Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1~/IINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PUCE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT: Jackman STAFF: Planners Knapp, Livingstone, Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Comrnunicatior~s underPlanning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-046, UP-98-015 &t SD-98-006 - AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga- - - Sunnyvale Drive; -The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project as required by Resolution No. 00-09. Six refractive globes with black poles are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28 acre commercial site. The proposed refractive globes have downward street side reflectors and house side reflectors. The globes are to be mounted at a height of 12 feet. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of I\TOrth America, the proposed exterior lighting is in compliance with industry standards. (OOSTERHOUS) (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. .; 2. DR-O1-019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 Est ED-O1-001 (503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road; -Request for Design Re~~iew and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED TO 12/12/01) UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road &r Farwell Avenue; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVII~TGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO 12/12/01) NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); -Request for General Plan clarification to allow three ne~v dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO 11/14/01) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION - LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 23, 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 24, 2001 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. UP-O1-007 - SPRINT Item 3 Farwell 6:. Saratoga-Los Gatos 2. DR-98-046 - AZULE CROSSING Item 1 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 3. DR-O1-018, V-O1-011 - HUERTA Item 2 BSA-Ol-011 Esc ED-O1-001 22511 Mt. Eden Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are nevv items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site ~~isit to answer any questions which may arise. Site ~~isits 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. i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 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 ALLEGLANCE MI\'UTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taping action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on October 18, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-046, UP-98-015 &~ SD-98-006 - AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Drive; -The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project as required by Resolution No. 00-09. Six refractive globes with black poles are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28 acre commercial site. The proposed refractive globes have downward street side reIlectors and house side reIlectors. The globes are to be mounted at a height of 12 feet. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the proposed exterior lighting is in compliance with industry standards. (OOSTERHOUS) 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 AGE\TDA OCTOBER 24, 2001 PAGE 2 • 2. DR-O1-019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-Ol-001 Est ED-O1-001 (503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road; -Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (KNAPP) UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ~ Farwell Avenue; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTOI~TE) NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); -Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where t~vo dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVII~IGSTONE) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • ;:; :~, ~~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~ U~ V' y DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 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, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp and Public Works Director John Cherbone APPROVAL OF MINUTES - CounciUCommission Housing Element Study Session -July 18, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the CounciVCommission Joint Study Session minutes of July 18, 2001, were approved with one minor correction. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of August 8, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN; Hunter and Kurasch APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 26, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the regular Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: Hunter and Jackman Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 2 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 October 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff report. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. 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. Commissioner Jackman asked that a Public Hearing be opened for this Consent Item. Chair Barry opened a Public Hearing regarding the CIP Program at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Jackman asked staff if funding has been identified for the teen center. Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, replied yes, some of the funding has been obtained including a grant in the amount of $20,000. Added that the Recreation Department has identified this teen center as an important CIP project. Director Sullivan pointed out that there will be some items in a CIP Program that do not yet have specific tie ins to General Plan goals. Chair Barry sought clarification that the role of the Commission is to certify that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan rather than providing input on prioritizing the CIP projects. Public Works Director John Cherbone admitted that Council is the body that establishes the priorities for the CIP. However, if the Planning Commission has problems with an CIP project, Council would want to hear those concerns. Director Sullivan reiterated that the mission for the Commission this evening is to find the CIP consistent with the General Plan. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the time frame to begin the CIP projects that pertain to the Circulation Element's goals. Public Works Director John Cherbone advised that the implementation of the traffic-calming plan ~~ill begin with the first year of the CIP. Commissioner Kurasch asked if shade trees would be incorporated into the bus shelters. Public Works Director John Cherbone replied that there is no funding. Shade trees could be included if financially feasible. Chair Barry asked PW Director Cherbone if the City's bus shelter plan includes lighting as a standard element. PW Director Cherbone replied no. Added that if a safety issue comes up for a particular bus stop, lighting could be proposed but it is not part of any plan at this time. Chair Barry sought clarification that traffic calming would require no further Study Sessions but rather will begin implementation. PW Director Cherbone advised that there is funding in the amount of $50,000 per year to implement traffic calming projects as the areas of need are identified. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there is no General Plan goal identified in relation to the maintenance of medians. • . PW Director Cherbone explained that this project simply represents maintenance rather than new infrastructure. Commissioner Garakani asked how the City determines which medians deserve repair. PW Director Cherbone replied that the City has secured a Landscape Contractor. Additionally, a new lead Parks Supervisor will supervise. Pointed out that all existing medians need some sort of work including Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Hunter stressed the importance for the Herriman traffic signal for the safety of children going to school in the area. PW Director Cherbone advised that Council has approved a Study for that signal. Added that whenever someone calls with a new request, that item is added to his waiting list for consideration when the next CIP is drafted. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Quito Road bridge replacement will take aesthetic considerations into account in their design. i PW Director Cherbone pointed out that the bridge on the south toward Highway 9 was replaced about nine years ago. Said that they have instructed the Civil Engineer to include as much aesthetic detail to the plans as allowed with the available funding. Said that they will make them look more integrated Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 4 - with the environment and will attempt to save existing trees. The new bridges will be wider than the existing, which are structurally and functionally insufficient. Commissioner Kurasch inquired if interested local residents could contact staff to discuss ideas. PW Director Cherbone replied yes. Director Sullivan added that aesthetics can be assessed in the environmental documents. Chair Barry asked what the criteria is for selecting areas for the Sidewalk/Pathway In-fill Rehab Project. PW Director Cherbone advised that major arterial streets such as Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, Cox Avenue and others as needed. In many cases they selected areas are tied to schools for safety. Added that this project is currently not funded. Chair Barry asked how the Assessment District was set up. PW Director Cherbone advised that the Assessment District was formed five years ago by a neighborhood group who wants their private street recognized as a City street. Commissioner Zutshi asked for a time frame for the Herriman Road Signal. PW Director Cherbone advised that a warrant study will be prepared either prior to the end of the current school year (early Summer) or just before the start of school ne~ct 1?all. The findings of the warrant study will be provided to Council. Chair Barry asked if the Commission could forward a recommendation to Council that the Herriman Road signal warrant study be expedited and/or prioritized. Director Sullivan advised the Commission to adopt the draft Resolution as it is regarding the CIP and take separate minute action making its recommendation to Council to expedite the warrant study. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission • made the determination that the proposed 2001-2002 Capitol Improvement Program (GP-O1-001) is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission took minute action to recommend that the Herriman Road signal warrant study be prioritized as a CIP project. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 5 ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.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. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Use Permit to allow a cabana to be constructed that is 14 feet high. • ~ Added that any accessory structure higher than eight-feet requires issuance of such a Use Permit. • Said that the proposed height is necessary in order to match the 1910 California Craftsman's Style architecture of the house on this property. • Reminded that there are a lot of renovations underway on this property in order to restore it. This includes the demolition of some structures on site as well as additions that are more compatible. Except for the height of this cabana, the rest of the work on site can be approved administratively. • Explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission toured the property on May 8, 2001, and enthusiastically extended its recommendation of approval. • Pointed out that this cabana is not visible from the public right-of--way as it is located 96 feet from the front setback and added that there are 100 trees on this property. • Concluded with the staff recommendation of approval. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Noel Cross, Project Architect: • Thanked staff, and particularly Allison Knapp, for all the assistance provided on this project. • Declared that this is a beautiful home but that some additions had at one time been made that were unsympathetic to the architecture. • Advised that he had drawn up the cabana as a shorter structure but found that the cabana needed to be 14 feet high.. Both he and his clients felt that it is important to match this cabana to the home's Craftsman style architecture. This height is needed in order to maintain architectural compatibility. • Pointed out that there are times when exceptions are merited such as is the case in this project. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Hunter advised that at the time the Heritage Preservation Commission toured the site she was a member of that Commission. Declared that this is truly a beautiful house being restored to historic relevance. The cabana should be the same height as the home. Commissioner Kurasch expressed her concurrence and stated that the intent of this exception is to match the architectural integrity of the residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Zutshi said that she is glad to see this renovation underway and finds this to be a great house. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission approved UP-O1-006 to allow the construction of a 14-foot high, 450 square foot cabana on property located at 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 DR-O1-021 & 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 new square foot vacant lot (18,865 gross square feet) is in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. The maximum height would be 26 feet. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a letter was distributed as a table item, which was received yesterday from a neighbor in support of this application. Additionally, another letter was received this evening, also in support, which staff was unable to copy and will distribute the original for review by the Commissioners. • Distributed a roof the sampler that shows five gradations of earth tones as well as a color and materials board. • Explained that this application is for a Design Review approval to construct atwo-story residence, demolishing an existing single-story rancher. The new home will consist of 4,123 square feet and will not include a basement. The maximum height is 26 feet. The home will be similar to others in the neighborhood. • Informed that this proposal conforms to zoning requirements and that the proposed driveway configuration is a vast improvement over the existing driveway. The 58-foot driveway will include a parking area parallel to Pierce Road, which will also serve as an area for emergency vehicles and turnaround that allows vehicles to leave the site facing forward rather than backing out. • Said that a proposed fountain will be incorporated into the front yard as long as it can be placed iri such a way that it is not located within the drip line of the oak tree. • Concluded by stating that staff is supportive of this request. Chair Barry asked staff about the copper roof spiral depicted on the plans. Planner Allison Knapp replied that this spiral, located on sheet A-4, is an architectural feature that is desired by the applicant on this tower. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 7 Chair Barry said that she is having trouble figuring out the future street line, adding that it appears to be close to where a proposed walkway will be on site. Planner Allison Knapp advised that the width of the shoulder to the right-of--way is 10 feet. Director Sullivan further clarified that the distance between the sidewalk and the street line is about six feet. Chair Barry said that it appears close. Director Sullivan explained that this appears closer because of the reduced plan size. Commissioner Jackman asked if there are any plans to widen Pierce Road. Director Sullivan pointed out that this is not included on the five-year plan. The plan line was established but the property does not belong to the City as of yet. Chair Barry said that she would prefer that Pierce Road not be widened. Planner Allison Knapp pointed out that it is included in the General Plan not to widen. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:40 p.m. S Mr. Bamdad, Applicant & Property Owner: • Thanked staff, particularly Allison Knapp, for assistance over the last couple years. • Said that his designer and engineer are available this evening for questions. Mr. Gary Moore, Project Architect, GMA: • Thanked Planner Allison Knapp. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore whether the columns attached to the house on either side. of the windows are structural or decorative. Mr. Gary Moore replied decorative. Commissioner Kurasch opined that these columns are rather prominent on one side of the house and appear rather busy. Mr. Gary Moore explained that they felt these columns help balance the garage and living room window and did not believe it was necessary to carry them throughout the house, although he did use one in the back patio area. These columns have no structural value. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the large size of the pilasters on the rear yard fence. The fence appears to be wrought iron but the plaster pilasters are 24 by 24 inches. This proposal does not tie in with the rural area. Mr. Gary Moore said that this could be reduced with no problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, :2001 :Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch asked_what color would be used for the pilasters. Mr. Gary Moore said that they would match the tnm. color, which is soft white. Commissioner Jackman said that she liked the new roof color samples much better than the previous. Said that she had concerns about the proposed print inat~~rials, specifically the inclusion of several palm trees and a yucca tree. Since this is more ~i mountainous region, evergreens would bc; more compatible and appropriate. Chair Barry stressed that this hearing is the opportu:nity~ for the Commission to share its design concerns with the applicants. Said that she liked the :roo:f the colors but believes there may be too many colors and that the yellow may be too bright. $aicl that she would like to see the yellow be changed to something browner in color. Mr. Bamdad pointed out that 90 percent of the roof would consist of two natural colors. The remaining 10 percent would consist of the other three colon;. Agreed that he could soften the yellow to a lighter shade with no problem. Chair Barry complimented Mr. Bamdad on his roof tiles., st~:ting that they are a nice material. Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a home located crn Prospect and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road that is rather a bright yellow and was concerned that this propo;~ed stucco color may have the same problem. Mr. Bamdad assured the Commission that his paint ~~olor is a natural ochre. This is a natural color that is traditional to California Mission architecture. Chair Barry asked Mr. Bamdad if he is willing to change his base color if asked by the Commission to do so. Mr. Bamdad replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the size of the front en~:ry door and light. Mr. Bamdad said that the door is 42 inches wide and 8 feet tall. Chair Barry reiterated that two letters of support hav~° be.°n received from neighbors. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Itc;m No. 2 at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi inquired about the nice oak tree on the: property. Planner Allison Knapp assured that this tree will be lrresc;rved. Commissioner Kurasch outlined her areas of concern.: • Restated that the size of the proposed pilasters in the brick yard fence are scaled too large and she would prefer to see them painted to match the body of the house rather than the trim as proposed. • Suggested that the entry elevation and use of a~lumns be toned down, that softer colors that are more in keeping with the architecture be used anti that the door not be quite as large. '° Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Bamdad told the Commission he would be willing to eliminate the pilasters altogether if they would prefer. Commissioner Kurasch accepted that offer saying that elimination of that detail would be her preference. Chair Barry said that it appears that Commissioner Kurasch is recommending the removal of the rope columns and that the door be reduced in size. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she liked the door. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that she is either seeking the simplification or elimination of the columns. Commissioner Jackman opined that it would like strange if the columns are taken out. Director Sullivan suggested a tapered smooth column over the proposed rope column. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is no roof over the front door and that is a concern to her. This could be a problem for guests on rainy days. Commissioner Hunter said that she is at a bit of a disadvantage having missed the site visit due to a car accident while en route. Said that she likes an entry door without a roof overhead. Pointed out that this design is common back east where the weather is more challenging than here. Suggested simplifying the pilasters. ' ' -- Commissioner Garakani questioned why the front door is not centered on the wall. Planner Allison Knapp said she would defer this question to the applicant. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that it appears the front door is centered on the upper roofline and that this does not bother her. Commissioner Zutshi said that the pillars are not a problem for her. Commissioner Kurasch said that there seems to be too many on the front elevation. Commissioner Jackman said that these pillars tie down the lower floor and that she likes them as they add something to the design and gives a lightness above while anchoring the bottom. Added that she does not like to second-guess the architect and this feature is a personal preference for the owner. Commissioner Zutshi advised that she once had a home with pillars on one side and it was fine but that she does have concerns with the large sized pilasters for the back fence. Chair Barry: • Said that she agrees with all the comments against the large pilasters and the applicant has agreed to eliminate that feature. • Said that the proposed rope columns could be simplified. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 10 • Added that she is pleased the applicant is willing to tone done the yellow body color to a wheat color. • Reiterated that since this is not Southern California; the use of palms and yuccas should be replaced with more indigenous plantings. • Expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts to work with the neighbors and take their requests into account. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner 3ackman,, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved DR-O1-021 & BSE-O1-023 to allow the construction of a new 4,123 square foot two-story residence on property located at 1350 Pierce Road with the following added Conditions oi' Aliproval: • The removal of the pilasters on the rear yard fence; • Use of softer colors on the rooftiles; • Work with staff to select a body p;iint color that is more of a wheat color than the proposed yellow; V • Modify the landscape plan to eli~riin2ite the use of yucca and palm trees and replace them with more indigenous evE~rgreen planting material; and • Work with staff to simplify the proposed columns on the front elevation. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, J;ack~nai~, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN; None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal pei7.od before this action js final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 UP-O1-010 (403-24-001) -METRO PCS, 13686 uito l[2oad: Request for Use Permit approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on ;rn e:isting PG&E transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas moiinte:d 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. Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented 'the ~;tafi.'report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the location of wireless equipment on existing PG&E tower includi~lg six new directional antennas and new cabinets below within a fenced area. • Advised that staff is recommending a Condition. that requires the applicant to place the equipment cabinet underground screened with extensive lan.dsc~ipir.~g, including medium sized evergreen trees. The landscaping would be subject to final apl>rov.al try the Community Development Director. Additionally atwo-year maintenance agreement. would be required to ensure the establishment of the trees. Staff believes that an underground installation will improve the aesthetics and reduce the potential for vandalism. • Informed that staff finds this to be a compatiblf: location for this installation as it will be unobtrusive. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 11 • Said that there is already one other carrier with wireless communications equipment using this site. That carrier has a fully enclosed house type structure on the ground to house its equipment. The City encourages co-location. • Stated that staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Garakani inquired where the water would come from for the maintenance of the landscaping. Director Sullivan replied that water service would be established with San Jose Water including a meter on the property. Chair Barry asked staff for an overview of the perimeters for the Commissions' jurisdiction. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised the Commission that the law allows for a Planning Commission to consider site aesthetics but not health and safety concerns as a result of the installation. Director Sullivan advised that the FCC Act took that authority aware from local jurisdictions. Commissioner Kurasch inquired where the standards come from to place these facilities underground and questioned if there is any reason such an installation would not be feasible. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the plans are developed by an engineer and that as far as he is aware there are no reasons to believe this installation cannot be made underground. Mr. Tom Swarner, MetroPCS, Applicant: • Thanked staff for all their assistance. • Stated that MetroPCS likes to share existing infrastructure rather than developing totally new sites. PG&E towers are a perfect fit as a compatible use. • Pointed out that communities such as Saratoga encourage co-location. • Advised that this installation is intended to cover cell phone usage from nearby Highway 85 and that there are no sufficiently tall buildings in the area to meet their requirements. • Expressed concern about the requirement for placement the supporting equipment cabinet underground due to safety for maintenance crews. • Cautioned that. additional mechanical equipment is required for an underground vault as well as an economic concern in that such installations are between $60,000 and $70,000 more expensive. • Said that they are willing to work with staff at developing a landscape plan to meet all screening requirements for an aboveground cabinet. Commissioner Garakani asked what additional mechanical equipment is required should the equipment cabinet be required to be located below ground. Mr. Tom Swarner replied ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Commissioner Zutshi asked ifair-conditioning is required for aboveground equipment cabinets. Mr. Tom Swarner replied no. He added that these are small cabinets that are self-ventilated. There are small fans installed in the event that the temperature in the cabinet exceeds 90 degrees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 200.1 Page 12 Commissioner Garakani asked if there are concerns for the safety of the equipment as the result of rain. Mr. Tom Swarner advised that two of the required e~auipment cabinets are the size of a refrigerator and the others are smaller. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that the cabinet is 15 by 10 with a height of 5 feet, six inches. Commissioner Jackman asked if the antennas can be r-ep<<ire~3 while in operation. Director Sullivan advised that if repairmen are working on the directional antennas, those antennas must be turned off. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that two warning signs are required on site. Commissioner Garakani asked what the cost is to place the equipment underground. Director Sullivan said that the applicant has estimateci tYce cost at between 560,000 and 570,000. Cautioned that there are about five providers in town at this point. Without requiring equipment to be placed in below ground cabinets, there will end tip bein„ numerous small aboveground buildings located below these PG&E towers. Mr. Tom Swarner pointed out that a larger area will need to ~e excavated for underground cabinets. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Swarner of MetroPCS~ has had problems with underground facilities before. Mr. Tom Swarner replied not really. Elaborated b;~ s~~ying that there were some leakage problems early on but the vaults are now better designed. Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubt that there are: an~r real safety issues relating to maintenance of the below ground equipment, equating them to base:metits. Added that there is more risk to climb a PG&E tower than it would be work in the underground vault. Cautioned that it will look like a village of small buildings around these utility towers Mr. Tom Swarner agreed and said that he was not t~.yin;~ to say that underground vaults do not work. He added that this particular site could probably only accommodate three carriers overall. Theirs is the second installation. Chair Barry cautioned that the economics of a prol~osa:l are not the purview of the Commission but rather the visual impacts on the community. Said that while; the Commission has no ability to suggest that the applicant approach other carriers sharing a site, it: might be a good idea to consider working out some sort of voluntary agreement to jointly underground equipment. Mr. Tom Swarner agreed that if more than one carric;r are ready to install on a site at the same time, it is done. However, most carriers prefer their own cornpoi,uid. Added that they are willing to worlc with others in the future. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 13 • Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:38 p.m. Mr. David Anderson, 18491 Montpere Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for conducting a hearing on this application. • Said that he moved to Saratoga about six months ago to enjoy asemi-rural environment. • Said that this is a big installation and would represent blight. • Added that these antennas look like Christmas trees after a while. • Declared that this installation will be like installing microwaves in their neighborhood, which is a senous concern. • Asked the Commission to look at the aesthetics and to find that six antennas are excessive and the supporting but will be a blight. • Pointed out that there is a residence just 200 yards away. • Said that he does not want this request approved and implored the Commission not to approve this and to stop the growth of such installations now. Commissioner Garakani reminded Mr. Anderson that the Commission does not have the authority to simply say no to wireless installations. Commissioner Kurasch added that the Commission's hands are tied and there must be a valid reason for denying the installation. Chair Barry said that one option used in some jurisdictions is a fake tree installation. Asked Mr. Anderson if he would prefer such an installation. Mr. David Anderson replied that he would prefer that these wireless antenna installations be placed in places such as the Pruneyard Towers, DeAnza College or at Westgate. Chair Barry said that the Commission can ask the applicant if they have looked at other sites. Mr. David Anderson said that the Commission can simply deny this request based on aesthetic grounds. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Asked the Commission to "just say no." • Suggested that such an installation is an industrial/commercial use that is not compatible with this residential area. • Expressed concerns for microwave exposure. • Declared that the Quito Area has been trashed and that nothing is being done and pointed out that a house has been sitting on stilts for quite some time now. Additionally, another home burned down and nothing has been done to date to repair it. • Advised that she opposed the first antenna installation on this property. • Pointed out that use of cell phones causes drivers to be inattentive. • Displayed a diagram of a microwave spectrum and said that if it will cook meat she does not want it in her neighborhood. Mr. Tom Swarner advised that they have considered other sites. Each site serves from one quarter to one half-mile radius. Smaller sites hand off to each other. Agreed that they often use multi-story Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 14 structures to locate their antennas and do located within co:nmerciaUindustrial areas when possible and available. Chair Barry asked Mr. Swarner if it is possible to take Mr. Anderson's suggestion to place equipment at Westgate or DeAnza. Mr. Tom Swarner replied no and advised that the l~ctest technology utilizes smaller sites dedicated to a certain network. While previously antennas were l~~cated on hilltops, with one antenna serving a large area, such installations were impacted with lots of iruterfere~lce. Director Sullivan said that an exhibit has been disti7buted ~to the Commissioners that demonstrates the signal coverage. Commissioner Garakani asked why antennas could not be placed on Highway 85 to serve users on that freeway since this would result is less impact to the residential neighborhood. Asked if cost is the only reason not to do such an installation. Mr. Tom Swarner answered that there is a larger full radius to be served with this installation including residential users in the vicinity. Cost is not the issue; but rather coverage and service area are the issues. Commissioner Kurasch asked how long the first carrier ha;~ been on site as she does not believe it has been there for long. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he could not recall. Chair Barry asked if smaller and fewer antennas could be installed. Mr. Tom Swarner replied that they could limit the installation to three antennas on the PG&E tower, if necessary. This will reduce the coverage and capacity. Added that PG&E will not allow a vault to be located directly beneath their tower. It would have 1:o be: m~~ved outside the footprint of the tower by at least 10 feet or more. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item ]vo. 3 at 9 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that it is the 21S` Century and there does root appear to be a lot of choice. This installation is as good as it gets. PG&E towers are unsightly to l~eg:in with and it is just as well to place these antennas on them. • Declared that cell phone reception is terrible in Saratoga.. • Said that she does not want to see antennas installed alo~zg the Highway. • Said that she was concerned for safety with the underground placement of the equipment cabinet as well as the requirement to be at least 10 feet aw~iy from the tower footprint and said that she has no objection to an aboveground cabinet with screening lanc~lscaping. Commissioner Jackman said that she would like to :>ee the equipment structure underground as well as landscaped. Said that all of the City has to share in the placement of these necessary antennas. e =` Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that having six antennas, each five feet long, is a very intense use of the area. • Added that since the applicant has said they could reduce the installation to three antennas, they should be asked to do so. • Said that she has no objection to the requirement to underground the equipment cabinet. • Said that cell phones may not be in as much demand if cell phone use while driving is prohibited. • Opined. that this is an intense project. Chair Barry: • Said that every time such an application comes before the Commission the same set of issues crops up. • Said that the last time an antenna installation was approved, that decision was appealed. Council subsequently upheld the Commission decision. • Reiterated that the Commission cannot simply say no to this request. • Added that the Commission has been convinced by experts that they are not in a position to ask these applicants to simply go somewhere else. • Agreed that this is an uncomfortable issue of all of the Commissioners. • Said that she lives near West Valley College and that lots of concern was raised when so many antennas were installed at West Valley College. • Said that since the applicant has agreed that they can decrease the number and size of antennas, the Commission should take them up on that offer. • Said that the best the Commission can do is to require underground placement of the equipment cabinet and sufficient landscape screening of the site. Commissioner Garakani asked who determines if reduction of antennas size is possible. Director Sullivan said that the applicant can provide a graphic of their coverage based on size and number of antennas. Chair Barry added that co-locating these cellular antennas on PG&E towers has been determined to be the best option for antenna installation. Commissioner Hunter said that she has to speak up for people who cannot get decent cell phone reception in Saratoga. Pointed out that television antennas are ugly but still located on every house. Said that the Commission has to allow it to happen and this request is as good as it gets. Chair Barry said that this PG&E tower will have a lot on it but it is the same issue everywhere. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that if the installation is reduced here, more installation sites will be needed nearby to meet the coverage shortfall. Stated that everyone uses cell phones. Commissioner Jackman stated that these antennas have to go somewhere and it is best to use this existing PG&E tower as opposed to creating a whole new structure. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP-O1-010) to allow the location of a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG&E transmission tower on Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 20Ci1 Page 16 - property located at 13686 Quito Road, with the following added Conditions of Approval: 1. Reduce the size and number of antennas; 2. Locate the equipment cabinets below ground; and 3. Provide extensive landscaping t:o the ssitisfaction of staff. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Chair Barry, the Commission proposed to amend the motion to clarify the requirement to reduce the number of antennas to three antennas with the size of each antenna to be reduced, if possible. This proposed amendment was not accepted by Commissioner Jackman. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Ja~~kman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (i7P-O1-010) to allow the location of a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG&E transmission tower on property located at 13686 Quito Road, -with the following added Conditions of Approval: 1. Reduce the size and number of antf~nnas; 2. Locate the equipment cabinets lmelow ground; and 3. Provide extensive landscaping to the s~itisfaction of staff. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch, Berry ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN; None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period bef~~re this action is final:' **~: PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO, 4 UP-O1-009 (393-21-013) -METRO PCS, 12383 S;aratoga~-Sunnyvale 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-1-12,500 zoning ~~istrict. Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the stafi~report as follows: • Informed the Commission that the only difference be:twf;en this request and the previous one is that this site has two existing providers on site. • Added that staff is proposing the same Conditions 'to l~nderground the supporting equipment and provide screening landscaping. Mr. Tom Swarner, MetroPCS, Applicant, asked the Commission to allow them to place the equipment aboveground with screening landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Swarner what the limit is on this site for the number of providers. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Tom Swarner said that he did not know. Commissioner Hunter asked if the other Garners have aboveground cabinets. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that their equipment is located in fenced boxed facilities. Chair Barry said that the existing structures for the other providers do not look nice. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the other providers be contacted. Director Sullivan cautioned that the City cannot go back to the other providers with new conditions and/or site requirements but this applicant can approach them to see if there is any interest in cooperating on this site. Chair Barry asked Mr. Swarner how they propose to screen their equipment above ground. Mr. Tom Swarner replied that they are proposing to make their structure adjacent to the existing structure so that they appear to be one. Chair Barry proposed a concrete structure to encompass all three providers' equipment cabinets. Mr. Tom Swarner replied that this would have to be a cooperative effort for all three providers. Chair Barry asked if Mr. Swarner is willing to approach the other two. Mr. Tom Swarner re lied he was willin to make an attem t. p g P Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. David Anderson, 18491 Montpere Way, Saratoga: • Stated his disappointment with the previous decision, saying the Commission has gone above and beyond its duties and was very narrow in its focus. Chair Barry encouraged. Mr. Anderson to substantiate his viewpoint to Council, particularly if he is able to clearly document his position. Mr. David Anderson said that he finds this to be staff s responsibility. Chair Barry said that according to staff, the City cannot say no to these requests based on safety but only on aesthetic considerations. Commissioner Hunter asked the Commission to move forward at this point. All necessary testimony has been heard and appeals are possible for anyone disagreeing with the actions take by the Commission this evening. Restated that people want the option to use cell phones. Commissioner Garakani said that this site is already too ugly and it is good to require this added installation to place its equipment underground. Commissioner Jackman agreed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 20(11 Page 18 _ Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports a more coordinated approach to placement of cellular . antennas and would like to see a Citizen's Committf;e formed to develop criteria. Director Sullivan advised that at a previous city at whi~~h lle worked, cellular antenna applicants were required to provide an analysis for two to three ;~lternatE; sites and provide reasons ~~hy their hrst choice is the best one. Chair Barry suggested that this become a part of the application protocol for future applications. Commissioner Garakani reminded that Mr. Anderson ha.d made three alternate site recommendations. Commissioner Zutshi stated that he was just haphazardly recommending locations with no evaluation as to their viability. Commissioner Garakani asked Director Sullivan if the City could hire a consultant to decide t:he best locations for antenna installations within the City. Director Sullivan said that staff is working on rriap~ping existing coverage for all carriers. Tlie City needs the cooperation of all vendors to get all the n;,cessar~ data. The data will be compiled using the City's GIS system. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item :Vo. 4 at 9:45 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP-O1-009) to allow the location of a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG&E transmission tower on property located at 12383- Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, J:~ck~naii, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN; None Chair Barry asked staff to require future applicants to pr~~vide three alternative sites and to require equipment cabinets be placed underground unless comp~~lli~lg reasons can be made for why that cannot be accomplished. Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal pet7od before this action is final. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Sullivan gave the following updates: • Distributed a memorandum with the staff 11a1SOn ~issi;mments for the Commission Committees. Added that the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission has indicated that he would like to participate on some of these Committees. • Asked any Commissioner who has not already cion~~ so to RSVP to Anne Sullivan i:or the Commissioners' Dinner. a ,T Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 19 COMMISSION ITEMS Solar Home Tour Commissioner Kurasch advised the Commission of a Solar Home Tour scheduled for Saturday, October 13, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Participants begin at Starbird Park, located at Williams Road and San Tomas Expressway, to see exhibits and obtain a map to tour sites. Additional information can be obtained through a web site or by phone at (408) 746-0327. Planners Institute Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he was recently in Sacramento helping to finalize the program for the next Planners Institute. The dates are March 20 - 22, 2002. Action on House on Stilts on Quito Road Chair Barry expressed concern that the public is unaware that the City is following up to correct the situation of the house on stilts on Quito Road and suggested that the staff put out some information into the community on what is underway. Director Sullivan said that authorization for any distribution of information on this situation is at the discretion of the City Attorney. Chair Barry said that she would contact Richard Taylor to discuss this matter further. COMMUNICATIONS .City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, October 24, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • n4 i, ITEM 1 ` C~B~~ 04 BOO C~L~ 1'3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9070 • (408) 8GS-1?00 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner DATE: October 24, 2001 SUBJECT: Exterior Lighting for Commercial Building -- Azule Crossing, Inc. COli ti CIL bZEi4BERS: Evan Baker Sran 5ogosiar, John Mehaffey Nick Streit A.nn Wa/tons~^~rth The applicant requests planning commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project as required by Resolution No. 00-09. Six refractive globes with black poles are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28 acre commercial site. The proposed refractive globes have downward street side reflectors and house side reflectors. Do~vn~vard street side reflectors eliminate upward light, wasted energy, and undesirable sky glo~~. House side reflectors eliminate unwanted light spill to adjacent residential uses. The globes are to be mounted at a height of 12 feet. The low mounting height eliminates shadows from roofs and trees and provides a uniform, controlled light source that is safe and comfortable for pedestrians and motorists. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the proposed exterior lighting is incompliance with industry standards. For parking lots, the Society recommends minimum horizontal illuminance values of .2 foot candles (fc) for basic lighting and .Sfc for enhanced security. The proposed minimum horizontal illuminance value is .13fc. The Society recommends a maximum to minimum uniformity ratio of 20:0 for basic lighting and 15:1 for enhanced security. The proposed uniformity ratio is within that range at 16:1. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the proposed light fixtures because they are decorative and functional elements that will. add to the streetscape, increase safety and security, , address spill concerns, and comply with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America standards for lighting parking facilities. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community Development Department 10/1/Ol ODOa®~ • THIS PAGE H.4S BEEN INTENTIONALLY I_EI~T BLANK - • .. • 000002 ti~ ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011, DR-O1-018; tJP-Ol-016 &t ED-O1-001; 22551 Mount Eden Road ~~, Applicant/Owner: HUERTABROWN `~ Staff Planner: Allison Knapp, Contract Planner Date: October 24, 2001 APN: 503-13-117 Department Head OOOQ~01 22551 Mt. Eden Road s EXECUTI`JE ;~UP~IMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: 1~TOtice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5/03/01 9/14/01 10/10/Ol 10/11/Ol 10/11/Ol The project is the construction of one single-family residence on one lot consisting of 1.42 acres in area (gross) and 24,742 net square feet in area. Tlie floor ~crea of the proposed two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and would include a 1,260 squire foot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The maxunum height of the garage would be 14 feet. The project would include remediation of unstable soil on the site. Approximately two-thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and the General Plan Designation i:~ Hillside Residential Conservation (HRC). An Initial Study and Mitigated 1egative Declaration were prepared for the project. As the Commission is aware, the construction of single-family residential structures is normally exempt from CEQA. The site however requires grading on slopes in excess of 10 percent and as such does require CEQA re~~iew (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 153040). Upon completion of the Initial Study staff determined t:rat ~c Mi.tigated Negati~~e•l~eclaration should be prepared. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached for the Commission's re~~ew. Since the Building Site Approval process requires action by the City Council on the Final Building Site Plan (BSA), the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to Council along with the Final BSA for adoption of the Mitigated P~egative Declaration and action on the proposed project. Therefore in summary, the proposed project consists of a: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (adoption of). 2) Building Site Approval in order to construe: on a v;~cant lot subdivided o)~er 15 years past pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-20. 3) Site Development Plan in order to construcr_ on a hillside lot pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-25.100. 4) Vaziance to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet in height and within the front setback for slope mitigation pursuant to Municipal Cocle 15-29.010(g). 5) Variance to build on a lot greater than 30 percent in slope under the building footprint pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.13-050(e)(2). • 6) Design Review to construct a new single-family residence pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. 7) Conditional Use Permit to construct an aca=story structure (detached garage) at 14 feet in height pursuant to Municipal Code 15-55.030. ~~~®~~r n~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council and conditionally approve the following --- entitlements. Mitigated Negative Declaration: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ED-O1-001. Project Entitlements: That the Planning Commission conditionally approve the tentative BSA/SDP, BSA-Ol-00; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016; and DR-O1-018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~sz DR-O1-018. 2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit "B" to the Resolution. 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" to the Staff Report. • • P.'~Planning~Allison~Staff Reports~IvltEdendoc (Z oO (j O~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-C~11; iJP-Ol-016 &t DR-O1-018: 2Z5_ SI Mount Eden Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential Conservation-Single Family MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:1.42 acres (gross) 24,742-sq. ft. (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 31.17% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill prapose:d is 1,46 cubic yards. Of the total, 612 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of :18'-6" would be required to construct the basement. The 612 cubic yards of grading to constrict a basement is excluded from the total pursuant to the Uniform Building Codf~. Z~hei•efore, overall project grading is 853 cubic yards for purposes of entitlement re~~iew. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An I:tutial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached for the Commission's :re~~ie:w. The proposed project would have a benefit on the environment due to the fact that two landslide slumps on the site would be repaired. The slumps are also causing damage to N1ou:nt Eden Road in the form of cracking the pavement. The repair of the slumps neces:~i.tatE~s retaining walls in excess of five feet in height, the subject of one of the variances. 'The landslide slump repair would improve condirions on Mount Eden Road as well as on the project site. The mitigation of the slumps would abort the cracking of Mount Edf.n Read. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Dark Olive and Corinthian White and Cobblestone, both soft wheat/fox tail shades of~ beige. 'The proposed roofing is green slate. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) • A-~,VI[Eden.doc ~j ~~ ~ O~ ~. • • • File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Movnt Eden Road Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 17% 25% Building Footprint 3,244sq. Ft. carport 210 sq. ft. Driveway /Parking 2,244 sq. ft. Terraces/Porches/Light Well 1,467 sq. ft. Walkway/Steps 745 sq. ft. TOTAL (Imper«ous 7,910 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: First Floor 2,740 sq. ft. Maximum Allov~~able Second Floor 1,586 sq. ft. Garage 504 sq. ft. (Basement) (1,260 sq. ft.) TOTAL 4,830 sq. ft. 4,830 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front (house) 30ft. 30 ft. Front (garage) 37ft. 30 ft. Rear (house) 236 ft. 60 ft. Rear (garage) 320ft. 50 ft. Left Side (house) 20 ft. 20 ft. Left Side (garage) 103ft. 20 ft. Right Side (house) 45 ft. 20 ft. Right Side (garage)1 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Garage 14 ft. 12 ft.2 PROJECT DISCUSSION The project is the construction of one single-family residence on one lot consisting of 1.42 acres in area (gross) and 24,742 net square feet. The floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and would include a 1,260 square foot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The maximum height of the garage would be 14 feet. The project would include ' Measurement is taken from the carport since it is attached to the garage. Z In absence of a Use Permit the maximum height allowed is 12 feet. A:~yftEden.dac 000005 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-1}ll; ~UP••O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road remediation of unstable-soil on the site and approximately two-thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned 1=lillside Residential and the General -Plan Designation is Hillside Residential Conservation (HRC). A Mitigated Negative Declaration `vas prepared for the project. The site contains a 31.71% slope at the buildir.~g site a:nd an overall site slope of 24 percent. The developed area of the lot would be restricted. to 24,742 square feet and 61,85 square feet would remain undeveloped pursuant to Ordvian~~e for the Hillside Residential zoning district. The lot contains unstable soils, whir_h ~~re netted out of the area allowed to be developed. Of the net site area, l2%, or 7,190 square fey°t, would be imper~~ious area. Project Background The Public Works Department re~~iewed the proposal for geotechnical clearance and granted the clearance on Apri123, 2001 ~v~ith ec~nditioris of approval. The conditions as well as the recommendations of the project geotechni~:al reports are included as project conditions, are also included as mitigation: to th~~ project and are contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Certificate of Compliance was granted by t:he 1'ub:lic Works Department for the parcel on January 12, 2001. The parcel vas found to be in c~~mpliance with the Subdi~~ision Map Act and the City of Saratoga Subdi~~ision Orduiance. Building Site Approval The application requires a Building Site Approv<<1 because it vas subdi~~ided prior to 15 years ago and has been vacant since its subdi~~ision. Pursuant to Section 14-20.070 of the Municipal Code the follo~7ing findings shall he r.~lade in order to approve a Building Site application: (1) That the proposed map or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the design or improvement of th~~ ptopc,sed subdivision or building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicab:~e specific plan. (3) That the site is physically suitable for the >,~pe of development proposed. (4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (S) That the design of the subdi~~ision or bui].din€; site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental ~~amage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (6) That the design of the subdivision or building ;site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. File No. ED-O1-001; BSAISDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: ZZSSIMount Eden Road (7) That the design of the subdivision or building site or type or improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. In this connection, the ad~~isory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones pre~~iously acquired by the public. This Subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdi~~ision or building site. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act") would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise pro~~ided in Government Code Section 66474.4. (9) That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdi~~sion or building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Di~~ision 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Evaluation ofFindings -Building Site Approval The ro osed buildin site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is pp % planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The design or improvement of the proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The site is within the Area A - Mt. Eden planning area of the City. The Plan states (Area A Guideline #7) that building sites for new homes should be restricted to a 30 percent slope and geotechnical site investigations shall be conducted if the City Engineer determined that they are necessary. The building site contains a 31.17 percent slope. Geotechnical investigations were conducted and the Ciry Engineer issued geotechnical clearance on the site April 23, 2001. The "should" language of this guideline is advisory and not a mandate. The site was selected although there are areas of the parcel that are less than 30 percent, in order to avoid developing on more unstable areas. The geotechnical remediation identified in the geotechnical studies and required, as conditions of project approval would render the site stable for development. The mitigations would also result in alleviating the cracking in Mount Eden Road, which is caused by the geotechnical conditions on this site: Guideline # 10 states that floor levels of homes shall be stepped to conform to the natural contours of the hillside. Sheet A-1 of the architectural drawings demonstrates conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 9961001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to the northeast. A:4yttEden.doc OOO,f3 ~~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-1)11; SUP-•O1-016 &r DR-01-018: 22551 Mount Eden Road The site is physically suitable for the type of development pr~opo:~ed. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. Infrastructure is in p]'ace to serve the site. Conformance with the geotechnical reports for the project wo~zld :insure physical suitability. The reports, incorporated herein by reference are, are "Geologic anc! Geotechnical Investigation - 22»1 Mount Eden Road" by D ~ M Consulting Engineerin~7, April 6, 2000 and "Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 2251 Mount Eden Road" by D ~~ M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. The reports were reviewed by th.e City': Consulting Geologist and the site obtained geotechnical clearance from the Engineering Division on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and .the City conditions are included in both the Mitil;atecl Negative Declaration and conditions- of approval for the project. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of devel~~pment. The site is planned and zoned for. one single-family residence. The project proposes one single-family residence and conforms as such. The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial em~ironmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Mitigated Negative Declaration documents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. There is no fish habitat on the site. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on a state or federal list. Wildlife consists of deer,. skunk, possum, raccoon whose movement, foraging and migrating patterns would not be substantially al:fected as over 2/3rds of the site would remain in its natural condition. - . The design of the building site or type of improvement: is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration doc:um.ents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both. on and off site conditions. The retaining walls and slope stabilization would abort cra~~king oi= Mt. Eden Road, which is caused by the unmtigated slide and slumps on the site. The design of the building site or type or improvements would ~1ot conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property vvithiii thf~ proposed subdivision or building site. The building site or improvements would not conflict ~avit]z any easements. The parcel received a Certificate of Compliance with the state Subdiv~i:~ion Map Act and local subdivision ordinance on January 12, 2001. The site does not leave any public easements recorded against the property. That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 196 (The "Williamson Act') wo~Ald not rf~sult in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as othenti~ise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not in Williamson Act contract nor. does it involve a subdivision. This finding does not apply to the proposed project. The discharge of waste from the proposed buildin site into an ~:xistin commune sewers stem would not g g ty y result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board A4~4tEdendot nn QQ VO~Ov File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-01-O18: 22551 Mount Eden Road i pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. The project is the construction and eventual habitation of a single dwelling. Sanitary sewer is available to the site and would not result in overburdening the system capacity. Site Development Plan and Design Review Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 the following findings shall be made in approving a Site Development Plan. The Commission will note that the findings are the findings required for Design Review and for that reason the Site Development Plan and Design Re~~ievv evaluation and findings are included within the same section of this staff report. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with «ews and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will m?nimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. 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. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. Evaluation ofFindings -Site Development Plan c~t'Design Review . Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-C111; [3P-O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road avoid unreasonable interference with views and privac~v. 7-he lots in the project area are large and S developed with one- and two-story single farr,ily residences. The site is setback from Mt. Eden Road approximately 70 feet and the pro~~oseci built portion of the property is setback another 50 feet for a total setback of 120 plus fi°et. The. proposed building also steps up the hillside with the changes in grade. The archit:ecn~ral drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 996 1001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to the northeast. Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be: preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general af~pea:ranee of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Over two thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. No trees would be removed to accommodate the built environment. CTrading is required for geotechnical remediation and construction of the basement and is not in excess of other homes that have required grading for basement and site preparation.. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or~ accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mi~limi<:e tl;~.e perception of excessive bulb and will be integrated into the natural environment. The lot i.s large and the 4,830 square foot residence would be stepped up the slope. The proposed Bart?z tone colors would blend softly into the hillside. The size of the lot, stepping of the structure, use of earth tone colors and 120 foot setback from Mt. Eden Road all serve to reduce: he l~erc:eived bulk of the building. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on a~ljac~~nt lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) t1e natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties r~or (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed. structure would not cast shadow onto adjacent parcels due to its north-northeastern plac:em~~nt on the lot and the topography of the lot. The proposed two-story 26 foot tall structure is comparable to other structures in the area. The area is sparsely developed with one- a.nd two-story residences. Current grading and erosion control methods. Tlie pro~~osed site: development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by thc: Ci~:y. The proposed project requires a grading plan to be reviewed and approved by th.e City Engineering Di~~ision. The plan shall contain all the provisions identified in the geo~tecnical reports and current erosion control methods used by the City. Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or au:essory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #2 "Follow Hillside Contours". In l~articul:rr the building is designed to terrace building floor levels. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique ;~'4, and. "Minim~e Building Height". In particular the building varied roof heights. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 2- Integrate Structure: with the Environment- Technique #1 "Use A:~IvltEden.doc 000~~0 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Natural Materials and Colors". In particular the color palette is beige tones and dark Olive Green. Additionally the building is designed to use a limited amount of materials and colors, thereby simplifying the overall look of the structure. Variance The application includes a request for two variances. One to construct on a building site with a slope greater than 30% and two, to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet in height. Pursuant to Section 15-70 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning) the Planning Commission may grant a variance pro~~ided that the following findings are made. 1) There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. 2) The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3) The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Evaluation ofFindings- Variance There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. The building site area contains a slope of 31.17 percent, although the overall site slope (average) is 24 percent. The proposed location of the building is on a more stable portion of the property. A sheer pin reinforcement wall -would stabilize the slide area, which is located in the southern portion of the site, and no development would occur in this area. This slide is what is causing cracking in Mt. Eden Road as well as the instability of the site. Therefore, the slide mitigation would benefit the site and the public. Building placement would be in an area that exceeds, by 1.17 percent; the 30 percent slope maximum permitted by Section 15-13.050(e)(2) of the Municipal Code in absence of a variance. A variance is requested in order to build upon this portion of the site. The location and extent of the landslides and the steep topography of the site are special circumstances applicable to the property, which require development to be in the north northeastern portion of the site. A variance to Section 15-29.020(b) of the Municipal Code. This section of the Code states that "parallel walls separated by a vertical distance of ten feet or less shall not exceed IO feet in height, additive. Two parallel retaining walls to accommodate the emergency vehicle turn around and parking required by the Fire District would tota112 feet in height both at the south and east edges of the driveway. Both areas require two stepped retaining walls A:~IvitEdeadoc OOO0~.1 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-O1-001; V-O1-x;111; UP~-O1-016 &z DR-O1-018: ZZSSI Mount Eden Road that measure five feet in Height each plus the finish elevation in front of the walls. Total wall height would be 12 feet within a 10-foot distance. The walls would be stepped and not r=isible from the public right-of way. Tlie v~all:~ are necessary to accommodate the conditions required by the Fire District. Special ~:ircumstances affect the property in that: this condition is required and is further coinplicatf~d by the 30.17 percent slope of the building area. The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on. other- properties in the vicinity and classified in the carne zoning; district. The variance requests v~=ould allov~= the construction of one single-family residence with emergency vehicle access and. turn around area. The variance would also allow the construction of asingle-family residence and mitigation of slide areas. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege. Other Hillside Resideni:ial lot:; are developed with single-family structures and some include slide repair as needed.. The emergency vehicle turn around is a fairly new requirement of the Fire Deparcmeiit's and more properties with similar conditions may also require variances to accommodate: the requirement The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The vari:~nce would allow the repair of the landslides on the site and construction of the residence. Soil re:mediation would be conducted with building and grading permits and inspections. An on:~ite geotechnical consultant would be required to be present during some of the grading operations and all work shall be inspected to conform to the Code and the geotechiucal site clearance conditions. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory= st~~cture may be within the required rear and side setback or increased in height. The :a.pplicat:ion includes a request for a detached (i.e., accessory structure) garage 14 feet v~ he>igl:.t. Twelve feet may be approved administratively. Therefore a 14-foot tall garage re<luires Planning Commission review. According to Section. l5-X5.070 of the Zoning Ordir.~:ance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings cats be macle: 1. The proposed location of the conditiotal use i.s in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the condi.tioiial i~se and the conditions under which it vvould be operated or maintained will not be. detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will. comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Evaluation ofFindings-Conditional Ilse Permit The ro osed location o the conditional use is in accord wi1:h the ob ~ectives o the Bonin Ordinance and the S pp f ~ f g purposes of the district in which the site is located. A two-car garage for asingle-family residence is A:V`itEdendoc ~00~~2 File No. ED-O1-001; BSAISDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the garage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,830 square feet. If the garage were attached to the residence the height would not require a use permit. All the setbacks, lot coverage and square footage standards are met. 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 properties or improvements in the vicinity. Construction of a 14-foot tall garage would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The structure would be required to be constructed with building permits and would conform to the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ~'oning Ordinance. Atwo-car garage for asingle-family residence is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the garage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,830 square feet. Additional Departmental Review No trees are on the site that would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the City Arborist did not review the application. The Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. Comments from Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal for geotechnical clearance and granted the clearance on April 23, 2001 with conditions of approval. The conditions as well as the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports are included as project conditions by reference and are also included as mitigations to the project and are contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces vtnthin a garage. The residence will have a detached 504 square feet two-car garage and aone-car carport. The site plan also includes an area that would accommodate two to three additional vehicles and that would also serve for emergency vehicle parking and turn around. Grading Total cut and fill proposed is 1,465 cubic yards. Of the total, 612 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 18'-6" would be required to construct the basement. The 612 cubic yards of grading to construct a basement is excluded from the total pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, overall project grading is 853 cubic yards for purposes of entitlement review. The project would be required to follow the recommendations othe two geotechmcal reports prepared for the applicant and reviewed and approved by the A:~tiltEden.doc 0000.3 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-till; ~UP~-O1-016 ~¢ DR-O1-018: 22551 Movnt Eden Road Engineering Di~~ision and the City's Geoteclv~ical. Consultant which is discussed in more detail in the following section of this report. Geotechnical Review In summary, the site contains Ps soils whic."ri are `relatively unstable material including landslide debris, suficial slope materials and. weak bedrock. The southern and western. portions of the site contain two large landslide:. The Ps Soil classification mandates extensive geotechnical investigation and geotecruucal clearance pursuant to Section 15- 13.050(e)(1) of the Municipal Code prior to any development. T~vo geotechnical reports were prepared fo:r th~~ prroject. The reports are "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 22551 Mount Eden Road" by D ~sr M Consulting Engineering, Apri16, 2000and"Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical I~~vestigation - 22551 Mount Eden Road" by D ~ M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. Thf~ reports were reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist and the site obtained ~Teotechrucal clearance from the Engineering Division on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and the City conditions are included in both the Mitigated. Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for tree project. In summary, the site is located in the eastern Manta C:~-uz Mountains on the western side of~ a sharp, north-south trending ridge. Site slopf~,s are moderate to step ranging from about 1:1 to 3.5:1. Cut and fill pads occupy the northeaster.~a and southwestern portions of the property. The cut and fill slopes boundmg these pads account for the steepest gradients on the property. The property is underlain by soft, rnod.erately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. The likely-active Berrocal fault lies 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site. The Sava Andreas fault is about two miles southwest of the site. The ground movement potential of the site is classified as Ps, relatively instable material including landslide dE~bris, surficial slope materials and weak bedrock subject shallow landsliding, slumping and soil creep activity (Cotton Shires 1980). The project site is in an area of abundant 1~.nds:Lides and two relatively large landslides dominate the western portion of the site. 'The;~e two landslides are a part of a larger complex directly to the west. Although the la~Zdslide~: are classified as inactive, the larger of~ the two displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in yearly formation of cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole Fe~bru;rry 2000). Harlan Tait Associates also reports the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (1977). Geologic hazards on the site are limited to: 1. Periodic movement of the old e:~risting landslide underlying the northeastern. corner of the property. 2. Possible future shallow failures along o~~ersteepened cut slopes. Ground shaking associated with a major event of the San Andreas. 