~ ~'-~ , ~1 ~ _ --Att. \ . tFS~ ' _ 1 t ~ - --- J s •Mlp ___ ~ .__ _._ ~ ,yCkE 'WAY' >~ -- / 'T ~~ - tt2f - APS7 \ A ~ a:Y era N0. B1 DATE REVISION BY DAiE DAtE: ,~ ~; SUBD17iED ,1W HD, SCALE NOR. "~/0' GRADDING AND DRAINAGE PLAN "t'6 -- -- °`°' WESTFAII ENGINEERS INC. -LANDS OF RAFF I BAMDAD DESIGNED: X F SHEF' DRAM: B1 ARRFF IrneAE 13250 PIERCE ROAD. SARATOGA ~ CHECKED: pA7E: R.C.E.JIS71 11583 BIG BASIN uA1, SARR70GA. U 95070 :1081867-02A1 ~ PROJ.ENGR:.r E%P. L. VICINITY MAP ~ • lMJ W J'Mv --- -_ _ I I 1 -. i __-__~_ ~. - -___ _____~_____~____ i ~ '. &~CTION B - B ----~----- - --- h ___.-a--~__ i_ -~ _... _ --~.--... __ - _ I ~ ' I i ll~_~ _~ -'- ~-- ~-=_AaiDEy- - -- i -RESIDES-}--- j,------ _- - -- - ~`- E I + ~ ~. I--' -. ~ ~ it treta , rr .o t - .. ~, .\~ N .~1...\ U• Nm yr ~~+/ "~ l~ STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES NOTE: THIS DARNING IS APPROVED BUBSECT TC I. All grading is subject to observation by the City. Permi[[ee or repreaenca[ive shall notify tAe CS[y of Saratoga at IMDP1 868-;761 at least IB hours before start of any grading. 7. Approval of this plan applies only to the excavation, placeeN!nt, an conpattion of natural earth ruteriale. This approval does not confer any rights vt entry to either public property or the private property of oche re. Approval of Chia plan aLo does not coneticu[e approval of any iagrovexn[a. Proposed improvement are subject to caviar and approval by the responsible authoritipa and all ocher required permits eAall be obtained. 3. t shall be the reaponsibil i[y of the Penit[ee or agent to idenc iEy, locate and procett all underground [acilitiee. p. The permiccee or agent shall saintain [he streets, sideralke and all other public rights-oF-ray In a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or cone[ruc[lon debris shall be removed from the publicly ovner property during construction and upon completion of the project Al adjacent property, private or publ[c shall he maintained in a clean, safe and usable condlt ion. 5. All grading shall be performed :n such annner as to comply rlth the standards eetabliahed by [Ae Air Quality Maintenantt District for airborne parciculatee. 6. A]1 knam veil locations on [he site have been included and such wells eAa11 lx maintained or abandoned according to current regular Iona administered by the Santa Clara Valley Hater District. Ca .. I1081 765-2640 to arrange for district observation of all veil abandonmen[e. T. This plan does not approve the removal of trees. Appropriate tree removal pernr[e amd methods of tree preservation should be obtained from. the City Community Development Depa.^.ment. B. the Civil Engineer, Nesc[all Engfnee re, tnv., Lp5B3 Big Basin May, Saia[oga, Ca. 95r70. Has designed this p[oj eGt [o canply with. [be grading re ommendations in the project geetethnical report, if required, prepared by _ , and dated 9. All grading shall conform co apprcved specifications presented hereon or at cecF.ed hereto. A11 grading work shall be ohserved and approved by c!:=. sail engineer. the soil-engineer sal: be n~ oc if ied at least aB hours afore beginnrnq any grading a: telephone number Unobserved and unapproved graJ:ng we •;c shalt 'u< .area and replaced under observation o[ the project s7:1 engineer. :G. Grad:cg permits vi!i rat be \ssued between October 15th and Apri: ; ,[ o[ any year vu hoot apprrval by the Director of GRADING SECTIONS VERTICAL SCALE: 1 Inch = 10 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: I inoh = 10 feet Sashed Ltne "r lurcl Cr PUnd Solid Llne Propoead Ground GRADING SPECi FICAT!ONS • ALL SITE GRADING SHALL BE 'JBSFRt^ P5' ?NE PAQ:fiT SO!L ENG LNEER AND TESTED h NfCESSARI i'J C.E?PAM; NE GENERAL Ct7M7 LIANCE NITN TXE RECpMENDATIONS CE "HE' ~ .i'Ef nN!: A:. RE PoR? PREPARED BY A.`.:. GATE: 171E SOIL ENGINEER SHALL BE ~'JXfA =cam ?' ;,; A:- of H: 'FC FAIOR 70 THE CDFmr7.CEMENT JF GRAD:N'; • ALL 7REf5, FENCES, NEEDS A!:'. !! j'ELLAt1F-'': SJFFAiE DEBRIS SHALL fiE REMOVED FROM iNE AREA T`~B_ :FADE.: • ALL E%ISTiNG FILLS TXAi •tRY N.~i ivt'~E BEES :wFA'E:' FAJPfFLY NfNIN 6VILDING AREAS OR NAAf SAFE AREA YIS" AE RFJf:VE. AMJ AECpIPACTED. • ALL DPGAN SORELY CONTAM 1NAiEC jO:L SHALL BE S:ilI72EC TC A DEPT.N OF ABOUT ) INDIES ANG REMOVED FRtW ^. NE GRC:'N^ SURFA.'E JPJN MH1'_H FOUNOATICMpS. STRUCMUL E.-... ?R FA'; EMEA: A E '; BE ?'-A; EC. • TXE VAT ISTUP.B ED NA?UGti S - Ei:F.'SE^ S :?RIFT !KG SHALL BE PLOMED DR SCARIFIfO TC A .CfF'4 ~ErAB~FT ~ INCHES CR UNTIL 771E SURFACE IS FREE OF RUTS. MCYR!':i YS, :R _THER UNEVFII FEATVREE MN ICX MAY INX IBIT UNIFORM 5^!: , V1 ] ^ '.7;EN BWDE: JN.'IL 1T IS URIFORM IN TEKTURE AN^ F4EE Fa M ^au: • THE AF'PR~NED TILL MATERIAL 4 a :W'EC :A WSEAS KO THICKER i71AN 6 INCHES TO PER! ,V ~JATE Bi N: ING 0.Ai CCMPACTIOt7 BACX WYER SHALL BE SPgEAD E EYLf AYO SHALL 55 TNV'q]UGXLT B'.ADE MI%ED CURItA; TN8 BPREADINv" "'.^ FN.,UR_ URIFVP.M iTI' OF MATERIAL. FILL MATERIAL, APPROYEJ FJq ~,iF TAIN Pilgr Sf< MAY :NCLVDE ROCKS SMALLER THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER 7R ['/JOS GFEATEF T!iN: u INCHES IN DIAMETER NITN NO MORE 71 W7 iS PEP.CENT LARGER THAV 2.5 INCHES. A MINIMLM Of 1? INCHES CF IMPORTED, NCH-E%FANSI'!E F;LL SHALL BE PWCED BENEATH ALL CONCRETE SLABS~CN~GRADE, PAtT71Et„ AN? NAiIDSCAPE AREAS. IMPORT FILL MATERIALS SHOULC BE EVALi;ATED BY THE SOIL ENG [MEEK PRIOR TO DELIVERS' TO T,XE CITE. • ALL FILLS ON BLOPF,S GP.EATF.R T.HNi f:l SHALL EE Kf'iEC AND BBNCNED iNTG THE HILLSIDE 0.FTEF ALL LNSE [OLLN!JM. SJILS HERE E%GVATEG PND REPLACED AS EN'~I NEEREC F1:.L. • NXEN TXE M0]STUR2 CONTENT OF :'NE FILL NAiERIAL SS BE LON THAT SPECIFIED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER, RATER. SHALT. BE ADDEC UNTIL THE MOISTURE CONTENT IS AS SFF.CIPIED. • MH@I TXE MOISTURE CONTEMi OF TNf Ef LL MATERIAL IS ABCkY THAT SPECIFIED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER, THE FILL MATERIAL SHALL 8E ' AFNATED BY BEADING OR OTHER SATISFA~I'ORY METHOD JNTIL THE MOISTURE CONTENT IS AS SPECIfI P.D. APTER ETCH WYER NAS BBEN P',ACED, NI%ED AND SPREAC EYBNLY IT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACfED TO BE'YIEEN BTt AND 9?k REWTIVE COMPACTION AS DETERMINED BY ASTM TEST DESIGNATION pCl EE"-3'. NON-6%PANSlVB NATIVE OP, iNPORTED FII:L SHOULD BE COMPAC'. EC TO A MINIMUM OF 90k RBWTIVE COMPACIION. COMPACTION SHALL BE B't 3HEEPSFGJT OR OTHER TYPES "•F ACCEPTABLE ROLLERS. FIELD DENSFTY TESTS SXAU. BE MADE BY TXE SOIL ENGiNEfR DURING CONPACIIDN OPERATIONS. NHEN 'I HESE TESTS INDICATE THAT THE DENSITY DF ANY WYER OF FILL OR PORTION THEREOF IS BELCM THE 90k REWTIVE COMPACTION, THE PARTINLAR WYER OR PORTION THEREOF SHALL BE AEWOR%ED UNTIL THE REOUTAEG DENSITY HAS BEEN OPTAINED. ALL EARTH MOVING AND NOR%[NG OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONTROLLED 70 PREYBNT NNTER FROM RUNNING iN70 E%CAVATEO AREAS. ALL EKCESS HATER SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVEC AND THE SITE KEPT DRY, • THE CONTRACTOR SNAIL CONOUCf ALL GRADING OPERATIONS :N SUCH A MRNt1ER AS TO PRECLUDE HIND gLJNN DIRT AND ^_L'Si n DAwAGE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. • NO GRADING OPERATIONS SNA!~L COMNENCf OUR LNG UNFAVORABLE NEATNBR CONDITIONS. FILL OPERATIONS SHALL fi0T RESUME !N?IL THE MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY OF THE FILL MEET THE 57EC:FLED AEWIAFNEt7f5, • ALL SLOPES SHALL BE ..1 MiJMIMUIM FOR FIE', AND CL^.' SL~FES SUBDRAIN9 7O BB IN.STALLF,t' :N SF.EFAGE AREAS AS PER :,.. E'FION OF SOIL ENGINEER. • ALL JTI CITY LINES SHOULC 2E BEDDED fN EITHER CCN[PE:E, CR IN CLEAN, PINE-GRAINED SA•:D GF CNIFORM GRAIN S: ZE. SANE 9E0=;NO MAY BE JETTED INTO 7WCE, r^RGl'C IEO THE. EKCESS WATER iS ¢EM. r- FROM THE TRENCH PRIOR tO F:A^iNG THE TRENCH EF,YFI',.:.. TRENCH BACKFII.L TALL MATE?-i A:~. IN THE TRE':_H AS'.i~E " " BEDDING- SHOULD BE PWCEC A> COMFACIED STRJT PAL F '~RCIN; THE SAME NATEA CONTENTS NiG ~BNSITI F.S AS PR.E'!]OUSLS' 'HE CONTRACTOR MAY USE ANY MEAYS :,' CJMPA!" ION ?HAT NIL:. RES','LT :N THE PP.OPEP. NATEP. CONTEN25 A;M~ DENSIT.I f.S, E:i'.'EFT 2::'^~. 'PEN'T BACKFILL MAY NO? gE SE?'iEL. MNERE T¢ENCNE.S PAS] TRF.'UU'H Oq 'IX'OER FO'INT)AT.'CHS. 'HE BEDD:?1„ IIF SANDr SHOULD Bf REPI.A^eI a'i TH A ~.ONCRETE FLU; U. FR A 2 FE F'E DISTANCE. 'n'HfPf TRENCHES PASS M.iNN GPADIENiS GREA?EF -nx:: i (HORIZONTAL "C VrP T!CA!' nrF .: A!. gi."Y.F ILL III'; REO':i Fi.KE!;- M,:. 3E NEEDED. EROS!nN ;L~ITRCi, • THE EROS'. UN CGNTRC~ !MEAS~J',~E,S :f!AL_ EE ;I: . ~_-. ._... ,_ '. XE RAINY SEASON, OCT!IE ER '.5 -'. APR I'. ;' • DVk:fIG ?HE fiA IN't SFA.SON ?H`: :':'h:.MMA:.L c V.I:I"'A:f:'.':' - > TCi PREVENT SEO:MFFT LADEN RUNOFF T' ENTER AGJC iNIi:v -;PER':ESyAND STORM DRAIN 9'l STEM. PROV;OE .:i.T FSNCE OF ~i?RAN 5A. B;.R Ri SR AS NEEDED. LO!'A7'I'U OF "HESE BAR RiEPS ?~ 9E DETF:aM!N _[. ;: -.,~ =fELC BY SOIL EN~IN F.! • ALL PrfED AREA-S SHALL EF, }' 'r" _~SAR ~~F L'Ee?.IS. • SE EL` ANC M'.r!.CH ALL D:STJR±E:"'~LO FE C' PRIGS '" _.T bEP ..- '°. BY DAZE RF',IBI~. BY °AiE s~r_'°~~_ '°°~D' GRADD I NG AND DRAINAGE PLAN 99236°~ -- _ --~- -~- --- -- I WESTFALL ENG I NEERS a I NC . -- °D -- -- I SHEE DE ..,E Jr __ H , E, Cy"BAL. PEE 57534 AND AF BAMDAD NE . D Ac ~.- f4se3 Blc dA51N way, sesAlace. ca g5^.-0 •oe1Be~-De+4 13250 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA oP z -- - rRr~ r,rR. is ....r I PLANT UST: ' N W . 'm 4S En4w4 i Qti YT.IeL.L NM! . . CPAA1! n rwy Noenn ulecuN ~ WL uzu+w '~ n ~oLEA xwa4. arv[ ~u YY eroro .~ uN.R. ~x.v r " nwc ~ t • i ryyLAROVY' S LRY'F 1nRlLC EIIIOYO Y YAt wiw.L re unRa LeswoRart R s n uo 1 F-~-~a.rtwae w+ts tnna•~•°• •~:v y. ew .un '*^`I *! AeOIICYl1a RTAK IIP .u~ ewAee el ~Jlea ~. 41lM OCIWrt. ~YWaiV00 54.L' y dClOAf.I4rtOe , wsulo Fi Q!ei1' rv..i bll.NYla f G4 i ee L i N ~. LKJIV'I A .OUNIT .ULL. ~lD Wp0 /SVlt _ ~OQO eNf lO n%LL° T~C~M D fJI _~ ~ ' !t RCM IEPMU ..YL WI. +4Y T p'NE-NLLL • Ga.L I r n ~:a everc~ ,euLV o.n,L. w~K_uaet. sa.ra arA c.RwL' caR.-aw I en I uv+raa~ eracws ~ vww~ uv.wFR ' ~ o•L ~ rL ~ o.~ ~u ~w~ o werw a,E. v ~~ w~ee+~ FSY. n ~ T I rrt ~~ e, oven ..iY e• oc a W W W .wut caoR (plpeUlER'LOJ611' IAI NIeENI el.cN.e MLAlM. 11AIp.M O'NROe TA' NGk E~TIGREFN L410Y11i1 WADY E.R IIOHY.R+' .' PO! ~ ~ i.'OL. ' a' OO. . OL. Eud R fALRA .' ~AVrAw lnNTewx~ve y~Y~net}A '.W uA'i91 i'RAILNY L.Nr.w py.R'EIRaR4E R ~ ~ O.L e ~ RJM rr oc. Y'o4 ~~ ~ e ~f.lO NNE PLANT NOTES: I. T41E GGNTipAGtOR 9MAL1 D'_TE~C"INE °1 AN? 01AVTITIE9'¢Ch TI.E PLANTING PL.LV DIlANTITIES SuGUN IN tt;E LEGEND R' :OR '~KOFCAtIGN 116E ONL7, Z, NOTIFY i~E ! ,wpxaPE aRGMITEG7 II•AIEDIATE! T 'N ikE E`iENi CP AN7 J15GREPANG;"e6 BETLL.EEN 4CTUAL 61TE GONDIT!R75 AND SI+E PLANTING PLAN. 3. PL.WT C>figWDC'JVER N S~.Po1B AREA6 A6 NOTED= Jce TRI AVGULAR 6PAGiNG. ~ INDICATE6 PLANT ~CcY ~.,rWDICAtE9 PL.WT ^.UANTITI' 5. SEE CETA~L AND SPEGIF~04i'p+ ShEET6 =0R ADDIrONAL INFOR'1ATION. o. SGD .AUN i0 3E DOl:9LE-OWARF C'~N'P~ON ~Y9R'~D rSG.'E OR EGUAL. T. COORDINATE ALL PLANT ! OGAi ICN6 WI?H '_ANDSGAPE .~RGyI :G; ge"FORE AL?NiD ~~~~~. ~~~~ ~ ~ y ,~ ~ ~~ /~~ ~~ ~ EXISTWG TREE NOTES: _ __ _ __ J 5"eE Sw"eETS .1 AND L3 FGR TREE iOTEC".CN u0"ES AND DE?A'LS WLLGW ARBORf67 GuIDEUNE6 WR PROTECtiNG Ex15i~.NG TREES. %~ / ~_~ ~ti~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ var;R.a.L Gs ~, \~- rPCOL Pdp aN '~~ ~ (r~'.~T 'IL45TER5 aL ox Lc:+ vc~tECnoN a~ H U we 0 QQ ~ wU ~Q ~~ W ~f ~Z W ~ AG am.# W U z~ W a A a~ W o~ u w Aa 0 N n ~ A ~~ F a e N z K~ <~ zn ~~ ~< i ~ ;~ ~~"§ .LL .. g w mo: e e a, e A'e a w.,F~ DATE 5!7/01 ~, r.p. oeuuw PJR xe nraEx 0135 L1.0 /,''~ ,, Q I ~II ~~ -~__ ro ~rArr ~, ,, /~ r ~,% ~I . • • F I, Ry .~~, ~ s ~~ .gig ~((~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~,~~.~t ~ ~ ~ ~ g gg Sj ~ 5 ~$ _s s e a ~ ~: > .~ ~R~ - - w - aye ~ a`~~•~ ~~~~ :~Qa~ a~ ~~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ $ .g~~ `R gg$J ~(ggw~1 P~~3~ $~~ "~N S# - ~ a. .Q~ ~'~x~ ~Fe'~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ g a ara ~$T~ 31a `+ ~ g $ p l~3~F 7 @ a 6 S ~ g ~R ~~ ~' $AA gP~ ° ~~ ~$s ~s" 5 a~~~ ~ ~ 9'~ a~ ~a ~ "p~ ~g a ~aR ~~ P ~g~~ ~' ~$$~ ~ SS ~ ~ ~^~ ~ ~ ~~ ~> ~ @ QR ~~ ~~3°~ ~ K'~' atr a ~R' ~ AAA 3 R~ ~~ ` ~ !! l5. 7~ R~ ~ R IF^ ~~~ 4 ~ ~ 11 .,T,~ ii ~~ A. ~ ~ ~S ~ R ~~ C~ r a~ R• ~A p8 p R $~ .04 SOa~~~ ~ g ~ A'~ 4a a ~• _ ~ R ~ A S o '~ a N A 0 -~ "'1 Q q' ~ '1 g, 9 -i 'i ~ -1 7 S ~~ R3 ~ S ~ tg~y > y "~ ~~ ~9s A ¢• 3. ~3 8 ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ g Q p ~' ' e ~ S Rg~ b ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 3E 3 Aa 8'~ 8 try. ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ M O ~ ~ ~.~aQ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ `! B " s~ ii a °~.~~ _ ~ gR ~g ~ 5 R ~~~. ~ a ~ ~~~ a ~~ ~ N ~ C t CC ~ o Y. ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~d b M Jwu a w N~ ~` Ry y ~g~.$~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ a f~ a '~g~~~q~ aR ~~. ' ~ !f~ ~,~ .~ .~ ~' ~~ 7 R ~ ~ 4f R ~ ~ ~ Ii~~p r ~ M~ = R.~ ~ ~p~ wv r t~ ~ e R ~= "s a ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ a ~ 8° ~ ~ ~~~ a ~~ ~~ ~t ~~ ~ ~~~~~.~~ ~ ~~ g ~~ ~~ ~~p~~y~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~' ~ ~ ~¢' ape 5E~ aB~ S ~'~R~ ~. .a ~ g ~ o w ~ N 8 ~~ ~~^ R' Aga '~ •8~ 4~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w v 0 N pypy D D ~ ~ ~4~~~1j~ BEEF ~ ARBORIBT REPORT J x N ~ $ ~~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~(< ~ _ 91a1A~91\~ _ ~ ~ ~ C i ~~~~ a 3 3 ~ > . - . - . -.~- _ ° x ..- - x - ~ _ _._ __. -.- ~ _-- -- L ~ _ R _ f _ i a _F ~ oYwe>agwR -._ R i R g !} R 6 ~~ R S Y R ~ Y ~ Y R ~nM.o _ _ MMITNry.q » mmelwle rvM__ _ . OOi0s9l MfW RW MVAIICMI~IYPq _ a.o,. _ ~ _ K > ~~ ~ - -- ..b~.n..