'lJ®O~~y File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road The geologic reports approved by the City Engineer call for specific site preparation, grading and compaction, foundations, utility trenches pavement design surface drainage and erosion protection and the construction of retaining walls to reduce geologic impacts to a less than significant level both on and off site on Mt. Eden Road. All the recommendations in the aforementioned reports including those of the City shall become _ project mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Trees There are no protected trees on the site and no trees within the development area. Fireplaces T~vo fireplaces are proposed. Sheet A-3 of the architectural drawings clearly show that one fireplace is proposed to be wood burning and one is proposed to be gas burning. Correspondence 1\TO correspondence was received on the project at the time that the report was distributed to the Commission. Conclusion The ro osed residence is desi ed to conform to the olicies set forth in the Ci ~'s P p ~ P n Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code; Section 15-70 (Variances); Section 15-55.030 (Conditional Use Permit); Section 14-20 and 14-25.100 (Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Plan) of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will 11L7nimi7e 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. The geotechnical mitigations would improve both site and public right-of-way conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ED-O1-001 to the City Council approve conditionally the following entitlements the Building Site Approval /Site Development Plan BSA-Ol-00; V-O1-011; UP- 01-016 and DR-O1-018. • A:~yltEden.doc (~~00~5 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTEI\TTIOI\TALL~' L.EF~T BLANK oooo~s • • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. ED-Ol- 001; BSA-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP--O1-016 and DR-O1-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUERTA; 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance to the side setback to construct a 6,800 square foot tennis court, Accessory Structure review to construct the tennis court and Design Review approval to construct a new 6,850 square foot residence and garage on a 93,175 net square feet (2.39 acres gross) square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project underwent environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration vas prepared and noticed for public review. The mitigations measures contained in the Mitigated 1~Tegative Declaration would reduce project impacts to aless-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the a licant has met the burden of roof re wired to su ort said PP P q PP application, and the following Building Site Approval and Site Development and Design Review findings have been determined pursuant to Section Plan 14-20 &r 25 of the Municipal Code: The proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. • The design or improvement of the proposed building site is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The site is planned and zoned for single-family residential development. The site is within the Area A - Mt. Eden planning area of the Ciry. The Plan states (Area A Guideline #7) that building sites for new homes should be restricted to a 30 percent slope and geotechnical site investigations shall be conducted if the City Engineer determined that they are necessary. The building site contains a 31.17 percent slope. Geotechnical investigations were conducted and the City Engineer issued geotechnical clearance on the site Apri123, 2001. The "should" language of this guideline is advisory and not a mandate. The site was selected although there are areas of the parcel that are less than 30 percent, in order to avoid developing on more unstable areas. The geotechnical remediation identified in the geotechnical studies and required, as conditions of project approval would render the site stable for development. The mitigations would also result in alleviating the cracking in Mount Eden Road, which is caused by the geotechnical conditions on this site. dQOO~~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Clll; iJP-Ol-016 ~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Guideline # 10 states that floor levels of homes shall be stepped to conform to the natur~cl contours of the hillside. Sheet A-1 of the architectural drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevations step from 987, 991, 996 ].001 to 1004. The building steps to the nort:hea:~t a;~ the site slopes to the northeast. • The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. Infrastructure is vz place to serve the site. Conformance ~~~ith the geotechnical reports for the project would insure physical suitability. The reports, incorporated herein by reference are, are "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 22J51 Mount Eden Road" by D &t M Consultv~g Engineering, Apri16, 2000 and "Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 22S`iI Mount Eden Road" by D ~ M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. The reports ~,vere reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist and the site obtained geotechnical clear;~nce from the Engineering Di~~ision on April 23, 2001 (Ivetta Harvancik, City o.E Saratoga Associate Engineer). The report recommendations and the City conditions are included in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for t:he l~roj~°ct. • The site is physically suitable for the proposed density oJ~development. The site is planned and zoned for one single-family residence. The project l~rol~oses one single-family residence and conforms as such. The design of the building site or the proposed mprovements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substanti;rlly and avoidably injure fish or v~~ildlife o:r their habitat. The Mitigated 1\1egative Declaration documents conformance v~~ith this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. There is no fish habitat on the site. There ;ire iio rare, threatened or endangered species on a state or federal list. Wildlife consists of deer, skunk, possum, raccoon whose movement, foraging and migrating patterns would not be substantially affected as over 2/3rds of the site would remain in its natural. condition. The design of the building site or type of iml>ro~~ements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The ~/Iitigat~~d 1~Tegatave Declaration documents conformance with this finding. The geotechnical remediation would improve both on and off site conditions. The retaining walls and. slope stabilization would abort cracking of Mt. Eden Road, which is caused by the unrriti.gated slide and slumps on the site. The design of the building site or type or improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for aco~ss through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. ~Che ~bui].ding site or improvements would not conflict with any easements. The parcel r~_cei~~ed a Certificate of Compliance with the state Subdivision Map Act and local subdi~~ision ordinance on January 12, 2001. The site does not have any public easements recorded again:~t the property. • That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1565 (Thc~ "Williamson Act") would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient si<~e tc- sustain their agricultural use, except as - File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-Oll; UP-O1-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road otherv~~ise pro~~ided in Government Code Secrion 66474.4. The site is not in Williamson Act contract nor does it involve a subdi~~ision. This finding does not apply to the proposed project. The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in ~~iolation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. The project is the construction and eventual habitation of a single dwelling. Sanitary sewer is available to the site and would not result in overburdening the system capacity. • Avoid unreasonable interference with ~~iews and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The lots in the project area are large and developed with one- and two-story single family residences. The site is setback from Mt. Eden Road approximately 70 feet and the proposed built portion of the property is setback another 50 feet for a total setback of 120 plus feet. The proposed building also steps up the hillside with the changes in grade. The architectural drawings demonstrate conformance with this mandatory guideline. Floor elevarions step from 987, 991, 996 1001 to 1004. The building steps to the northeast as the site slopes to the northeast. • Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and " minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping v~~ith the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. Over two thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. No trees would be removed to accommodate the built environment. Grading is required for geotechnical remediation and construction of the basement and is not in excess of other homes that have required grading for basement and site preparation. • Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The lot is large and the 4,830 square foot residence would be stepped up the slope. The proposed earth tone colors would blend softly into the hillside. The size of the lot, stepping of the structure, use of earth tone colors and 120 foot setback from Mt. Eden Road all serve to reduce he perceived bulk of the building. • Compatible bulk and height. 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. The proposed structure would not cast shadow onto adjacent parcels due to its north-northeastern placement on the lot and the topography A:~'vitEden.doc ~OO,(~~(] File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-O1-001; V-O1-Ol.l; LJP-~~l__-016 &t DR-O1-018: 22551 Movnt Fden Road of the lot. The proposed two-story 26 foot tell structure is comparable to other structures in the area. The area is sparsely developed with one- and two-story residences. Current grading and erosion control methods. -Che proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed project requires a grading plan to be rev=iewed and approved by the City Engineering Div=ision. The plan shall cont~un all the prov=isions identified in the geotecnical reports and current erosion control methods used by the Ciry. • Design policies and techniques. The proposed -main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project confo:~-ms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bullz, Techni.quc~ #2 "Follow Hillside Contours". In particular the building is designed to terrace building floor levels. The proposed project conforms to Residential Design Guideline Policy 1-Minimize Perception of Bulk, Technique #4, "Minimise Building Heigh.t". In particular the building varied roof heights. The proposed project conforms to Re~;idential Design Guideline Policy 2- Integrate Structures v~=ith the Environment- Technique #1 "Use Natural Materials anti Colors". In particular the color palette is beige tong°s and dark Olive Green. Additionally the building is designed to use a limited ainoLmt of materials and colors, thereby simplifying the overall look of the structure. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Variance fincling:~ pursuant to Section 15 ;13.050 of the Municipal Code have been determined: • There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography=, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges c~njoyed by the owners of other properties in the ~=iciniry. The building site area contains a slop~° of 31.17 percent, although the overall site slope (average) is 24 percent. The proposed. location of the building is on a more stable portion of the property. The slide area, ~=hich is located in the southern portion of the site, would be stabilized by a sheer lain reinforcement wall and no development: would occur in this area. This slide is what is r~us;ng cracking in Mt. Eden Road as well as the instability of the site. Therefore, the ;slide mitigation would benefit the site and the public. Building placement would be in an area that exc:eec~.s, by 1.17 percent; the 30 percent slope maximum permitted by Section 15-13.050(e)(2) old the Municipal Code in absence of a variance. A variance is requested in order r_o t~uil~i upon this portion of the site. They location and extent of the landslides and the steep topography of the site are special circumstances applicable to the property, which require development to be in the north northeastern portion of the site. A variance to Section 15-29.020(b) of the Muncipal Code. This section of the Code states that "parallel walls separated by a vertical distance of ten feet or less shall not A \MtEden.doc 000020 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 C~ DR-O1-018: 2ZSS1 Mount Fden Road exceed 10 feet in height, additive. T~vo parallel retaining walls to accommodate the emergency vehicle turn around and parking required by the Fire District would total 12 feet in height both at the south and east edges of the driveway. Both areas require two stepped retaining walls that measure five feet in height each plus the finish elevation in front of the walls. Total wall height would be I2 feetwithin a IO-foot distance. The walls _. would be stepped and not visible from the public right-of way. The walls are necessary to accommodate the conditions required by the Fire District. Special circumstances affect the property in that this condition is required and is further complicated by the 30.17 percent slope of the building area. The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the ]imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The variance requests would allow the construction of one single-family residence with emergency vehicle access and turn around area. The variance would also allow the construction of asingle-family residence and mitigation of slide areas. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege. Other Hillside Residential lots are developed with single-family structures and some include slide repair as needed. The emergency vehicle turn around is a fairly new requirement of the Fire Department's and more properties with similar conditions may also require variances to accommodate the requirement. • The proposal would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance would allow the repair of the landslides on the site and construction of the residence. Soil remediation would be conducted with building and grading permits and inspections. An onsite geotechnical consultant would be required to be present during some of the grading operations and all work shall be inspected to conform to the Code and the geotechnical site clearance conditions. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Conditional Use Permit findings pursuant to Section 15-5~ of the Municipal Code 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. A two-car garage for asingle-family residence is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the garage allows for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the garage detached, and keeping the square footage within the maximum permitted by Ordinance at 4,830 square feet. If the garage were attached to the residence the height would not require a use permit. All the setbacks, lot coverage and square footage standards are met. • 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 properties or improvements in the vicinity. Construction of a 14-foot tall garage would not be detrimental to the public health, safety A:VVttEdendoc ('I OOO ~~ File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-0:~1; UP-O1-016 Fst DR-O1-018: 2255.1 Mount Fden Road or welfare. The structure would be required to lie constructed with building permits and would conform to the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. That the proposed conditional use ~~ill comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Atwo-car garage for a single-family residence is the minimum required by Ordinance. Detaching the gara,;e allo~n~s for the stepping of the structure up the hillside, reducing the mass by having the ~;ara.ge detached, and keeping the square: footage within the maximum permitted by cJrdinar.~~ce at 4,830 square feet. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration old the si~:e plan, architectural drawings, plans and. other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of HUERTA for Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Plan., Variance, Use Permit and Design Re~~iew~ approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constr. uct:ed ;~s shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. The development shall incorporate all t.~'ie mitigations contained in the Mitigated I~Tegative Declaration (ED-O1-001) for the proposed project, attached hereto as Exhibit: "B", incorporated by reference. 3. The entitlements contained in this resolution :hall not become effective until the City Council has adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Final Building Site Plan. 4. 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 follo~-ving revisions: i. The site plan shall be stamped :and sighed by a Registered Civil Engineer ot• Licensed Land Surveyor. ii. The site plan shall contain a r.{ote with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, t:he RCE or LLS of record shall pro~~ide a v~~ritten certification that all buildin€; setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - 1~TO 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. 6. No structure shall be ermitted in an easement. P y A4vltEden.doc x00022 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 Fst DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road 7. 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. 8. A preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for reviev~~ and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any site grading and/or construction permits. " B. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT All driveways shall be constructed to 14-foot width minimum with cone-foot shoulder. Slopes from 11 to 15 percent shall be surfaced using 2.5" o A.C. or better on 6" of aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15 to 17 percent shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Curves shall have a minimum radius of 21 feet. 10. A turn around with a 33-foot radius shall be constructed on the site. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the Fire District. 11. A parking area that is designed to accommodate two emergency vehicles shall be installed on the site. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 12. Pro~~ide one fire public hydrant that meet the Fire District's specifications. Fire hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 13. Automatic fire sprinklers are required for the new residence. A four head calculated fire sprinkler system shall be installed. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler - system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 14. Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turn around with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1 (Note: The plans show an . inside-turning radius of 20 feet). 15. Required driveway installations shall be constructed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are complete. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are complete. 16. 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. A:VVItEden.doc ~ OO ®~3 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-C~11; IJP-Ol-016 &~ DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount = Fden Road 17. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinarlces shall be provided for the garage, workshops or storage areas which are not a~nstructed as habitable space. Two heads per stall. To ensure proper sprinkler opf~ration the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The architec~;~de:signed shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet the fire suppression and domestic requirements. 18. Provide an approved Early Warning Fv-e Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure installed per City of Saratog~i Stand~~rds Article 16-60. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be maintained and :inst~illeci. 19. Early Warning Fire System shall ha~~e c~oc-umentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to tl~.e Faire District for approval. 20. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, 1Jniforrn Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 21. All fire hydrants shall be located within S00 .Feet from the residence and deliver no less than 1,000 gallons/minute of water sustained for a period of rivo hours. C. PUBLIC WORKS 22. The applicant shall apply for and secur~° a grating permit. 23. The Project Engineering Geologist and :'Project Geotechnical Engineer shall re~~ie~v and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage imp;-ovf~ments, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to e:nsu:re ghat their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Consultant also shall clarify the foundation type and ensurf~ th~it a:n appropriate capillary break has been provided _-for slabs (e.g., minur.~uum 4 to 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). The results of the plan reviews shall b~ summarized by the geologic and geotechnieal consultants in a letter(:~) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 24. The Project Engineering Geologist ~md Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all ge~otechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall iriclul~e, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel anal c~~ncrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall specifically observe and log pier holes excavated for the shear pin reinforcement wall, to verify that adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers are achievl:d prior to placement of steel and concrete. P:~Plannin$,Allison~Staff ReportsVVltEdendoc ~ 0000,x;4 File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-O1-011; UP-O1-016 6x DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, and submitted to the Public Works Department for revie«~ and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permit. 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 26. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 27. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of the construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to Public Works Department. 28. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 29. Encroachment Permit shall be issued by Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department prior to any work commencing in the County right-of-way. D. CITY ATTORNEY 30. 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 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 applicant's project. 31. 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 Ciry 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. P:~Planning~,Allison~.Staff Repotts~IvltEdendoc oOOO~S File No. ED-O1-001; BSA/SDP-Ol-001; V-Ol-C111; iJP-Ol-016 &r DR-O1-018: 22551 Mount Fden Road Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall became effective fifteen (1~) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plar~nin.g Commission, State of California, this 24th day of October 2001 by the following roll •.all vote:: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretar~~., Pl~mning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOhi This permit is hereby accepted upon the express term~~ 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 ~~vith said terms and conditions withui the recommended time frames approved by the Cit<~ Pl;~nning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Irate P:\Planning~Allison\Staff ReportsV'vitEden doc 0000 :s • C INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION October 9, 2001 City of Saratoga Community Development Department Planning Division Project title: Huerta Single-Family Residence 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga Department of Community Development Planning Division 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 3. Contact person and phone number: Thomas Sullivan, Director Community Development 408 868-1232 4. Project location: 22551 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga, California 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Armando and Barbara Huerta 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 6. General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Conservation Single-Family (HRC) Area A Mount Eden Plan Area Attachment 2 7. Zoning: HR- Hillside Residential i~ envcheck.w~pd-12/30/98 -1- 00002'7 • Description of project: The project is the construction of one single;-family residence on a lot consisting of 1.42 acres is area. The project would include remediation o:~~ unstable soil on the site and approximately two- thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The proposed single family residence ~voul~i consist of a total of 4,830 square feet. Square Footage First Floor _ _ 2,740 Second Floor 1,586 Garage _ 504 (Basement) _ _ (1,260) Lot Area _ 61,855 Undeveloped Area 42,679 ~ Lot Slope 31.17% The project requires the following entit:lemE;nt review and approvals: 1) Design Review to construct a riew ;jingle-family residence pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. 2) Conditional Use Permit to con.stru.ct an accessory structure (detached garage) at 14 feet in height pursuant to Municipal Code 15-55.030 3) Variance to construct retaining; walls i;z excess of five feet in height and within the front setback for slope mitigation pursuant to Municipal Code 15-29.010(g). 4) Variance to build on a lot greater than 30 percent in slope under the building footprint pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.13-050(e)(2). 5) Building Site Approval in order to construct on a vacant lot subdivided over 15 years past pursuant to Municipal Cocle Section 14-20. 6) Site Development Plan in ord~:r to construct on a hillside lot pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-25.100. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Single-family residential on hillside lots to -the :north, east and south. Mount Eden Road to the west of the project site. • en~•check.wpd-12/30/98 -2-~ ~V~~tiB • 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities /Service Systems Cultural Pesources Hydrology /Water Quality Noise X Geology /Soils Land Use /Planning Population /Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. • envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -3- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pucsualrt to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier I:IR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Signature EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IN[PA(:TS: Date Date 1) A brief explanation is required for all. answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information :~ourc;es ~i lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No • Impact" answer should be explained where it i.s b~ised. on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysi~i. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Si~mifi~;ant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measure's has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Tlian Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefl~~ explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures i~roni Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, l~ursiiant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adegi.iately analyzed in an earlier EIR or envcheck. wpd-12/30/98 -4-~ 000030 negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. - . c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: X a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -$- 000031 surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Overall Discussion: The project is a single - family residence on property planned and zoned residential. Lighting would be that associated with asingle-family residence and similar to the other single-family residences in the area. No heritage trees are on the site and no trees would be removed due to construction. Over two-thirds of the site would be left in its natural condition or with landscaping. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Overall Discussion: The site is not farmland or adjacent to farmland, nor is it Williamson Act lands. III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of em~check.wpd-12130!98 -6-~ • X . ~ X X X 000032 the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state. ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Overall Discussion: One single-family development would not affect air quality in a significant way. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines identifies 270 single-family units as the threshold for analysis that could represent a potential impact to the air quality of the area and/or region. The impact is clearly de minimis. During construction standard dust abatement measures will be implemented as a requirement of the building permit. X X _ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: X a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X.' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -7- 000033 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Overall Discussion: The site does not support state or federally protected wildlife. Grazing and migration patterns of wildlife would not be expected to be effected as over two-thirds of the site would remain in open space and unfenced. No heritage trees as defined by City Ordinance are located on the site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Overall Discussion: The site is not identified as one probable of having human remains (City General Plan and envcheck.wpd-12/30!98 -8•• • X X X X X X X 000034 associated documents). Should any remains be found during construction all activities would be stopped and the City notified, local and State Historic and/or Native American Heritage Commission would be contacted and the appropriate steps be taken. The site does not contain a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature as is demonstrated by site visits; geologic review and review of the General Plan. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X X -b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of - topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -9- X ~~~~~~ Overall Discussion: See the discussion at the end of this checklist for a detailed discussion and required mitigation measures for geology. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response pplan or emergency evacuation plan? . h) Expose people or structures to a srgnificant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland foes, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Overall Discussion Activities at the site would be those associated em•check.wpd-12/30/98 -10- X • X X X X N/A N/A X • oooo3s with single-family residential use. Manufacturing or large-scale use of toxic and hazardous materials would not occur. Small scale use of hazardous or toxic materials such as gasoline and household cleansers would occur as with all residential land use. No impact to hazardous or toxic upset would occur as a result of residential activities on the site. The site is located in a Saratoga Fire District designated "Hazardous Fire Area". Standard conditions of project approval identified by the Fire District are sufficient to reduce the fue risk. As an example, water sprinklering of the buildings is required, weed abatement, fue retardant roof coverings, installation of one fire hydrant delivering 1,000 gallons/minute for a sustained period of two hours, emergency vehicle parking and fire truck turn-around area is also required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses fox which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -11- X X X X X V00~~ exceed the- capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide - substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X X • Overall Discussion: The project site is not located within a flood zone. There is no levee or dam in the vicinity of the project. Grading would be performed as identified in the Geology conditions for the project and would direct water to downspouts and storm drains. Over two-thirds of the site ~ - would remain unpaved and pervious which would retain the percolation of the site. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established.community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Overall Discussion: T'he site is planned and zoned for single-family envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -1~!- X X X; +~~0'9?8 • residential. The proposed project conforms with the General Plan and Zoning for the site. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: X a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Overall Discussion: There are no known mineral resources on the site (General Plan). XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -13- X X X X X X X 000039 Overall Discussion: The site is not within an airport zone. The construction of one single-family residence would increase noise in the project area temporarily during project construction. The construction activities would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 7-30.060) which prohibits construction activities during noise sensitive times of the day and the week. Construction activities would be restricted to Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 6PM and no work on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays). Construction noise would not be a significant impact. The addition of one single-family residence in the area (i.e., project operation) would not add to the noise environment. Typically, traffic volumes have to double in an area (to increase noise by approximately 3 dBA - a level that is barely perceptible to the human ear), in order to perceive a noise impact. The addition of a single-family residence would be negligent in terms of additional traffic in the area, approximately nine trips per day (Institute of Traffic Engineers). Project operations would not add an audible level of noise to the project area. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either dtrectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Overall Discussion: The project would add one single-family dwelling unit to the City of Saratoga's housing stock. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES envcheck.wpd-12/30198 -14•- • r~ u X X X • aO®'V ~' O a) Would the project result in substantial adverse X physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental - facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: X Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? Overall Discussion: The proposed project would not result in an impact to public services. Infrastructure and City services and schools are in place to serve the single-family residence. XIV RECREATION . -- X a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities - or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Overall Discussion: The addition of the occupants of one single- family residence would not impact public parks or open space. Additionally, approximately 2/3rds of the site would remain undeveloped per City Ordinance. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: X a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -15- 000041 substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous _ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Overall Discussion: Roads are in placer to serve the site. The addition of approximately nine vehicle trips per day would be negligible and not result in an impact. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: - X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X em~che ck.wpd-12/30/98 -lE•- 000042 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the _ project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Overall Discussion: Water, wastewater and solid waste disposal are available to -serve the site. X X X XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the -major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either duectly or indtrectly? Geology: The two following reports and one set of Conditions from the Engineering Division are incorporated herein by reference: envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -17- 000043 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation - 22.551 Mount Eden Road by D & M Consulting Engineering, Apri16, 2000. 2. Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Inv°stig;ation - 22551 Mount Eden Road by D & M Consulting Engineering, January 10, 2001. 3. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions, Ivett:a Harvar.~cik, City of Saratoga Associate Engineer, April 23, 2001 (attached). The site is located in the eastern Santa Cruz Mountains on 'the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. Site slopes are moderate to step ranging from about 1:1 to 3.5:1. Cut and fill pads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account for the steepest gradients on the property. The property is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and s.iltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. The likely-active Berrocal fault lies 1.,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site. The San Andreas fault is about two miles southwest of the site. The ground movement potential of the site is classified as Ps, relatively instable material inchuding; landslide debris, surficial slope materials and weak bedrock subject shallow landsliding, slumping and soil creep activity (Cotton Shires 1980). The project site is in an area of abundant landslides anti tw~~ relatively large landslides dominate the western portion of the site. These two landslides are a~~art of a larger complex directly to the west. Although the landslides are classified as inactive, they larger of the two displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in yearly formation of cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole February 2000). Harlan Tait Associates also reports the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road (1977). Geologic hazards or.~ the site are limited to: 1. Periodic movement of the old existing la~idslicie widerlying the northeastern corner of the property. Possible future shallow failures along ovc~rstee~pened cut slopes. Ground shaking associated with a major ;vent of the San Andreas. The geologic reports approved by the City call for specific site preparation, grading and compaction, foundations, utility trenches pavemer.~t: design surface drainage and erosion protection and the construction of retaining walls to reduce geologic impacts to a less than significant level both on and off site on Mt. Eden Road. All the recommendations in the aforementioned reports including those of the City shall become project n-~itiga-lion measures. • envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -1E.- V~O~~~ • GEOLOGIC/GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 1045 • Prepared for: MR. ARMANDO HUERTA AH CONSTRUCTION 14225 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Prepared by: D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1365 VANDER WAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 (408) 297-6969 • APRIL 2000 000045 `~' '~~~ D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ~?" Geotechn,cal/Environmental/Materials Testing __. : A URS CORPORATION COMPANY April 6, 2000 Project 1045 Mr. Armando Huerta AH CONSTRUCTION 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Huerta: In accordance with your authorization, this re:porl: smnmarizes the results of our Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation of 22551 Molmt l~de:n Road in Sazatoga, California. Included in this report aze the findings, conclusions, and limitations of our investigation. If you have any questions about this report, please c2~11 Gordon Heingartner or Lawrence Pavlak, C.E.G., in our San Jose office at (408;1297-6969. Sincerely, D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, IN(:. A CJRS CORPORATION COMPANY ~^ ~~(~~~ Gordon F. Heingartner Project Geologist Dawn Y. Kr ckenberg, P.E. Associate Engineer ~~Lawrence D. Pavlak, CEG 1187 Senior Geologist a.~, KRUCkFy Fy; ~ mF ~~=.~ C GE2406 c> EXPIRES 12-31-01 ~` / ~a CFOicr;~~~;~T~ ,~R'~~ ~F-~~D ~~~ " ~~ ~, , CART'`'=~ s GE~~uGiST ,P J,Q ~ ~ Gl OF CF.~`F~` • • • 1366 Vander Way San Jose. California 95112 408 297 6969 Tel 408 297 7716~~ c 12 Thomas Owens Wav Monterey. California 93940 831 372 3716 Tel 831 372 7481 046 • TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................... 1 SITE INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions ............................................................................ . . . .............. 2 Aerial Photo Interpretation ................................................................... . . . . . ........... 3 Regional Geology and Seismicity ................................................................:.......... 3 Site Geology .................................................................................................... 4 Subsurface Exploration .............................................................................. 4 Bedrock Units .................................................................................................. 5 Surficial Units .................................................................................................. 5 Artificial Fili .................................................................................5 Colluvial and Residual Soils ............................................................... 5 Landslides ..................................................................................... 