~l. ~. .~ ~ - ~ . . ~~;,~ • U-0 __ 111Wl0lCAgW I i ~ •00~~UM OrN!(~N . . . .~..,.~n., 5 Y ~ g '._ _ ._ .... . ._._ ~cowuo wovK __ ..o.,...o.,.~ BAMDAD RESIDENCE 13250 PIERCE ROAD SARATOCA, CALIFORNIA 95070 REED A330C1ATES 4l'1 6. tAAFFE AVE. 6LIMlYVALE, CA 94066 (4007 {81.90]® !4001 481-9DYJ ~4Y. o~..a...,.~..«.~w...,au.~,.,,,,.,r -~,.-.e..~. rn;wrta Mrw .w, n,. -nuw M.r ^..., i I _ F g~i~r ~; ~r ~ ~~~ ~ s~ ~~ Jr 3 3 ~~~ ~ g~~i~~ 1 ~ ~,i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ A ~~~~'~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ $ 3 ~ ~e~~w ~ t~~~ q~~~ ~ ` Y ~• -- .. a ~ ~ W ~~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~' ~° g ~ ---. ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~g~~g3N3. ~~>e ~a ~. $ ~ o r~ ~ ~a1~2~~~a ~ W~a a~~~~~~~ ~ _ ~ s ~~ 3~.s~T ~ Qh~ n~? ~~ ~ ~ y a « ~ ~ ~; l~s~ 3 ~` ~ - a @ R ~ ~gF ~~1~ ~ N~ ~~ x 84 ~_i ~~ f_a ~ ig u a O ~ '~I}~~ ~ ~~ ,1 >f• ~i Y Y Y 2 ~ ~ $~ E ~ `~' ~ 2 = ~ ~. ~ ' ~ ~ ~' R a ~ R R rn _ '" '~ 7 1 ' ~ I; ~ , 1~~1 R . a 3 c p ~`\ ~ _ ~ d ~~ ~ ' R a $ S y Y s s ~ ~ 3 ~ g a 3 R ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ O ~ _ . ,\ O I i 1'~. ~.I~.~ 1 ~. ~ ! 7 $ r ~ ° 9 ^ ~ ~ I = ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ ~ g '~ ~Q ~X -• y~ x of ~w~'s2 .1~~: p~ `. 3 ~ N ~ R ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ P ~~ •Ca a~ ~ sR ~ R,~~~C1 ^w"'~p, I ~' s E ~ ~.': ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ $33 z 3~~ s ~ N ~ fJ~~ t ~ a. i., j; ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ a~ x s o 8a ~ ~ ~a = a uafr.o ...oow rc..o vcrreo co-vz-ugh y ,y U 1 ~ ~ y., r. S ~ 8f2~ ~ ~R M ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r~ ~g, p$~ ep ^! S ~ ~ _ ~$8g8~~1 t 3 i g~~ ~Q#¢f~$~l i a >~ ~ ~~~6 -~~ ~~~~ i 0 ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ARHOAIBT RBPORT BAMDAD RESIDENCE <:i :..~ . ':`r:E' 5;:. ~ ,;,; REED A3SOCUTES "" ~' ~ ,'.' ~-'~~~~~~~~" O ~ ; ~ ~ ~~ „ ' ~ SUMITVAL~E, CA 94086 ~ O p 91. ~ ~ 13250 PIERCE ROAD ~4oa,el-emzo ~ ~~~ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ~~~ ~ ~~~ P~ o V~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ 3 i ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ n~~~ w` ~/ s ~ z ..y ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~a ~ ~"~ `tea ~ta-uo ~ ~o sorea~na esua~ >aa moattr -aosnsa a v a aLmr~oo Matnuouo ssa m/atn Ana sit ~o ~sn ao ~tmun au am m-uo yet ~u ~sn aw Amos ~naoee s ~t 'aruo mt ro unaora rros ~ a o-n m,usauoa a ~wna mu ~n~. 0 a~ 2 D 0 c~ W a O 0 0 Q O M ~ /a~ O V 0 ~ Q O` I'~ !~ ••QAA V• l'~ W O` I"~ W Z J Y 0 N ~// I.t. V 'r'A V+ I"' Z O J Q V W °D ~ Z ~ ~ Q ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ o~?~ r ~ a2 t ~ ?ac~ ~ ~ zU~~ i v, ~ H-W ~g SCR ~~ ~~ y~ Wc~~i~ _ ~ ~a~~~ ~ ~ #~ ~ m s a ~~n ~~ ~8 , ~~~~ ~ ~ Z E ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .,i ~ ~ ~~~ is y b Ys ft 8 ~r ~ ~ W y{ ~°~~ R ~ ~ W OC D ~ kk} ~ ~8a~ t N g ~g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~as~ >s~e ~~ ~ @ @@ ~ o ~ 8 ~ 35 ~~ ~ ~$a ~~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Rtt ~l i W ~~~. ~ ~ a a 8 ~ $ r~3~s 3~S r ~ "!^ ~~g~S4 Z V a ! ' B ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 E j ~ ~~~~~~ _~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Y :4~s~ ~8iSa d€g€~ ~~€ «~~~~q~~dA ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~YlS si~ag •r wur~ ~ - - ® ~ ~ ~ r zd ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ 4 ~~~~ +~ - ~ cL~ gg Q g~~ o~ m~ ?~~~ ~ ~~~: ~~8~~ ffi~'~~a~$ W3d~9$E~~f ~2~G 5~8ti~~ ~~1~~ Q:~~~~ ~~~~ ~ e U r 3 • . • • N01 TD SCBC VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE LEGEND - PR - OPERTY LINE - - LOT LINE K ~f tf CFWN LINK FENCE o- a a WOOD FENCE - ---- - DIRT ROAD R R AIL OAD HI HIGH EV ELECTRIC VAULT MH MANHOLE N TELEPHONE VAULT EQUIP'T EQUIPMENT GRD GROUND CATCH BASIN BLDG BUILDING RET RETAINING FOOTING RR RAILROAD GW GUY WIRE Y VAULT PP POWER POLE WD WDOD TP TELEPHONE POLE RR RAILROAD LT LIGHT ` "9+' TREE TN MN GN NOTES: t. All ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE GROUND ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 FOR BENCH DARK, BASIS OF BEARINGS, GENERAL NOTES, TOWER ELEVATION, LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. 6 201. 1 n 20 0 28rk ti 'S 20 00 201 ~ 201 ~ ,~ ~ 0 61 ~ 206 c~ 01. G~y~ CG~~C 22x6 `La+~ 0 n69 ~6 `~a~6 . . ti .1 2~6 ~ ~ h 206• MN MAGNETIC NORTH GN GRID NORTH TN TRUE NORTH 40' 20' 0 40' BO' GRAPHIC SCALE : 1" = 40' HIS MAP OR PLAT 1S PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION. MICHEL CHEN PLS 5236 DATE LICENSE EXPIRES: 6/30/03 1 1 6' HI WD FENCE ~ 216• 6 3 RET WALLn19h z 0 a U 0 OF SURVEY: 5/02/01 t BY: QN BY: MC 2~6 2g5 ~~`~ 2a~ $N6~ 20~y 20 V ~ ~ DIRT $~ tti G ~ 2 05 ~~ 18 +20.5;5 1,~ + 28n_ + A~' 280 9 9' 1 ~ c:~emuuua~~.wpc.~~rooyo.n~ 8p,. ;~~ x.58 2 0~0°~ +~ h + 0• 5 27 V ~ 211 • y~~pt. LANp SG 1 ek. ~ 20~' 'S LDG 21 Q ~ 21 * 1, ~ 1 N ~ ~~y ~~ M. c 9~ ~ ~Q 20+ '1a+6 ~ A iOWE ~1 N 10 ~ ~ a ~ No. 5236 y`y °~o 2 20 ~ 202 ~ w ( ~ PORPOSE TENNA2I~,OC ON ti~°+~ * EzP. 6 30 D3 8Q6 ~ ~h.021 5 ~ + 1~. LA ' 2.26" N 608+ 2 sF * o~~s ~" +2029 +~' 21 5 ~~ 1~1 ONG. - 121°59' 71" 26$ 26a~ OF CP~`~ 9 9 _ _ 21 ~ _ ~ ELEV. - 275.3 GROU 1 8 2696 + ~y,-(RtSE ~ ~~~ ~ 9 DIRT ROA 1~0 A 129 - 420.2 TOP OIL- OWER+ a 11,0 T' HI ~ 9~ ~ 19• 2 (SEE HEl`'[~2 OF 2 FOR TOWER ELEV D 2 Gy yc 2 - - - - 10~ ~' ~ U 2 0 1 ~,' 0`l 26°'9 V Z ~ 20 9 Fa 0 1g ~ + 5 21 ~ ~ ~~ ~ o 2g2,~h ~~^ 2 ~ 2 tit 21~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m 20 21~~ Q ~ ~a a co q ,~ W; ~ m 2~, n 9~ DIRT 69 'b ~ _: !' 'L N ~' ~i u, ~+ m nG~'B ~f~ c ° tk + 1a 9 21o a+ ~,, ~ o ~ N W ~ 11,. `L ,y ~ o .. ~ n 9 02. ~0 ~~9/•~ ~ 2+ 21p+ ~ooo~n ~f1~ ~ ~~. ~~•~ ~ $~ti 1 1~~+ 1"10+ ~^ ~O '1.11 W U~~ ~nS~ 219• 219 2 21 0~ 6 + ~ ~~® ~'~ 21 ~ 212 tit 269 ~ 269 + ~ Q; ~'~ 1~`+ ?~ 9 9 2219 8 21 2 ~ 21 + 21 21 + 0 1 + 21~+ 269 g ~ ~ N. + ~~G CS 4~y~ 2 g $ 1. a~ ~ 691 x ~~` 219 a~ 9 ~~ ~ 5 ~ Q a X54 g. 1 + 6 21° ~ od ~ ~ 1° 8 ~ ~~z° ~ ~ a~'w I CD' ¢ o r~ 21+h z w ~ o F d' 0 w ~ ~d~z SITE SURVE 21 PRELIMINARY ~ a m~ °d SHEET NUMBER DATE: 5/t0/200t cuFFT ~ n>r ~ ~,` W:\TACIT-METRO\PGdcE QUITO\ZO'S\OUITO Cl.dwg, 05/30/01 10:19:58 AM LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: THE COORDINATES OF THIS SITE WERE TAKEN AT THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF THE EXISTING P.G. ~ E. TOWER AND ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN 150 FEET HORIZONTALLY. THE ELEVATIONS WERE TAKEN AT THE GROUND LEVEL AND THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE EXISTING P,G. k E. TOWER AND ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN 120 FEET VERTICALLY. • LATITUDE: 3716'12.26" N • lONGOUDE: 121'59'35.71' W • ELEVATION: 275.3 FEET (GROUND LEVEL) 420.2 FEET (HIGHEST POINT OF THE TOWER) THE HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ARE IN TERM OF THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) AND ARE EXPRESS AS DEGREE, MINUTE AND SECOND (TO THE NEAREST HUNDREDTH OF A SECOND}. THE ELEVATIONS ARE IN TERM OF THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88) AND ARE DETERMINED TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A FOOT. BENCH MARK: THE BASIS OF ELEVATIONS FOR THIS PLAT IS BASED UPON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAND 88) AS SHOWN ON NATIONAL GEODETIC CONTROL SURVEY DATA SHEET. DESIGNATION: VASONA (USGS QUAD -LOS GATOS 1980) DESCRIPTION: DESCRIBED BY CALTRANS 1972 (JB) THE STATION IS LOCATED ON THE TOP OF VASONA EARTH FILLED DAM ABOUT 2.0 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, AND ABOUT 180 FEET EASTERLY OF UNNERSITY AVE. TO REACH THE STATION FROM U.S. POST OFFICE IN LOS GATOS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA CRUZ AVE. AND BROADWAY, GO NORTH ALONG SAN1A CRUZ AVE. THROUGH THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR 1.0 MILE TO BLOSSOM HILL RD. ON RT. GO 1.0 MILE TO THE INTERSEC110N OF UNNERSITY AVE. TURN LEFT ONTO UNNERSITY AVE AND GO NORTHERLY L0 MILE TO VASONA DAM. GO 180 FEET EASTERLY FROM EAST EDGE OF UNNERSITY ROADWAY ALONG THE TO OF THE DAM TO THE STATION MARK. EIEVATK)N: 301.61 FEET (ADJUSTED) BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT IS BASED UPON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAND 88) AS SHOWN ON NATIONAL GEODETIC GEODETIC SURVEY DATA SHEET. DESIGNATION: VASONA (USGS QUAD -LOS GATOS 1980) AND U 10]6 (USGS QUAD - CUPERTINO 1991) GENERAL NOTES: 1. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT. USUALLY A TITLE POLY OR TITLE REPORT. 3. ALL BEARINGS AS SHOWN ON ARE GRID BEARINGS AND WERE CONVERTED FROM THE RECORD DATA SUCH AS TRACT MAP, PARCEL MAP, RECORD OF SURVEY AND / OR OTHER PUBUC AGENCIES RECORDED MAPS. 4. ALL EASEMENT RIGHTS AS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE "8' OF THE OWNER SUPPLIED TITLE REPORT WERE PLOTTED ON THE SURVEY. BECAUSE OUR SERVICES IS LIMITED TO REPORTING ON EASEMENT LOCATIONS WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND LEGAL COUNSEL BE OBTAINED TO REPORT ON TITLE PAPERS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. FOR THOSE EASEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE PLOTTED DUE TO THE FACT OF THE LOCATIONS OR THE STATUS AS SHOWN ON DOCUMENT ARE STATED AS "NOT PLOITABLE". 5. RECORD FEE PROPERTY AREA: --- ACRES OR ----- Sq, FT, 6. OWNER'S NAME: P.G. k E. CO. 7. DATE OF SURVEY: 5/02/D1 8. SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 FOR VICINITY MAP AND SITE SURVEY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NO TITLE REPORT PROVIDED AT THIS 11ME. DATE OF SURVEI': 5/02/01 DRAWN BY: QN CHECK BY: MC 415.0 ~ ~ 424.6 m 413.8 /~~~ ~x~ \J\J~ 409.5 aas.6 ~ J ao2.o 397.0 393.3 W 0 389.2 ~ ~ 386.0 380.4 317.3 312.4 ( f 369.7 ~ ~pl LANp S 343.6 ~~~\ G~G 342.3 o ~' ~y F ~ 341.9 y p 5236 a ~ Na . * ExP. 6 30 03 334.3 333 8 s~ ?s . 335.5 rF ~ * CP~~E~~ EQUIPMENT BUILDING FTG I--Y-v/~ CONC. FTG SECTION A-A TOWER ELEVATION NOi TO SCALE PRELIMINARY DATE: 5/ 10/2001 W:\IAGII-MtIKO\PGkE pU1T0\ZD5\OUITO_C1.dwg, 05/30/01 10:20:18 AM ~' r O V U Z ~ ~ - U ] ~ ~~ `q`N U~ W j N m ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ N W, wa W~( V,~. &~ L %~x j 4 ~ W E-. o U .. `~ ,^~, ~3 ={e:~ ~ _ ; > ~ 3 ~~ IS 4~, //I~ ~. ~ ? q ~~W Z + Z~p~p^ W I I Y'~" 2 W yy11 uh~ <~< ~n U~ d x t7 x M Q ... d .n i O °D v ° ~ fx ,~ co ~- ~ F [z, i--~ ~ d ~ CV ~ ~ OVfs I ~ O d O O Z W ~OF~ OFZZ C7 ]~oa ~ a ~~~d SHEET NUMBER SHEET 2 OF 2 • NM p) flJt: W:\TACIT-IAETRO\POkE QUITO\ZD'S\QUITO_At.dwg, 05/30/01 10:17:45 AIA J ,~ s 0 ~~ rr~ ~° a ~M a4 e 0 i s P '" G ` ~o i 0~ ~4~ QiG~lf~~ ~~ 1/16' . 1'-p' J 771[ ~ 171[11 zeo 2fl 4fi z^° .~ .\ F4TOuECT WANOER TACIT a ~»~ ~ „~ awMe wt~ 310 fmfilo Stud Sm6o Boiba0. G 93101 Td EOS360,r1J12 ~ FAX A06.560J422 ~1~etroPC ~ ~ ~~ ^ N a ABCHITBCTS ~ ~ vn+cEx'r E. t .7..4.11. 171.IM1W M1 \ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r w~ 9 g~ 1n w14 R a «w .707 awa Ma awl u~ roa H 77w7 arz 5!15101 muo -01 10091 ZONING 71M90N5 ~ xa arz s/u/71 4n. mu7T. a71x 4t~wia sn[ iwi[ PGd~E QUITO RDIIiYVY 85 srz M1ea1 SFA-C07-134A srt 1NR wa ~7n[ss r 4: PG~E QUITO RDMVVY 85 13668 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 a ~~ sMc ~m ~ ~~ ~ ~ >~ m Q ~ OVERALL PROJECT SITE PLAN NORTH s~7cr xww 0 B 16 24 4 12 20 A-1 SCALE: 1/16'•1'-0' g~ F • r: ~- rt r~ •~ r~ 4r r-r „~ .a ` r~ ' r ' ' r-~r L=J '~~ NOTES: Q rie aaae Mo mm asa, p ~aa mw .nc q osmrar Q a~cxcr a~owa catrrwc a~~ o~~ a~~ ^Q ns waac~~ o~~• MINI EQUIPIrlENT PLAN „4- . ,~-o^ pOwr mwor saiw e.: ~~' O6 ccno res rrn mauoa(gmcwsa ~ • ,d-I •o °, amiadro nuotralq \\ \ / ~w irtmo res m~o~i ~Yi Kr~~ ~e_r ~ \ ~ ~ i i i i i UO ~a res vwn wnoru cm. a me a (q uax ea D ~ • 70'-C ru 90 r w~ oaao roa wnu° vorEror a ~ caanc wa DIRT ROAD 94 ire aa~nex l,nm user rwon~Oi mm ~ . rna ENLARGED 817E PLAN „1• , ,~_o• ~~ vcae Tol4x ~~~~ no. a,n a tq ss„ •a caw a wao~ • A'-o' nw ix awa 0 PROJECT NORTH 0 2 4 8 3 5 W:\TACIT-METRD\PGd:E QUITO\2D'S\QUITO_A2.dwg, 05/30/01 10:18:37 AM r auc va+artci , TA~/T a co~aRa+aGno~rs s1o cau,IO s~ Salo Borbaq G 93101 Td 406.560.8312 FAX 40.5.580.7122 ~1~etroPC~ ^ t a ARCHIiBCT9 VINCENT B. IEIFBR o a~~u.wQr Mrn nuu~ u wa a~waaa ooeao.sr ra c~ 7 ~~ a e ~~ 5115/01 mum wo 10096 ZONING E wasa: n uac s/~Ho+ a- min. aax a~aa (~ C ~ ~~ PGBJ: QUITO RDIFNVY 85 sic wuew SFA~07-134A sa ~ wo ~mccss s t PG~E QUITO RDMWY 85 13688 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 e «~ n ~ ~~ ~ ~,~ ° ENLARGED ~ SITE PLAN ~ sm ~ A-2 • C: ~ aa~ian ~j . ~ - - - 's-r - - JIhL- - - - - ~- tmm~~r mmoaa¢mt tr-o• xaa of IMIENM pl lallq 1C3 IwEt wnpNS canto a eta a Rye+t ~~~' rota, conoat a nwa ~ >d-o•, uo ~ttaxs ~~a, ttr wo xo ~ utr rwn wrtrtws wanm a xa or ltpcu Corot aMm1 a µmrw u er-r »• rcr aar A9 ns nmrw PIlOuFCT tie a ~~ ~~~ sta c~ s~.d Solo Barboto, CA 93101 Td e03.s60.s312 FAX EOS.560.7422 ~1~etroPC~ t s AHCHITBCTS VQICEN'f & [8IF6R au tawu mnr l~Mta tlYHt. d HIM ff0~ML7F! ~ gJM1tl/ -Ai MO pqe mut as ~~ ~~ ~ ~ tmum ~ 1009E ZONING . i rt~so~s «a oa I s/o~ ar. Court owa I ttteas I t i • RT usr oA r nw ram ua~ ~tawon rpx Afro iaa+na o- OA mart r-r m~aaa ne oA rota wo ma fq urooraaro ma uo v A.u 80UTH ELEVATION ,ro• . ,'-0• u~~ s+nro~ M r xa .oooai tax a w~aA ar ~ maaa rrr YdNIEEiI IlCt OO (frCiE aiw, axiotrt or nra ~ xd wo ~auttt aim. ttr wo zo (q uar rwa ~wmwa ~ a gem v (q rcrt iortR xonu a ~ u tr-r isr ~ Cora Iwo a¢o tq r[na xs earruort Hans rarnm a mina No aotrowo ma ue a mia WE8T ELEVATION 18• . ,~_o• I ~~ PGd~E QURO RDMVVY 85 I ~ 3FA-CO7-134A I art wa wa raaess PGd~E QUITO RDMVYY 85 I, 13688 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 I o~w rr SMC aao~m n VEL sxttr nrtX ELEVATIONS A-3 W:\TACIT-IAETRO\PCkE DURO\ZD'S\DUIT0~3.dwg, 05/30/01 10:19:08 AM • • MetroPCS -Wireless Communications Network Primary Product: Facility Type: Network Design Footprint: Project Puroose CDMA Wireless Communications Services Signal Distribution Antenna Cellular Topology The MetroPCS wireless network enables subscribers to access an information network and it's voice and data on-line services from a remote non-wire line location. MetroPCS plans to implement a service that offers the highest digital quality and reliability at the most affordable rate in order to satisfy customer demand for access and low price. (Antenna Facility description below). The antenna facility at 13686 Quito Road in Saratoga will provide continued and expanded wireless service in this community. This antenna site will be part of a network that will give the area expanded wireless technology, ease of information access and more efficient direct communications for local business, personal and emergency services. Antenna Facility Description The proposed facility is called a distribution site and consists of 6 directional flat panel antennas connected to a five cabinet radio and power unit. Directional antennas aze arranged in arrays (in this case, 3 arrays with 2 panel antennas pointed in three directions on the existing PG&E power tower) which talk to other antennas in the local network. Each directional antenna measures 56" long x 6" wide x 3" thick connected by a 1 and 5/8 inch conduit to the radio cabinet. The five free-standing radio and power cabinets range from 5-6' tall, 2-3' wide and 3-3.5' deep. Normal installation of the entire facility takes about 15 days. Power Unit Connections The power specifications call fora 200A, 120/208V service with a total connected power load of 10.5 KVA/240 on single-phase connection. The power unit and radios draw less than 100 amps of electricity paid directly to the local electric utility provider by MetroPCS. The facility is plugged into the telephone system and requires connection of 8 pairs twisted standazd POTS wires. MetroPCS makes all connections per local telco specifications and pays for telephone service directly to the local telephone provider. Maintenance and Access The facility is un-manned and the equipment requires a standazd check only a few times a yeaz. The equipment runs continuously and silently and in case of an emergency power outage has battery back up for about four hours. Mostly due to emergency situations, MetroPCS requests the need for unrestricted access - 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/yeaz. ,~ Applicant Statement for Use Permit Findings (Article 15-55.070) The Proposed MetroPCS telecommunications facility at 13686 Quito Road is: • In accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • Not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. • A compatible use on an existing utility tower structure. Antennas and mounting accessories can be painted to match any background color. • The communications equipment will not interfere, and is Federally mandated to not interfere with any other existing communications equipment or electronic devices. • The antenna facility is self contained, unmanned, and quiet. The facility will not have a negative impact on utility or other existing infrastructure or demand for municipal services. • The antenna facility will not have a negative impact on the further development of other future communications facilities, structures or land uses. • • LYC•ftt T•d1flOlOg1lf Sell 1~6s Urwwtvu Network Systems -Product Realization Center subject: Bellcore Requirement GR-487-CORE date: January 24, 2000 Section 3.28 (R3-157) Acoustical Noise Suppression Test Report on Flexent Modulaz Cell Enclosure from: Gregory P. Mikus Org. JC012E002 NJ0452, 1 H3B (973)426-1230 gmikus@lucent. com Memorandum for Record Introduction The Acoustical Noise Suppression test was performed on the Outdoor Flexent Modular Cell enclosure at NU laboratories located in Annandale NJ on January 24, 2000 in order to verify compliance to the Bellcore requirement specified in section 3.28 of GR-487-CORE (Generic Requirements for Electronic Cabinets) see Noise Unlimited test report No. 9065.1. Marvin Lowman of Noise Unlimited Inc. conducted the testing. G. Mikus and J. Stofanak of Lucent Technologies were present during the testing. Bellcore Requirement Description (R3-157) Cabinets, equipped with telecommunications equipment and associated cooling fans, shall suppress acoustical noise to a level of 65dBA at a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) from the cabinet with the doors closed during times of maximum noise generation within the cabinet. Test Procedure• • Sound measurements shall be made in a room or enclosure that duplicates as much as possible the acoustic properties of a network facility and the actual service environment. • The sound level shall be measured by a sound meter meeting ANSI 1.4, and set to the A- weighting scale and the slow meter response setting. • Measurements shall be made in accordance with ANSI 51.18. • Cabinet doors shall be closed. • Sound levels produced shall be measured at Sft from the cabinet surfaces in all horizontal directions at a height of aft from the cabinet-mounting surface. ~J Lucent Technologies Proprietary-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction • Test Setua The Flexent Modcell outdoor version was placed inside the acoustic room; a background noise measurement was taken. The Modcell outdoor version enclosure was then rendered operational and acoustic measurements were taken around the enclosure. Test Results Position Location DBA re: 20 uPa 1 Ambient 43 1 Front 61 2 Left Side 53 3 Rear 52 4 Ri t Side 53 At the completion of the test as described in the Bellcore requirement the F7exent Modular Cell test data was reviewed and the noise levels did not exceed the specified requirement. Therefore the Outdoor Flexent Modular Cell enclosure meets the requirements set forth in Bellcore GR-487 -CORE section 3.28. This data is also in the Noise Unlimited test report No. 9065.1 Respectfully, Gregory P. Mikus • Lucent Technotogies Proprietary-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction United States of America Federal Communications Commission RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION Commercial Mobile Radio Services Personal Communications Service -Broadband GWI PCS1, INC. 8144 WALNUT HILL LANE SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75231 Call Sign: Mazket: SAN FRA.i:ISCO-0AKLAND- Channel B1ock:C File Number: 00447-CW-L-96 KNLF566 B404 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. The licensee hereof is authorized, for the period indicated, to construct and operate radio transmitting facilities in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter described. This authorization is subject to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subsequent Acts of Congress, international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a signatory, and all pertinent rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, contained in the Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. • Initial Grant Date . .. .. .. ... January 27, 1997 Five-year Build Out Date . ....... ....... January 27, 2002 Expiration Date .. .... ... .... January 27, 2007 Pursuant to Section 309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. § ?~9(h)), this license is subject to the following conditions: This license does not vest in the licensee any right to operate a station nor any right in the use of frequencies beyond the term thereof nor in any other manner than authorized herein. Neither this license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or otherwise transferred in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.). This license is subject in terms to the right of use or control conferred by Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. § 606). Conditions continued on Page 2. waNERS No waivers associated with this authorization. • Ts~.nP Tlarp• Tamiorv 77 X007 ~~ ~4#VLF566 GWI PCS1, INC. 00447-CW-L-96 .• CONDITIONS: This authorization is subject to the condition that, in the event that systems using the same frequencies as granted herein aze authorized in an adjacent foreign territory (Canada/LTnited States), future coordination of any base station transmitters within 721an (45 miles) of the United States/Canada border shall be required to eliminate an .harmful interference to operations in the adjacent foreign territory and to ensure continuance of equal access to the frequencies by both countries. This authorization is conditioned upon the full and timely payment of all monies due pursuant to Sections 1.2110 and 24.711 of the Commission's Rules and the terms of the Commission's installment plan as set forth in the Note and Security Agreement executed by the licensee.. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the automatic cancellation of this authorization. ., ~~ • • • ~ 06/28/01 ' _ Photosimulation of view south from the Hwy 85 overcrossing. - ~ i T antennas ~y! t~x__, -. . ~ ~ ~~~+ ~ ~ •.,~. r.: t ~ ,l .~ ~, , ~~ i-t+,~ '~ ~.' proposed antennas i~ i . 1 l- -. _, a' ~. ! i ~ iy.;` ~e~~i -.. ~1'.!~.~.. rrv~.~as~a~~.iWJI>tY~~ }i•}:~.~.ialiii .1 _. _n •ra~~'~~riw r :,un~a at A.{ _ L. ~.4 ~- r,._.. ~. \u~.u a:. oI IMF ph~~t+,a nn~Lrlu+n ha.ed up+~n inlnrtnatum ~a+~c ideA M pmjerl a~+pliianl. (,hic~Gnn.' 1 all 1~+K~~II~I(ltil\I. ~J; ~S':'c.. ,ri~~ ~. (i~ .~ Metro _- PG&E Quito RdMwy 85 Quito Rd / Hwy 85 Saratoga, CA 95130 _ SFA-C07-134A 157131 • • • ~ oe/2ero~ Photosimulation of view northeast across Quito Road from the nearest homes. ~ Copyright 2001, PrevisualisM Inc., all rights reserved. Acctuacy o(~is phMnsimdadon based upou ia(ormatioo provided by project applicant Questions? Call 1-eN0-tOl OSl ~1. PEN • careless, Cable, 8 Fiber Site Development • Land Planning • Design • Documentation • A&E Planning & Engineering Network City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 28, 2001 Community Development, Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: MetroPCS antenna facility co-location on two existing PG&E transmission towers in the City of Saratoga: • 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - APN: 393-21-013 • 13686 Quito Road - APN: 403-24-001 Dear Planning Commissioner, I am pleased to provide this additional information for both proposed projects as requested by City Planning Staff: • One (1) set at 11" X 1T' of the Project Development Plans (site plans and elevations). • One (1) Project Description and one (1) Site Search Memorandum for 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. • One (1) Applicant Statement that addresses use permit findings. • One (1) Noise Testing Memorandum, which addresses acoustic noise, levels. • One (1) copy of the MetroPCS Radio Station Authorization which certifies the FCC License for this proposed network • One (1) set of photo-simulated illustrations of each proposed installation. MetroPCS would like to thank the City of Saratoga planning staff and governing bodies for their review of these important projects. These specific Saratoga sites are part of the overall infrastructure needed to supply the most affordable wireless PCS service to cemmunities around the San Francisco Bay Area. MetroPCS feels that it is important to provide more people with greater access to services and a choice of wireless products and low cost is the key. MetroPCS attempts to select the most compatible sites for this type of installation by co-boating on existing buildings and towers as much as possible. Existing PG&E towers provide the opportunity to coexist with public utilities and other wireless carriers and satisfy network engineering requirements for antenna height. The power and radio cabinets which operate the antennas are the latest freestanding outdoor type which reduce visual impact, take up less space and eliminate the need for larger utility buildings. MetroPCS would like to be a partner with the City of Saratoga in providing the best public and personal wireless services to the bcal community. Thank you once again for your review. • Sincerely, ''~ ~G~ Tom Swarner, PEN Telecom Represe~rting MetroPCS, Inc. Tms:131.134ent1:pen 1624 Telegraph Ave. • Oakland, CA 94612 • Ph: (510) 663-4690 • Fax: (510) 663-4689 • E: tomale75@hotmail.com r ~ ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: UP-O1-009; 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Applicant/Owner. METRO PCS/ASSOCIATES I Staff Planner: ohn F. Livin tone, Associate Planner ~/~ J gS Date: October 10, 2001 APN: 393-21-013 Department Head: ~ • E°. ~,,,\\ ~~ ~~ `~ \ _ r ~~\ \ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~\ _ ~ ~~ _ ~ .---`_: dANOR DR . ,\ i, N SEA GvLL ~~ i oN %~~ ,~' ~`, ~ ~~. ~~ \ / ~. ~ ~ ~ \ ~ / ~` ~ ~a ~II 1 £ UMN~R Cq ~~ ~~ i j ~ ~ ~ 0 I3 ~ -~ 500 ,~, w ! H ~ ~ CLAR ~! ~~ U ~ IDG ~--- ~ AVE . • 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road OOOOUi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: . PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6/OU01 8/09/01 9/26/01 9/26/01 9/20/01 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG&E transmission tower. The system is comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower that includes a GPS system. Each antenna measures approximately 56" long by 6" wide and 3" thick. The equipment cabinet would house five cabinets approximately 5-6" tall. The total area for the equipment cabinets would be approximately 15'x10'. Staff is recommending conditions that the cabinets are placed underground and an extensive landscape plan is submitted subject to the Community Development Director's approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution UP-O1-009. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution UP-O1-009 2. Map of Existing and Proposed Cellular Sites 3. Applicant's Project Description, Plans, Photo simulations (Exhibit "A") • • • 0~00~2 File No. UP-O1-009; 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Single Family Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.18 Acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: < 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed plan for the above grade facility will require minimal grading. Staff's recommendation for the below grade equipment facility would require approximately 30 cubic yards of cut. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Staff has conditioned the project that the final colors are subject to the Community Development Directors approval. PROJECT DISCUSSION i In May of 1996, the Ciry Council adopted an ordinance, which established communication antenna facilities as a conditionally permitted use in all zoning districts within the City of Saratoga. Since the ordinance was passed, several telecommunications antenna facilities in Saratoga have been approved. Aesthetics Staff finds that this site is an appropriate location for a telecommunication antenna facility. The proposed antennas are unobtrusive as viewed from the street. Currently there are two other carvers at this location. Staff generally recommends that facilities be co-located on existing transmission towers. In this case each of the existing carriers has a fenced in equipment facility existing at the site. The fenced in facilities are not attractive and generally are not well maintained. The landscaping around one of the existing facilities needs replacement and the other appears to have been approved without landscaping. The City of Saratoga Code Enforcement Officer is currently working with the owner to replace the dead landscaping. In light of the long-term maintenance issues related to the fenced facilities, staff is recommending that this proposed facility be placed underground. Staff has included this as a condition of project approval. The underground facility would improve the aesthetics and avoid creating a pattern of fenced in squares on the vacant parcel. It would also minimize any noise and visual impacts to the adjacent neighborhood or shopping center. C:UNy DocumentsVohn LWnu:nnas~Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 12383 CUP Metro PCS.doc V oo f ~O ~] File No. UP-O1-009; 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road In addition to under oundin the ro osed facili ,staff is recommendin as a condition ~' g P P tY g of approval that the applicant provide an extensive landscaped area around the entire site to blend all three of the facilities together. The landscape plan would include medium sized evergreen trees to create a forest atmosphere. The landscape plan will be subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. Staff has discussed the issue of under grounding the equipment facility with the applicant: The applicant will be providing a statement supporting why they feel this cannot be accomplished. Staff has also advised the applicant to discuss the proposed system with the surrounding neighbors and if possible provide documentation that this has been done. Public Health and Safety As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. According to a report by William F. Hammett of Hammett &r Edison, Inc., supplied by the applicant, it has been determined that the proposed facilities comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. Their findings are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Noise As a condition of project approval the applicant will be required to provide documentation that the proposed underground equipment cabinet meets all City noise standards. Ordinance Size Trees No trees are proposed for removal and the equipment cabinet will not be constructed under any drip line. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Ciry Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. C:VNy DocumentsVohn LWnunnas~Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd 12383 CUP Metro PCS.doc /'tiOOOO~ File No. UP-O1-009; 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application, based on staff's recommended conditions requiring an extensive landscape plan and that the facility be underground, by adopting the attachedResolutionUP-Ol-009. ~J C:Vvfy DocumentsVohn UAntennas~Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 12383 CUP Metro PCS.doc lZOOOOS THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000006 • • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-010 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA METRO PCS;13686 QuitoRoad WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the installation of six directional antennas, a GPS system and an underground equipment cabinet; and WHEREAS, The proposed antennas and equipment facility is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, "Nevv Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" Class 3 (d); 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 Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: 1. That the•proposed wireless communication antenna facility is in accord v~~ith the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive. 2. That the proposed wireless communication antennas and the conditions under which they would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy; and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. 3. That the proposed wireless communication antenna complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. 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 Metro PCS application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: aoooo~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. A minimum of two (2) warning signs shall be posted near the transmitting antennas: one (1) at the base of the pole visible to workers intending to perform work on the pole; and one (I) on the pole just below the antennas. Signs will comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Contact information will also be provided with a 24-hr. phone number to arrange for access to restricted areas. 3. The antennas shall be painted to match the existing tower in color and texture and the equipment cabinet shall be painted a dark color approved by Staff. 4. Within 30 days of cessation of the operation of the antennas, the applicant shall remove all equipment. 5. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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. b. Samples of the paint color to be used. c. The applicant shall submit a plan to under ground the equipment cabinets. d. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan and landscape plan, detailing the design, species and location of all landscaping for planning staff approval. The plan shall include all three facilities currently located at the site. Evergreen trees shall be incorporated in the plan. e. The applicant shall provide documentation that the proposed equipment will meet all of the City noise standards. f. The applicant shall provide proof of a landscape maintenance agreement for a period of two years from the date of project approval. g. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. h. 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 d0~~08 a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." i. No structure shall be permitted in any easement without providing the Ciry of Saratoga with proof of written permission. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 7. The site shall be maintained free of all trash, graffiti, and weeds. 8. The applicant shall conduct a Pre and Post installation radio frequency study and shall make the results available to the Planning Department and homeowners within S00 feet of the project site. 9. Prior to Final Inspection of the antennas, the applicant shall submit to Planning Division staff: a. Verification that the level of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emanating from the operating antennas do not exceed the levels outlined in the Statement of Hammett and Edison, Consulting Engineers report dated October 13, 2000. 10. Annual testing of the emissions from the facility shall be conducted at the applicant's expense and made available to the Planning Division and neighbors for a period to be determined by the Community Development Director. 11. 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 Ciry 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 appli- cant'sproject. 12. 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, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. • 000009 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 10`h day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • 000~~0 ' Existing and Proposed Cellular Sites . in the City of Saratoga Attachment 2 u Existing site Proposed site _-i Saratoga City Limits Notes: 1. Wireless providers shown include ATBT, Pacific Bell, Metro PCS, Nextel. Sprint, and Verizon 2. Proposed sites for Pacific Bell are not shown 000011 3. locations are not parcel specific 4. co-locations are indicated with asingle-symbol 5. map was created by City of Saratoga staff 9/01 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0000,2 • • c qNi~ \~ ~`~.e3~ ~~ ~ V1 T , v ~ 0 d' 8 a ~ °~ ~3 t^ ai ~ y y~~ 376 o~i~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~~ V W 00 2 A~ ~ 5 4 ~ z Z N 3 ~ ~ a ti 3~0~ ~~ ~ ~~ Q Q ~ ~~ o~°z'° ~ r (/1 C1 ~ 2 1- 2 W p o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ h > V U 5 c~ ~ ~ ~~aia ~ ~ ~~ m~ I ~ ~ ~a ~ ~a ~ ~ ~a ~~ 'aruo au ~o Nosisonna ~s ~ Laxus -asar~eo~ a ~ m osiar~ao saunmo~-a au ~o/air o-arrea aai ~o ~sn ~o ~aunaoeaaa •aurran w am a-uo nu u yen ~w Amos oxaaoaa a L •aiuo au ~o wnaaw nae au a am aao c ~wreo aa~ ~~~. O -F-~ Q J J Q W N W a Q W O J J Q o ~ v, r`JQ / ~ a O a~ N ~~ N 00 M N r ~ 0 a ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ W ~ O o M > H O ~ J Q V ~' W ~ ~~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ p N ~n ~ _- ~_~ ~< ~ W S N ~i 3 n ~ ~ 4 ~~ ~ ~rnr ^~Q iFF d ~~~~ _ ~R ~ ~ W y ~S .~ ~~~ H F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W if o !- W ~~ ~{ ~~ $ ~ ~ W d' p ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yyt~ ~ ~~A~ H a ~g ,~ aa~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~" ~~R ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~R~i~~~ g~p1~ ~~ N ~ W ~ ' ~ ~ Cr d ~{ P ~ ~ Y YYr~3, ~ ~3~~ ~ ~ ~' =s ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ N W O ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o Z w ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~e~7 ~ ~ a ~ p ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Z ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ g g~~ oD ?~~~ ~ ~~I~ ~~~~~ s~~~das;~ W~~~88ar~b it~~~ 3~u8lS~~ ~~~~~ Q:~~~3 ~~~~ 4 e U H 3 ~ • • OF 41 . ,~ Bf: I d1 B1F. N C - - PIdOPERIY ll~ R R0~ ll~ ~ - - LOf ll~ FI6 R)01~6 ~ _ S TE ~00~ ~ ~ ~D ~e ------ --- oRrt~b ~ d-slo4~ RIIL AQID H iIGH S ~_ ~1 U U6M ~1 W~t~c (pRIH Nc A~ 4b ~ ~ qiD ~ ~ B BOllMD itll I~IfIDIE '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ G1g18i1S1~ U lJ6fR 30' 15' 0 30' 60' ~ ~ 32\9 ~ 2 ® ~ ~ GRAPHIC SCALE : 1 ' = 30' 10~- ~ ~~ ~ ~w.~rdn~.reb.r.y.r~. 32 2 Zp 32 ZIP lOD'~ \~ 32 ~ 2\' \~0 \~ LANp 5~ I f ~~P 3 32 32 ~y r . ~ ~ t ~ No 5236~y °~ 23 3 ~ 20 ~ . 3 3222 ~~2\ Z\p + 3220 32 32\9 32\$ 32~a 32\1 * ExP. 6 30 03 ~ ~~ 2 a + $~ 2 3 + 32\5 A + 3 2\ a + 32\0 + 32p9 + p1 5 + 32p' 9 X23 1F * CEO 32\3~ 32:. ~IA1ER ~,II, 1 l `- 32 OF Cad 3,0+ 321 ~®~ ® \.J PROPOSED ANIBNNA LOCITION S~ P. R. R. R f if + 2~~ 32 . = 3T 7 g.72 T f 3 ? 