6 Geologic Structure ...............................................:....................................7 Surface Water and Ground Water .......................................................................... 7 Site Soil Classification ........................................................................................ 7 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ............................................ 8 Seismic Hazards ...............................................................................................8 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................... 8 Ground Shaking ...................................................................................... 8 Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading and Dynamic Compaction ..................................9 Slope Stability ................................................................................................ 10 Surface Erosion .............................................................................................. 11 • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 11 Summary ................ ... . ....... .............. .......................................... 11 -' - Geologic Hazards ..................................:...................................... 11 Geotechnical Engineering Considerations ........................~.................... 12 Site Preparation, Grading an_d Compaction .................................................... 12 Building Foundations .............................................................................. 14 Drilled Friction Piers ..................................................................... 14 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................ 15 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................... 15 Utility Trenches ......................................... ......................................... 16 Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection ...................................................... 17 Pavement Design ................................................................................... 17 D & 'vi CONSI`LTING ENGINEERS- WC. P: gco\¢corech\0(X)1095toc.4-6-W 00004 LIMITATIONS ..................:.:::........................................................................................................18 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................19 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ...........................................................................................................21 TABLE Table 1 -Nearby Active Faults FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 -Geologic Vicinity Map Figure 4 -Site Geologic Map Figure 5 (a through c) -Test Pit Logs Figure 6 -Geologic Cross Section A-A' Figure 7 -Geologic Cross Section B-B' APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Results • • D & Al CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P: geo\geotech\0001045toc.4-6-00 000048 GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL I_NVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huerta: This report summarizes D & M Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s (DMCE) findings, conclusions, and recommendations based upon our geologic and geotechnical investigation of the subject site located in Saratoga, California. The proposed development of the approximately 1'/z-acre subject property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road will consist of asingle-family wood- framed house situated in the north-central portion of the property on a steep, west-facing slope. The proposed driveway will follow an existing road cut along the western edge of the property for much of its length before bending sharply to the west to connect at a perpendicular with Mt. Eden Road. We understand that significant cuts and fills are expected in association with the development of the site. The objectives of our investigation were to (1)~assess the geologic setting of the site. emphasizing any geologic constraints to the proposed development of the property, and (2) explore subsurface conditions at the site to aid in preparing geotechnical recommendations for project earthwork, foundation design, retaining wall design, and pavement thickness design. S SCOPE OF WORK Our investigation was limited to the following tasks: Review of geologic and geotechnical maps, consultants' reports, and any other information in our files pertinent to the site and vicinity. Review of six pairs of stereoscopic aerial photographs of the property and vicinity to look for evidence of geologic features not visible from the ground surface. Geologic reconnaissance and field mapping of the subject property. Preparation of a regional geologic map, geologic map of the property, and a geologic cross section illustrating our interpretation of the subsurface configuration of geologic units. Geologic evaluation of the information collected, identification of any potential geologic constraints to the proposed development, and formulation of geologic recommendations for addressing any constraints identified. Consultation with the City of Saratoga Geotechnical Consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) and review of pertinent information in their files. D 8 M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, -NC P:eeo\eeotech\0001035rpi.J-h-OU 000049 Exploration, sampling, and classification of sul~surfac-~ soils by means of nine exploratory backhoe test pits excavated in the vicinity of the proposed house, driveway, and remainder of the property. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine their engineering properties. -Tests included moisture content, dry density, Atterbe~rg Limits, unconfined compression, and R-- value. Review and analysis of field and laboratory tes~~t data. Development of geotechnical recommendations for situ preparation, grading and compaction, building foundations, concrete .slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, pavement thickness design for driveways, and underground utility trench backfill. Preparation of this combined geologic/geotechn.ical reFlort. SITE INVESTIGATION Surface Conditions The property is located in the eastern Santa Cruz M:ou~itains, on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. It lies within the Sa.rato~ga city limits and also within the 7.5- minute Cupertino topographic quadrangle (see I=figure ]., Vicinity Map). Access to the site is gained from Mount Eden Road via arough-graded dirt access road. Surrounding land uses are rural residential. The site consists of an unoccupied, approximate:l.y 1'h-,acre parcel that is roughly rectangular in shape. Slope gradients are moderate to steep, ra~igirig from about 1:1 to 3'/z:l (horizontal:vertical). Near-horizonatal cut/fill Flads occupy the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property, the latter of which is considerably larger and is located at the southern terminus of a narrow, rough-graded access ro;~d that borders the western edge of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding thesl° pads ~~ccount for the steepest gradients on the property; the cut slope above the northeastern p,ad i:; locally as steep as 1:1, while the subjacent fill slope and access road cut slope exhibit: a maximum inclination of about 1'/z:l. A rough-graded access road connects Mt. Eden Rc-ad with the northwestern corner of the property. Another, older rough-graded road, the co~nst:ruction of which involved relatively minor cuts and fills, borders the upper (eastern) boundary of the southern half of the property . A broad, shallow, arcuate depression occupies r.~nucYt of the southern, more gently inclined portion of the slope, with slope gradients ranging from about 3:1 to 4:1. Topographic relief on the property is approximately 80 feet, ranging fr<~m an elevation of about 940 feet above sea level in the southwestern corner of the site to approximately 1020 feet in the northeastern corner. An unnamed, south-flowing ephemeral drainage bounds the western edge of the property, the upper eastern embankment of which is located within the confines of the property. D 8: ~t CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. -' P:eeo\~eo~ech\0001(}35rpt.3-6-(X) ~~o~Co Vegetative cover of the site consists primarily of uncultivated weeds and grasses, although several eucalyptus trees border the periphery of the site and the remnants of an orchard (a cherry trees) remain on the central portion of the slope. Drainage of the site is by southwe directed sheet flow into the adjacent drainage, which empties into northeast-flowing Calaba Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Ponded water was present at the north end o the property and on the cut/fill pad in the southwestern portion of the property following prolonged rainfalls that occurred at the time of our investigation. Aerial Photo Interpretation few st- zas f We reviewed six sets of stereoscopic aerial photographs of the project site and vicinity in order to look for evidence of features not visible from the ground surface; a list of the photos is presented at the end of the report. Through the late 1960's to early 1970's, the property was used for agricultural purposes (fruit orchards). Site improvements were initiated in the early to mid 1970's, at which time both of the cut/fill pads on the property were constructed. The westernmost (lower) pad was built in conjunction with an unpaved road that bordered the western edge of the subject site and continued southward onto the adjacent property. The photographs also indicate that the site is located along the eastern edge of a large landslide that is characterized by undulating, anomalously gentle topography interrupted by two to three well-developed drainages, implying that the feature is old and relatively stable. The aforementioned broad, arcuate depression that occupies the southern portion of the subject slope -and which represents a configuration sometimes indicative of landsliding -was no on aerial photos taken in the mid 1970's and more recently, after significant grading had b performed in the area. Prior to grading operations, this portion of the slope appeared as a broad, shallow, essentially linear east-west-trending swble, which suggests that the arcuate shape may have been acquired during the course of the grading. No lineaments or other features suggestive of faulting were observed crossing or trending toward the property. - Regional Geolog~~ and Seismicity . ted een The site is located in the California Coast Range geomorphic province, in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 1 mile west of the southwestern edge of the Santa Clara Valley. The oldest bedrock unit in the region is the Franciscan Complex of Jurassic and Cretaceous age, which consists of weakly metamorphosed marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks, primarily dark gray sandstone and shale, dark green greenstone (an altered volcanic rock) and minor amounts of red chert and gray limestone. The property itself is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980; see Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map), which was deposited in streams, alluvial fans, and lake beds during latest Pliocene and early Pleistocene time (Cummings, 1968). The boundary between the two formations is defined by the Berrocal fault, which together with its • D S; M CONStiLT[NG ENGINEERS, INC. 3 P:geo~ecotcchUl(blGiSrpt.d-6-(Nl OOOO. )~ southeastward continuation, the Sargent fault, iorm~ the: Sargent-Berrocal fault zone. Sant~r Clara bedding dips gently to moderately toward the: ne~rtheast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton a~zd Associates, 1980). Regional geologic structure is largely controlled by the: San Andreas fault system, which has created predominantly northwest-southeast-tren.din4; geologic structure (faults and folds) and topographic features in the area. The San Andreas sy:;tem also constitutes the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic platers; active faults, consequently, are abundant in the region. The likely active Berrocal fault, which is located approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site, consists of two primary traces in this area (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; William Cotton and Associates, 1180). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex have been thrust northeastward over rocks of tl~e Sant;i Clara Formation along this fault. The potentially active Shannon fault is located about 13ii n:~iles (2.8 km) northeast of the site, beneath the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. T:lte active San Andreas fault is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) southwest of the site, in the Sarrta Cruz Mountains. The ground movement potential of the site is classified by Cotton and Associates (1980) as Ps, which they define as "relatively unstable material including landslide debris;, surficial slope materials, and weak bedrock; commonly less than 10 feet in thickness on o:entle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, and soil creep activity." The property is located in an area of abundant lanclslicies, which is consistent with the steep, rugged topography characterizing much of the ares~ and the generally poorly indurated condition of the Santa Clara Formation. Much of the western portion of the site is mapped as being underlain by portions of two adjacent, re::lati~~ely large landslides (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map), both of which belong to an even larger complex directly to the west. The larger of these two slides is shown to be movirrg in a ;southward direction and the smaller in a westward direction. A relatively small landslide i~; mapped approximately 200 feet northeast of the property, an adjacent relatively large complex approximately 150 feet directly to the east, and another relatively small feature apprc-xim,.ate:ly 180 feet to the southeast (Cotton and Associates, 1980); these landslides are classified a;~ dormant, active, and old, respectively. All three of these slides are separated from the project site by the aforementioned north-south- trendina ridge. Site Geology Subsurface Exploration We excavated a total of nine exploratory test pits on the property in February and March of 2000" in order to investigate subsurface conditions ancj obtain. samples for laboratory testing. Three of the test pits were excavated on February 9. Afi:ernoon rains, however, prevented the completion of our work. Subsequent prolonged rainfall over the next several weeks led to saturation of the soils on the property and localized ponding of surface ~Nater. The remaining six test pits were excavated on March 20, 2000, by which time t}ie site 1•lad dried sufficiently. All test pits were D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. a P:geo\eeoiech\ODplO45rpi.4-6-00 '~OOOS2 excavated with a rubber tire-mounted backhoe and measured 30 inches in width. The excavations ranged from about 6 to12 feet in depth and about 12 to 50 feet in length (see Figure 4 for approximate test pit locations and Figures Sa through Sc for logs of the test. pits). Representative soil samples- were taken at selected depths with aCalifornia-modified steel sampler containing a 2-inch diameter, 6-inch-long brass liner. The sampler was advanced into the ground by means of repeated blows with ahand-operated slide hammer. A summary. of the laboratory test results performed on selected samples is presented in Appendix A. Materials encountered in the test pits are described in the following paragraphs. Bedrock Units As indicated on the aforementioned geologic maps, the property is underlain by Santa Clara Formation bedrock consisting of severely weathered, highly fractured, blocky, poorly indurated bluish-gray to orange-brown claystone with lesser amounts of siltstone. It could commonly be broken apart by hand. The upper (approximately 2 to 3 feet), more highly weathered portion of the Santa Clara bedrock generally consists of pebble- to gravel-sized chunks of weathered claystone/siltstone in a silty clay matrix. Randomly oriented slickensides, likely the result of repeated episodes of shrinking and swelling, were observed in some of the more clay-rich portions of this material. Surficial Units Artificial Fill A substantial proportion of the property is underlain by artificial fill associated with previous site improvements. The fill material consists of very moist to wet, highly plastic orange- brown to medium brown silty clay and was likely derived from on-site soils. The bulk of the fill is located in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the property, on and adjacent to the-two cut/fill pads. Maximum fill thicknessses encountered in the test pits, as well as those reported in previous exploratory borings drilled on the. property (Freeman-Kern Associates, 1988; ~Iarlan Tait Associates, 1997) are on the order of about 3 to 3'/z feet. Lesser amounts of fill are present along the western edge of the rough-graded access road that skirts the northern portion of the western property boundary and in the vicinity of the northwestern end of the proposed driveway, directly northwest of the northwestern property corner (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, Geologic Cross Section A-A'; Figure 7, Geologic Cross Section B-B'). Based on the overall appearance of the fill material and the presence of numerous twigs and other organic material, it is our opinion that all existing fills are non- engineered. No compaction testing records regarding the fill placement were available. Colluvial and Residual Soils In areas that are devoid of fill, Santa Clara bedrock is overlain by colluvial/residual soils consisting of highly expansive, moist to very moist silty clays and sandy clays attaining maximum thicknesses of approximately 7 feet (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, D & M CONSIILT[NG EtiGINEERS. INC. 5 P:geo~eeotech~0001045rpt.3-6-00 000053 Geologic Cross Section A=A'; Figure 7, Geologic Cross Section B-B'). The term colluvium refers to any loose, heterogeneous, and incoherent mass of soil and/or rock fragments transported downslope and deposited by rainwash, :~hec:twash, or slow continuous downslope creep. Residual soil deposits, on the other hand, are formed by in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock. Unlike colluvium, residual soils sire situated in close proximity to their place of formation. The native materials on the property probably represent a combination of both colluvial and residual soils; some degree of down;~lope movement -particularly creep - most likely has occurred within the softer, less cohc;rerct masses of soil and on the more steeply inclined portions of the slope. Landslides Of the two landslides mapped beneath the property by Cotton and Associates (1980), the larger is mapped beneath the western edge of the northern end of the property and the smaller beneath the western half of the southern, relatively shaillow-gradient portion of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). Both o;F these ;Features are classified as old landslides (Ols), which are defined as "relatively stable, inactive features with subdued irregular topography, low slope position, well-established dr~iina.ge systems, and undisturbed vegetation" (Cotton and Associates, 1980). AIthou,~h c:Iassified as inactive, the larger of these two mapped landslides displays a creeping, glacier-:like motion that results in the yearly formation of cracks in the adjacent portion of IV.[t. 1=;dert Road (Bill Cole, personal communication, February, 2000). Harlan Tait .Associates (1997) also reported the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road wes~[ of the site at the time of their investigation, indicating that "small amounts of movement have occurred." Moreover, we observed cracking in a recently resurfaced portion of tl•ce road approximately 350 to 400 feet west of the property in February 2000 (see Figt;~re 3~, Geologic Vicinity Map). The mapped location of the larger landslide essf~ntially coincides with our interpretation based on a review of the aerial photos. It is also consistent ~~ith the findings of our subsurface investigation, in which we encountered stiff, dark gray to orange-brown, silty clay to sandy clay w_ith_abundant pebble- to gravel-sized clast:~ extending to a depth of at least 12 feet in the northwestern corner of the property. This material, which we interpret to represent a landslide deposit, was encountered in TP-2 and TP-9 (similar m~lterial was also encountered in Harlan Tait's Boring B-3), but not in TP-7 or TP-8. Thus the eastern edge of the larger old landslide appears to underlie much of the proposed driveway area, but is at least 20 feet west of the proposed building footprint (see Figure 4, Site (geologic Map). However, we did not find any evidence of the smaller, westward-directed landslide; mapped in the southern portion of the property in the course of our subsurface explor~ltion., despite the presence of the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in this area. We did, however, note the presence of a small, shallov~~ earthflow/slump-type failure in the northwestern portion of the property, directly east of tb~e northern end of the rough-graded access road. The failure, which measured approximately 15 feet long, 8 feet wide, and about 3 feet deep, appears to have involved primarily till, although some native material may have D & N1 CO\SliLT1NG EtiGINEERS, IBC. 6 P:eeo\geoiech\OOOlOSSrpt.3-h-00 a00~54 been included near its western end. Another small failure was noted within the fill slope along the western property boundary directly west of (below) the southernmost cut/fill pad. Some cracks with horizontal separations of about 2 to 4 inches and scarplets with vertical separations of about 6 to 10 inches were noted on the portion of the slope that lies in the vicinity of the proposed building footprint; the bulk of these features were located within fill (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map). Geologic Structure Because of its highly weathered, poorly indurated nature, Santa Clara bedding was difficult to discern, and we were therefore unable to obtain many reliable bedding attitudes in our subsurface excavations. We measured one possible bedding plane that dipped moderately (about 35 degrees) to the north-northeast, which is in rough agreement with published geologic maps of the area showing Santa Clara bedding dipping gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Fracture orientations that we measured were for the most part near- vertical (70- to 80-degree dips). . Surface `eater and Ground Water As previously noted, surface runoff on the property is by sheet flow into the ephemeral drainage directly west of the property, which flows southwestward along Mount Eden Road. Aside from the ponded rainwater at the north end of the property and in the southwestern portion of the property (cut/fill pad), no ponds or springs were visible on the property or in the aerial photographs we reviewed. Ground water was not encountered in any of our exploratory test pits, which were excavated during the rainy season to a maximum depth of about 12 feet below existing grade. However, Harlan Tait Associates (1997) reported the presence of groundwater at a depth of 2 feet in their Boring 1, located near the edge of the cut/fill pad in the northeastern portion of the property. They suggested that it represented isolated perched water in the surficial deposits overlying the bedrock. Site Soil Classification Based on our literature review, subsurface exploration, and comparisons with published data, we have classified the soil profile type as stiff soil (SD) as defined by the guidelines in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 1636.2 (average shear-wave velocity for the upper 30 meters (m) of 180-360 m/sec or standard penetration test blow counts of 15-50). Although the Santa Clara Formation is technically bedrock, the clay-rich consistency and poorly indurated condition of the claystone member places it, in our opinion, in the stiff soil category. • D & ~t CONSGLTING E`GINEERS, INC. P:gco~ecoicch~.0001(W~rpt.d-h-(Xl x04055 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CO\TSIh-ERATIONS Seismic Hazards The site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but outside the earthquake fault zones established in accordancf; with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (California Division of Mires amd Geology, 1974). Table 1 lists active and potentially active faults nearest to the site a:nd suirvnarizes each fault's Seismic Source Type (1997 UBC Table 16-U), distance from the si~:e, rind maximum earthquake moment magnitude. This was determined using the prof-,rarr- E(~FAULT (Version 3.00), by Thomas Blake, and California Division of Mines and Ge~olos;y (1998). The potentially active fault closest to the site is the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault. It is a Type B fault located about 0.3 miles (0.5 km) southwest of the site. The geologic record and a record of historical seismicity suggest that the Sargent-Berrocall fault system should be considered active (Hay and others, 1980; Cotton and others.,, 1994; Hitchcock and others, 1994), despite the fact that the fault is not located within any of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) of 1972 (California ]~ivisiot~ of Mines and Geology, 1974). The Sargent fault may have produced a 5.0 moment magnitude earthquake in 1964, and its southern end has exhibited an unusual concentration of microearthquakes. The California Division of Mines and Geology leas classified the Sargent,(-Berrocal) fault as a Type B fault for purposes of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). It has an estimated slip rate of 3 mm/yr and is considered capable of generating; a 6.8 maximum moment magnitude earthquake. The 1906 rupture segment of the S:in Andreas fault, which is the closest Type A fault, is approximately 2 miles (3 km) southwest of the site. The maximum expected moment magnitude of an earthquake for this segment of the :ian Andreas fault is 7.9 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). A com~ilatiori of data on historic seismically induceci ground failures in northern California (Youd and Hoose, 1978) shows a concentration ~;,f streambank landslides -mostly small ones - resulting from the 1906 earthquake in the general vicinity of the property. Because of the sparseness of the historical data, the exact locatil}n of these features was not reported, and is therefore unkown to us. Surface Fault Rupture We did not observe any topographic or subsurface evidf~nce of faulting on the property in the course of our site reconnaissance, subsurface exl~lor~ition, or aerial photograph review. In addition, no faults are mapped across, or trendin~~ toward, the property on any of the maps we reviewed. Therefore, the potential for surface f~Iult rupture to impact the proposed development is considered to be very low. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. F P:geo\¢coicch~0001415rpi.4-6-W o~OV~V Ground Shaking The 1906 (M,,. -- 8) "San Francisco" earthquake, which ruptured a portion of the active San Andreas fault from approximately San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino, caused severe damage in parts of the San Francisco Bay area. Its epicenter was located directly west of the- - Golden Gate, approximately 45 miles (72 km) northwest of the property. The 1989 (M,,. -- 7) Loma Prieta earthquake, which is believed to have occurred on an oblique-slip blind thrust fault closely associated with the San Andreas fault, also caused significant damage in the relatively nearby cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, despite the fact that it did not rupture the ground surface. The epicenter of this event was located in the Forest of Nicene Marks State Park, approximately 25 miles (40 km) southeast of the property. Strong ground shaking associated with large-magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas fault or somewhat smaller-magnitude events along the Sargent(-Berrocal) or other nearby faults will undoubtedly occur at the property in the future. The State of California estimates the peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the vicinity of the site to exceed 0.7 g (Petersen and others, 1996). Because of its greater length and higher level of activity, the San Andreas fault is considered capable of generating stronger ground motions at the site than the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault, despite the fact that it is farther away. The site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 4, as defined by the 1997 UBC, Figure 16-2 and Section 1629.4.1. The Seismic Zone Factor Z for ,Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction - Zone 4 is 0.40, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-I. The Seismic Zone 4Near-Source Factor N~ is 1.4, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-S. The near-source factor N,, is 1.9, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-T. The Seismic Response Coefficient C~ for soil profile type S„ in Zone 4 is 0.62, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-Q. The Seismic Response Coefficient C,. is 1.22, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-R. Both of the near- source factors and seismic response coefficients were determined by the proximity of the site to the San Andreas fault. It should be noted that a lower value of N~ may be used for - structures that meet the conditions in 1997 UBC Section 1629.4.2. Severe ground shaking caused by earthquakes can cause secondary effects such as dynamic compaction, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction, which is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquid state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressures, usually in response to strong ground shaking, most often occurs in loose, saturated silts and sands. Ground settlement and loss of bearing capacity can result. Because of the cohesive, clay-rich consistency of the site materials, the potential for liquefaction is judged to be very low. Lateral spreading can occur when soils liquefy beneath a slope, or even beneath level ground if an open topographic face is nearby. Because the potential for liquefaction is judged to be low. the potential for lateral spreading is likewise estimated to be low. D K ~t CO'~SULTI\G ENGItiEERS. INC. 9 P:eeo\eeoiech\00010:75rpt.3-h-00 ~OO~ C~ 4' Dynamic compaction occurs when loose, unsarl.~raced soils densify in response to around shaking. Because no such materials were encol1ntc;recl on the site, it is our opinion that the potential for dynamic compaction is low. Slope Stability In the course of our subsurface exploration and revievr of.aerial photos of the site and vicinity, we found evidence to suQsest the presence of a. landslide deposit in the northwestern corner of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map; Figure 4, Site Geologic Map); the location of the landslide is consistent with previous mapping o:P the area by Cotton and Associates (1980), in which the eastern edge of a large laridsli.de is mapped in essentially the same area. Despite the fact that it is classified as relativel}~ stable and inactive, this landslide continues to move, as evidenced by the yearly formation of cracks in the adjacent portion of Mount Eden Road. It is our opinion that the proposed building footprint is outside the mass of the landslide; however, much of the proposed driveway appears to be located within it. The driveway can therefore be expected to experience periodic creep and associated cracking that will likely require ongoing maintenance and repair;. Underlying utility lines will likely be similarly affected. We did not encounter subsurface evidence of the somewhat smaller landslide mapped directly south of the larger one, the northeastern corner of -which is shown to occupy the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in the southwestern portion of the property (Cotton and Associates, 1980; Figure 3). We did encounter relatively thick: (u:p to about 6- to 7-foot-thick) accumulations of colluvium in this area, but no disl;rete slide planes at the soil/bedrock interface. This area is probably experiencing slow, continuous creep, but does not appear to be underlain by a landslide. However, because: of the limited depth of our subsurface excavations, the possible existence of adeep-seated. landslide involving Santa Clara bedrock, while unlikely, cannot be completely ruled out. A small slump/earthflow-type failure as well as sorne cracks and scarplets were observed on the slope occupying the northern portion of the site; many of these cracks and scarplets are locate3 within the proposed building footprint alrea. The small slump/earthflow appears to involve primarily fill. The cracks and scarplet~; locateli within and below the building area appear to affect primarily fill, but also native cc311uviutn to a lesser degree, indicating that both types of material on the slopes of the northern half of 1:he site are probably experiencing some degree of instability and downslope movement. Therefore, it is our opinion that both fill and native soils should be removed from this portion of the: slope to the depth at which competent bedrock is encountered. The favorable dip of ~~ant~i Clara bedding -into the slope -enhances the underlying stability of the hillside. Cracks measuring approximately 1 to 2 inches ~,vide~ were also observed on the steep cut slope above the northeastern cut/fill pad. In our opinion, thc;se cracks are likely associated with downslope creep of near surface colluvial soils. D R ht CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. IC' P:eeo~ceotech~,OIX)1(FiSrpi.d-(rIX) VOOVa.DO Surface Erosion Aside from a 2- to 3-foot-deep gully that cuts the eastern stream embankment in the southwestern portion of the property (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map), we did not observe any evidence of excessive erosion on the site. Nevertheless, -the relatively steep topography creates the potential for surface erosion to impact the property. In addition, the near- horizontal cut/fill pads create the potential for ponding of surface waters. Therefore, site improvements should incorporate appropriate surface drainage control measures as discussed later in this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary From a geologic and geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed single-family residential structure on 22551 Mount Eden Road in Saratoga provided our recommendations are incorporated into its design. Geologic Hazards In our opinion, potential geologic hazards to the proposed development are limited to the following: periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northwestern corner of the property; possible future shallow failures along oversteepened cut slopes, such as above the northeastern cut/fill pad and the upslope side of the north end of the existing access road; and ground shaking, which could be severe in the event of a major earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault. Periodic movement of the old existing landslide underlying the northwestern corner of the property will require several mainteriance issues that should be anticipated and possibly incorporated into the design of the development. The flexible pavements of the entrance roadway will likely experience differential lateral movement and cracking. Offsets may cause changes in the sheetflow of surface drainage water, such as breaks in curbing, if applicable, and therefore, should be monitored such that surface erosion and possible gullying of the downslope side of the roadway does not occur. Also, the differential movement may cause damage due to offset to the underground utility lines that cross into this landslide area. There were indications of downslope movement associated with oversteepened slopes at two locations at the site, above the northeastern cut/fill pad and east (upslope) of the northern end of the access road. We recommend that stabilization of these oversteepened cut slopes be incorporated into the site development. This can be accomplished by reconstruction of these D & '~1 COtiSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. I I P:eeo\gcoicch\O0p1(AiSrpt.4-6-1k) 00059 slopes at a 2:1 inclination and removal and reco:mpaction of all existing t-11s above these oversteepened slopes. Since laying back the existingT ctct slope may be~space limited, such as above the northeast cut/fill pad being near the e~istern property boundaries, alternatives can include installation of a retaining wall supported on a foundation system and reconstruction of the slope above to a maximum inclination of ?:1. The :retaining wall foundations should be supported in the underlying competent bedrock. The third geologic hazard, ground shaking, is common for this seismically active area and. should be incorporated into the design of the stnicture. Geotechnical Engineering Considerations From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the prirnary concerns for foundation design are the undocumented fill materials in the two existing cut/i~tll pads and the relatively loose, native colluvial soils. These fills and colluvial soils arf: potentially compressible under the proposed building loads and unstable at their existing slope confil-uration. We understand the proposed residential structure will be located at the north-central ;portion of the site, as shown on Figure 4. To minimize the potential for differential settlem~.ents and downslope instability of the fill materials and the loose colluvial materials, we re:conune~nd that these materials be entirely removed and recompaeted as engineered fill within the c;nvelope of the proposed residential structure and associated appurtenances. The rev~~orking should include a base keyway and benching of the entire height of the fill slope into the: underlying competent bedrock. We also recommend that all structures should be supported on drilled, cast-in-place pier foundations that derive their supporting capacities through friction into the underlying bedrock. The following recommendations are presented as guidelines to be used by project designers for the geotechnical aspects of planning and designing fc,r the proposed development. We recommend that D&M Consulting Engineers, Inc:. bf~ provided the opportunity to review the grading and foundation plans prior to construction, and provide construction observation and testing services during grading and foundation construction. This additional opportunity to observe the project site will allow us to compare subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those that were observed during this investigation. Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction Stripping: Surface vegetation and organic topsoil bf;low the proposed building location and driveway should be stripped. Soils containing more than 2 percent of organic matter by weight should be considered organic and cannot be used as structural fill. The actual depth of stripping should be determined in the field by thf~ geotec:hnical engineer at the time of construction. Strippings should either be wasted elsE~where on the property or be used in landscaped areas. D & ~1 CO\SL'LTI~G ENGItiEERS, ttiC. 12 P:geo`•~cotcch'.OWI(FiSrpi.l-h-(Nl ~~O~~O Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes: As previously stated, we recommend all existing fill materials and loose colluvial materials below the proposed area of the residential structure and associated appurtenances be removed and replaced with compacted, engineered fill materials. Since engineered fills will be placed on sloping terrain, we recommend that a base keyway and benches be constructed below the structural fill. Both the base keyway and all benches should extend into the underlying competent bedrock. The keyway should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and extend a minimum of 3 feet into the competent bedrock as measured on the front face of the keyway excavation. The actual depth of the keyway should be determined in the field at the time of construction by the geotechnical engineer. The base of the keyway should be sloped back into the slope at a one percent grade. At the rear of the base keyway, we recommend a subdrain system be installed. The subdrain system should consist of a perforated pipe, perforations placed down. The perforated pipe should be embedded in either Class 2 permeable material or 3/ -inch clean, crushed drainrock where the drainrock is entirely wrapped with a filter fabric. The subdrain pipe should be connected via solid pipe to an appropriate discharge facility. The keyway should then be filled with compacted, structural fill. As the fills are placed above the base keyway, the fills should be benched into the competent bedrock. The benches should extend a minimum of 2 feet into the competent bedrock or as determined by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. Materials for Structural Fill: On-site soils proposed for use as structural fill should be inorganic, free from deleterious materials, and should contain no more than 15 percent by weight of rocks larger than 3 inches (largest dimension) and no rocks larger than 6 inches. If import is required for use as structural fill, it should be meet the above requirements for structural fill and have a plasticity index less than 15. Prior to delivery to the site, the proposed import material should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability for use as structural fill. Subgrade Preparation: Prior to placement of structural fill in building and pavement areas, the exposed soil surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. We note that this scarification and recompaction requirement is not applicable at the bottoms of the base keyway or benches. Compaction Requirements: Structural fill, or approved import, should be placed in layers - each not exceeding an uncompacted thickness of 8 inches -moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content, and then entirely compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 (latest edition>. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent relati~~e compaction. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 13 P:eeo\geotech\OOOI(1•hrptA-6-00 000061 Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal :vertical) . Building Foundations Drilled Friction Piers We recommend that the residential structure and all. associated appurtenances be supported on drilled, cast-in-place, friction piers. The piers should tie designed to develop their vertical support through friction into the competent bedrock: below the engineered fills. The piers may be designed using an allowable friction value oi' 500 pounds per square foot (for dead plus live loads) in the lower portion embedded into the bedrock. We recommend the piers be embedded a minimum of 5 feet into the bedrock, or a min;imutn of 8 feet, whichever is deeper. The calculated capacities may be increased by one-third for all loads including wind or seismic. The allowable uplift capacities of the caissons may be taken as 80 percent of the calculated capacities. The vertical capacity of the portion of the ~~haft in the fills should be ignored. All pier foundations should have a minimum diameter of 1:Z inches and a minimum center-to- center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter. Lateral load resistance for the pier foundations c:an be developed by passive resistance between the pier shaft and surrounding soils. A passive resi:star~ce equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against twice the shaft width can be used. In general, the upper one foot of the pier should be igriore:d in providing lateral resistance. Also, where pier foundations are located on or near the fitiish.ed slopes, we recomtt~end that the upper portions of the pier foundations that has 1(:ss than 10 feet of lateral cover (as measured from the front face of the pier to the finished gr(:~unci surface on the slope) be ignored in providing passive resistance. Grade beams should be designed to span between piers. The pier excavations may encounter perched water or ground water at the time of construction. Additional construction measures should be anticipated during the pier installation operations. Construction methods such its casing of the excavations where caving occurs and using the tremie placement method il~ accumulated water cannot be entirely removed from the excavation at the time of the concrete: pour should be considered. Alternatively, if the water can be pumped from the hole: without disturbing the sides of the pier excavation, concrete may then be placed in the d.ry hole. Settlements of the piers supported structure should be on the order of less than an inch due to non-seismic loads. If a raised wood floor system is used, the floors sho~ild be structurally supported on the pier and Grade beam foundations. D g `~1 COtiSCLTItiG ENGINEERS, INC. 14 P:geo\gcotech\0(H) I (13~ rpt. d-6-UU 000062 We recommend our representative be present on a full-time basis to confirm the depth of the pier excavations and the conditions of the excavations prior to pour. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Where concrete slab-on-grade floors are used, the slabs should be constructed on compacted subgrades prepared as described in the section on "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." We note that all concrete slabs should not be structurally connected to the pier and grade beams unless it is designed to be structurally supported on the pier and grade beam foundations. To minimize floor dampness, such as where moisture sensitive floorings will be present, a section of capillary break material at least four inches thick and covered with a membrane vapor barrier should be placed between the floor slab and the compacted soil subgrade. The capillary break should be a clean, crushed, free-draining material, such as 314 -inch drainrock, or a Class 2 permeable aggregate complying with Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 68. A protective cushion of sand at least two inches thick should be placed between the membrane vapor barrier and the floor slab. Retaining Walls • The following soil parameters should be incorporated into the design calculations of the retaining wall. The active lateral earth pressures can be represented by the following equivalent t7uid pressures that increase linearly with depth. In addition, the following at-rest design pressures may be used for the restrained conditions where movement at the top of wall is undesirable. These parameters are based on the fully back-drained and non-seismic condition. Condition Active, level backfill Active, 2:1 sloping backfill At-rest, level backfill At-rest, 2:1 sloping backfill Equivalent Fluid Pressure 40 pcf 55 pcf 60 pcf 75 pcf The effects of earthquakes may be simulated by applying a horizontal line load surcharge to the stem of the wall at a rate of 18HZ Ib/linear foot of wall, where H is the height of the surface of the backfill above the base of the wall. This surcharge should be applied at a height of 0.6H above the base of the wall. The retaining walls can be supported either on a drilled, friction pier foundation as described previously in this report or a spread footing foundation. If pier foundations are selected, the piers should be designed in accordance with the previous recommendations provided earlier in D K ti7 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. IS P:geo\geocech\OWI045rpt.J-6-00 OOOO V this report. If spread footing foundations are selected, the footings should extend a minimum of 12 inches into the competent bedrock and can be designed using an allowable dead plus live load of 2,500 pounds per square foot. An increase of ~~ne-third is allowed when considering additional short-term wind or seismic loads. T'he wall. footings should have a minimum of embedment of 24 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade a minimum width of 12 inches. We recommend an ultimate coefficient of friction t~elow the wall base is 0.35. An equivalent fluid pressure of 300 psf/ft may be tisecl to calculate the passive resistance to lateral movement of the ground in front of the toe of the wall and in front of any "key" beneath the toe or stem of the wall. This value: is l~ase:d on a level backfill in front of the wall foundation. The lateral active earth pressures presented above :ire based on a drained condition. We recommend that a zone of drainage material at ].east 1~! inches wide should be placed on the backfill side of walls designed for drained condition. This zone should extend up the back of the wall to about 12 inches down from the proposed ground surface above. The drainage material should consist of either Class 2 Permeable Material complying with Section 68 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, or 3/ -inch clean, durable coarse aggregate. If the coarse aggregate is chosen as the drainage ~nate:ria , it should be separated from all adjacent soil by a filter fabric approved by the project Soil Engineer. Any water that accumulates in the drainage material should be collectE:d by a perforated pipe, perforations placed down, near the bottom of the drainage r.~naterial. The perforated pipe should have holes no larger that '/ -inch diameter. The perforated pipe should be connected via a solid collector pipe to an appropriate discharge facility downs:lope of the residence. The upper 12 inches of material above the drai~~:tage~ material should consist of the compacted, native soils. Above this native cap, a concrete 'V-ditcl'i should be constructed along the back of wall for increased efficiency of the surface drainage. I~ontinual maintenance and clearing of this V-ditch is essential to maintain the efficiency of the system. We recommend the surface drainage (V-ditch) and subsurface drainage (perfor~ited pipe of the wall backfill) systems should be entirely independent of each other. All wall backfill should be moisture conditioned and cl~mpacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Heavy compaction should. not be applied; otherwise, the design pressure on the wall may be exceeded. To avoid surcharging of the walls with construction equipment, backfill within 3 to 4 feet of the wall should be compal~ted by hand operated equipment. Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of ope~l trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trE:nch wells should be minimized and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should. be avoided. D 8 At COtiSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 16 P:eeo\geotech'~0001(}35rpi.4-6-00 ~~0~~~ ~ Approved on-site, inorganic soil, or imported material may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content and placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness (before compaction). Each layer should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. As stated previously, differential movement of utilities located across the existing old landslide area at the north end of the access roadway should be anticipated. Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and to promote drainage of surface water away from the building foundations, slabs, edges of pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. To minimize concentrated accumulation and surface erosion adjacent to the structures, roof downspouts should be connected via solid pipe to a storm drain discharge system. Water seepage or the spread of extensive root systems into the soil subgrades of foundations, slabs, or pavements could cause differential movements and consequent distress in these structural elements. This potential risk should be given due consideration in the design and construction of landscaping. As stated previously, the existing slopes above the proposed residence have a potential for surface erosion that can result in an accumulation of sediment at the rear of the residence. We recommend that erosion control material be placed across all areas where the slope surface was disturbed during construction. In addition, supplemental hydroseeding and vegetation Growth on the slope is recommended. The surface drainage design should accommodate the existing drainage from the adjacent property to the east. Pavement Design A representative sample of the subgrade soil sample from the upper 2 feet was obtained from the northern end of the access roadway for laboratory R-Value testing. This sample was tested: in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 301. Results of the test indicated that the near surface native materials have an R-value of 9. Based on this R- value test result, which is typical for automobile traffic areas, we developed the following pavement section • D 8; M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. IBC. 17 P:geo~geotech\OWIOdSrpi.A-6-00 000065 Traffic Asphalt Class 2 Index Concrete' Aggregate Base 4.0 _ 2.0" 8.0" 4.5 2.0" i 9.0" We note that design traffic indices were not available at the time of this report. An estimated Traffic Index of 4.0 is a typical value that may be used for light automobile traffic. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrade and tl.~e entire baserock layer should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent- relative compaction, as described in the :sect:ion titled, "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." In addition, both the compacted sut-grade and baserock layer should be proof-rolled to confirm stability prior to placement of the overlying pavement component. If instability exists, stabilization measures or additional drying should be performed in accordance with the supplemental recommendations of the Soil Engineer. LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on certain plans, information, and data that have been provided to us. Any changes i:n those plans, information, and data will render our recommendations invalid unless 'we are commissioned to review the changes and to make any necessary modifications and/or additions to our recommendations. Our recommendations have been made in accordance with the principles and practices generally employed by the local engineering geology acrd geotechnical engineering professions. This is in lieu of all warranties, express or implied. Our study did not include the assessment of environmental characteristics at the property, particularly those involving hazardous substancE;s. Subsrrrfaee exploration of any site is necessarily cor,;finl:d to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between and around sul~h locations. Should conditions different from those encountered in our exploration come to light during project development, additional exploration (beyond that already recommended)., testing, and analysis may be necessary; changes ~in project design and construction may also be necessary. Any person concerned with this project who ob:;ervc:s conditions or features of the site or surrounding areas that are different from those desc;ribe:d in this report should report them immediately to this office for evaluation as part of an additional scope of work. D & ~4 CO\SliLTItiG EtiGINEERS, ItiC. IE P:eeo\geotech\OWI(}1Srpt.4-6-00 • VOOV~V • • r~ L REFERENCES CITED California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies (Earthquake Fault) Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998,--Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials, map scale '/ inch . 1 km. Cotton, William, and Associates, 1980, Geologic and ground movement potential maps of the upper Calabazas Creek watershed, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to the City of Saratoga, California, 22 plates, scale 1:2400. Cotton, W.R., Cole, W.F., and Wallace, J.M., 1994, Geologic constraints on the Quaternary tectonic history of range-front deformation, northeastern margin of the central Santa Cruz Mountains, California: American Geophysical Union, 1994 Fall Meeting, published as a supplement to EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 75, n. 44, p. 682. Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2000, Preliminary geologic and geotechnical review (S4010) re: Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Larry Perlin (public works director for the City of Saratoga), 4 p. Cummings, J.C., 1968, The Santa Clara formation and possible post-Pliocene slip on the San Andreas fault in central California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, Arthur, Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of San Andreas Fault System: Stanford University Publications in the Geological Sciences, v. 11, pp. 191-207. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1966, Geology of the Palo Alto Quadrangle, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 8, scale 1:62,500. Freeman-Kern Associates, 1988, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Hamilton Stewart, 20 p. Harlan Tait Associates, 1997, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Adam Grosser, 17 p. Hay, E.A., Cotton, W.R., and Hall, N.T., 1980, Shear couple tectonics and the Sargent- Berrocal fault system in northern California, in Streitz, Robert, and Sherburne, Roger, Studies of the San Andreas Fault Zone in Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 140, p. 41-49. D & M COtiSULTI\G ENGINEERS, INC. 19 P:geo\geoiech\OW14i5rpi.1-6-00 ~~0~~~ Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., ].994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: William Lettis and Associates, Inc., unpublished consultant's repocT to the U.S. Geological Survey, Award Number 1434-92-G-2220, 32 p., map scale 1:21,000. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, Tianqing, Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.S., and Schwartz, I.P., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-706), 33 p., map scale 1 inch 107 miles. Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Poter.-tial sei;~mic hazards in Santa Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Ge~olol;y :ipecial Report 107, 27 p., map scale 1:62,500. Sorg, D.H., and McLaughlin, 1975, Geologic reap of the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, C~Ilifornia: ~U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-643, scales 1:2:4,000. U.S. Geological Survey, 1961, photorevised 19,30, '7.5--Minute Topographic Map of the Cupertino, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. Youd, T.L., and Hoose S.N. `1978 Historic ~rourid failures in northern California triggered a ~.. by earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Profession~il Paper 993, 177 p.; map scale 1:250,000. • D & ~1 CO\SULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 20 P:eeo\geotech\0001045rpt.4-6-00 ~OOV6V • • • AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Date A~enc Type 8/23/60 USGS b & w 2/12/64 unknown b & w 8/11/71 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w 8/26/76 Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w 10/13/77 unknown b & w 4/ 12/8 WAC Corp. b & w D 8: ~t CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Frame Scale GS-VACY-2-189, 190 1:30,000 Saratoga 14 and 15 1:11,500 AV-1006-04-16, 17 1:12,000 AV-1277-04-19,20 1:12,000 77811-1-1, 2 1:6,000 WAC-85CA-13-127, 128 1:31,680 P:geo\geotech\00p1415rpt.4-6-00 000069 TABLE 1 NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS (le:~s than 30 miles away) 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, California FAULT TYPE DISTAN~'E FROM SITE miles (km) MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE (Moment) Sargent(-Berrocal) B C-.3 (0.5) 6.8 San Andreas (1906) A 2 (3) 7.9 Hayward (total length) A ].8 (29) 7.1 Hayward (south) B l.8 (29) 6.9 Hayward (southeast B l.5 (25) 6.5 San Gregorio A l.6 (26) 7.3 Calaveras (north) B l.8 (29) 6.8 Calaveras (south) B 1.8 (30) 6.2 Monterey Bay-Tularcitos B 24 (39) 7.1 Monte Vista-Shannon B 2 (3) 6.5 Zayante-Vergeles B 13 (22) 6.8 • • L~ D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo\geotech\0001015rpt.4-6-00 ~ooo / O ~;; • l /~ i j_v~~ Q~i ., `•. ~~ y / :.~\l ,) ~_\.~" .Y- J ~\ ~ ''-. ~ ~ ~`' (f(. I_ . V 1, _i~~JJ G • • J J ~. r%t f ~1\ "1806 ~ ~ `.\~(; _i ' _ ,Mtn-'',,, .. `'~~__ _ ~ eater '\ BASE.~AP: CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA U.S.G.S. 7'h' TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP -N- SCALE: I" = 2000' D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ~~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 iAN JOSE BLUEPRINT CO. VICINITY MAP 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA /' <~ i- -~-- L'~~ -- ~` G l I ~ _~ _ _ _` / ~ i . 1 -~ .. - - - j I \ ' _ 1 ARt n ~ i ~' FIGURE 1 PRO1 ECT 1045 `~ .:: .. v~r fmg f ~Qis - - %Qts^- . I -_ ~ - - 9. ~.~ ., _ y ~- _ _ fmg,^%-= ~ fmg -_ ~~ = Qts Qoal QTs ~Tus~Y~ - ----- _- - -- -- - - ,~ __ fm9 `c. ~~ GtTs .r ~ ~ ~ - _- , ,_~ - F -`~ ..•\ - - - -.- Lam.' `~,` JrX -; '~ ~ ~°~ ~ '--, _ ~ -_ b~/~_ - ~ ;~~ -~ ~=: fs _' ~~ , _~, ; ~ Y~. Zit SITE ` ~, _~-~=~ ~ . ' " r! ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. `~ ~~ ~ ,'~: l~ \ Q ~ ~ ~t r' ' 1. .~ ~~, ~ ~ z~-; ` rrTmb~ .:~ r ~ ~ ~~~. ~-goal = ~ " --- ~ ,`--= 2;.- ~l ~ i r ;\ ~ ~' r, ~ ~, ~ fm9 %' _ •~ ~ ~ ~~~- T _ ~ , :• ;• - -fmg ~ ~ / . ,y~s'~ t a,-, . - K~ ;~ ' s~, ~'Qg~ is .~.. ' i1 Z ~--~ ~g~ 1 f ~~s~i ~ ~ ^ j EXPLANATION Geologic units in vicinirv of siteunits in vicinirv of site Qoal -Quaternary older stream alluvium deposits Qof -Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits QTs -Quaternary/Tertiary non-marine sedimentary r~xk" (Santa Clara Formation) fs, fg, fmg, fsh -Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Cornplex sandstone, greenstone, melange, and shale BASE MAP: ROGERS AND WILLIAMS, 1974., PLATI? 1 D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS.INC. ~u A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 =v :ncc 4~ i icoaitir ._p -N- SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SA.RATOGA, CALIFORNIA FIGU 2 PROJECT 1045 nrl~l~i"7? i s t. • .. " t `. - - _'~ r ~ '! sue/ .. .) `r ~, ~~~ ~~ - - _ ~ A-1-~.. __ __ _ _- ads i / ~ ~ • Cracks observed in ' pavement (February 2000) _Oms ~ - - ~ ~, a - - - i • -• ~ ,~,,. - ~., ~ i • ~ ,; r ~ EXPLANATION Als -Active landslide Dls Dormant landslide Ols -Old landslide QTsc -Quaternary/Tertiary Santa Clara Formation BASE MAP: COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, 1980, SHEETS 2, 3 \ 1 SCALE: 1 " = 200' ~', II D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. ~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY APRIL 2000 GEOLOGIC VICINITY MAP 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 3 PRO1 ECT 1045 SAN JOSE BLUEPRINT CO. oo~~-r~ ('w ~o gp~ r M I i 1 E"' _z ^I 1 a H ~ 3 M z ` 3 z^ M ~ ~ ~ ~ U (~ ~ \ z ~ F ~ H ~ a \ J N F 3 z U ~. r .j 1' . I `~' ~a • ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ' i a } ~- I ~" 3 - ~ ~. I ~ ~ , ~, , ~ -?- 1 , , ,~ ~ ~ ~ '~ U F ti] Li] L:.. Z U F- W U ~ ~ ~ W (~ ~ ~ ~ a .~ o ~ ~ L'~O ~ ~ z ~~¢ ~ ~ U Q ~ ~ O O N ~ E'" N Q n V] U' O ? N N ., W Z a Z~ ~~ ~ Ws ~z Zo J Q h 0 Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ p a ~~ mny o~V l ,,. L II L Z W _.7 U •/ U ' -l ~ I ~ l .~ ~ .% ~ ~ 1, ~ a / ~ ~-. It 1 \ ~ I ~ ' ~ -1 w I a 3 ~. I i ~ i , / I '/ ~ 0 1 -i ._-- ~ a i -_ ~_ . ~ / ~~-~ ~ , . • . / ~~ ~~ - ./ u.r V D ~ v ~ . (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°z N ~ C v ~= w ~n~~ ~ v U ~¢ ~~o ON~ ~' N Q a H CJ 8 Z OO N OTC ~-.~ ZQ a z o w.v Z O J Q Z O U ~ N ~~Q ~00 l V 1 r 1 U 1 0 z > ° ~ ^ ~ ' 3 ' • ~_ c ~ ^ ~ L .. CO ~ , z ~ R 1 L C a~ v ` ~ ~ .L v uo c 3 r.. L " - z - Z ~ v ` J ~ ~~ c n v J Z r,~ `i' :-~~ u.3 '~ 3 ~ v Q ~ a~ ~ - .. : z ~ ; ~ ~ ~' . , ~~ o ~ =° U o~ 'e. C) D; U) C~ z: ~) «~ y / ^• G ~ V. T .v •~ J h `. C ~ ~ G .~ ~ ~ ..O ~ C v v. .. _ > > U U J J :r R / - ... l) L G) ~ = ~ 7 ~ J > ~.... C ^ ._ _ C C >. G C J .:0 ~ "~ v >' 7 ~ r J ~ v :J J ~~ •o o ~ c :r 3 J :-0 ~ ~ '7 L ~ r U o __ ~_ ~ 1 -~ - y 3 L r n ^ J - J. ~ c~ c r .: ~ ~ s >_ 3 3 ~ v ._ ~ i .`o ~ .a ~ c `~ ...c 3 ~ L L L ~ ;b ~ L E CD T G ~ .~ S 67 j CD ~ C ice. ~ ~ ~ ~ >, E T y C y :0 ~ ^. .^. .x T C C~ F O Y~ N ~ - U ~~ _ y~ b 7 _ T ~ h C ~ L _~~ 3~ C~ ti w u ~~ ^~ ~ ~ m 3~ J Y 3 v ~ cv ~_ _ ' _^ n ~ F ^ .C T J cO L ^ v, ... . Y ;J y G u ~ C T .. ~ v ~ ~`. CO I. ~ ~_ i_p C t0 U~ ~ ~ ~' T n ~~ ~ u ~:,, >~ - V G U cq U T ~~ >, Cl >; U ~, Q W ~ f3. o ~~I ~ ~~ ~ ~I ~ al E ~~ o ~I .. ~ w`.~ ~ a ~" 1 1 1 ~.,~ ~, 1~ ~ ` ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ 1 F 1 ,~ U , . w U ~ U , '^ (~ ~ I a y 1~-~ `~ O ~'z` Cis Q ~ F ~ U Q O ~ ~' N Q n ~ • APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.4-6-00 VOOO D&1`7 C:onsulttng bnginezts. Inc. SDILS 1ZEPIaRTT (tS3 F 13?Z-37iG Project: ?2i~1 Mt. Eden Road _ Date: 03/31/00 Project #: 104 Lab #: 3997/L5322 MOISTURE-DENSITY A;STM D2216, ASTM D2937 ~ Burins Hulc \u. Densih' (pct) Moisture (%) Liquid Lutut Plasticity Index Passim 42011, (%) SOiI DCSCrIptlOn TP 1- I a, 2.0' 114.0 I b. l ' Lean CLAY, light bro~~~n TP2-1 .a; 4.0' 103.3 22.9 ' Fat CLAY with Sand cX. Organics. dark bro~~~n TP4-1 rd: 4.0' 124.8 2~.2 ' Lean CLAY «~ith Sand, liglu bron•n TPA-1 a; 3.S 120.9 24.1 32 11 ' Lean CLAY, medium bro~~•n TP6-1 ~~. 4.S 121.4 27.7 Lean CLAY with Sand, gra}~/lieltt bro~~•n TPb-2 'a. 2.0' 119.S 2~.2 ' Lean CLAY «~ith Sand, medium bron~n Boer Resistivitc pH Clilorides Sulfates Soil Description Hole \o. (olmts/cnt) tPPn~) (PPm) COrilnleritS: B~: G~r~• A. CET ~~ 08601 • • r=~• u+ u~• ~~ oooo~s UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH REPORT v~~c~ ASTM D2166 (K3l)372-3710 Project: 22>jI Mt. Eden Road Date: U3/31/OU i Project #: 1U-1 Sam le #: TPA-1 De the 4.0' Lab #: 3997/L5322 Location/Source: Refer to borin to Sam le Date: Refer to bonne loe Material: Fat CLAY. rav/bro«~n 2500 2000 1500 w tr w 1000 2 500 SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dn- Density, cf 12.8 Initial Water Content. % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 I Continents: •: Gan' A. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AXIAL STRAIN (%) I ~~ 'i I j I I i I i I I I i o a -_ _-____-__ f, _ _ O . ~ i i i j i -- o d c 0 O: ' ! ~ FAILURE DATA Strain, % 1C.0 Peak Shear, sf 2(127 Peak Unconfined, sf -tU> CET #08601 ~_~ UUVU7y __ - - - - _~ _ .. s rt ® ry - n ' ~ > O oo ,w c ~ , io B ~ O A O Z C > ~ O ~ O Z Z Cf O ; ~ U . ~ Z O O ~ = ~ r 9 T N .~ _ Z ~ ~ n o. ---- 0 d 0 r D N _~ y`^C~ O ~ (~ ~ H ~ a°t' ~z~' oon ~do a z a a c 0 K 'O d 7 .w.. O 7 N C O 0 T_ ., N x 0 0 G_ d N~ >v A lD N CJ N O v O O~ O y n v a r m z n z u 0 r m m -~ n ~ = ~l Elevation (feet) ^, D\ ~ O c O N 'D ~ ~C oOO~~o / ~t NN ~L ~~ _~= ~ _ ~~I ;, ~ a 5' a ~` i Z > i c o m i ~ ~ ~ t ~ i z I i m t' QQN O H ~_ ~ a N C ~ `:77.' O a a`~~ ads rz~ ?vi a JO T S O ~ ~ fl m "? 00 Elevation (feet) A O ~ a ~ Oho o 0 p 0 d 0 o oo z O~ ~ ,'~ to _~ 0• ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' ~/ . _ 0 , ~ ~ ' 1 1 I II ~~ ~ i .w7 ' A O ~ ~ , i I 'I- 'I iI i 1 ' / --1 'O ~ I ' /I I I `~ O ~ ~ ~ ' O 4 ' ~ 1 ~. ~ a ~ 00 , ~ ~ x p ° ~ I' ' ' / y ~ i~ o / o .. / ° ~ J a , ~ - - _ - ~. ~ / . a, J 1 1 .; ~•~ i i / U I , N O O ~ ~ , ' I I 11 I 1 ~b • I Q~ ` ,. y 1 ' n ~ A ~ 1 r m o ~ 1 - ~. z n_ 1 n ~ ~ . o ~ ~ 1 -ct m ~ _ n ' ~~ cn G7 C , OOOOC7"~ .iti • THIS PAGE Hf~S BEEN INTENTIONALLY I_EF~T BLANK 0000~~ • w; • SUPPLEMENTAL GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 22551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 1507 Prepared for: MR. ARMANDO HUERTA 14225 SARATOGA-Si:fNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Prepared by: D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3194 DE LA CRUZ BLVD., SUITE 19 SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054 (408)297-6969 NOVEMBER 2000 • 2 000083 ~ D&M CONSULTING ENGINE=ERS, INC. G?' GeotechnicalEnvironmentaU~titateriaL TeStin€ _- . A URA CORPURATI01 CO:~1PAtiY January 10, 2001 Project 1045 Mr. Armando Huerta 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Supplemental Geologic/Geotechlical Investigation 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Huerta: In accordance with your authorization, D&n4 Consulting Engineers (DMCE) has completed supplemental field work for our (geologic/Geotechnical Investigation of 22666 Summit Road in Santa Cruz County, Califolia. Tl'tis report include a comprehensive summary of these findings, conclusions, revised enl;ineering recommendations, and limitations. If you have any questions or require additional ~infarmation, please call us at your convenience in our Santa Clara office at (40$) 2'~7-15969. Sincerely, D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY v~~ Lawrence D. Pavlak, CEG Senior Geologist Glenn A. Romig, PE /~ f `.' \1 ` ~ ~/ ~~~ G' ~' -. r ~.` \,. `J'l 9TE OF ~F.~~F~~K ~---~, / `2 v, f.. ~~ .: ,` . W ~ VUL1 J? ~- C • • 12 Thomas Owens Way Monterey, California 9:5940 831 372 3716 Tel 831 372 7481 Fa~0O08~ 3194 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 19 Santa Clara, California 9505.4 408 297 6969 Tel 408 297 7716 Fax TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF ~'~'ORK ..............................................................................................................1 SITE INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................... .2 Surface Conditions .............................................:.:.................................................. .2 Regional Geology and Seismicity ........................................................................... .3 Subsurface Exploration ......................................................................................:... .4 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................ .4 Artificial Fill/Colluvium ..................................................:............................... .4 Bedrock ................................................................................................. .5 Landslide ...................................................................:........................... .5 Geologic Structure ................................................................................. .6 Surface Water and Ground Water ........................................................................ .7 Site Soil Classification .......................................................:.................................... .7 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ............................................7 Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................7 - Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................8 Ground Shaking ........................................................ ........................9 Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction ................. 9 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................... 10 Surface Erosion ........................................................................................................ 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 11 Geologic Hazards ..................................................................................................... 11 Geotechnical Engineering Considerations ............................................................. 12 Site Preparation, Grading and Compaction ...................................................... 12 Stripping ..........................................:...................................................... 12 Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes ........................................... 13 Materials for Structural Fill .................................................................... 13 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................. 13 Compaction Requirements ..................................................................... 13 Permanent Slopes ................................................................................... 14 Temporary Slopes and Excavation ......................................................... 14 Retaining Wall Backfill .......................................................................... 15 Building Foundations ........................................................................................ 15 Drilled Friction Piers .............................................................................. 15 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ....................................................................... 16 ` Retaining Walls .........................................................................•--..................... 17 D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.i-10-01 000085 - - 17 Active Earth Pressure ............................................................................ . Drainage and Backfilling ........................................................................17 Foundations ......................................................................_.............-----..... 18 Utility Trenches ..............................................................----..................... 18 Surface Drainage and Erosion F'rot~ctiori .............................................. 19 Pavement Design .................................................................................... 19 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES CITED ..........................................,............................................................. 2 I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................................ 23 TABLE 1 -Nearby Active Faults ............................................................... .... ...................... ..8 TABLE 2 -Compaction Specifications ............................................................. 14 FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 -Geologic Vicinity Map Figure 4 -Site Geologic Map Figure 5 -Test Pit Logs (a through c) Figure 6 -Geologic Cross Section A-A' Figure 7 -Geologic Cross Section B-B' APPENDIX A -Logs of Exploratory Borings APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Reports • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P:geo\geotech\0001045tpt.1-10-01 000086 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ??551 MOUNT EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA This supplemental report summarizes D & M Consulting Engineers, Inc.'s (DMCE) findings, conclusions, and recommendations based upon the results of our multi phase geologic and geotechnical investigation of the subject site located in Saratoga, California. The proposed development of the approximately 1 %-acre subject property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road will consist of asingle-family wood-framed house situated in the northern portion of the property on a steep, west-facing slope. The proposed driveway will follow an existing road cut along the western edge of the property for much of its length before. bending sharply to the west to connect at a perpendicular with Mt. Eden Road. We understand that significant cuts and fills are expected in association with the development of the site. The objectives of our supplemental investigation were to (1) further define the boundaries of a landslide located on the southern and central portion of the lot, and (2) explore subsurface conditions at the site to aid in preparing revised geotechnical recommendations for project earthwork, foundation design, retaining wall design, and pavement thickness design. SCOPE OF WORK Our investigation was limited to the following tasks: Review of geologic and geotechnical maps, consultants' reports, and the Geologic/Geotechnical Investigation report for the subject site prepared by DMCE, dated Apri16, 2000. Additional geologic reconnaissance and field mapping along the western (lower) portion of the subject. property. .- Preparation of a revised geologic map of the property and geologic cross section illustrating our interpretation of the subsurface configuration of geologic units. Geologic evaluation of the information collected, identification of any potential geologic constraints to the proposed development, and formulation of geologic recommendations for addressing any constraints identified. Consultations with the City of Saratoga Geotechnical Consultant (Cotton, Shires and Associates) and the City of Saratoga Planning Department. Exploration, sampling, and classification of subsurface soils by means of two large-diameter, exploratory borings and one hand-dug shaft excavated in the vicinity of the landslide and proposed house. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. I P:geo\geotech\0001045tpt.1-10-01 ~00(Z~p.y Laboratory testing of supplemental, selected soil samples to determine their engineering properties. Tests included Atterberg Limits, particle size distribution, and torsional shear. Revie~~~ and analysis of field and laboratory test. data. Development of revised geotechnical recomme~idat:ion~~ for site preparation, grading and compaction, building foundations, concrete slags-ori-grade, retaining walls, pavement thickness design for driveways, and underground utility trench backfill. Preparation of this combined geologic/geotechnical suF~plemental report. SITE INVESTIGATION Surface Conditions The property is located in the eastern Santa Cru.~ Mountains, on the western side of a sharp, north-south trending ridge. It lies within the Sar•ato~;a city limits and also within the 7.5-minute Cupertino topographic quadrangle (see Figure l., Vic;ini•ty Map). Access to the site is gained from Mount Eden Road via arough-graded dirt ;access road. Surrounding land uses are rural residential. The site consists of an unoccupied, approximately 1',%-mere parcel that is roughly rectangular in shape. Slope gradients are moderate to steep, ranging from about 1:1 to 3'/z: l (horizontal:vertical). Near-horizontal cut/fill pacts oc;cul~y the northeastern and southwestern portions of the property, the latter of which is considerably larger and is located at the southern terminus of a narrow, rough-graded access road that borders the western edge of the property. The cut and fill slopes bounding these pads account i:or i:he steepest gradients on the property; the cut slope above the northeastern pad is locally as steep as 1:1, while the subjacent fill slope and access road cut slope exhibit a maximum inclination of about 1'/z:1. Arough-graded access road connects Mt. Eden Road with the northwestern corner of the property. Another, older rough-graded road, the construction of which involved relatively minor cuts and fills, borders the upper (eastern) boundary of the southern half of i:he property. A broad, shallow, arcuate depression occupies much of the southern, more gently inclined portion of the slope, with slope gradients ranging from about 3:1 to 4:1. Topographic relief on the property is approximately 80 feet, ranging from an elevation of about 940 feet above sea level in the southwestern corner of the site to approximately 1020 feet in the northeastern corner. An unnamed, south-flowing ephemeral drainage ~bourrds the western edge of the property, the upper eastern embankment of which is located within the: confines of the property. Vegetative cover on the site consists primarily of uncultivated weeds and grasses, although several eucalyptus trees border the periphery of tl~e site and the remnants of an orchard (a few cherry trees) remain on the central portion of the slope. Drainage of the site is by southwest- directed sheet flow into the adjacent drainage, which empties into northeast-flowing Calabazas Creek and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Ponded water was present at the north end of the property and on the cut/fill pad in the southwestern portion of the property following prolonged rainfalls that occurred at the time of the investiga~:ion for our earlier report. U d: tit COtiSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ? P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 (~oOOpp ~~ Regional Geology and Seismicity The site is located in the California Coast Range geomorphic province, in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 1 mile west of the southwestern edge of Santa Clara Valley. The oldest bedrock unit in the region is the Franciscan Complex of Jurassic and Cretaceous age, which consists of weakly metamorphosed marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks, primarily dark gray sandstone and shale, dark green greenstone (an altered volcanic rock) and minor amounts of red chert and gray limestone. The property itself is underlain by soft, moderately to poorly indurated claystone and siltstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980; see Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map), which was deposited in streams, alluvial fans, and lake beds during latest Pliocene and early Pleistocene time (Cummings, 1968). The boundary between the two formations is defined by the Berrocal fault, which together with its southeastward continuation, the Sargent fault, forms the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone. Santa Clara bedding dips gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, 1974; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Regional geologic structure is largely controlled by the San Andreas fault system, which has created predominantly northwest-southeast-trending geologic structure (faults and folds) and topographic features in the area. The San Andreas system also constitutes the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates; active faults, consequently, are abundant in the region. The likely active Berrocal fault, which is located approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet southwest of the site, consists of two primary traces in this area (Sorg and McLaughlin, 1975; William Cotton and Associates, 1980). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex have been thrust northeastward over rocks of the Santa Clara Formation along this fault. The potentially active Shannon fault is located about 13/4 miles (2.8 km) northeast of the site, beneath the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The active San Andreas fault is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) southwest of the site, in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The ground movement potential of the site is classified by Cotton and Associates (1980) as Ps, which they define as "relatively unstable material including landslide debris, surficial slope materials, and weak bedrock; commonly less than 10 feet in thiclrstess on gentle to moderately steep slopes, subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, and soil creep activity." The property is located in an area of abundant landslides, which is consistent with the steep, rugged topography characterizing much of the area and the generally poorly indurated condition of the Santa Clara Formation. Much of the western portion of the site is mapped as being underlain by portions of two adjacent, relatively large landslides (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map), both of which belong to an even larger complex directly to the west. The larger of these two slides is shown to be moving in a southward direction and the smaller in a westward direction. They are both classified on the map (Cotton and Associates, 1980) as old landslides. A relatively small landslide is mapped approximately 200 feet northeast of the property, an adjacent relatively large complex approximately 150 feet directly to the east, and another relatively small feature approximately 180 feet to the southeast (Cotton and Associates, 1980); D & h1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 3 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 OoO~~~ these landslides are classified as dormant, active, acid old, respectively. All three of these slides are separated from the project site by the aforernent:ioned north-south-trending ridge. Subsurface Exploration DMCE excavated a total of nine exploratory test :pits on the property in February and March 2000, in order to investigate subsurface conditions and obtitin ;samples for laboratory testing. These . excavations ranged from about 6 to 12 feet in deFlth and ~ibout 12 to 50 feet in length (see Figure 4 for approximate test pit locations). The subsurface materials encountered in the excavations were described in detail in our previous report clateci Al~ri16, 2000. On June 26, 2000, two large diameter borings v~~ere drilled on the site with atruck-mounted drill rig for the purpose of allowing down-hole logging of subsurface materials in the area of the projected landslide plane. The borings were 24 inches in diameter and 39 and 44 feet below ground surface (BGS). They were designated L-M-'l arld DM-2 and their locations are displayed on the Site Geologic Map, Figure 4. . A DMCE geologist entered the bore holes and logged the subsurface materials encountered there. Mr. William Cole, representing Cotton, Shire: and Associates, also observed the sidewalls of the borings at that time. A landslide shear zone was identified in borings DM-1 and DM-2 at depths of 28 to 29 feet and 23 to 25 feet BGS, respectively. The DMCE geologist collected samples of landslide plane materials for laboratory analysis. In order to further define the boundaries of the landslide;, ahand-dug shaft, designated DM-3, was excavated on the site on September 15, 2001:1. T'he vertical shaft was 2 feet wide, 3 feet long, and 25 feet BGS. The shaft was logged by a DI\~CE get~logist and observed by Mr. Cole. No landslide shear zone was observed in the excavation but: some sub-vertical fractures, identified at an approximate depth of 10 feet BGS, may be related to movement of the nearby landslide mass. Subsurface Conditions Artificial Fill / Colluvium A portion of the property is underlain by artificial fill a;;sociated with previous site improvements. The fill material consists of very moist to wet, highly plastic orange-brown to medium brown silty clay and was likely derived from ors-site soils. The bulk of the fill is located in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the property, on and adjacent to the two cut/fill pads. Maximum fill thicknessses encountered in the te:>t pits, GIs well as those reported in previous exploratory borings drilled on the property (Freelrrtan-Kern Associates, 1988; Harlan Tait Associates, 1997) are on the order of about 3 to 3~'/z fi;et. Lesser amounts of fill are present along the western edge of the rough-graded access road that skirts the northern portion of the western property boundary and in the vicinity of the northwestern end of the proposed driveway (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map; Figure 6, Geologic Cross ~~ection A-A'; Figure 7, Geologic Cross D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 4 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 ®OOnQO Section B-B'). Based on the overall appearance of the fill material and the presence of numerous twigs and other organic material, it is our opinion that all existing fills are non-engineered. No compaction testing records regarding the fill placement were available. In areas that are devoid of fill, Santa Clara bedrock is overlain by colluvial/residual soils consisting of highly expansive, moist to very moist silty clays and sandy clays. They have attained maximum thicknesses of approximately 7 feet. Based, upon the laboratory testing performed during this and previous investigations at the site, the near-surface soils and weathered bedrock have a relatively high potential for expansion. Liquid limits ranging from 63 to 65 percent and plasticity indices ranging from 37 to 40 percent have been established. Bedrock As indicated on the aforementioned geologic maps, the property is underlain by Santa Clara Formation bedrock consisting of severely weathered, highly fractured, blocky, poorly indurated bluish-gray to orange-brown claystone with lesser amounts of siltstone. It could commonly be broken apart by hand. The upper (approximately 2 to 3 feet), more highly weathered portion of the Santa Clara bedrock generally consists of pebble- to gravel-sized chunks of weathered claystone/siltstone in a silty clay matrix. Randomly oriented slickensides, likely the result of repeated episodes of shrinking and swelling, were observed in some of the more clay-rich portions of this material. Landslides Of the two landslides mapped beneath the property by Cotton and Associates (1980), the larger is mapped beneath the western edge of the northern end of the property and the smaller beneath the western half of the southern, relatively shallow-gradient portion of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). Both of these features are classified as old landslides (Ols), which are defined as "relatively stable, inactive features with subdued irregular topography, low slope position, well-established drainage systems, and undisturbed vegetation" (Cotton and Associates, 1980). Although classified as inactive, the larger of these two mapped landslides displays a creeping, glacier-like motion that results in the yearly formation of cracks in the adjacent portion of Mt. Eden Road (Bill Cole, personal communication, February, 2000). Harlan Tait Associates (1997) also reported the presence of tension cracks in the asphalt of Mt. Eden Road west of the site at the time of their investigation, indicating that "small amounts of movement have occurred." Moreover, we observed cracking in a recently resurfaced portion of the road approximately 350 to 400 feet west of the property in February 2000 (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map). The mapped location of the larger landslide essentially coincides with our interpretation based on a review of the aerial photos. It is also consistent with the findings of our subsurface investigation, in which we encountered stiff, dark gray to orange-brown, silty clay to sandy clay with~abundant pebble- to gravel-sized clasts extending to a depth of at least 12 feet in the northwestern corner of the property. This material, which we interpret to represent a landslide p & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 5 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-OI 000091 deposit, was encountered in TP-2 and TP-9 (similar material was also encountered in Harlan Tait's Boring B-3), but not in TP-7 or TP-8. Tlrus the (;astern edge of the larger old landslide appears to underlie much of the proposed drive~Nay area, but is at least 15 feet west of the proposed building footprint (see Figure 4, Site (Jeologi~ Map). DMCE also identified evidence of the presence of the smaller, westward-directed landslide mapped in the southern portion of the property iiuri~ig the course of our investigation. A shallow, arcuate-shaped surface depression is located in'this are~i and a landslide plane was identified in the two large-diameter borings. The northern b~yundary• of the landslide mass intrudes into the original building envelope for the proposed resident:e as shown on Figure 4, Site Geologic Map. The landslide material observed in the two large:-diameter borings was identified as completely to moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation. It consisted of silty, lean, and fat clays with minor sand, pebbles, and gravel. This was overlain by ~ feet of fill (fat clay) in DM-1 and 3 feet of colluvium (silty clay) in DM-2. The landslide shear .zone was described as slickensided, fat clay. The materials observed underlying the landslide shear zone consisted predominantly of moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation. This wa;~ described as widely fractured, moderately weathered, gray claystone and light to dirk ,gray silty clay, silty sand, and clayey sand. We also noted the presence of a small, shallow earthflo~v/slump-type failure in the northwestern portion of the property, directly east of the northern end of the rough-graded access road. The failure, which measured approximately 15 feet long, 8 fi;et wide, and about 3 feet deep, appears to have involved primarily fill, although some n<<tive m2~terial may have been included near its western end. Another small failure was noted within. thf; fill slope along the western property boundary directly west of (below) the southernmost cut/fill pad. Some cracks with horizontal separations of about 2 to 4 inches and scarplets with vertical separations of about 6 to 10 inches were noted on the portion of the slope that lies ir.~ the vicinity of the proposed building footprint; the~bulk of these features were located within fill. (see Figure 4, Site Geologic Map). ` Geologic Structure Because of its highly weathered, poorly indurated nature:, Santa Clara Formation bedding was difficult to discern, and we were therefore unable: to measure many reliable bedding attitudes in our subsurface excavations. One possible beddir.~g plane dipped moderately (about 35 degrees) to the north-northeast, which is in rough agreement with published geologic maps of the area showing Santa Clara bedding dipping gently to moderately toward the northeast in the vicinity of the property (Dibblee, 1966; Rogers and Williams, l~)74; Cotton and Associates, 1980). Fracture orientations that we measured were for the most part near-vertical (70- to 80-degree dips). • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 1NC. 6 P:geo\geotech`.0001045rpt.1-10-O1 oooosz • Surface Water and Ground Water As previously noted, surface runoff on the property is by sheet flow into the ephemeral drainage directly west of the property, which flows southwestward along Mount Eden Road. Aside from the ponded rainwater at the north end of the property and in the southwestern portion of the property (cut fill pad), no ponds or springs were visible on the property or in the aerial photographs we reviewed. Ground water was not encountered in any of our exploratory test pits, which were excavated during the rainy season to a maximum depth of about 12 feet below existing grade. However, Harlan Tait Associates (1997) reported the presence of groundwater at a depth of 2 feet in their Boring 1, located near the edge of the cut/fill pad in the northeastern portion of the property. They suggested that it represented isolated perched water in the surficial deposits overlying the bedrock. Site Soil Classification Based on our literature review, subsurface exploration, and comparisons with published data, we have classified the soil profile type as stiff soil (SD) as defined by the guidelines in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 1636.2 (average shear-wave velocity for the upper 30 meters (m) of 180-360 m/sec or standard penetration test blow counts of 15-50). Although the Santa Clara Formation is technically bedrock, the clay-rich consistency and poorly indurated condition of the claystone member places it, in our opinion, in the stiff soil category. GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS Seismic Hazards The site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but outside the earthquake faultzones established in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974). Table 1 lists active and potentially active faults nearest to the site and summarizes each fault's Seismic Source Type (1997 UBC Table 1.6-U), distance from the site, and maximum earthquake moment magnitude. This was determined using the program EQFAULT (Version 3.00), by Thomas Blake, and California Division of Mines and Geology (1998). The potentially active fault closest to the site is the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault. It is a Type B fault located about 0.3 miles (0.5 km) southwest of the site. The geologic record and a record of historical seismicity suggest that the Sargent-Berrocal fault system should be considered active (Hay and others, 1980; Cotton and others, 1994; Hitchcock and others, 1994), despite the fact that the fault is not located within any of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) of 1972 (California Divis>on of Mines and Geology, 1974). The Sargent fault may D 8 M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 7 P:geo\geotech\OOOIOaSrpt.1-10-OI 000093 have roduced a 5.0 moment ma nitude earths uake ir: 1964, and its southern end has exhibited P g 1 an unusual concentration of microearthquakes. The California Division of Mines and Geolog}~ has cl~lssified the Sargent (-Berrocal) fault as a Type B fault for purposes of the 1997 Uniforrrl Buildi:zg Code (UBC). It has an estimated slip rate of 3 mm/yr and is considered capable of generating a 6.8 maximum moment magnitude earthquake. The 1906 rupture segment of the ;pan Andreas fault, which is the closest Type A fault, is approximately 2 miles (3 km) southwest of the: site. The maximum expected moment magnitude of an earthquake for this segment of the San Andreas fault is 7.9 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). A compilation of data on historic seismically induced ground failures in northern California (Youd and Hoose, 1978) shows a concentration of streambank landslides -mostly small ones - resulting from the 1906 earthquake in the general vicinity of the property. Because of the sparseness of the historical data, the exact location of these features was not reported, and is therefore unknown to us. TABLEa NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS (less t:harr 30 miles away) 22551 Mount Eden Road Saratoga; Cali:l'orn:ia • _ FAULT TYPE DIST'.ANCE FROM SITE rnile;~km) MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE Moment Sargent(-Berrocal) 0.3 (0..i) 6.8 San Andreas (1906) 2 (3) 7.9 Hayward (total length) A 18 (29) 7.1 Hayward (south) B 18 (29) 6.9 Hayward (southeast B 15 (25) 6.5 San Gregorio A 16 (26j 7.3 Calaveras (north) B 18 (29) 6.8 Calaveras south B 18 ~~) 6.2 Montere Ba -Tularcitos B 24 ~39~- 7.1 Monte Vista-Shannon B 2 ~'3~ 6.5 Zayante-Vergeles B 131;22;1 6.8 Surface Fault Rupture `J We did not observe any topographic or subsurface evidence of faulting on the property in the course of our site reconnaissance, subsurface explor~atic-n, or aerial photograph review. In addition, no faults are mapped across, or trending toward, the property on any of the maps we D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. S P:geo\geotech\0001045tpt.1-10-01 o~OV J~ reviewed. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture to impact the proposed development is considered to be very low. Ground Shaking The 1906 (M,~.--8) "San Francisco" earthquake, which ruptured a portion of the active San Andreas fault from approximately San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino, caused severe damage in parts of the San Francisco Bay area. Its epicenter was located directly west of the Golden Gate, approximately 45 miles (72 km) northwest of the property. The 1989 (MW~7) Loma Prieta earthquake, which is believed to have occurred on an oblique-slip blind thrust fault closely associated with the San Andreas fault, also caused significant damage in the relatively nearby cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, despite the fact that it did not rupture the ground surface. The epicenter of this event was located in the Forest of Nicene Marks State Park, approximately 25 miles (40 km) southeast of the property. Strong ground shaking associated with large-magnitude earthquakes along the San Andreas fault or somewhat smaller-magnitude events along the Sargent(-Berrocal) or other nearby faults will undoubtedly occur at the property in the future. The State of California estimates the peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the vicinity of the site to exceed 0.7 g (Petersen and others, 1996). Because of its greater length and higher level of activity, the San Andreas fault is considered capable of generating stronger ground motions at the site than the Sargent(-Berrocal) fault, despite the fact that it is farther away. The site is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 4, as defined by the 1997,UBC, Figure 16-2 and Section 1629.4.1. The Seismic Zone Factor Z for Zone 4 is 0.40, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-I. The Seismic Zone 4Near-Source Factor Na is 1.4, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-S. The near-source factor N~ is 1.9, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-T. The Seismic Response Coefficient CQ for soil profile type SD in Zone 4 is 0.62, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-Q. The Seismic Response Coefficient Cv is 1.22, as determined from 1997 UBC Table 16-R. Both of the near-source factors and seismic response coefficients were determined by the proximity of the site to the San Andreas fault. It should be noted that a lower value of NQ may be used for structures that meet the conditions in 1997 UBC Section 1629.4.2. Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Dynamic Compaction Severe ground shaking caused by earthquakes can cause secondary effects such as dynamic compaction, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction, which is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquid state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressures, usually in response to strong ground shaking, most often occurs in loose, saturated silts and sands. Ground settlement and loss of bearing capacity can result. Because of the cohesive, clay-rich consistency of the site materials, the potential for liquefaction is judged to be very low. Lateral spreading can occur when soils liquefy beneath a slope, or even beneath level ground if an open topographic face is nearby. Because the potential for liquefaction is judged to be low, the potential for lateral spreading is likewise estimated to be low. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 9 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 OOOVJ~ • Dynamic compaction occurs when loose, unsah~rate~d soils densify in response to ground shaking. Because no such materials were encountered on the site, it is our opinion that the potential for dynamic compaction is low. Slope Stability In the course of our subsurface exploration and review of aerial photos of the site and vicinity, we found evidence to suggest the presence of a landslide deposit in the northwestern corner of the property (see Figure 3, Geologic Vicinity Map; :Figure 4, Site Geologic Map); the location of the landslide is consistent with previous mappir.Ig ol~the: area by Cotton and Associates (1980), in which the eastern edge of a large landslide is m;rppe:d iii essentially the same area. Despite the fact that it is classified as relatively stable and inactive, this landslide continues to move, as evidenced by the yearly formation of cracks in the acija~~ent portion of Mount Eden Road. It is our opinion that the proposed building footprint is outside the mass of this landslide; however, much of the proposed driveway appears to be.located within it_ The driveway can therefore be expected to experience periodic creep and associated cracking that will likely require ongoing maintenance and repairs. Underlying utility linE;s will likely be similarly affected. We also encountered surface and subsurface evidence o~f the presence of the somewhat smaller landslide mapped directly south of the larger once, the northeastern corner of which is shown to occupy the shallow, arcuate-shaped depression in the southwestern portion of the property (Cotton and Associates, 1980; Figure 3). DMCI~ ge;olagists observed a landslide plane in two large-diameter borings drilled into this feature. ~'he landslide plane was logged at depths of 23 to 25 feet and 28 to 29 feet in the two borings. A small slumplearthflow-type failure as well as ,some cracks and scarplets were observed on the slope occupying the northern portion of the site; marry of these cracks and scarplets are located within the proposed building footprint area. The: small :dump/earthflow appears to involve primarily fill. The cracks and scarplets located ~vith;in and below the building area appear to affect primarily fill, but also native colluvium to a lesser degree, indicating that both types of material on the slopes of the northern half of the site are probably experiencing some degree of instability and downslope movement. Therefore, it is oiir opinion that both fill and native soils should be removed from this portion of the slope: to the depth at which competent bedrock is encountered. The favorable dip of Santa Clara bedding -into the slope -enhances the underlying stability of the hillside. Cracks measuring approximately 1 to 2 inches widewere also observed on the steep cut slope above the northeastern cutlfill pad. In our opinic-n, tliesu; cracks are likely associated with downslope creep of near surface colluvial soils. Surface Erosion Aside from a 2- to 3-foot-deep gully that cuts the: eastern stream embankment in the southwestern portion of the property (see Figure 4, Site +Jeologic Map), we did not observe any • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 10 P:geo\geotech~.0001045rpt.1-10-OI oO~OJV evidence of excessive erosion on the site. Nevertheless, the relatively steep topography creates the potential for surface erosion to impact the property. In addition, the near-horizontal cut/fill pads create the potential for ponding of surface waters. Therefore, site improvements should incorporate appropriate surface drainage control measures as discussed later in this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From a geologic and geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed single-family residential structure on 22551 Mount Eden Road in Saratoga provided our recommendations are incorporated into its design. Geologic Hazards In our opinion, potential geologic hazards to the proposed development are limited to the following: • Possible periodic movement of the old existing landslides underlying the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property and the small, active landslide at the northwest corner of the recommended building envelope; • Possible future shallow failures along oversteepened cut slopes, such as above the northeastern cut/fill pad and the upslope side of the north end of the existing access road; and • Ground shaking, which could be severe in the event of a major earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault. Periodic movement of the old existing landslides underlying the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property will result in several maintenance issues that should be anticipated and possibly incorporated into the design of the development. The flexible pavements of the entrance roadway will likely experience differential lateral movement and cracking. Offsets may cause changes in the sheetflow of surface drainage water and therefore, should be monitored to prevent significant surface erosion and possible gullying of the downslope side of the roadway. Also, the differential movement may cause damage due to offset to the underground utility lines that cross into this landslide area. The proposed residence should not be placed on either of the two old landslides. We recommend . that the building be located within the building envelope designated on the Site Geologic Map, Figure 4. The small active landslide at the northwest corner of the recommended building envelope should be excavated and repaired prior to construction of the proposed residence if it is not removed during the grading process. All excavation and landslide repair work should be done at the direction of the soil engineer. There were indications of downslope movement associated with oversteepened slopes at two locafions at the site, above the northeastern cut/fill pad and east (upslope) of the northern end of the access road. We recommend that stabilization of these oversteepened cut slopes be D& M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 1 1 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-O1 oO~o~-~y incorporated into the site development. This can be a~~complished by reconstruction of these slopes at a 2:1 inclination and removal and recompaction of all existing fills above these oversteepened slopes. Since laying back the existing taut slope-maybe space limited, such as above the northeast cut/fill pad being near the eastern property boundaries, alternatives can include installation of a retaining wall supported on a foundation system and reconstruction of the slope above to a maximum inclination of 2:1. 'the retaining wall foundations should be supported in the underlying competent bedrock. The third geologic hazard, ground shaking, is c:ommorl for this seismically active area and should be incorporated into the design of the structure: Geotechnical Engineering Considerations From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the primary concerns for foundation design are the high expansion potential of the near-surface soil and bedrock; undocumented fill materials in the two existing cut/fill pads; and the relatively loose, riati•ve colluvial soils. These fills and colluvial soils are potentially compressible under the proposed l;~uilding loads and unstable at their existing slope configuration. We understand the proposed residential structure will be located at the north-central portion of the site, as shown on Figurt~ 4. To minimize the potential for differential settlements a:nd downslope instability of the fill materials and the loose colluvial materials, we i•ecornmend that these materials be entirely removed and recompacted as engineered fill within the envelope of the proposed residential structure and associated appurtenances. The reworking; should include a base keyway and benching of the entire height of the fill slope intro the underlying competent bedrock. We also recommend that all structures should be supported on drilled, cast-in-place pier foundations that derive their supporting capacities through friction into the underlying bedrock. The following recommendations are presented as guidelines to be used by project designers for the geotechnical aspects of planning and designing i~or t:he proposed development. We recommend that D&M Consulting Engineers, Ir.~c. be provided the opportunity to review the grading and foundation plans prior to constructi~an, rind provide construction observation and testing services during grading and foundation construction. This additional opportunity to observe the project site will allow us to compare; suttsurface conditions exposed during construction with those that were observed during this investigation. Site Preparation, Grading, and Compsictian Stripping • Surface vegetation and organic topsoil below the: pro~pos;ed building location and driveway should be stripped. Soils containing more than 2 percent of organic matter by weight should be considered organic and cannot be used as structural rill. The actual depth of stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engir.,eer at the time of construction. Strippings should either be wasted elsewhere on the property or be used in landscaped areas. D S ~1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. l:? P:geo\geotech\0001045tpt.1-10-01 oOOOQQ Engineered Fills Placed on Existing Slopes As previously stated, we recommend all existing fill materials and loose collu~~ial materials below the proposed area of the residential structure and driveway areas and associated appurtenances be removed and replaced with compacted, engineered fill materials. Thick fills should be avoided. Since engineered fills will be placed on sloping terrain, we recommend that a base keyway and benches be constructed below the structural fill. Both the base keyway and all benches should extend into the underlying competent bedrock. Subdrains will be required in the base key and benches as directed by our representative in the field. The keyway should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and extend a minimum of 3 feet into the . competent bedrock as measured on the front face of the keyway excavation. The actual depth of the keyway should be determined in the field at the time of construction by the geotechnical engineer. The base of the keyway should be sloped back into the slope at a 1 percent grade. At the rear of the base keyway, we recommend a'subdrain system be installed. The subdrain system should consist of a perforated pipe, perforations placed down. The perforated pipe should be embedded in either Class 2 permeable material or'14-inch clean, crushed drainrock where the drainrock is entirely wrapped with a filter fabric. The subdrain pipe (schedule 40 PVC) should be connected via solid pipe to an appropriate discharge facility. The keyway should then be filled with compacted, structural fill. As the fills are placed above the base keyway, the fills should be benched into the competent bedrock. The benches should extend a minimum of 2 feet into the competent bedrock or as determined by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operations. Materials for Structural Fill On-site soils proposed for use as structural fill should be inorganic, free from deleterious materials, and should contain no more than 15 percent by weight of rocks larger than 3 inches (largest dimension) and no rocks larger than 6 inches. If import is required for use as structural fill, it should be meet the above requirements for structural fill and have a plasticity index less than 15. Prior to delivery to the site, the proposed import material should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability for use as structural fill. Subgrade Preparation Prior to placement of structural fill in building and pavement areas, the exposed soil surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content and relative compaction as indicated in Table 2, below. Compaction Requirements The scarified surface soils and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform 1>fts, no thicker than 8-inches in uncompacted thickness, conditioned to the appropriate moisture content, and D 3 M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.- I3 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 000099 compacted to the specifications for structural fill, listed in Table 2 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in ']'able 2 is relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. TABLI? 2 COMPACTION SP]EC][FICATIONS 2251 Mount Eiden Road Saratoga; Califol-nia Relative Conte:tion* Moisture Content* General • Scarified subgrade in areas 90 percent: 3 percent to receive structural fill, above optimum general structural fill. • Fills thicker than 5 feet. 95 percent 3 percent above optimum Pavement Areas • Upper 6-inches of soil 92 percent 3 percent below baserock. above optimum • A re ate baserock and gg g 95 en~ent P At o timum P Subbase. Utility trenches • On-site soils -upper 3 feet. 90 perl~ent 3 percent On-site soils -below 3 feet. 85 percent above optimum • Imported sand -upper 3 feet. 95 percent At optimum Improrted sand -below 3 feet. 90 ~erc;ent _ At optimum * Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition. Permanent Slopes All permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Exposed slopes may be subject to minor sloughing and erosion which may require periodic maintenance. We recommend that the slopes be platitecl to minimize erosion. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design ~tnd construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should bc; provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including t:he current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Those excavations less than 5 :Feet high may be cut vertical. In our opinion, if space allows, the upper 5 feet of higher unshored slopes up to 10 feet deep may be cut at 1:1, with the lower portion vertical. Because of the variable nature of the existing soil, field D 8: M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 OOO~OO modifications of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations. Retaining Wall Backfill Where retaining wall Backfill is to be constructed on natural slopes having an inclination steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, the Backfill should be benched into the underlying competent native soil or bedrock. Building Foundations Drilled Friction Piers We recommend that the residential structure and all associated appurtenances be supported on drilled, cast-in-place, friction piers. The piers should be designed to develop their vertical support through friction into the competent bedrock below the engineered fills and native soils. The piers may be designed using an allowable friction value of 500 pounds per square foot (for dead plus live loads) in the lower portion embedded into the bedrock. We recommend the piers be embedded a minimum depth of 16 feet into the bedrock, or extend to a minimum of 20 feet below the bottom of the grade beam, whichever is deeper. Piers should also extend a minimum depth into bedrock equal. to 1.5 times the combined thickness of the fill and native soils at any pier location, even if this requires a deepei embedment into rock The calculated capacities may be increased by one-third for all loads including wind or seismic. The allowable uplift capacities of the caissons may be taken as 80 percent of the calculated capacities. The vertical capacity of the portion of the shaft in the fills and native soils should be ignored. All pier foundations should have a minimum diameter of 16 inches and a minimum center-to-center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter. Piers should have minimum reinforcing of four No. 5 bars. We recommend that grade beams be provided between piers supporting the house and garage. Grade beams should be designed to span between piers and should contain minimum reinforcing of at least two No. 6 bars, top and bottom. The perimeter grade beam should extend at least fl- inches below the crawl space grade or subgrade soils below the slab areas. A 4-inch void should be provided below the grade beams. Due to the potential for lateral creep of the near surface soils, we recommend that the piers and grade beams be designed to resist an active soil pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 125 pounds per cubic foot, acting upon the portion of the piers within native or~fill soils, in the downhill direction. The active pressure may be assumed to act against 1.5 pier diameters. The active load and other lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot, acting on 1.5 times the projected area of the pier in bedrock. The passive resistance of the portion of the piers within native or fill soils should be neglected. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. IS P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-OI oOO~,ol Pier excavations should be observed by our representative, to establish that they are bearing in competent materials, extend the required depth into weathered bedrock, and that the pier excavations are properly cleaned. The pier depths recommended above may require adjustment if differing conditions are encountered during d.rilli:ng. Pier excavations should be poured as soon as practical after drilling. While we expect th;~t moderate sized drilling equipment can obtain the required depths, due to .the hardness of tlfe rock present at the site, a drill bit equipped with carbide or other teeth may be required. The pier excavations may encounter perched water or ground water at the time of construction. Additional construction measures should be anticipated during the pier installation operations. Construction methods such as casing of the excavation;> where caving occurs and using the tremie placement method if accumulated water cannot ibe entirely removed from the excavation at the time of the concrete pour should be consi~dered..Alternatively, if the water can be pumped from the hole without disturbing the-sides of thc; pier ea:cavation, concrete may then be placed in the dry hole. Settlements of the pier-supported structure should be orr the order of less than 1-inch due to non- seismic loads. We recommend our representative be present on a fiall-time basis to confirm the depth of the pier excavations and the conditions of the excavations prior to pour. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Where concrete slab-on-grade floors are used, tl~e slabs should be constructed on compacted subgrades prepared as described in the section on "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." We note that concrete slabs should not be strucbirally connected to the pier and grade beams unless it is designed to be structurally supported on the :pier and grade beam foundations. We recommend that slabs-on-grade be underlain by at least 24-inches ofnon-expansive fill material (soil with a plasticity index of 15 percent or less) due to the potential for relatively small movements of the near surface materials. A reinforced ;slab is expected to perform better than an unreinforced one. Even with the recommended non-expansive fill section, some movement and maintenance of the slabs may be required due to the severely expansive conditions. Alternatively, the garage slabs may be supporteC structurally over the pier foundation. In areas where floor wetness is not desired, 4 inches of flee draining gravel such as 1/2-inch crushed rock with no more than 5 percent passing the A3TM No. 200 sieve, should be placed beneath the floor slab to serve as a capillary barrier betv~~een the subgrade soil and the slab. Pea gravel should not be used. To minimize vapor transrnis:~ion, a vapor barrier should be placed over the gravel. The vapor barrier should be covered with a 2-inch sand buffer to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly :moi:>tened just prior to placing the concrete. The sand and crushed rock may be considered as the 6-inches of the non-expansive fill recommended above. If it is desired to reduce the amount of exterior slab mair.Itenance, they may also be constructed with anon-expansive fill section similar to that discussefi above. D & M CONSIiLTING ENGINEERS. INC. lti P:geo\geotech10001045rpt.I-10-01 ODU~.02 • Retaining Walls Active Earth Pressure Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure from the adjoining natural soils and/or backfill. We recommend that walls with level backfill which are restrained from lateral movement with level backfill be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot, plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of 8H pounds per square foot, where H is the height of the backfill above the top of the wall footing in feet. Retaining walls which are not restrained from lateral movement, should be designed_to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot. Retaining walls with sloping backfill, up to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pounds per cubic foot for unrestrained walls, with 8H added as discussed above for restrained walls. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half of the surcharge load for restrained walls and one-third of the surcharge load for unrestrained walls. These parameters are based on the fully back-drained and non-seismic condition. Drainage and Backfilling Retaining walls should include a subsurface drainage system behind the walls to prevent any buildup of water pressure from surface water infiltration. The drainage system should consist of a 4-inch (Schedule 40 PVC) perforated pipe (perforations placed down) located below the adjacent, lower grade elevation. The pipe should be embedded in a 12-inch width of 1/2-inch crushed rock. The remaining backfill may consist of 1/2-inch crushed rock, extending to within 18- to 24-inches of the level of the outside finish grade. A filter fabric should be wrapped around the crushed rock to protect it from infiltration of native soil. Alternatively, the drainage material may consist of either Class 2 Permeable Material complying with Section 68 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, and the filter fabric may be omitted. The upper 2 - feet of.backfill should consist of native soil. The subdrain should slope to a free draining outlet. Cleanouts should be provided. Damp proofing of walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be undesirable. Above this native cap, a concrete V=ditch should be constructed along the back of wall for increased efficiency of the surface drainage. Continual maintenance and clearing of this V-ditch is essential to maintain the efficiency of the system. We recommend the surface drainage (V- ditch) and subsurface drainage (perforated pipe of the wall backfill) systems should be entirely independent of each other. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, using light compaction equipment. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced. The backfill behind the walls should be placed on level benches, rather than directly on the sloping grade. D S M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 17 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 000~~3 • Foundations Retaining walls structurally connected or part of the residence should be supported on a drilled pier foundation as described previously in this report. Retaining walls along the downslope side of the driveway and/or founded in native soils :should also be supported on drilled pier foundations. Once the layout of these walls is completed, we can provide supplemental design criteria as needed. In our opinion, it may be possible to support retaining ~~valls not connected to the house and founded in cuts into weathered bedrock on spread fi~oting foundations. Once the layout of these walls is completed, we can provide supplement;~l design criteria as needed and comment on the appropriateness of shallow foundation support. On a preliminary basis, the following design criteria may be considered. Retaining walls approved ley the geotechnical engineer may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated :~pre:ad footings, bearing in undisturbed weathered bedrock. Footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches, and extend at least 24 inches below exterior grade. Footings may be desi~;nevi for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, with aone-third increase allowed for total loads including wind or seismic forces. The weight of the: fol~tings can be neglected for design purposes. All footings located adjacent to utility lines or other footings should bear below a 1:1 plane extended upward from the bottom edge of the utilit}~ trench. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. Our representative should observe the footing e;ccavatic-ns prior to placing reinforcing steel to see that they are founded in suitable materials acid have been properly cleaned. Thirty year differential movement due to static load:> is not expected to exceed 1-inch across a 50 feet long section of the retaining wall. - Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between thE; footings and the supporting subgrade. A frictional resistance of 0.3 can be used. In addition t:o tl~e above, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat in the footing excavations. We recommend that an equivalent fluid pressure: of 300 pounds per cubic foot be used in design. Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be excavated according t~a accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.l-IO-01 ~~0~...t04 Approved on-site, inorganic soil, or imported material may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be moisture conditioned to its optimum moisture content and placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness (before compaction). Each layer should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. As stated previously, differential movement of utilities located across the existing old landslide area at the north end of the access roadway should be anticipated. Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and to promote drainage of surface water away from the building foundations, slabs, edges of pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. To minimize concentrated accumulation and surface erosion adjacent to the structures, roof downspouts should be connected via solid pipe to a storm drain discharge system. Water seepage or the spread of extensive root systems into the soil subgrades of foundations, slabs, or pavements could cause differential movements and consequent distress in these structural elements. This potential risk should be given due consideration in the design and construction of landscaping. As stated previously, the existing slopes above the proposed residence have a potential for surface erosion that can result in an accumulation of sediment at the rear of the residence. We recommend that erosion control material be placed across all areas where the slope surface was disturbed during construction. In addition, supplemental hydroseeding and vegetation growth on the slope is recommended. The slope should also be cut back to a 2:1 inclination. The surface drainage design should accommodate the existing drainage from the adjacent property to the east The drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during first two years following construction. We recommend that an as-built plan showing the location of the surface and subsurface drain lines and clean outs be developed. The drainage facilities should be periodically checked to verify that they are continuing to function properly, and likely will need to be periodically cleaned of silt and debris which may build up in the lines. Pavement Design A representative sample of the subgrade soil sample from the upper 2 feet was obtained from the northern end of the access roadway for laboratory R-Value testing. This sample was tested in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Destgnatton 301. Results of the test indicated that the near surface native materials have an R-value of 9. Based on this R-value DD~~QS D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 19 P:geo\geo[ech\0001045rp[.I-10-01 test result, which is typical for automobile traffic areas, we developed the following pavement section Traffic Asphalt Class 2 Index Concrel:e _ A re ate Base 4.0 2.5" _ 8.0" 4.5 2.5" 9.0" We note that design traffic indices were not available a1: the time of this report. An estimated Traffic Index of 4.0 is a typical value that may l:le used :for light automobile traffic. The upper 8 inches of pavement subgrade and ttie entire: baserock layer should be moisture conditioned and compacted as described in the section titled, "Site Preparation, Grading, and Compaction." In addition, both the compacted :~ubgrad~~ and baserock layer should be proof- rolled to confirm stability prior to placement of the overlying pavement component. If instability exists, stabilization measures or additional drying should be performed in accordance with the supplemental recommendations of the Soil En€;ineer. LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on certain plans, information, and data that have been provided to us. Any cha:nge:s in those plans, information, and data will render our recommendations invalid unless we are commissioned to review the changes and to make any necessary modifications and/or additions to ol.rr recommendations. ' Our recommendations have been made in accordance with the principles and practices generally employed by the local engineering geology and 1?eot~ech:nical engineering professions. This is in lieu of all warranties, express or implied. Our study did not include the assessment of environrnentail characteristics at the property, particularly those involving hazardous substances. Subsurface exploration of any site is necessarily conned to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between and around sucl:>, lo<ations. Should conditions different from those encountered in our exploration come to light dciring project development, additional exploration (beyond that already recommended), testing., and analysis may be necessary; changes in project design and construction may also be nc;ces;~ar}~. Any person concerned with this project who obsc;rves conditions or features of the site or surrounding areas that are different from those described: in this report should report them immediately to this office for evaluation as part c-f an additional scope of work. • • D ~ M CO\SULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2(I P:geo~geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 ~O®~O^ • REFERENCES CITED California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies (Earthquake Fault) Zones, Cupertino Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials, map scale '/4 inch = 1 km. Cotton, William, and Associates, 1980, Geologic and ground movement potential maps of the upper Calabazas Creek watershed, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to the City of Saratoga, California, 22 plates, scale 1:2400. Cotton, V~~.R., Cole, W.F., and Wallace, J.M., 1994, Geologic constraints on the Quaternary tectonic history of range-front deformation, northeastern margin of the central Santa Cruz Mountains, California: American Geophysical Union, 1994 Fall Meeting, published as a supplement to EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 75, n. 44, p. 682. Cotton, Shires and Associates, 2000, Preliminary geologic and geotechnical review (S4010) re: Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Larry Perlin (public works director for the City of Saratoga), 4 p. Cummings, J.C., 1968, The Santa Clara formation and possible post-Pliocene slip on the San Andreas fault in central California, in Dickinson, W.R., and Grantz, Arthur, Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of San Andreas Fault System: Stanford University Publications in the Geological Sciences, v. 11, pp. 191-207. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1966, Geology of the Palo Alto Quadrangle, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 8, scale 1:62,500. Freeman-Kern Associates, 1988, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Hamilton Stewart, 20 p. Harlan Tait Associates, 1997, Geotechnical investigation, 22551 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California: unpublished consultant's report to Mr. Adam Grosser, 17 p. Hay, E.A., Cotton, W.R., and Hall, N.T., 1980, Shear couple tectonics and the Sargent-Berrocal fault system in northern California, in Streitz, Robert, and Sherburne, Roger, Studies of the San Andreas Fault Zone in Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 140, p. 41-49. Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains: William Lettis and Associates, Inc., unpublished consultant's report to the U.S. Geological Survey, Award Number 1434-92-G-2220, 32 p., map scale 1:24,000. D & M CO\SULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 21 P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 o~O~V O Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cato, T'ianging, Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.S., and Schwartz, D.)P., :1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: Californi;~ Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Re;port 96-706), 33 p., map scale 1 inch = 107 miles. Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential se:isrrlic hazards in Santa Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Geolo~,ry Special Report 107, 27 p., map scale 1:62,500. Sorg, D.H., and McLaughlin, 1975, Geologic m~~p of the Sargent-Berrocal fault zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-643, scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, 1961, photorevised 1980, 7.5-r/Iinute Topographic Map of the Cupertino, California Quadrangle, scale 1:24,OOJ. Youd, T.L., and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic ground failures in northern California triggered by earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Piper 993, 177 p., map scale 1:250 • • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 2i. P:geo\geotech\0001045rpt.i-IO-01 rf1~O~np • AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS • Date 8/23160 2/ 12/64 8/11/71 8/26/76 10/13/77 4/ 12/85 As;encX Type USGS b & w unknown b & w Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w Pacific Aerial Surveys b & w unknown b & w WAC Corp. b & w Frame Scale GS-VACY-2-189, 190 1:30,000 Saratoga 14 and 15 1:11,500 AV-1006-04-16, 17 1:12,000 AV-1277-04-19, 20 ~ 1:12,000 77811-1-1, 2 1:6,000 WAC-85CA-13-127, 128 1:31,680 4' 1 • D & M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 23 P:geo\geo[ech\0001045rpt.1-10-01 oOO~~L] p ~ /i:-` \~~.~v 1, 8 ` '~ Q _ ) -l~" u.b~~ '/i: of// `,.:~ ,~C ~~~ \_/~/ , 'eo _, c+: ,, • ~ ~~ ~~ t ~., o S'~liT`TF~,V E ~ c c c , r ' __-\ ~~ `~ - ~~~- / - o _1~ \ C -~. -ter. ~~\ \ I\\ ~~~ 6e ami~ :ono ~ / '~J ~ ~ I~ •~ - .. - ~ o/ ~ //~~~~ _ I ~ ----~ ~ - - ~ ' \~ ~ .'` Cooley ~~ _ ~~ -- --I - J.i ~\ .. - ~ ~ .- ~ _ - _ ~ ~..I~ 1 /. ,;~~~•~ (~ ,/~_- y ,, ,) ~ _, ; - - _ , ~ ~, SITE ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -L'"• r ;' ~~~==_ \ ~,J ! ,//;G `I~ `\ ' \ Wate~_ ~ ~ `. ~ a.~E~„ - ~•~ • ~ ~~. 1 0 - j ~ l~ ` '_._ 1 ~~ ~--~ 760 -~"\'C.~ ~ ~ r ~\;\~ \ .I ~- ~ o-, ._^ '.% ~0 1 `~ • ~= , \ ~ ~ 1 ~. /J 1 i. / , ~~ ~~~~ ,'r~ ,G~` _ - ~l rF~L''120 \o~~~,~~`-77 ~ ~l ~f_~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~~ '~( 1 ^ ~, RE7 i~ -.. .L:,~i f- ~`' ~ ~ ~° ~__ f %' Li- l_ ~_ Abp. ~ i % ;.•• -%~~\ \(, ' ~ `'~ ~ o - \ ~ `, ` \ ` ~.._~l// /~~ ~\ , ` ', / `; " 7 / Q may;, l ~_~ \~ • • o = BASE MAP: CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA U.S.G.S. 77/z' TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP -N- D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 SCALE: 1 " = 2000' _V'ICINITY MAP :22551 MT. EDEN ROAD 5AIL~TOGA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 PRO1 ECT 1045 -~- • • _ ~ ~-. ~ -; . - ' ~ ~~?1...~ . ash : _ ~. ;, ;~;a~ ; ~ ~. ~~ a; ~-' ~ ~--~-!-. I ~ ~ ; ~ r ; fmg, fmg ~~- 'Qts= Qo61 'QTs.~ ~ `: '`~.---_ -? _ _ ~ _ ~j `_ -= -~. -'' { c~[ fl :~ fs ., ~~~• :,'~•~ ~ ~ ~. \t - Qof ~. __ - t ~ ~ f 9 ~ _ ~_ , : ~ r~ = bus - QTs. ~ •.~qti ~ --- ---- -- - - -~-~----~:,;,_~ , < <-' ~~ fmg , ~~ .~ ~ T a _ _ _ `` % j : ~ is \ k i ((/~/~,/ 21 .1 _ ~ . \ ` J_ {~;7 ~ _.~ ; , ~~~ - fs~ •_~ ~ ~~_, I ~ SITE /Y~~ ~- _ ~ -,= -~ - , L~ ~ r r . _ - ti 1 - ~. Wit- ~ Y~ ..J I i.~ P s ~ g e ~ ~~\. fmg>~ ~ ~. ~ ;c ~~• I J. ~, ,~-~ ~~,.~, `~~srTm ~Q ~ -` ~~~ ~~ ~. J Qoal ` ~ . y,; ~~,;~~ %Qof Q~ ;~- .' ~ ; _... - __-_ ~/ , , •~q •_ .~ „tea --; ~il ~.1 • r jam. !~~~ J~~ -7,- , 1 '~\ ~, . ~.`, ~ .:~ > .' ~ ;i-~ EXPLANATION Geologic units in vicinity of site Qoal -Quaternary older stream alluvium deposits `Qof -Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits QTs -Quaternary/Tertiary non-marine sedimentary rocks (Santa Clara Formation) fs, fg, fmg, fsh =Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Complex sandstone, greenstone, melange, and shale BASE MAP: ROGERS AND WILLIAMS, 1974, PLATE 1 -N- SCALE: 1 inch = 1 mile D&M WNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 SAN Jpcc a~L E~RINT CC FIGURE JIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP 2 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PR01 ECT 1045. EXPLANATION Als -Active landslide Dls -Dormant landslide Ols -Old landslide QTsc -Quaternary/Tertiary Santa Clara Formation BASE MAP: COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, 1980, SHE;ET:i 2, 3 -N- SCALE: 1 " = 200' D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. ~~ A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 SAN JOSE BLU EPA~NT CO FIGURE GI:OI,0IJIC VICINITY MAP 3 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD SAIEtA'TOGA, CALIFORNIA PR0IECT 1045 ®~ W ~ V ~ > ~ "` > II ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ F- ~ oc a M i H w1 1 a E~+ 3 c-~ z 1 3 z 3 z ;, M ~- t~ 7 - U W ~ ~ ~ ~ v N h 0 z U ~ '~ - W I N 1 a 1 ~- I F 3 .I . ~ ~ 1 ~ I / ~ ~~ • E"~ •~ V W W LL vi it x U z ui U d ~Q~ ~~o ~a~, ti N ,', W " Q U H W ~Q~r~ 5~ V -~ O l/y ~ N Q C/] U ~ ZI N z a Q ~~ ~ Ws Q Zo J Q ~ ac Z ~ _ U ~ N 0 ^^.® \Yl/~ R • 1 -~ . 1 _- U ' ~~ ~ I ~ t -1 - I ~ -~- ~ / , ~ a ~ ~ E--. 1 1~ ~ I ~' ~ ~ ~. / ' F' ~ .l. ~ l 1 I ! _ I ~/ I ~ ~ ~ ~ o H .l .~~ ~ a 1 .--~.~~~. 1 . / . a ~-~ ~-- i i - ~_ . ~ ~~ •/ ~~ .~ w V _ j /1 i ~ W ~ ~~ 1 ^ v I ~ d W ~3. h ~~ U z w .a Q U Q A~ ¢z O ~" ~ O w '~ Q¢ W U H ~ N Q 1 r t F 1 U 1 0 z C 9 O ~• d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ A u O N L ~ C ~c;,o y (S. Z 0 v e~ y v~ F, v e61o c 3~ H o F' W W y y' ~ U z ` Lt. z o_~~, v o O o y> c °'NV ,~ a o o ~ ~ II z ` ° w ~ ~ Z a ~ v~ c N- ^~ 3 - W ~ ~ A CC c = w Gil z h~~s a a - n ~ ~ . :s D1 u o is ^_ c ^ ."r.. ~ aNi .-. _ _ ~ -N ' ° E -C c... ~> ~ ~ tOV C ~ >. V 7 U _ d 61 00 ~ ~ •O '~ > N V O y _T >~ ~ c7 ~ > O U d v '~ u ` '~-' _~ O L ~~... N L ` 00 0 0 ~ ~ o y 3 .r ,-; ~ RI ~ C o = U ~ "J y C y ~ .^. 3 _- 3 a~ O 3~ c~ ~ F i~ ~= 3 m a O ,~,, o a 30 ~ c ai 3 y ~ u a d E ~ v a c ~~ ° c i= 0 Y ~ ° E Q O~ T °_r' '~ y C° tO '7 v j U ti 3= c ,fl ~;~a o v v ~ a ° ~a 3~ ca T c h ~ v c~ ~ "' o ~„ U ~ 3~ c -~. d O `~ 7 L U N d <.~ Y d U ~ d h ~ ~ V_ L.. T O •V E C C O U 7 O~ h O T G T T" ~~ T v T >~ T .C ~O C R ~ U N cC c0 :4 c0 U «t U- >> C U G U Cp U T r. U ~>` y ~ ~` ~ T .~'. .T. 'iA cn A ~ o v] ~ ~ eU t~ T h ~ N .. r ~ .. W Ci. < T W ~; U` ~; D - W -~ LL o .~ ~ (~ 1 U -~ ` ~~ ~ , t w .F I a ' 1 ~ ~ \ ~ ~ F ~ ~ . ~ ~.. ~ u., ~ , N 1 1 00 a y ~ F ., U ~• - - W V ~ ~ W 1!1 U ~ ~~ ~ ~o ~ ~ d 1 A '-' O /~r' ~ ~ W ~z w y W ~ ~ O ~ N y N s ~s Z N ~> a W Z ~' ~ z `~ ° ti Zo J Q N o z o o c ~ Cyy N ~I ~ t ~O~ SA?I JO~'c E iUEPR WT CO - c .wrc:- -. ;n inn ®O©~~ • • • N - S B B' I looo - _` . >> -_ `. I'` - Q~ ~~-. 980 o - - - - - - - - - TP-6 ~ . ' J- '~ ~ ~ ~' / ~ f~~ _ W 960 _~ ~ '~ ~ / Ols /~ - f / QTsc 940 - - - - - 0 240 See Figure 4 for location of section and for ex SCALE: I INCH = 20 FEET (H = V) •~ D&M CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. A URS CORPORATION COMPANY JANUARY 2001 SA.ti JOSE BLUEPRINT CO. igINTED C~ JR 3Cw7 oooi~~ FIGURE 7 PROJECT 1045 • f1PPEND][X ,~ Logs of ]Exploratory Borings • d0®1.~$ • • LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-1 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26/00 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: -- FINAL: -- HOLE ELEVATION: -- O o .... X V ... e Description ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ mac, _E C o N -` G .y `= ~ ^ °„ -y a a F ~ t d a n m a y '~ ~ v U ` D .~ c ~ N d ` y L ° m 'o ani m o o ~ d Q a m ~ Z m o c o ~' FAT CLAY; bluish gray to olive green, moist CH to very moist; trace fine-medium sand; many 1 wood- fragments with odor of decaying organics; FILL 2 LEAN CLAY; dark brown, moist, stiff; CL moderately plastic; some fine to coarse sand, 3 pebbles, and fine gravel clasts; completely weathered Santa Clara Formation (OTsc) 4 FAT CLAY; dark olive brown, moist to very CH 5 moist, stiff; some fine sand, trace gravel; completely weathered Santa Ctara Formation 6 OTsc 7 hard, somewhat less plastic 8 9 10 SILTY CLAY; light olive brown with some gray (QTsc) mottling, moist, hard, some fine sand; trace 11 pebbles and fine gravel; moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 less clayey; more fine sand 20 21 22 23 bluish-gray; more clayey 24 25 Project No. 1045 D 8r M Consulting Engineers Page 1 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY 000~.~9 LOG OF EXPLORATOF:Y SHAI=T No. DM-1 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26100 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE _ GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: --- FINAL: -- HOLE ELEVATION: - ~ ^ N O N e C d _ U a v Description C C~ a; C y 7L m ~ 'E d o C .N ~ ~+ ~ j N ~ N a ~ y c: a '~ ~ U ~ c ~ ` y r ~ r a u d '~ -~ u a m c a rn _ ry C.O .- (see previous description) CLIML 26 27 28 FAT CLAY; dark bluish gray, moist; polished surfaces; landslide shear lane 29 p SILTY CLAY; light gray, slightly moist, some (QTsc) fine sand; trace gravel; weakly consolidated; 30 moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 31 32 33 34 35 SILTY SAND; light gray, slightly moist; weakly (QTsc) 36 consolidated; moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Bottom of shaft 44' 44 no ground water encountered 45 46 47 48 49 50 _ Project No. 1045 D & IW Consulting Engineers Page 2 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY oO~~~o 1~ `~ u C LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-2 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6/26!00 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: -- escription m T ~- 'o J t v d n m O m n H o -- ~. C a Y o o o it ~' .N m a _ E ~ ~ c e ~ N o U iu ~ x C ~, - `-' ~ ~ n T m c O 2~ ~. o '~ N °' m j y a ~~ ~~ r a a rn c o ~' SILTY CLAY; dark-medium brown, moist- wet, frim; some fine-medium sand; trace gravel; CL1ML 1 (Colluvium) 2 3 LEAN CLAY; orangish brown wih gray mottling, slightly moist, stiff;some fine sand; CL 4 trace pebbles; completely weathered Santa Clara Formation (OTsc) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 increase in moisture 15 16 SILTY CLAY; brown, moist, firm-stiff; some fine and; cleaves along polished, striated (pTsc) 17 surfaces within 2-3 inch thick zone at 16' (not interprted to be landslide plane); severely _ 18 weathered Santa Clara Formation (OTsc) 19 20 21 22 23 LANDSLIDE SHEAR ZONE; polished, slickened and brecciated fat clay; main shear 24 l 2 ' p ane at 4.5 25 Project No. 1045 D & M Consulting Engineers Page 1 of 2 A URS CORPORATION COMPANY ~' l~~ _2~ LOG OF EXPLOFtATOFZY SHAFT No. DM-2 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 6126100 LOGGED BY: GH DRILL RIG: Cal-Weld CH-175 HOLE DIA.: 2' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: - FINAL: -- HOLE ELEVATION: -- O a `- x 1. ~ o ~ escription ~ O ~~ ni ... C d N ~ rn c E C .0.. ~ o d ~ = a ~ ~ ` .-~ ~ > N ~, N ~ ~ L ~ a CL u~ d d _N u' J p U ~ .U v m ~ ~, c ~ d t C a ~ ~ - a E 3' v 4 ~~ ~ ~ " ~ T 2 . °u E ai O ID N ~~ O Q ~ - ~ C O ... SILTY CLAY; medium to dark gray, moist; (QTsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 26 (QTsc) 27 2a CLAYEY SAND: light gray, moist, medium (QTsc) 29 medium dense; fine-medium grained sand; some silt, pebbles and gravel; severely (QTsc) 30 weathered Santa Clara Formation QTsc) CLAYSTONE; medium gray, widely fractured; 31 moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 32 33 34 35 CLAYEY SAND; gray, moist, loose; (t]Tsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 36 (QTsc) 37 CLAYSTONE; medium gray, widely fractured; {QTsc) moderately weathered Santa Clara Formation 38 (QTsc) Bottom of shaft at 39' 39 no ground water encountered 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 _ Project No. 1045 D & M Con~~ulting F=ngineers Page 2 of 2 A URS CORPORC)TION COMPANY J J OOO~ti2 • • LOG OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT No. DM-3 PROJECT: 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD DATE: 9/15/00 LOGGED BY: BDF DRILL RIG: HAND DUG SHAFT HOLE DIA.: 2' X 3' SAMPLER: NONE GROUND WATER DEPTH: INITIAL: -- FINAL: - HOLE ELEVATION: - .-. may O O o ~ x -- U _. o Description ~ .. °ci rn '" c ~ Q = C `~ y C` d a a T ~ _m a c a m ~ ~ U ~ u . c N S y r `c rn a ~ .o = °ai ~ ; o Y 0 {9 0_ ~ Q _ N ~ N r - 0 Z. j ~ p C c o ~' FAT CLAY; yellow brown, dry, friable; FILL CH 1 FAT CLAY; yellow to olive brown, damp, stiff; CH 2 many medium -coarse sand-sized claystone clasts; dessication fissures to 3'; many limonite 3 blotches at 2.5-3.5'; severely to mostly complete) weathered cla stone QTsc) 4 MUDSTONE; yellow brown to olive gray on (QTsc) fresh surfaces, damp, soft rock; closely to 5 intensely fractured in zones; moderately weathered; fine grained sand laminae at 5' ; 6 Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 7 coarse gravel/small cobble- sized mudstone clasts 8 about 30% fine sand; some 9 sub-vertical fractures open up to Smm 10 CLAYSTONE; dark olive gray, damp, soft; (QTsc) 11 massive; closely fractured in sub-vertcal zones; moderately weathered; many coarse gravel-sized 12 claystone clasts; Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 13 14 15 - more closely fractured along sub-vertical fractures dipping 16 about 73 degrees to w-sw; no slickensides 17 18 19 20 CLAYSTONE; dark blue gray, moist to wet (QTsc) along fractures, moderately soft; massive: 21 widely fractured; coherent bedrock; some limonite staining at 20' contact; Vace weak, 22 conjugate, discontinuous shears at 22-23': Santa Clara Formation (QTsc) 23 24 Bottom of hole at 25' 25 no ground water encountered • - 26 27 Project No. 1045 D & M Consulting Engineers Page 1-Jan A URS CORPORATION COMPANY ~~~~ ~~ • APPS;~iDIX B Laborator3~ Test P:eports • 0001~~ • • • "D~~i Consulting Lnginc~rs:.lrk. SlJ1L~ REPVitT (tS3 i)37Z-3 r 1~ Project: ?251 Mt . Eden Road Date: 03/31/u~ i Project ~: 1U:35 Lab #: 3997/L~322 MOISTURE-DENSITY ASTM D2216, ASTM D2937 F3urin~ linlc ~~,. Densit}• (pct) Moisture ("~°) Liquid Lintit Plasticity tnac. P~sinp ~2UU, (%) Soil Description TP1-1 a.: 2.U ' 114.0 18.I Lean CLAY, light bro~~~n TP2-I r, 4.0' 103.3 22.9 ' Fa[ CLAY «~ith Sand & Organics. dark brown TP4-1 r~ 4.0' 124.8 2~.2 :Lean CLAY with Sand, light bro~~~n TPi-1 @ 3.S 120.9 24.1 32 11 _. : Lean CLAY, medium bro«•n ooo~~s UNCONFINED COMPRES~SI~'E STRENGTH REPORT t~~tct: ASTM D~216G - (831)37_-371ti Project: 22>51 Mt. Eden Road Date: u3/~1/1tu Project ~: 1 u~; j Sam le #: TP=3-I De the 4.0' Lab r: ,y97/L~,22 Locatiott/Source: Refer to borin to Sample Date: Refer to borin~~ log, Material: Fat CLAY, ~ra~~/brown ~i 2500 2000 c v 1500 w w 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AX1,5L STRialN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial DrS~ Density, cf 124.8 Initial Water Content, % 25.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 FAILURE DATA Strain, % 16.0 Peak Shear, sf 2027 Peak Unconfined, sf 4053 Gar<~ A. Bomberger, Laboratory Manager CET #085501 { J 000~.~6 • • UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH~REPORT Daac~ ASTM D216G (r? i > 3?_-?- i ~~ h Project: 22» 1 Mt. Eden Road Date: n;f ~ l i(-u :-: Itt~~ I~ Sample #: TPA-1 Depth: 3.S Lab # 3y97/L~322 Location/Source: Refer to borin to Sam le Date: Refer to borinz; loL Material: Lean CLAY, medium brown I I 1400 1200 1000 Y ~ 800 w tY F- ln Q 600 w 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15.16 17 18 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dry Densi cf 120.9 Initial Water Content, % 24.1 Height-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 Comments: I Reoon B~ : Gan A. CET #08601 AILURE DATA Strain, % 16.1 Peak Shear, sf 1275 Peati Unconfined, sf 255U «~• oro~roo ry 0001.-`' UNC ~u~tc~ ONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH REPORT ASTnl D2:16G cszt~3;~-3~-~ Project: 22~~ 1 Mt. Eden Road Date: ll :; : Vuu ! _ Protect s: lU-1> I Sam le #: TP6-I De the 4.S -__ Lab r: ~`~97;2.~ ~?'_ Locatioi~/Source: Refer to boring log Sam ~Ic Datc Rcfer to borin~~ lo~~ I _ 1`laterial: _ Lean CLAY ~~~ith Sand. gra~~/lieht bro~~~n ~ 1200 1000 800 c Y Cn w ~ 600 Q w ~ 400 200 II 0 0 1 2 :3 4 5 6 7 AXI~~.L STRAIN (%) SPECINYEN DATA Initial Dn• Densin~, cf 121.4 Initial Water Content. % 27.7 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 FAII.ORE DATA Strain, % 3.7 Peak Shear, sf 108 Peak Unconfined. sf 2170 ~ ~ ,. ___ , . ,~ . Report B~: Gan A. Bomberger, Laboraton• Mana er CET #08601 «< ozio~•oo n~nn~ • UNCONFINEL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH I,~PORT ASTM D2166 (x3l) 372-3716 Project: 22>j 1 Mt. Eden Road Date: U3/31JUU Project #: 1l)a~ Sample =`: TP7-#1 Depth: ~.~' Lab #: 3997!Li,?, Locatioit,'Source: Refer to boring log Sample Date: Refer to bor-n~_ lo:.t Material: Lean CLAY with Sand, grav/IiQht bro~~~n 1200 1000 800 w ~ 600 Q w ~ 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dn~ Density. cf 121.4 Initial Water Content, % Z7.7 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 1.90 n B~ : Gan A. CET #U8~G01 FAILIIRE DATA Strain, % 3.7 Peak Shear, sf 108 Peak Unco~ned, sf 2170 rev. 0?'0~ On nnn~ ~q UNCONFINED COMPRESSI`'E STRENGTH REPORT uatct; ASTM D21G6 I in=-t)3,~-~~t~ Project: Z2~51 ~1t. Edu- Road Date: Uii ~ Uttu Project ~: IU-1> Sam lc'-': _ TPti-2 De the 2 u' Lab's: +~)')7,~L.3"' j Locatioit/Source: ___ Refer to borin~~ loe Sam le Date: Refer to borin~~ lo~• ~ i hlatcrial: --- Lean CLA1" «ith Sand. medium bro~~ n i 1200 1000 $~~ w- (n W ~ 600 rn Q w ~ 400 200 0 t~ - ' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 !3 '0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AXIAL S i RAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial DrS~ Densi cf 119.8 Initial Water Content. % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 2.U7 FAILORE DATA Strain, % 15.2 Peak Shear, sf I UGU Peak Unco~ned, sf 212U C:om-nents: Report B}': Gan' A. Bomberger, Laboraton~ Manager CET #USS(Ul _ rcc OZ 0•x•00 ~O~~L • • • UNCONFINED ,_,OMPRESSIVE STRENGTH hLPORT :~tcr: ASTIVI D2166 (831)372-371 Project 22» 1 Mt. Eden Road Date: Ui/ ~ liuti Pro~ect #: I(1~~ Sam Ic =: TP9-?~2 De the 2.t1' Lab r: ~'.)9~;L~ _~ Location,~Source: Refer to boring log Sarn le Date Refer to borin~~ lo" Material: Lean CLAY Frith Sand. medium bro~~n 1200 1000 800 c ~_ rn w ~ 600 rn Q w ~ 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AXIAL STRAIN (%) SPECIMEN DATA Initial Dn~ Density, cf I I y.8 Initial Water Content, % 2~.2 Hei ht-to-Diameter ratio 2.07 FAILURE DATA Strain. % I i.2 Peak Shear, sf 1060 Peak Unconfined, sf 2120 Report Br: Gar<~ A. Bomber>;er. Laboraton~ Nlana;;er CET ~tOb~GUI ~ /- Ooo~3i - R-VALUE ]EtF:PORT D&M Cottsulting Engineers, lnc. ASTM Da844., CZ'M301 Project: 22» t Mt. Eden Road (Huerta) Client: Location: Sample ::: Bulk Sample C`laterial Description: silt~~ CLAP: dark bro~~'n (408) 297- Datc: ~-;o-ou Project ~: 104i Lab ~: L S22 Santplc Daly ~-2,-t1u Santplcd B~ : GH -- -- ~ I 100 -- 100 ~ i i 90 ~ -- -- ~ ----- -- ~-- 90 , j--~-R-VALUE i ) i ~ 80 ~ - - --- ----- - ---- ---- 80 I-f-EXP. PRESS. j ~ 70 - --..----- - . - - --- ~ - ----- - --- - -- 70 a W f 60 ~ - - - - 60 ~ W ----- -- - i ~ ~ I ~ ~ Q 50 i ...--- ---- - i - ,. ~- - - - ---- -- - 50 ~ > - - --;- a Z ~ 40 - -- - - - ~ ~ 40 ~ i ~ ' - ~ I ~ z ~ Q 30 - 30 a ~ - w 20 ~ -- ~ - - ~ ~ 20 i i ~ I i ~ I 10 ~~- --~ - - 10 ~ I 0 I I ~- 0 i i 0 100 200 300 X100 500 600 700 800 ` EXUDATION P'RESSU'RE (psi) j , Specimen No. A I3 C Exudation Pressure, psi 278 437 732 Expansion Pressure, psi 0 37 66 R-Value 8 9 13 Moisture Content at Test, % _25.2 23.3 21.9 Dry Density at Test, pct !~7.8 101.3 102.6 j R-Value @ 300 psi Exudation Pressure = 9 Expansion Pressure @ 300 psi Exudation, psC= 6 ~ Minimum R-Value Requirement: Comments: Report By: Michael P. Gossett_ LaboratoR' Manager =~ lU91D fN. 7/Y1{ • • i~ LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 5 w 4 O Z } ~ 30 U H a 20 10 7 4 10 30 50 70 90 11 0 LIQUID LIMIT " 74 ~ ~ I ~ ~ I 72 I I I ~ I ~ 70 : z i 68 z O 66 ~ ~ I • 64 ~ 62 • 60 ~ 5 8 ~ 565 I 10 20 I 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL " PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • gray CLAY 63 23 40 Project No. 074-040 Client: D&M Consulting Remarks: Project: 10 45 Mt.Eden Road • i i• Source: D i M-2 Elev./Depth: 24.5 I LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Dashed line indicates the approximate I , ~' upper limit boundary for natural soils I ' i ~ ~ ` O~ I I GNo i ~' I I I I I I i I ~/ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ; ~ i ~ ~ i ~ I I I ~ i ~ Off- ~ I ~ I I __ ~ `"` ~ ! I ML or OL I ~ MH or OH I 0 0 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT - _ _--_ o a o 0 0 - - - ,_ a a~~ ,oo ~~-._. - ---_~- so -- - ------ --- --- -- - --_ ------ --- --- - ------ - - - - - - -- -- --- - .. ------ ~~ ~- - - --- -- ------ - ~_: . _~ so - -- - - --- - _ --.-._.- .... - ---- - ------ --- - - - - ~ -~.-- --_ _ '~ .. _~ ~o ------- --- ---- ---------- -- ---------- ----- --- - ---- ---------------- - _- ------ - - -- •----- ` - w so ---- --- -- - -- --- - - ---------- ----- --- - -- - - ------- - - z 50 -- - - --- ---- - ------- -- ----------- -- -- - -- ---- - - - ------- ------=-- ------- - - -- - ----- - - ._ ... Z ! 1_I U 0' l1! 40 ---- --------- - _ .-- ------ -_ __ ...---- ----- -- -- ----- - --- - - -- ~1 30 ----- ----- - ----- --- - ------------ - ---- - -- ---- - -- ---------- -------=--------- 20 - ---- - - - --- - --=-- - -=-= ----- - - --- -_-- - -- -- ---- ----- --------- - -- 10 - - -- -- - - - -- - ------ -----=-- - -- - -------- - __ ---- ------ ----------------- - 0 ~ ~ i 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 GF;AIN SI~:E - mm + 3" I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % SILT I °'° CLAY I % FINES USCS I AASHTO PL I LL • ~ ~ 7.7 ~ 13.6 ~ 75.7 92.3 CH 23 ~ 63 SIEVE PE RCENT FIN ER inches size ~ GRAIN SIZE D60 D30 D10 0.0016 COEFFICIENTS Cc Cu PERCENT FINER SIZE ~~ #4 ~ 1.00.0 X10 9~.± r30 9~.3 #40 9~. i rc~0 9=1.9 100 94..'. X200 i 9~._~ 0.03 I mm. 59- 0.02~0 mm. SS.=' 0.0160 mm. S7."' 0.0094 mm. 54.f~ 0.0068 mm. S?.1 0.0049 mm. 7S.; 0.003 mm. 7i.? 0.0026 mm. 71.G 0.0013 mm. 62.5 0.0011 mm. I >j.d I SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ :~ gray CLAY ~~~/trace sand KtN I -:: Source: DM-2 Elev./Depth: 24.5 Project: 10-1~ ~h-Eden Road COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Feature: I Pro~ect No.: 07=1.040 • • Drained, Torsional Shear, Strength Envelope, (Residual) Cooper Testing Lab, Inc. 6000 I 1 Job No.: 074-040 I I soeo ____ Client: D 8 M Consulting -- - - - ---~ Project: 1045 Mt. Eden Rd. Sample No.: DM-2 @ 24.5' i Soil Type: gray CLAY (CH) aooo - LL = 63. P1= 40 - ------------------- ----- Clay Fraction = 79% -° Friction Angle: Curved Envelope 3000 -- 0-2000 = 10 degrees _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ ~ 2000-4000 = 8.5 degrees 4000-8000 = 6.5 degrees ~ Best Fit.= 7.5 degrees 2000 _ _ Values are within -+ 0.5 degrees _~ _- ts~; looo ------ -- ------ - - --- ---- - i G 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 800~~ 9000 Normal Load, (psf) Deformation Curves 1400 1200 1000 c B00 N N ~~ 600 t N 400 i ii _ -_ I I ~,-- - • • i ' i i To convert degrees to inches of deformation multiply by .0157. I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Degrees 200 0 073-030 000 ~.~ a ~, U 0 .~ L"i ~-1 O ~ ~~ 0 0 w c ~ u~ +~ r ~~ m o U S-a St ~ +~ O U1 U ~ ~ 1~ ~ •~ u ~ +~ r U ~ e, c x ~ ~ o i;..i w --- O b G Z } O Q N ^ ~ c v U~Q ~' ~ J ~Q~ ~ ^ ~w ooc~ o c~ °v U a r-. ~~~V z o a ~o w v v, f ~ ° U n~ v, N poc)l oao aOC)1 ' 000 T-- CT ice. f 'CT h oac~ •~s -- . l.f~ ~ v, It U v, N N ~j U ,~,.., i i i ~ 0 /~` LL `~ u U ~ 0 J c ~ +~ U: Q, ~ . ~ r-I ~: 0 :~ o U r3 C ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ .A w 'ti O s ~ ~' ' CL ..C •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N X 3 ~ +~ ~N ~ ~ a i ~ `` o ~ nJ H $ V N d' N • O O ~, N ~ _~ O CD J ~-- _~ Q N ~ ~~ ~. - -~-- Q cN N N N ~ r o0 ~ O (S~~t~J~O) ~~1~N`d NOIl01~(~ ~bf101~~~~i 1NdO~S ~~ nn~~ : ~~ i MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Schubert, Senior Planner CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer I SUBJECT: Geotechnical clearance conditions for Huerta, 22551 Mt. Eden Road DATE: Apri123, 2001 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. The conditions of approval, based on attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 16, 2001, are: 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Consultant also shall clarify the foundation type and ensure that an appropriate capillary break has been provided for slabs (e.g., minimum 4 to 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. ,The inspection shall include, but not necessazily be~limited to: site prepazation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and _ retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. -1- r .f .~ The Project Engineering Geologist shall sp~ecificallly observe and log pier holes excavated for the shear pin reinforcement wall, to verify that adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers are achieved prior to placement of steel and concrete. Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections. shall be prepared as part of 'the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as- built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, acid stibrrutted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to finalization of Grading ]Permit. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outsta~ndin~; fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone C:learance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising c,ut o~f soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. • -2- OD~~a~B ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant I\TO./Location: UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue Applicant/Owner: SPRINT PCS Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner Date: October 24, 2001 APN: 1~T/A Department Head: ~ X200 0 20 400 00 800 X00 12 0 F .