321 a 9 \ 32 p+ ~. = s~,9 GRD ~ + Zpa 3 A + 2p 3 t/1 ~ ~~ v 223 + \' \\ + 32\'3 + 32 ' + 32p A + 2p~ 'C ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 2 2 5 t+ 3 1 a ~ s' ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ P. (~. do B. CO. R.lf 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 9 32 3 32\ \3 + 32p • ` 3 ® 1 + 3230 + 322 + 32\~ + 32\~ + 2\g +32 a': '::~: ~ g2 \ , 3 g 2\ + i + 322 32~./""`_"` 0 3~ 3 r~ UTE: 2 g\ SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 FOR B,~I„ ~ ~3 0+32A~ 5 B.O.B., GE?r. NOTES, UT. do LONG. e c~ ~ ., ~ 1 0 v ~ ,°~~ o THIS IrrAP OR PUT IS PREPARED BY ICE OR UNDER DIY PERVISION. ~ d a a y w ~ O ~! ~ ! CO IcHa cH Pls a~a rE SITE SURVEY C o ~ -~ z w F N ~ ~ ~ x IJ(~E EE~(PIIRFS: a%%a PRE LIMINARY ~ ~ -- DATE: 4/23/2001 i OF 2 W:\TACIT-METRO\PG&E SEAGULL WAY\pselSt.dwg, 05/17/01 10:44:55 AM D 0 ~, ~, D r r a N r d E .o O G~ V O 0 A W D ~q ~~ ~€~~~~~~ €~ j g~ ~p~~#p RS '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I a g~~~~~ ~ a ~ ~a ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ +~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ i~ ~~ aa4~ ~a z ~ ~~ ~a I- E3F °~ ~ ~p~ ~~ i ~~ F e ~ ~ a V `_ N 8 ,~ "T1 ~~ SITS NO.: SFA-C07-131A * REy. o~aN gr .. ~ and ASSOCIATl~S ,~,~ ~o,~F ~ PG&E SEAGULL WAY ~ ~ ^~~ ~ ~%~ss ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~p~ any ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u aNit ~ W ~ ~ N ~ O SARATOGA~ CA 95070 ~ ~, ~. ~ ~ (COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA) 9~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 7~i1 ~ IoulMY4 llAt ~ alodl aq~f, ~~,pN~ * a~ ~~~ a A.P.N: 135-43-037 E2 d~~~iN-~-1HO ~1x r~-1~a • • € F+RQ[Cf MIFMCER g TACT SIC Cast7b 6bat Smto Babao, G 95101 Td 805.580.8312 FA1f 806.580.7422 ~1~etroPC~ I~ m t a A&CNI?BC?S VINCENT 6. fEIFER it110 Q4VW lAQT wiu ~uw~, a ma ~ouiaas msruw rut g a awc an 05.01-01 as~o Fnn 100% ZONING ~eaa xo. IM7E m ~~ PGdtE SEA GULL WAY stc xueER SFA~07-131A st[ wa ^o ~oatas PG~E SEA GULL WAY 12382 SARATOGA! SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA,CA950T0 auwi n SAIC acam er VEL ~~ ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-1 W:\TACIT-METRD\PGkE SEAGULL WAY\SEA-A1.dwg, 05/17/01 09:24:12 AM • • • NOTES: p n~c om.c ~o mco ons Q o+aco+a anuaa acmuac O aeu U9Et ~s nru ascr o~~ o~~ a~ ,~, c ' Q 0 , + ~ O S ^~ ^~ ~ ^~ ©a o o MINI EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS „4- . ,'_o- s (M, YEAq P fJ9NE1$ Y (M) ~~•'~ ilgf I PO Mc'xa~ a oar aoc ro 1oAflt IEa Y ~ NORTH ELEVATION +,e• . ,'-o• ~~~ wunm a ror a OJ vaac rorEn ~+o~r~o1Dma°a ~. - - ~q~~~ Nnaas ^dMm a ica a~prcac cane maa wno~w • a'-0• Paaosto +[aoa++ rwn womws +uunm a m a (gPaae +oaoe cone a Mao.M . ao-0• +x• rcx AwE++ PNOPOSED YEa0Ca11 IOWnM lq so+ert as mw+[+rt uoo+ ------ ~ a~io, art (q „~ rota eo.o (q .aoo ocxc[ I ~o ~ +mw~ n mm vm s~i r-r, P n+rx axr~rt ow serrc rAUno roucrtn a 00 ~' mpc ca+cinc oro EA8T ELEVATION ,,,• . ,'_o• W:\TACIT-METRO\PG&E SEAGULL WAY\seo-A2A.dwg, 05/17/0, ,0:42:,3 AM ~aa~cr wracr-x a fAC/T ~ S,o~~ Sant Ba+bora. G 9]101 ~ Tr eos.s~oe~u ~ FAX A06.560.7471 ~~etroPC s a m t ~scHiracrs o V(NCEN'f B. fEffER aao aunu et~r LMR MMY4 U IOIa ~lla2a0 ~06.IIal11a M+I g i as auo a 0 4! e ~[ wh ~ 05.01-01 0 6511fD faR ~ 100%ZONING n ~ xa as ~e C o® t sn: wr[ PGd+E SEA GULL WAY ~ nuecn SFA~O7-131A srt +wic wn bam PG~E SEA GULL WAY t 12382 SARATOGAI SUNNYVALE ROAD ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070 S ~"'" -' SAIC scam nr yg W SxEEf 1nlF v ~ ELEVATIONS $ s+ccr ourea ~ A-2 • • • MetroPCS -Wireless Communications Network Primary Product: Facility Type: Network Design Footprint: Protect Purpose CDMA Wireless Communications Services Signal Distribution Antenna Cellular Topology The MetroPCS wireless network enables subscribers to access an information network and it's voice and data on-line services from a remote non-wire line location. MetroPCS plans to implement a service that offers the highest digital quality and reliability at the most affordable rate in order to satisfy customer demand for access and low price. (Antenna Facility description below). The antenna facility at 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga will provide continued and expanded wireless service in this community. This antenna site will be part of a network that will give the azea expanded wireless technology, ease of information access and more efficient direct communications for local business, personal and emergency services. Antenna Facility Description "The proposed facility is called a distribution site and consists of 6 directional flat panel antennas connected to a five cabinet radio and power unit. Directional antennas aze arranged in arrays (in this case, 3 arrays with 2 panel antennas pointed in three directions on the existing PG&E power tower) which talk to other antennas in the local network. Each directional antenna measures 56" long x 6" wide x 3" thick connected by a 1 and 5/8 inch conduit to the radio cabinet. The five free-standing radio and power cabinets range from 5-6' tall, 2-3' wide and 3-3.5' deep. Normal installation of the entire facility takes about 15 days. Power Unit Connections The power specifications call fora 200A, 120/208V service with a total connected power load of 10.5 KVA/240 on single-phase connection. The power unit and radios draw less than 100 amps of electricity paid directly to the local electric utility provider by MetroPCS. The facility is plugged into the telephone system and requires connection of 8 pairs twisted standard POTS wires. MetroPCS makes all connections per local telco specifications and pays for telephone service directly to the local telephone provider. Maintenance and Access The facility is un-manned and the equipment requires a standazd check only a few times a yeaz. The equipment runs continuously and silently and in case of an emergency power outage has battery back up for about four hours. Mostly due to emergency situations, MetroPCS requests the need for unrestricted access - 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/yeaz. Applicant Statement for Use Permit Findings ' (Article 15-55.070) The Proposed MetroPCS telecommunications facility at 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is: • In accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • Not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. • A compatible use on an existing utility tower structure. Antennas and mounting accessories can be painted to match any background color. • The communications equipment will not interfere, and is Federally mandated to not interfere with any other existing communications equipment or electronic devices. • • The antenna facility is self contained, unmanned, and quiet. The facility will not have a negative impact on utility or other existing infrastructure or demand for municipal services. • The antenna facility will not have a negative impact on the further development of other future communications facilities, structures or land uses. CJ . TAB/T COMMUNICATIONS Memo i~abe Aprit ~ ~, zoo, Toe Tom Swarner l:G Ranely Schwabacher From Carol Nubbo RE Saratoga Nlireless Telecommunication Sib Proposal • Regarding the proposed wireless telecommunication site located at 12383 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, CA., APN 3~i-21-013, this speafic PGBE tower was diosen due to the height of the tower. RF engineering required a Rad center of 100' or more to accomplish the Dover objective for the surrounding geographic area. There was no other 100' existing structures within the search ring that would work from a RF perspective. The PGBE. tower to the north was not feasible due to the fact that service vehides, which would need to construct and service the tower, would have to travel through a residential street and enter the property through an access road next to a residential home. 1 feR that the proposed property that was adjacent to the RR tracks with aa~ess from the main highway would be more accommodating for both the surrounding neighbors, as well as for the carrier. Due to the fad that both Sprint PCS and AAetro Comm has antennas located under the conductors and the need for 10' vertical separation between each carriers antennas, as well as the 10' separation requirement betvveen our antennas and PGBE electrical conductors we have no other choice except to install an 18" extension modfication to the top of the tower. • M17/01 Confidential • Lucsrrt Tidw~o{oyi•s ~NI l~Es Irrowtor Network Systems -Product Realization Center subject: Bellcore Requirement GR-487-CORE date: January 24, 2000 Section 3.28 (R3-157) Acoustical Noise Suppression Test Report on Flexent Modular Cell Enclosure from: Gregory P. Mikus Org. JC012E002 NJ0452, 1H3B (973) 426-1230 grniktts@lucent. com Memorandum for Record Introduction • 'The Acoustical Noise Suppression test was performed on the Outdoor Flexent IVlodular Cell enclosure at NU laboratories located in Annandale NJ on January 24, 2000 in order to verify compliance to the Bellcore requirement specified in section 3.28 of GR-487-CORE (Generic Requirements for Electronic Cabinets) see Noise Unlimited test report No. 9065.1. Marvin Lowman of Noise Unlimited Inc. conducted the testing. G. Mikus and J. Stofanak of Lucent Technologies were present during the testing. Bellcore Requirement Description (R3-157) Cabinets, equipped with telecommunications equipment and associated cooling fans, shall suppress acoustical noise to a level of 65dBA at a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) from the cabinet with the doors closed during times of maximum noise generation within the cabinet. Test Procedure• • Sound measurements shall be made in a room or enclosure that duplicates as much as possible the acoustic properties of a network facility and the actual service environment. • The sound level shall be measured by a sound meter meeting ANSI 1.4, and set to the A- weighting scale and the slow meter response setting. • Measurements shall be made in accordance with ANSI S 1.18. • Cabinet doors shall be closed. • Sound levels produced shall be measured at Sft from the cabinet surfaces in all horizontal directions at a height of aft from the cabinet-mounting surface. C] Lucent Technologies Proprietary-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction • Test Setuo The Flexent Modcell outdoor version was placed inside the acoustic room; a background noise measurement was taken. The Modcell outdoor version enclosure was then rendered operational and acoustic measurements were taken around the enclosure. Test Results Position Location DBA re: 20 uPa I Ambient 43 1 Front 61 2 Left Side 53 3 Reaz 52 4 Ri t Side 53 At the completion of the test as described in the Bellcore requirement the Flexent Modular Cell test data was reviewed and the noise levels did not exceed the specified requirement. Therefore the Outdoor Flexent Modular Cell enclosure meets the requirements set forth in Bellcore GR-487 -CORE section 3.28. This data is also in the Noise Unlimited test report No. 9065.1 • Respectfully, Gregory P. Mikus • Lucent Technologies Proprietary-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction United States of America Federal Communications Commission RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION Commercial vlobile Radio Services Personal Communications Service -Broadband GWI PCS1, INC. 8144 WALNUT HILL LANE SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75231 Call Sign: KNLF566 Market: B404 SAN FRA.i:ISCO-0AKLAND- Channel Block:C File Number: 00447-CW-L-96 ................................. The licensee hereof is authorized, for the period indicated to construct and operate radio transmitting facilities in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter described. This authorization is subject to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subsequent Acts of Congress, international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a signatory, and all pertinent rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, contained in the Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. • Initial Grant Date . ... .. .... .... January 27, 1997 Five-year Build Out Date . .. ... .... January 27, 2002 Expiration Date .. .... ... .. .... January 27, 2007 CONDITIONS . Pursuant to Section 309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. § ?09(h)), this license is subject to the following conditions: This license does not vest in the licensee any right to operate a station nor any right in the use of frequencies beyond the term thereof nor in any other manner than authorized herein. Neither this license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or otherwise transferred in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.). This license is subject in terms to the right of use or control conferred by Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. § 606). Conditions continued on Page 2. NAIV R ; No waivers associated with this authorization. r 1 U ls,:e Late: January .. ~, X99 ~ '" «~]LFv66 GWl PCS1, INC. 00447-CW-L-96 . • CONDITIONS: This authorization is subject to the condition that, in the event that systems using the same frequencies as granted herein are authorized in as adjacent foreign territory (Caaada/Uaited States), future coordination of nay base station transmitters within 721 (45 miles) of the United States/Canada border shall be required to eliminate aa; harmful interference to operations in the adjacent foreign territory and to ensure continuance of equal access to the frequencies by both countries. This authorization is conditioned upon the full and timely payment of all monies due pursuant to Sections 1.2110 and 24.711 of the Commission's Rules and the terms of the Commission's installment plan as set forth in the Note and Security Agreement executed by the licensee.. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the automatic cancellation of this authorization. • • • • • Photosimulation of view looking east from Manor Drive. / proposed antennas f ~~_.. 'F. ~- ~~-1 ~ ~:, .~., ,, -~- I ~~~ ~~~ :~ ., . , .~ ;- - ~- _ ', _ 1 F'. ,~ '4, r ~~ :_~ •~L~a. ~ . ~-Copyright 2081, Previsuilisls Inc, ill righh reserved. Accaracy of tl~is p4olosiuwlation bssed upon information provided by project applic 1M:~ ,y ..T~?~~a 3i, ~ w.~~g ~ Y ~1-r' . oa~2s~oi Metro ' PG8~E Sea Gull Way PG&E Sea Gull Way Saratoga, CA 95070 SFA-C07-131A~j~ ~,~~+ • • OQ/78~Y7f ' • Photosimulation of view looking southeast across Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. r proposed antennas `! 43/ r'1 I ~_ ~ ~ 1` i ',; ~ f' ! ~ ~- } ~, ~~~ ! ~ 1- ~ '-~~ ~ exlstingSp-Intantennea '~ ~`~ C' `,~ - ~~. ~~ \ _ t ~ _ / r r i t, ~ \ = i ~~~ ' T ~ __ ,~ •~ F e ,4 .: t il~.v j .l ~~ ~' t ~~, ..R*~Af a~ ~b •,.~.,.~-. ~ Exiting Copgri~Ght atoll, Pmrisuali~ls Inc„ all ri;hlc re~erv eA. \ccuracc of lhir phuta.inra lation based ulxrn t ~ ~~, i i? ~.~.% ..~i ,...oar .Metro ~ `; PG~E Sea Gull Way ' - PGBE Saa GuN Way Saratoga. CA 95070 SFA•C07-1~/A ylien provided by project applicant. Q.eslions? Call ]-RR&FOTOSIM Proposed YAvc7 ,a e:llictc i .:n. r....w. f+M: ,` t • • • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: I Date: I APN: UP-O1-010;13686 Quito Road METRO PCS/ASSOCIATES I John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner /~~ October 10, 2001 403-24-001 Department Head 000001 +..iVVV ~N1~.V i\VGIbL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6/OU01 8/09/01 9/26/01 9/26/01 9/20/01 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG&E transmission tower. The system is comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower that includes a GPS system. Each antenna measures approximately 56" long by 6" wide and 3" thick. The equipment cabinet would house five cabinets approximately 5-6" tall. The total area for the equipment cabinets would be approximately 15'x10'. Staff is recommending conditions that the cabinets are placed under ground and an extensive landscape plan is submitted subject to the Community Development Director's approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution UP-O1-010. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution UP-O1-010 2. Map of Existing and Proposed Cellular Sites 3. Applicant's Project Description, Plans, Photo simulations (Exhibit "A") • t • 000002 File No. UP-O1-010; 13686 Quito Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Single Family Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.38 Acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: < 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed plan for the above grade facility will require minimal grading. Staff's recommendation for the below grade equipment facility would require approximately 30 cubic yards of cut. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Staff has conditioned the project that the final colors are subject to the Community Development Directors approval. PROJECT DISCUSSION S In May of 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance, which established communication antenna facilities as a conditionally permitted use in all zoning districts within the Ciry of Saratoga. Since the ordinance was passed, several telecommunications antenna facilities in Saratoga have been approved. Aesthetics Staff finds that this site is an appropriate location for a telecommunication antenna facility. The proposed antennas are unobtrusive as viewed from the street. Currently there is one other carrier at this location. Staff generally recommends that facilities be co-located on existing transmission towers. The one other carrier located at this site has a fully enclosed structure. The project was approved without any required landscaping. For an above ground facility staff prefers a fully enclosed structure compared to a facility that only has a perimeter fence. Fully enclosed structures with masonry walls are less acceptable to vandalism and act as an additional sound barrier for equipment. The fenced in facilities are not as easy to maintain, sometimes leading to code enforcement action. Due to staff's recommendation to co-locate facilities staff is recommending as a condition of approval that this facility be located underground. The underground facility would improve the aesthetics and avoid creating a small village on the vacant parcel. It would also minimize any noise and visual impacts to the adjacent neighborhood and significantly reduce the chances for vandalism. C:\My DocumentsVohn L\Antennas\Quito Rd. 13686 CUP Metro PCS.doc ~ "~~~ File No. UP-O1-010; 13686 Quito Road In addition to under oundin the ro osed facili ,staff is recommendin as a condition ~' g P P ~' g of approval that the applicant provide an extensive landscaped area around the entire site. The landscape plan would include medium sized evergreen trees to create a forest atmosphere. The landscape plan will be subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. A condition of approval has also been added that required the applicant to provide a landscape maintenance agreement for two years for the maintenance of the trees on the site. Staff has discussed the issue of under grounding the equipment facility with the applicant. The applicant will be providing a statement supporting why they feel this cannot be accomplished. Staff has also advised the applicant to discuss the proposed system with the surrounding neighbors and if possible provide documentation that this has been done. Public Health and Safety As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. According to a report by William F. Hammett of Hammett &z Edison, Inc., supplied by the applicant, it has been determined that the proposed facilities comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. Their findings are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Noise As a condition of project approval the applicant will be required to provide documentation that the proposed underground equipment cabinet meets all City noise standards. Ordinance Size Trees No trees are proposed for removal and the equipment cabinet will not be constructed under any drip line. Conclusion The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code. The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. C:VNy DocumentsVohn L\Antennas\Quito Rd. 13686 CUP Metro PCS.doc 000004 File No. UP-O1-010; 13686 Quito Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application, based on staff's recommended conditions requiring an extensive landscape plan and that the facility be underground, by adopting the attachedResolutionUP-Ol-010. • C:Vvty DocumentsVohn L\Antennas\Quito Rd 13686 CUP Metro PCS.doc 000"05 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000006 • • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-010 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA METRO PCS;13686 QuitoRoad WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the installation of six antennas and an underground equipment cabinet; and WHEREAS, The proposed antennas and equipment facility is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" Class 3 (d); 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 Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: 1. That the proposed wireless communication antenna facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive. 2. That the proposed wireless communication antennas and the conditions under which they would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy; and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. That the proposed wireless communication antenna complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. 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 Metro PCS application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ooooo~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. A minimum of two (2) warning signs shall be posted near the transmitting antennas: one (1) at the base of the pole visible to workers intending to perform work on the pole; and one (1) on the pole just below the antennas. Signs will comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Contact information will also be provided with a 24-hr. phone number to arrange for access to restricted areas. 3. The antennas shall be painted to match the existing tower in color and texture and the equipment cabinet shall be painted a dark color approved by Staff. 4. Within 30 days of cessation of the operation of the antennas, the applicant shall remove all equipment. 5. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to 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. b. Samples of the paint color to be used. c. The applicant shall submit a plan to under ground the equipment cabinets. d. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan and landscape plan, detailing the design, species and location of all landscaping for planning staff approval. The plan shall include both facilities currently located at the site. Evergreen trees shall be incorporated in the plan. e. The applicant shall provide documentation that the proposed equipment will meet all of the City noise standards. f. The applicant shall provide proof of a landscape maintenance agreement for a period of two years from the date of project approval. g. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. h. 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 ~DD~oB a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." No structure shall be permitted in any easement without providing the City of Saratoga with proof of written permission. 6. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. The applicant shall conduct a Pre and Post installation radio frequency study and shall make the results available to the Planning Department and homeowners within 500 feet of the project site. The site shall be maintained free of all trash, graffiti, and weeds. 9. Prior to Final Inspection of the antennas, the applicant shall submit to Planning Division staff: a. Verification that the level of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emanating from the operating antennas do not exceed the levels outlined in the Statement of Hammett and Edison, Consulting Engineers report dated October 13, 2000. 10. Annual testing of the emissions from the facility shall be conducted at the applicant's expense and made available to the Planning Division and neighbors for a period to be determined by the Community Development Director. 11. 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 appli- cant's project. 12. Noncompliance with 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. 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. • 000009 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 10`h day of October 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • oooo~~ Attachment 2 Existing and Proposed Cellular Sites in the City of Saratoga • • Existing site Proposed site Saratoga City Limits 00001 Notes: 1. Wireless providers shown include ATBT, Pacific Bell, Metro PCS, 3. locations are not parcel specific Nextel. Sprint, and Verizon 4. co-locations are indicated with asingle-symbol 2. Proposed sites for Pacific Bell are not shown 5. map was created by City of Saratoga staff 9101 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • DIRECTORS ITEM City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP ' Community Development Director \` , DATE: October 10, 2001 ~ RE: Planning Issues Committee Assignments Please find below a table showing which Staff persons have been assigned to the various planning issues raised by the Commission a few months ago. You will note that throe of the "Issues" do not have a Commissioner assigned. Is there any interest among the Commission to work on these issues? If so please let me know. Planning Issues -Committee Assignments • ISSUE COMMISSIONER STAFF Basement Standards Rou & Jackman Vasudevan Streamline Review of Hunter & Barry Oosterhous Develo ment Pro'ects Study Sessions for Garakani & Kurasch l~vingstone Advance Planning Activities Standards for Story ? Sullivan Poles Balloons or Models Landsca Plans Rou & Zutshi New Staff Member Neighborhood Design ? Vasudevan & Guidelines Oosterhous Energy Efficient Garakani & Kurasch Livingstone Alternatives Expanded Criteria for Hunter & Kurasch New Staff Member Landsca in Zoning Barry & Jackman Sullivan Ordinance/Conflict Resolution Land Use Element ? Sullivan U ate • ~' MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in open session in the Administrative Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. to interview one applicant for the Heritage Preservation Commission. The.City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR AUGUST 15, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of August 15, 2001 was properly posted on August 10, 2001. City Council Minutes 1 August 15, 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: John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, asked if item #3 proposes to postpone the September 5, 2001 appeal hearing approval of the Saratoga Fire District Project. Mayor Mehaffey responded that Item #3 is requesting funding to study the feasibility of a Public Safety Center not to delay the public hearing on September 5, 2001. Jane Fanari, Chamber of Commerce, stated that she is the new president of the Chamber. Ms. Fanari noted that the Chamber's top priority is promoting the business community. Ms. Fanari reported that interviews would soon be conducted to hire a new executive director. Ms. Fanari reassured the Council that the Chamber is still functioning despite the recent staffing changes. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: ADJOURNED MEETING -MARCH 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 20, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING -JUNE 26, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled the minutes of March 27, 2001 and requested the following be corrected. On page 6, 1 S` paragraph, the sentence should read as follows: "Councilmember Baker noted that the offer from Azule Project was City Council Minutes 2 August 15, 2001 ~ that they would build 28 homes, 2 of which would be low income housing 2 requiring a contribution of $500, 000 per home." Councilmember Waltonsmith pulled the minutes of June 20, 2001 and requested the following change. On page 17, 2°d paragraph, the following should be added to the sentence: "Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not support this project but cannot vote against it because of federal law prohibiting denying these issues on safety issues." BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED WITH BAKER AND BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 C. TREASURER'S REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREITBAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE TREASURER'S REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1D. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES JULY 25, 2001 AUGUST 8, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREITBAKER NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. S City Council Minutes 3 August 15, 2001 1 E. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-00-054 & V-O1-002 (517-14-087) - MARTIN/ROSE, KITTRIDGE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DR-00-054) STREITBAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON KITTRIDGE ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1F. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-O1-005 (386-06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT: PALUMBO/APPELLANT: ESCOLA, KARREN, GROSS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-054 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPELLANTS: ESCOLA, KARREN & GROSS; APPLICANT PALUMBO; 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; DR-O1-005 STREITBAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON BROOKVIEW DRIVE ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 4 August 15, 2001 1 G. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: HUSAIN/KHAN AND GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION; APPELLANT: GIBERSON LL-00-005 (517-23-021 AND 517-22-11115480 PEACH HILL ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-055 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATED TO 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD (APNS 517-23-021 AND 517-22-111);APPLICANT/APPELLANT- HUSAIN/KHAN AS TO TIE VOTE ON LOT LINE APPLICATION AND APPELLANT MARGARET S. GIBERSON AS TO APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION (LL-00-005) STREITBAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 H. AUTHORIZATION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1996 MEASURE B PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREITBAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. MOTION PASSED 5-0 lI. AUTHORIZATION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES IN CONJUNCTION TO THE SARATOGA LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT PHASE I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. City Council Minutes 5 August I5, 2001 STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 2. CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that tonight was the second meeting in developing the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Director Cherbone noted that an updated spreadsheet was provided to Council listing each project, associated estimated cost, project funding source, and proposed five year expenditure plan. Director Cherbone reminded Council that at the CIP study session in June, there were 39 proposed new CIP projects that total $13,205,000. The Council prioritized each project during the CIP study session as being essential, desirable, or deferrable. The Council voted 13 projects as being essential and 10 projects as being deferrable. Projects that were categorized as essential or deferrable received a Council vote of three or more, while desirable projects failed to receive a majority vote. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if a project in the deferrable list could be moved to the desirable list even if it does not receive funding in the first few years. Mayor Mehaffey explained that all of the projects are worthwhile, but unfortunately funds are limited. Mayor Mehaffey noted projects could be moved to the desirable list, funding only when money becomes available. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City Council the Parks and Recreation Commission top four CIP projects: 1) Playground Safety, 2) Park and Trail Repairs, 3) El Quito Park Improvements 4) Azule Park Improvements. Elaine Clabeaux, 12357 Saraglen Drive, requested that the City Council consider funding the improvements for the median on Prospect Road. City Council Minutes 6 August 15, 2001 • • Keith Simon/President, Pony League, 20450 Montalvo Lane; expressed his concern that a site has not been identified for Pony League use. Mr. Simon noted • that Pony and Little League are willing to contribute a large amount of funds to make improvements at a site, once designated Vice Mayor Streit requested that the Council go back through the CIP list. Councilmember Baker suggested that the essential list be left out of tonight's discussion and suggested that the Mayor read the desirable list for the audience. Mayor Mehaffey read the essential list for the members of the audience. Mayor Mehaffey explained that he would read the projects that were not funded at the June 26`'' City Council Study Session; any item may be pulled for discussion. As a result of Council discussions the following list of projects either received funding or remained in the deferrable list: • Project Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal Sidewalk/Pathway InfilURehab Verde Vista Lane Traffic Signal Parker Ranch Trail Improvements Kirkmont Drive Traffic Signal Bus Stop Shelters El Quito Area Curb & Gutter Village Streetscape Improvements Village Streetscape Improvements Storm Drain Upgrades Median Repairs Prospect Avenue Medians Fruitvale Avenue Median Landscaping Quito Road Railroad Crossing Upgrade Glen Brae Railroad Crossing Upgrade WHH Improvements Theater Improvements Corporation Yard Improvements Chamber Building Civic Center Master Plan El Quito Park Improvements City Council Minutes 7 Estimated Cost Amount Funded $150,000 $500,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $100,000 $550,000 $850,000 $275,000 $250,000 $100,000 $500,000 $150,000 $200,000 $150,000 $250,000 $265,000 $150,000 $50,000 $250,000 $400,000 $5,000 0 $5,000 Item # 8 on Agenda $5,000 0 $550,000 $850,000 $275,000 $250,000 $100,000 0 0 0 0 $145,000 0 0 0 0 0 August 15, 2001 El Quito Park Improvements Hakone Garden Drive Way Pony League Baseball Field UPR Trail Kevin Moran Park Improvements Skateboard Park $400,000 0 $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 0 $785,000 0 $400,000 0 $250,000 0 Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City Council that the PRC was directed by the Council to find a home for the Pony League. Chair Clabeaux noted that the PRC is requesting they be kept in the loop on any decisions regarding the Heritage Orchard. Director Cherbone noted that the CIP is scheduled for a public hearing on the September 19, 2001 City Council agenda. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, noted that the total allocated is $8,815,000 and explained the sources funding these projects are as follows: • General Fund - $4,385,000 • Park Development - $2,125,000 • Grants - $ 1,700,000 • Other Sources - $625,000 Mayor Mehaffey requested that the CIP chart be updated and forwarded to Council. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Cherbone for his report. Mayor Mehaffey declared aten-minute break at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 3. STATUS REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER AD HOC COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-056 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER FEASIBILITY AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY AND EXTENDING THE TIME LINE BY NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS City Council Minutes 8 August 15, 2001 Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that the Ad Hoc Committee was formed in response to the letter submitted to Council by Don Whetstone. Mr. Whetstone urged the City to revisit the idea of a combined Public Safety Center on the site of the Fire Station/Post Office/Contempo Building. The Ad Hoc Committee members are Nick Streit, Dave Anderson, Chief Kraule, Curtis Jewel, David Dolloff, Dave Clifford, and Don Whetstone. City Manager Anderson presented a status report on the findings made by the group: 1) The Post Office is amenable to selling the post office property as long as they can maintain a presence on the site for a retail store. 2) The Sheriff's Office "term of lease" with the Post Office runs out July 2002. The Sheriff's Office has notified the Post Office that they will be looking for other quarters in Saratoga at that time. They also expressed a strong desire to stay in Saratoga if at all possible. 3) The Federated Church expressed the desire to join the group as employee parking from the Sheriff s Department and Fire Department impacts the church. Jenry Bruce, the church Administrator, was invited to attend subsequent meetings. City Manager Anderson noted that resources were brought to the group by the agencies represented. The City brought in the resources of Sutro and Company to provide expertise on financing. Fehr & Peers Associates provided its traffic expertise. The Fire Department volunteered their architect on the Fire Station project, C3 Design Alliance for conceptual site design. City Manager Anderson noted that subsequent to the meeting on August 6, 2001 some committee members were concerned that an unbiased report could not be produced using the Fire Department's architect as a design site and that a feasibility/conceptual study should be constrained by lack of funds or unrealistic time constraints. City Manager Anderson stated that staff is requesting, on behalf of the AdHoc Committee that Council appropriate $25,000 to be used for conceptual design services and traffic analysis as needed. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Ad Hoc Committee would be soliciting a consultant through the RFP process. City Manager Anderson responded yes. City Council Minutes 9 August 15, 2001 Robert Egan, Chair/Sazatoga Fire Commission, 14890 Montalvo Road, noted that the Fire Commission is willing to work with the AdHoc Committee as long as it does not interfere with the construction of the new Fire Station. Mr. Egan noted that in 1995 the Commission explored the concept of a Public Safety Facility, the group met for two yeazs with the Sheriff's Office, Federated Church, Post Office, and Chamber of Commerce. At that time the consensus of the group was that a facility of that nature, on the corner of Sazatoga Avenue and Big Basin Way, was not feasible. In Apri12000 the Fire Commission went to the voters for a bond issue to build a new fire station. Mr. Eagan stated that 89% of the residents that aze served by the SFD voted for the bond measure. Mr. Egan noted that recently he met with Mr. Whetstone to discuss his concerns and his ideas regazding a Public Safety Center. Mr. Eagan stated that Mr. Whetstone took him to his back deck, referring to Blaney Plaza, commented that he would like to see a similaz pazk on the Fire Station corner. Mr. Egan stated that Mr. Whetstone's opinions are self serving and a pazk and additional pazking would greatly benefit his tenants. Mr. Egan noted that he feels that Don Whetstone's pazticipation in the AdHoc Committee is a conflict of interest. Mr. Egan noted that the Council should not delay their project. Mr. Egan urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision on September 5, 2001. Councilmember Bogosian asked if it was true that in 1995 the Post Office refused to sell the property no matter what the price was. Mr. Egan responded yes, the District offered the Post Office two different offers and both were rejected. Councilmember Baker asked if having the Sheriff's Department helps or hinders the District's project. Mr. Egan responded that the Sheriff's Department doesn't interfere with their project. Mr. Egan noted that the District would like to keep the Sheriff's Department at the current facility. Councilmember Baker asked Mr. Egan if the SFD would be willing to sell their property to the City. Mr. Egan responded not at this time. Mayor Mehaffey stated that he does not want to see the Sheriff's Office gone from the Village. Councilmember Baker stated that he strongly supports the concept of a Public Safety Center. Councilmember Baker noted that the City should be prepared to City Council Minutes 10 August 15, 2001 consider alternate sites for the Sheriff's Department. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $25, 000 FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SERVICES AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Don Whetstone, 14769 Vickery Avenue, stated that Mr. Egan's statements were false. Mr. Whetstone said he did meet with Mr. Egan but no conversation of that content took place. 5. PRESENTATION BY STEVE BLAYLOCK - ALTRANS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Stave Blaylock, President/ALTRANS, thanked the City Council for the continued support. Mr. Blaylock explained what ALTRANS accomplished in the FY 2000- 01 as follows: Community Colleges 1. Staffed Transportation Service Centers for a total of 4,556 hours at WVC, Mission, and De Anza Colleges. 2. Provided 15 Alternate Transportation Fairs. 3. Provided 30 Transportation Tabling Events around high-pedestrian areas • on campus. 4. Provided 12 Classroom Presentations. 5. Presented information to over 3,000 students participating in New Student Orientations. 6. Distributed 23,370 pieces of Collateral Material promoting alternative transportation modes. 7. Provided 2,093 Personal Trip Plans from the Transportation Services Centers. 8. Distributed 18,836 Pro-Active Transit Trip Plans including 5,082 at West Valley College 9. Worked on implementing the Valley Transportation Authorities ECO Pass Programs. 10. Secured $15,000 in grant funding from the City of Cupertino for the construction of one Bicycle Corral at De Anza College. 11. Presented proposal to West Valley College and Mission College to operate an Intra-Campus Shuttle with 2 CNG vans. 12. Assisted the City of Cupertino with the development and approval stages for the Union Pacific Bicycle Trail and the Mary Bridge/Interstate 280 Pedestrian Bridge. City Council Minutes 11 August 15, 2001 K-l2 Schools 1. Distributed 4,673 Pro-Active Transit Trip Plans to SUSD and CUSD 2. Provided 9,509 carpool Matchlists for the K-12 Program. 3. Provided numerous GIS maps for planning assistance. 4. Provided Bike-to-School Safety & Encouragement Event at McAuliffe School in SUSD. 5. Secured $35,000 for a subsidy towazds the Sazatoga Bussing Pilot Program. 6. Participated in numerous meetings for the Sazatoga School Traffic Committee. 7. Provided Good Neighbor mazketing piece to the attendees of the Saratoga School Traffic Committee 8. Developed and wrote three newsletter articles for Sedgwick, Stevens Creek, Kennedy schools in CUSD. 9. Worked on Sazatoga K-12 School Bussing Program. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Mr. Blaylock for the presentation. PARKER RANCH TRAIL REPAIR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve construction proposal and authorize execution of agreement. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that this project also appeazs on the current CIP list. Director Cherbone reported that the attached proposal is in connection with the repair of Trail Segment #3, better known as the "Tank Trail", located in the Pazker Ranch Subdivision. Approximately two yeazs ago the City closed the trail because of a landslide along a small segment of the trail. Estimates obtained at that time reached $100,000 and more for conventional landslide repair methods. Director Cherbone noted that Trail Subcommittee member, Teri Bazon, located trail contractor Donald Hayes, whose specialty is construction and repair of trails in difficult locations. Director Cherbone explained that Mr. Hayes proposes to construct an inset gravity wall, which will act as the foundation from the trail surface. Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Hayes' specialty is construction and repair of trails in difficult locations. Director Cherbone stated that staff is recommending that Council approve a construction proposal from Donald Hayes, Trail Contractor Inc., in the amount of City Council Minutes 12 August 15, 2001 $16,800. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,800. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. INTEREST INCOME ON LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INVESTMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that staff has estimated that between $500,000 and $700,000 in interest income will be earned on the bond proceeds during the eighteen-month construction period, assuming a 5% rate of return and a drawdown schedule developed by the City's construction management firm. Bond counsel for the City confirmed that the interest earnings can only be spent for the same items for which the principle could be spent, and it~cannot be used for such things as furniture, computer equipment, or books. Assistant Manager Tinfow reported that staff and the Library Expansion Committee recommend that the interest income of $500,000 be spent on the Library project for a number of reasons. First, the funds would provide an additional buffer against unexpected or unbudgeted expenses. Second, costs for establishing the temporary library are not final. Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that under a best case scenario, some or all of the funds could become available for project components that were removed during value engineering, such as energy-conserving digitally controlled HVAC system, or additional enhancements such as an art mural in the children's wing. Vice Mayor Streit stated he does not have a problem spending the interest on the library, but before the Library Expansion Committee starts spending the money on the valued engineering items, it is important to get the Library built first and then add extra items. Councilmember Baker noted that this should not be acted on until after the City has firm bids on Phase II. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the interest income should be kept as a buffer. Mayor Mehaffey stated that when the project is completely finished he would support giving money back to the citizens. City Council Minutes 13 August 15, 2001 Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that she would relay the Council's comments to the Library Expansion Committee. 6. 7 Councilmember Baker requested that this item be deferred to a future agenda. Consensus of the City Council to bring this item back after the bid opening for Phase II. CITY SPONSORED ARTS PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that the City Council directed staff to investigate ways to support, promote, and participate in a wide variety of art programs in the City of Saratoga. The concept of a city sponsored art program is being brought to the City Council for input and guidance. Director Pisani reported that a survey of surrounding cities and current local programs was completed showing that most cities do have type of arts commission or arts council. Director Pisani explained the City's options as follows: • Option 1 - Establish an Arts CounciUCommission. • Option 2 - Establish a rotating Art Committee and recruit and appoint members to a board to oversee the program. • Option 3 - A local community art group could be recruited to institute and oversee a rotating art program. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the City does need an art donation policy and prefers that the County Library not be involved in selecting art for the City's library. In regards to establishing a commission, any of the options are fine. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with Councilmember Bogosian regarding County Library's participation in art selections. Vice Mayor Streit requested that any program the City establishes must incorporate children. Vice Mayor Streit noted he supports Option #l. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to establish guidelines and a resolution establishing an arts commission. CITY ENERGY CONSERVATION EFFORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly Ciry Council Minutes 14 August 15, 2001 • • • Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani reported that at various times since December of last year, California has been under Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 energy alerts. On January 12, 2001 the League of California Cities issued a memorandum asking all cities to certify that they would reduce energy usage by a minimum of 5% by January 16, 2001. In response the City Council adopted a resolution in support of a 5% reduction level. Director Pisani noted that the past few months threats of rolling blackouts have lessoned because of combined conservation efforts of private and public energy consumers. Director Pisani explained that the League is currently asking that each member agency pledge to implement energy savings programs, which will achieve a conservation rate of 15% over the last year. Director Pisani briefly explained the actions the City would have to take if the Council signed the pledge. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if there was a penalty if the City did not sign the pledge. Director Pisani responded no. Councilmember Baker noted that he does not support sigmng the pledge. Consensus of the City Council to oppose signing the League's Energy Conservation Pledge. 9. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that the renovation and expansion of the existing Saratoga Library is expected to take approximately eighteen months. In March 2001 staff was directed to establish a temporary library that could serve the community while expansion is underway. The temporary library will be sited on property owned by Sacred Heart Church and a lease has been secured with modular fabricator Williams Scotsman. City Council Minutes 15 August 15, 2001 Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that staff is requesting the Council approve the attached sublease with the County Library and explained that without an executed sublease between the City and the County Library, Library staff cannot move m to the temporary facilities and no interim services can be provided to the public. BAKER /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY FOR SUBLEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Mehaffey announced that he had no reportable information at this time. Vice Mayor Nick Streit announced that he had no reportable information at this time. Councilmember Baker reported that the new station manager is working very hard to establish a budget. KSAR is also in the process of replacing their assets, actively seeking grants and donations, and expanding their operation. Councilmember Baker noted that he attended the California Cities Association meeting and reported the following information: • Executive Director and Recording Secretary resigned. • Approved budget. • October 19, 2001 -coordinated by the City of San Jose "Walk for Domestic Violence". Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Library JPA: • Library JPA -approved changes in the JPA agreement. • Discussed staffing issues. • Next meeting in October. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Silicon Valley Animal Control: • Up and running successfully for over a month. • Almost fully staffed • Drafting a Mission Statement. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that SASCC would be holding their annual fundraiser on August 25, 2001. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that last Friday the City hosted a reception for the exchange students who are a part of the Sister City student exchange program. City Council Minutes 16 August 15, 2001 Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that at the last Valley Transportation PAC meeting they discussed the annual budget projections. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Santa Clara Valley Water District be invited to attend the next Council meeting to explain the removal of the Comer debris basin. Councilmember Waltonsmith supported Councilmember Bogosian's request. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the City's commission have mission statements. If yes, she would like a brief staff report explaining them. Mayor Mehaffey supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Councilmember Baker announced that he would not be able to attend the September 5, 2001, City Council meeting. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson reported that Saratoga Fire District and County Fire met yesterday and executed the Boundary Drop Proposal. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk ! City Council Minutes 1 ~ August 15, 2001 PEN Wireless, Cable, & Fiber Site Development • Land Planning • Design • Documentation • A8E planning & Engineering Network City of Saratoga Planning Commission September 28, 2001 Community Developmern, Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: MetroPCS antenna facility co-location on two existing PG&E transmission towers in the City of Saratoga: • 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - APN: 393-21-013 • 13686 Quito Road - APN: 403-24001 Dear Planning Commissioner, I am pleased to provide this additional information for both proposed projects as requested by City Planning Staff: • One (1) set at 11" X 1 T' of the Project Developmern Plans (site plans and elevations). • One (1) Project Description and one (1) Site Search Memorandum for 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd • One (1) Applicant Statement that addresses use permit findings. • One (1) Noise Testing Memorandum, which addresses acoustic noise, levels. • One (1) copy of the MetroPCS Radio Station Authorization which certifies the FCC License for this proposed network • One (1) set of photo-simulated illustrations of each proposed installation. MetroPCS would like to thank the City of Saratoga planning staff and governing bodies for their review of these impc~t,~nt projects. .~jr .. Then- .t .~ific Saratoga sites are part of the overall infrastructure needed to supply the most afford~le wireless PCS service to communities around the San Francisco Bay Area. MetroPCS feels that it is importarn to provide more people with greater access to services and a choice of wireless produdfand low cost is the key. MetroPCS attempts to select the most compatible sites for this type of installation by to-locating on existing buildings and towers as much as possible. Existing PG&E towers provide the opportunity to coexist with public utilities and other wireless carriers and satisfy network engineering requirements for antenna height. The powef and radio cabinets which operate the antennas are the latest tieestanding outdoor type which reduce visual impact, take up less space and eliminate the need for larger utility buildings. MetroPCS would like to be a partner with the City of Saratoga in providing the best public and personal wireless services to the bcal community. Thank you once again for your review. Sincerely, ,u,~~~ Tom Swarner, PEN Telecom Represerning MetroPCS, Inc. Tms:131.134ent1:pen ~~ ~J 1624 Telegraph Ave. • Oakland, CA 94612 • Ph: (510) 663-4690 • Fax: (510) 663-4689 • E: tomale75~hotmail.com