~ FAR WELL CT. .~~\ 1.\ I i ~ \ N I ~{ \ 3 i \\ ~w /,. ~ ~ ,I ~I '~~ J ~s f~ I ~\ `~~, ~ \ i --~ c'~a r ~' ~ ~ ~ °s _ ,.T ~ ~ LN. ~^ - THREE OAK: 1 ' } E DR• SITE ~ PARK ~~ -- ! \ Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue 00000 ~, EXECUTIVE ;~UPvIMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4/16/01 5/27/01 8/08/01 8/08/01 8/03/01 The applicant has requested Use Permit appro~~al for a wireless transmission facility that includes t~vo antennas mounted on a pole. They propo~;ed facility will be located on an existing California Department of Transportation (C~ilTrans) right-of -~vay off Saratoga- Los Gatos Road in betv~~een Farwell Avenue a::~d Z~hree Oaks Way: The two proposed antennas will be located inside a radio frequency transparent radome measuring 12 inches in diameter. The radome will be mounted ~itol~ a proposed 30-foot steel pole also measuring 12 inches in diameter and 15 inches .at t:he base. The proposed pole and radome will be 35 feet tall. An associated equipment cabinet is proposed to be located approximately 100 feet from the pole. As part of the project, the applicant is f>:roposirlg to construct a new bus stop with two benches. The equipment cabinet will be hidden below grade and behind a retaniing wall designating the bus stop area. The applicant v~rill ,rlso provide landscaping to the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application with conditions ley adopting the attached Resolution UP-O1-007. ATTACHMENTS Updated Resolution UP-01-007 2. Arborist Report 3. Maps of proposed area coverage 4. Photos of alternative site locations 5. Letter to adjacent neighbor from applicant 6. Photo simulations of site (2) 7. Plans (Exhibit "A") • • • OODUU~: File No. UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential-Very Low. Density MEASURE G: l~TOt Applicable PARCEL SIZE: N/A AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: < 3% GRADING REQUIRED: 81.25 cubic yards of cut and 98 cubic yards of fill MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant v~Till pro~~ide a materials sample and color board at the Planning Commission meeting. PROJECT DISCUSSION 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 City of Saratoga, including the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Since the ordinance v~~as passed, several telecommunications antenna facilities in Saratoga have been approved.- BACKGROUND On August 22, 2001 the applicant came before the Planning Commission with a request for a Conditional Use Permit to install four antennas at the proposed facility. Three of the antennas would be part of a proposed light pole and built into the top six-foot portion of the pole. The fourth antenna would be a small GPS antenna mounted to the exterior of the pole. The nevv light pole would be 23 feet in height including the antennas mounted in the top six feet of the pole. An associated equipment cabinet is proposed to be located behind the pole. As part of the project, the applicant proposed to construct a new bus stop with nvo benches. Alight fixture was -proposed to be mounted on the pole for the antennas, thus b «ng the pole a dual purpose. The equipment cabinet will be hidden belo~~~ grade and behind a retaining wall designating the bus stop area. The area around the bus stop and underground cabinet would have significant landscaping. During the August meeting the Planning Commission expressed concerns about having a light fixture at the bus stop. The Commission also asked the applicant to look for more creative solutions to screen the pole and to research possible site alternatives for the pole. C:UNy DocumentsUohn LWntennas~Saratoga-Los Gatos Spent, #2 use perrnit.doc ~~~~~~ File No. UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Ro<<d and ;Farwell Avenue The applicant is proposing to maintain the previously proposed underground cabinet location, bus stop, and landscape plan. The only change will be the removal of the proposed pole and light fixture. The applicant: is ~>roftosing to place a 35-foot tall antenna pole approximately 100 feet south of the last location, closer to Three Oaks Way. The pole will be placed in front of an existing cluster of trees acid then surrounded with a cluster of new txees. The nevv proposed antenna location will rf:quv-e trenching for conduit between the proposed pole and the underground cabinet fac::ili~~. Tlie applicant has pro~~ided an arborist report with recommendations for tree protection that will be added as a condition of approval. As part of the applicant's submittal package several alternative locations have been reviewed for the proposed antenna pole. The :a.pplicaiit will discuss these in detail during the Planning Commission meeting. Use Permit The applicant has requested Use Permit approval to install antennas at the proposed facility. The two proposed antennas will be located inside a radio frequency transparent radome measuring 12 inches in diameter. They radome will be mounted atop a proposed 30-foot steel pole also measuring 12 inches iri di~imeter and 15 inches at the base. The proposed pole and radome will be 35 feet tall. An associated equipment cabinet is proposed to be located near the pole. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to constru~.:t a ne~,v bus stop ~~~ith two benches. The equipment cabinet will be hidden below grade and berund a retaining wall designating the bus stop area. The proposed 200 square foot eq~aipinen.t shelter measures approximately 17 feet long by 12 feet wide. A visual simulation of the antennas and equipment cabinet is represented in the photo simulations provided by the applicant. The applicant has also submitted a map showing all existing and proposed Sprint telecommunication facilities in the site ~~icinity. Public Health and Safety As a result of the Federal Telecommunications p,ct of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards scat bar the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct s~~ch facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be ha~mfial to the environment or health of residents. According to a report by William F. Hammett of Hc-mmett &r Edison, Inc., supplied by the applicant, it has been determined that the proposed f~:cilities 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 C:Uv1y DocumentsUohn LWmennas~Saratoga-Los Gatos Sprint, !t2 use pennit.doc OGG-VO~ File No. UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. The proposed bus stop will be a significant improvement and contribute to public health safety and welfare. In addition to the proposed benches and landscaping, the improved site location and lighting will make the bus stop considerably safer for the users. 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. All ground equipment will be located underground and will be screened from view by the retaining wall and landscaping. In addition to the other site improvements, the applicant will be pro~zding a ne~v bus stop area with two new benches. Noise As a condition of project approval the applicant will be required to pro~~ide 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 dripline. Tree protective fencing will be installed prior to permit issuance as a condition of approval. The applicant has provided a landscape plan and an Arborist Report that have been included as a condition of project approval. 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 ~~iciniry. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to antenna facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application by adopting the attached Resolution UP-O1-007. • C:VNy DocumentsUohn LWntennas\Saratoga-Los Gatos Sprint, #2 tue pertni[.doc OODUIi~S • THIS PAGE HESS .BEEN INTENTIONALL'i' L.EF~T BLANK OOuCi-GO • • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-Ol-00 7 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SPRINT PCS; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval for the installation of four 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 1303, "Ne~~~ 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 Sprint PCS application for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: UUOl3(~"y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed antennas shall be located ~tnd constructed as sho~~n on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. A minimum of two (2) warning ~;ign~; shall be posted near the transmitting antennas: one (1) at the base of the pole: vi:~ible to workers intending to perform- work on the pole; and one (1) on the bole just below the antennas. Signs will comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Contact information will also be pro~rided with a 24-hr. phone number to arrange for access to restricted areas. The antennas shall be painted to match the light pole in color and texture and the equipment cabinet shall be painted ;~ dark color approved by Staff. 4. Within 30 days of cessation of the operation of the antennas, the applicant shall remove all equipment. ~. Prior to submittal for Building or G~rac:ing permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets . of complf~te cortstntction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Samples of the paint color to be ~ase~~. c. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected bs~ staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. d. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall. park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. A re~~ised landscape plan detailing the design, species and location of all landscaping for planning st.a.ff approval. f. The applicant shall pro~~ide: docurr~entation that the proposed equipment will meet all of the Ciry noise standards. g. The applicant shall pro~~idf~ proof of a landscape maintenance agreement for a period of two years from the date of project approval. h. The applicant shall impletr,ent all :recommendations made in the Arborist Report by Arborist's Tree l.nve:nto:ry dated September 24, 2001. ~D~~~~S 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. 7. 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 X00 feet of the project site. 8. Prior to Final Inspection of the antennas, the applicant shall submit to Planning Di~rision 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. 9. Annual testing of the emissions from the facility shall be conducted at the applicant's expense and made available to the Planning Di~nsion and neighbors for a period to be determined by the Community Development Director. 10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court; challenging the City's action with respect to the appli- cant's project. ,~ 11. I~TOncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a ~~iolation 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. • OOU~~;:~ • Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirem~°nts 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 be~~ome effective fifteen (l~) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of. California, this 24`h day of Ocotber 2001 bl~ the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, F'lannin~; Commission • ATTEST: Secreta~-~~, Plan;~ing Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the exl~res:~ teams 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 ~~ndersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees r_o full~~ conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommE~nde:d t:ime frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property O~~vner or Authorized Agent bate • • ~ Ray Morneou, Arborist Arborist's Tree Inventory with Tree Protection Measures ISA Certified Arborist #WC-0132 650.964.7664 Ray Morneau, Arborist 650.964.7664 Site: Cal Trans ROW: c/o Three Oaks Wy & Hwy 9 (Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd), Saratoga Owner /Contact: Ivan Tjoe, Richard Conner Riley Assoc (Sprint Project #SF54XC429-A Date: September 24, 2001 Drawings Referenced: T-1, A-1. A-2. A-3, A-4, and LS-1 (Dated 04/02/01). Contents 1.0 Summary 2.0 Tree Protection Measures 3.0 Tree Inventory Data 4.0 Site Sketch with tree numbers & fence location 5.0 Suggested Plant Material to Screen Site Features 1.0 Summary At my site inspections during September 2001, I gathered data, took photographs, and made observations of the existing tree conditions at the Hwy 9 site between Three Oaks Way and Farwell Avenue. I have discussed the project's impact on the trees with Ivan Tjoe and described the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) which should be fenced to exclude project activity. Often the TPZ is set at the dripline or farther from a tree, but in the instant case, due to a combination of the vigor of the redwoods plus the area able to remain undisturbed in the other direction, the calculated zone can be a little closer to the trees. As drawn on Sheets A-1 and A-2, the work appears to come no closer than 25 feet to 30 feet from the soundwall. With such distances, it looks likely that the project can be nestled between the trees and the street. Put another way, we should come no closer than 15 feet from the walnut trunks and 12 feet from the larger redwoods. 2.0 Site-Specific Tree Protection Measures (TPMs) All (sub)contractors must be informed of these and notified that they will be held financially responsible for any tree damage they cause and any remedial action required to ameliorate tree problems they cause. 2.1 Tree Protection Fence: To avoid root zone soil compaction, traffic must be excluded from trees' areas beyond the immediate construction footprint. Typically one fences as large an area as possible, but here we can come closer on the project side since root zones in other directions will remain undisturbed. The dark pen-line added to the site sketch shows an allowable location for tree protection fence. 2.2 Root zone buffer: In a natural woodland setting, when trees shed leaves, twigs, and branches, they accumulate like a natural mulch on the forest floor. The trees here benefit from the fallen leaves which have already accumulated and/or been added as mulch. Additional root zone buffer can be provided by supplementing with wood chip mulch (from Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #1 of 6 ~nnn~ -~ Ray Morneau, Arborisl~ is~ certified ~t~~ #wc-ois2 650.964.664 tree pruning operations) up to four inches deep between the tree trunks and the driplines (ends of the branches). 2.3 Trenching, Excavation, Grading: The vault a~1d footings will require trenches. Along - - the cut facing the trees, hand digging for the first: 3 feet below existing grade may be required if the backhoe operator cannot go carefully enough ~u to stop for roots larger than 2-inch. diameter without cracking them. Roots lazger than 2-inch must be severed cleanly with a sharp saw (no shattering, ripping, tearing). Any additional trenching, excavating, or gtnding beneath a tree's dripline must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and prior-approved b~y the Project Arborist (including: drainage, electric, gas, water, phone, cable, sewer, etc.). 2.4 Material Storage, Parking: All project ;stortge and parking shall be outside of the tree protection fence.area.and.not.nver .trees' unprotected root zones, including: -project materials, equipment, tools, and vehicles. 2.5 Supplemental Irrigation: All trees coulci benefit from supplemental irrigation when their root zones become dry. These project trees in ~~articular should ~be watered to compensate for root loss and construction disnup~tion~ When the soil three inches below the surface is dry, apply. ~10 gallons per trunk diameter inch distributed evenly over the root zone, applied slowly enough to soak in without runoff. Likely monthly during the driest summer months. 2.6 Chemicals: No storage, pouring, or leaking o~Fany fuel, oil, or chemical may be allowed beneath these trees' canopies. Time is of the essence in the event of any size spill; prompt containment and proper clean-up is necessary. 2.7 Equipment Cleaning: No rinsing and/or cle~uun.g of equipment is allowed beneath trees' branches. This includes cement forms-and truck:>, p~iint brushes, plastering tools, and such, 2.8 Attachments: No signs, wires, or other ccrostruct:ion apparatus maybe attached to a tree. 2.9 Equipment: Equipment operators and truck drivers must not come in contact with these trees' branches. Any. accidental damage must be pra~mptly repaired by a .qualified arborist. 2.10 Pruning: All pruning is to be performed to p~ubli.shed standazds. ANSI A300 standards are acceptable (ANSI, 1995). ISA Certified'.free Workers supervised by Certified Arborists is the norm. 3.0 Tree Inventory Data S The table on the following two pages displays the; data for -the twenty-four trees in the vicinity of this project. Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, cJo Hwy 9 ~3c Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #2 of 6 crP~~[l'9 ., • ~~ Ray Morn?AU, Arborist isA Certified Arborist #WC-0132 650.964.7664 Ht ~CrwnCL Vigor :Form Overall :Condition 1 ~Quercus agrifolia ........... .. 15.8" 15' 34' Codom..66°~ 55°~6 60°~ .......... ;Oak, Coast Live € .. . : , : , _.. Fair ..... ............ ...... .................................................................:..................r................ ............... . . Just:outside fence; trunk leans 30°_to west; 8rows.through nei~hbor's..lattice overhead:...;......: 2 Juc~lans nigra .......:....................... .. 14.8" ': 18' 33' ~Codom. 40°k 15°~6 25°~ - . Walnut,..Black ............................. ....... .. ........... . ~~:3~~ . :° . : VerY..POOr........... . . ... ................................ ... .. ..................... . ... ....__....Crowded;..lop-sided;..ma~yor deadwood to 6" diam:;..thin.top;.endweights:to west .................................. 3 Juglans.ni~ra .................................. 25.4" 40' Codom. 50°~6 15°~ .................. . .. ..................... : .... . . 25 -- 35°~O ......... ; _ .... ......~ ........ . _. .. . ........... - Walnut, BIaGc Poor :Density is poor; major deadwood to 6" diam.; declining;..endwei~hts;.to 2..trunks at 5'. 4 Sequoia sempervirens 2.5" 4` 8' Codom.€ 60°~ 90°~6 70% ;Redwood, Coast ~ = ............................... ....... Good..... .. ............DustY.;..staked,..young..sapling :....................................................................................................................... ........... ......................................... SSequoia sempenrirens €11.1", 10.3", 10' 38' Codom.€ 60°~ 85°~ . 72°~ : ..... . :Redwood... Coast ................................4:7"~. ~~ = ......... `.. :...... ......Good.... ......._ .:Still shorter than line-height:....14' to wall:.__Ti~ps, hang.to..ground level :......................... ..................................... 6 Se uoia sempervirens 4 3' T Suppr. 60°~ : 85°~ ... q ... _ 72°~ .. .. ......:. ....,.......... ...... . .. - ;Redwood, Coast ~ Good . . : .......................................................................... ............10' to walt;..under_High Voltage:.L!nes :............................................................................................................. .. . . ..... ... ... ......: . .............................:.......... 7 :Sequoia sempervirens .;14.1", 10.0" 11' 35' Codom. 70°~ 49°r6 5986 : Redwood, Coast 3.2" ......: Fair ............13' to wall~.topped..under HV.Lines....Tips han~..to_ground level :...................................... ....................................... 8 Sequoia sempervirens 11.8", 5.t" 14' ~ 35' Codom. 70°~6 49°i6 59°~ - ~Redwood, Coast 4.5" Fair 13' to wall topped under HV Lines....T!ps.hang.ao..ground level. .. ..... .................. 9 :Sequoia sempervirens 15.6" _ 13' 60' Codom:_ 66°~ 49°~ 59°~ Redwood, Coast 15.5" ~ Fair 12'.to wall;..side-pruned.beside H: V. lines;..embedded.bark.crotch at.ground.level... 10 :Sequoia sempervirens 16.5" 14' 70' Codom.€ 66°~6 49°r6 59°~ :Redwood, Coast 14.8" Fair ............1.2' to walt~..side-pruned.beside.. H:V:..lines........_ ...................................................................................... ........ ......................................' 11 Sequoia sem~rvirens 13.8" 12' 60' Codom.€ 66°~ : 49°~ 59% : :Redwood, Coast :......... Fair 12'.to wall; side-pruned._beside H.V. lines. 12 Sequoia sempervirens 1.7.4" _ 14' .35' Codom. 66°~ _ 49°~ Redwood, Coast........ ................ .......... 59°r6 Fair ........... ....... ......... ................................ ...........12'.io wall; topped.Lnder:li:V, lines. .................................................................................................................................... ........ ....... ... ......................................... Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. -Page #3 of 6 :CSA Certified Arborist #4VC-0132 650.964.7664 Crw~nCl Vigor :.Form' Overall Condition 13 :Sequoia sempervirens......... 7.8" ....13'_.__.1..:35'...x.Sub>Pr:..~...66°x...._..49°~6... 59% `Redwood, Coast Fair ........21' to.wall;..topped..under H:V. lines:_.._Branch tips.hang_ta._ground.level :................................................`._...... 14 -Sequoia sempervirens .... 16.7" 16' :35' Codom: 66°~ 49°/6 59°~ :Redwood,.. Coast ....................................~.~ .3~~. - ........ .. .........Fair....... ... 21' to wall; to ed under H.V.; ground level ~weak~cxc-tch attat,,t~ment.~ T~~~s han doom. ..................................................PP.................................................................................................................................................P. ...............9.............._...............` ............ 15 >equoia sempervirens.......__ 18.3" ;.....1.6'.....:_.,.x'0'... I~odom:_....66% ° 49°~6 59°~ tedwood, Coast .............:.. ? ..................... Fair 1' to wall; side-pruned_beside H.V. lines. 16 Sequoia sempervirens ,.... 1.8.1" _...'t6' .....7'0' ..... .. `Redwood, Coast :.......................................................................:...................................:...................:................:.. ..-.........11'.to wall;..side-pruned beside.H.V...lines :.............................. 17 :Sequoia sempervirens .._.~ 15.3" 16' 7'0' ~Cod~ :... . :Redwood,. Coast 9.3" 11' to wall; side-pruned.beside H.V. lines. ............................................................................... ............................................................................... 18 Se uoia sem ervirens :........9 ......................... P ................................ :Redwood, Coast 2' to wall. :...................................................................................... ......:..........Fair..........:. 66% 49°~ 59°r6 Fair so°~ so°r~ so°,~ :.........: Fair 19 :Sequoia sempenrirens.........1 3.9" ......4~.......... ~.8~....~uPP[:..'....60°!x....:..60°!~... fi0°~ ... .. ;Redwood,.. Coast ................ .._.................. Fair .............::.....................:...................:................................:.........: 2' to~wall. 20 :Sequoia sempenrirens._....... 5.2" ......5'..........20'..._.~up,pr..-_...6090....;..60°~... 60°~ :......: 'Redwood, Coast ~ Fair ........... 2'. to wall. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................. 21 :Sequoia sempervirens........€ 4.6 ......4'.......i.,22'....;upl~r:......60°6...._..60°~... 60°r6 :Redwood, Coast ~ Fair 2' to wall. 22 Quercus agrifolia ....................... 14.3" 20' 3~3' Godom. 75°~ 85°~6 . 80°~6 .... .~ :Oak, Coast Live € ..............:............. ............................................:........ Good..... ~ ... s............''13' to wall;..good..structure; minor interior twiggy: deac'l~nrood :....................................................................................... ~ V.~w. - \IVl /1. ~ VV IV VV /V 'TV /V .............r..........................................s .. :........ rt .......................... ...:_. ...:... ...;... ..... Poor. ...~.....' :Plum,..Common ..................................S••.X.4.... ..........................................~....................................................................... ... .___......Crowded,dnd. lop-sided Lnder.oak:and r'edwo~od. ................................................................................................................................... Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, do Hwy 9 &: Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #4 of 6 3.3" 3 16 ::Sup • • • ~lnl~l'~ d 23 iPrunus species .................... :.......Clump ......9~..........._~~~.....':_:iuPa?x:..:....55°x....:..30°~...~ 40°~ :....... :Plum, Common 3... X 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Poor :...........'Crowded and lop-sided.under oak: ............................................................................................................................................................: i i~ Rny AllorneCU, Arborist isA Csrfifitd Arborist #WC-0132 4.0 Site Sketch with tree numbers & fence. location ~ ~` ~ 650.964.76tr4 SEE ~?~ DAie ~- L ~ ~ ~~ zm~t s N jy,~~ ~~ . wit a~ 'THRE ~ W1P Sept. 24, 2001 Arborisi'a Tree Imeatory & TPMs, c!o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #5 of 6 ~~'~il1r.;.~ s Rn~r Ma~~eau, Arbarist ISI~CertifiedArborist#WC-0132 650.464.7664 5.0 Suggested Plant Material to Screen Site Features Many additional suggestions could be made. These below are generally possibilities which I would suggest including in the plant palate c-f the Project Landscape Architect. Maturing-Huge [none appropriate near antenna) Maturing-Tall. Arbutus menziesii Pacific Madrone Casuarina stricta Beefwcwd Melia azedarach Chinaberry; Bead Tree Melia azedarach 'Umbraculifera' Texas 1Jmt~rel:la Tree Quercus agrifolia Coast hive Oak Maturing Arctostaphylos species Ceonothus species Cercis occidentalis Cercocarpus betuloides `traskiae' Cercocarpus ledifolius Comarostaphylis diversifolia Dodonea viscosa Fremontodendron californicum Garrya elliptica Heteromeles arbutifolia Holodiscus discolor Myrica californica Rhus integrifolia Rhus laurina Rhus ovata -Mediuan Manzaluta (many species to choose from) Ceonothus (many species to choose from) Western Re:dbi,~d Catalina Mountain Mahogany Curl-Le:af 11~ountain Mahogany Summer Holly Hopseed Bi~sh Flannel Bush; l?remontia Coast Silkt~~sse~l Toyon; Christmas Berry; California Holly Cream :Bush; C-cean Spray Pacific Waac Myrtle Lemon<<de 13eny Laurel ;iumac Sugar Sumac; ;iugar Bush Low-Growing Ceonothus species Ceonotllus Creepers -(several to choose from) Coprosma species Coprosina (.a few to choose from) Rosemarinus officinal is Rosemary Respectfully Submitted, ~~~~ ~~ ~ . Raymond J. ome iSA Certified Arborist #WC-0132 ASCA Member Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory 8c TPMs, cIo Hwy 9 !~ Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #6 of 6 (1(1(i~~ ~ ~: Ra Morneau, Arborist Y Arborist's Tree Inventory with Tree Protection Measures Attachments 2-5 ISA Certified Arborist #V Ray Morneau, Arborist 650.964.7664 Site: Cal Trans ROW: c/o Three Oaks Wy & Hwy 9 (Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd), Saratoga Owner /Contact: Ivan Tjoe, Richard Conner Riley Assoc.(Sprint Project #SF54XC429-A Date: September 24, 2001 Drawings Referenced: T-1, A-1. A-2. A-3, A-4, and LS-i (Dated 04/02/01). Contents 1.0 Summary 2.0 Tree Protection Measures 3.0 Tree Inventory Data 4.0 Site Sketch with tree numbers & fence location 5.0 Suggested Plant Material to Screen Site Features 1.0 Summary At my site inspections during September 2001, I gathered data, took photographs, and made observations of the existing tree conditions at the Hwy 9 site between Three Oaks Way and Farwell Avenue. I have discussed the project's impact on the trees with Ivan Tjoe and described the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) which should be fenced to exclude project activity. Often the TPZ is • set at the dripline or farther from a tree, but in the instant case, due to a combination of the vigor of the redwoods plus the area able to remain undisturbed in the other direction, the calculated zone can be a little closer to the trees. As drawn on Sheets A-1 and A-2, the work appears to come no closer than 25 feet to 30 feet from the soundwall. With such distances, it looks likely that the project can be nestled between the trees and the street. Put another way, we should come no closer than 15 feet from the walnut trunks and 12 feet from the larger redwoods. 2.0 Site-Specific Tree Protection Measures (TPMs) All (sub)contractors must be informed of these and notified that they will be held financially responsible for any tree damage they cause and any remedial action required to ameliorate tree problems they cause. 2.1 Tree Protection Fence: To avoid root zone soil compaction, traffic must be excluded from trees' areas beyond the immediate construction footprint. Typically one fences as lar-ge an area as possible, but here we can come closer on the project side since root zones in other directions will remain undisturbed. The dark pen-line added to the site sketch shows an allowable location for tree protection fence. 2.2 Root zone buffer: In a natural woodland setting, when trees shed leaves, twigs, and branches, they accumulate like a natural mulch on the forest floor. The trees here benefit from the fallen leaves which have already accumulated and/or been added as mulch. Additional root zone buffer can be provided by supplementing with wood chip mulch (from Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory &TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #1 of 6 '~ ~ RQy Morneau, Arborist ISA Certifi¢d Arborist #WC-0132 650.964.7664 tree pruning operations) up to four inches deep between the tree trunks and the driplines (ends of the branches). 2.3 Trenching, Excavation, Grading: The vault and footings will require trenches. Along the cut facing the trees, hand digging for the first 3 feet below existing grade may be required if the backhoe operator cannot go carefully enough as to stop for roots larger than 2-inch diameter without cracking them. Roots larger than 2-inch must be severed cleanly with a sharp saw (no shattering, ripping, tearing). Any additional trenching, excavating, or grading beneath a tree's dripline must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and prior-approved by the Project Arborist (including: drainage, electric, gas, water, phone, cable, sewer, etc.). 2.4 Material Storage, Parking: All project storage and parking shall be outside of the tree ..protection-fence-area-and-notover-trees' unprotected-rootzones,-including: -project materials, equipment, tools, and vehicles. 2.5 Supplemental Irrigation: All trees could benefit from supplemental irrigation when their root zones become dry. These project trees in particular should-be watered to compensate for root loss and construction disruption. When the soil three inches below the surface is dry,. apply. ~10 gallons per trunk diameter inch distributed evenly over the root zone, applied slowly enough to soak in without runoff. Likely monthly during the driest summer months. 2.6 Chemicals: No storage, pouring, or leaking of any fuel, oil, or chemical may be allowed beneath these trees' canopies. Time is.of the essence in th~.event of any size spill; prompt containment and proper clean-up is necessary. 2.7 Equipment Cleaning: No rinsing and/or cleaning of equipment is allowed beneath trees' branches. This-includes cement forms-and trucks, paintbrushes, plastering tools, and such, 2.8 Attachments: No signs, wires, or other construction apparatus maybe attached to a tree. 2.9 Equipment: Equipment operators and truck drivers must not come in contact with these trees' branches. Any. accidental damage must be promptly.repaired by. a qualified aborist. 2.10 Pruning: All pruning is to be performed to published standards. ANSI A300 standards are acceptable (ANSI, 1995). ISA Certified Tree Workers supervised by Certified Arborists is the norm. 3.0 Tree Inventory Data The table on the following two pages displays the data for the twenty-four trees in the vicinity of this project. Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #2 of 6 1 Quercus agrifolia 15.8" 15' 34' Codom.€ 66% 55% 60% Oak Coast Live € ...~... Fair :Just outside fence; trunk leans 30° to west; .grows through, neighbor's lattice ovefiead. . 2Juglans nigra 14.8" 18' 33' €Codom. 40°Io 15°~ 25°l0 .................................. _ 1Nalnut,..Black ...........................................1.2 3,~............... ............... € Ver~r..Poor..<......... Crowded; lop-sided;, ma~}oc deadwood to 6" diam.; thinaap;, endweights to west. - 3 Juglans nig~a ................................. 25.4" .1 . 35°~ - 25' 40' €Codom. 50°x6 ;. 5% _` _1Nalnut,..Black ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ . .... . .. ~ .............::.....................:........... ... ...Poor ... ~ ... ...... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ : Densit is oor; ma'or deadwood to 6" dam.; to 2 trunks at 5'. declinin ; endwei hts; ............:..................Y.......... P.....................1.............................................................................................;~........................~............. ...................................................:......... 4 Sequoia sempervirens........;- 2.5" . .. 8` €Codom.€ 60°~ 90% 70% . 4` .. . . Redwood,.. Coast ~ ................ ... .. . .: ..........................,........ Good..... - ... ........... ~ ~ ...... ...........: DustY..;.:staked;..Young.:sapling ................................ . ................................................................................................................................:........: 5 :Sequoia sempervirens :11.1 ", 10.3" 10' 38' €Codom. 60°~ 85°k 72°~ Redwood, Coast 4.7", ++ € Good :............:Still shorter.than..line-height. 1.4' to wall: . Tips. hang to ,ground..level: .. .............................. 6 :Sequoia sempervirens.........= 4" T ^ 60% 85% . 72% Suppr: 3' _ .... Redwood, Coast € _ .... . _.... .. .. ............ .. .... Good i . . :..........10' tawalt;..under_kiigh:Voltage..Lines :.......... ......................................................... .... .. ................................................................................................................................':. 59% 8 Sequoia,sempervirens......... 11:8"! 5.1" .....1.4':..... 35`..Codom.: 70°r6 49% 59°~ - :Redwood Coast ? 4.5" Fair ...........:13' to walh:.fD.P..P..ed..under. HV Lines:... Tips hang.ao.ground: level :.............................................................................:. ~equoia.sempervirens 15.6" 13' 60' Codom.€ 66% 49°~ 59°~ I:edwood, Coast 15.5" ? .....: .. ............... . .... Fair....... ... _ 2' to wall; side-pruned.beside H: V, lines; embedded bark crotch at ground level: ....................................................................... • 10 :Sequoia sempervirens 1.6.5" .14' 70' : Codom. 66% 49% 59% ;......: :Redwood, Coast 14.8" € ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Fair ............12' to wall'.aide-prunedbeside. H: V. lines :...............................................................................................................................:........ 11 Sequoia sempervirens 13.8" 12' 60' €Codom.€ 66% 49°x6 59% ..;... .:Redwood, Coast Fair 12' to wall; side-pruned.beside H.V. lines. 12 :Sequoia sempervirens ..~ 1.7:4" 14' 35' €Codom.€ 66% 49°~ 59% .:. € :Redwood, Coast ~ ~ ............................................ Fair....... ... ...........=12' to wall;: topped under.H:V. lines. .................................................................................................................................................................:.........: Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #3 of 6 ' 7Sequoia sempervirens :14.1", 10.0"i 11' 35' Codom.€ 70% 49°~ :Redwood, Coast 3.2" - 13' to wall; topped under HV Lines. Tips hang to ground level .. .. . .. ...... .... ISA Certified Arborist #WG-0132 650:964.7664 ............................................... ~ € Overall ~~~ Condition 13 :Sequoia sempervirens..._..._ 7.8" ;.....1.3'.....:...35'...:.Super...^....66%......49%... 59°~ 'Redwood Coast ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Fair ............21' to wall;,.toeped under H:V. lines._..,Branch tips han~..to ground level :......................................................... 16 :Sequoia sempervirens ...... 18:?" .....'t6`._.. ...70" Codom:~: .. . ...66°~ 49% 59@i6 . € :Redwood, Coast € ...... .. ~ = ........... ........ Fair...... ... . . .. . X11' to wall- si ...............: de-pruned.. beside H .V, lines: ~ ' 17 Sequoia sempervirens ~ 16' .......... 15.3 .. 70' :Codom.: 66°~ ~ 49% . € € 59°r6 ,. ..... ~~ :Redwood, Coast 9.3 ? ...:.............. ......... .. : Fair .. ... 11' to.wall; side-pruned beside H.V. lines. .................................................. .......................................... .................. ............................. ..................................... 18 Sequoiaaempervirens......... 3.3" ......3'....... . ........ ...:16'....Super..:. ..:60.°.~°.... ._~..6fI%... 60°i6 . i ~ :Redwood, .Coast ~ ~ .......................................:...................................:................... € :................:.....................:.. .................. ~ ...:..................:...... Fair ................................... 2' to uuall. 7 ............................................................................................................................... .......................................... .................. ............................. ' ..........................:.:.......: 19 :Sequoia semeervirens.....,... 3.9" . 4' .. 18' Super. 60%. 60°h 60°~6 :Redwood, Coast € Fair 2' to wall. :. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . : 20 Sequoia sem ervirens.........€ 5.2" ......5'....... ....... ... P €.. 20'._ Sup~pr.... ........ _...... _ .f~0.%.. ....~0% ~ _ .. 60°rb ..... .. . :.. .... :Redwood,., Coast . ~ . ....................... . .............: . . Fair .............. .~' .to wall. _ Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #4 of 6 Rny IUlorneau, Arborist rsA Certified Arbor~st#~'wC-oi32 65o.9a4.76ts4 4.0 Site Sketch with tree numbers & fence location ~~ ~., .~~,. ~,. • • ~ ,~~- ~. _ ~~ • ~~ ~~~ ~~~ L~~~/ ~~~t ~~ ~ ~ ~~f r*~~~ ~~ ~~ a~ _~ ~ ~ `~' ~ ~,~- ~S'.p,~~~ ~ ~ vaeE ~ w •~..._- ~~~ ~ ~» ~ ~, .,~. ~~ a•r,. t!• ~r2~ ~~ ~. ~f~ ~ THRE A ~F ~ _ Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Trce Fnvemory & TPMs, clo Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #5 of b '~` Rny 1VIor~eau, ~lrbQC'~S'k zsa Certified Arborist #-WG0132 650.464,7664,.. 5.0 Suggested Plant Material to Screen Site Features • Many additional suggestions could be made. These below are generally possibilities which I would suggest including in the plant palate of the Project Landscape Architect. Maturing-Huge [none appropriate near. antenna] Maturing-Tall Arbutus menziesii Pacific Madrone Casuarina stricta Beefwood Melia azedarach Chinaberry; Bead Tree Melia azedarach `Umbraculifera' Texas Umbrella Tree Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Maturin€ Arctostaphylos species Ceonothus species Cercis occidentalis Cercocarpus betuloides `traskiae' Cercocarpus ledifolius Comarostaphylis diversifolia • Dodonea viscosa Fremontodendron californicum Garrya elliptica Heteromeles arbutifolia Holndiscur discolor Myrica californica Rhus integrifolia Rhus laurina Rhus ovata -Medium Manzanita (many species to choose from) Ceonothus (many species to choose from) Western Redbud Catalina Mountain Mahogany Curl-Leaf Mountain Mahogany Summer Holly Hopseed Bush Flannel Bush; Fremontia Coast Silktassel Toyon; Christmas Berry; California Holly Cream Bush; Ocean Spray Pacific Wax Myrtle Lemonade Berry Laurel Sumac Sugar Sumac; Sugar Bush Low-Growing .Ceonothus species Ceonothus Creepers (several to -choose from) Coprosma species Coprosma (a few to choose from) Rosemarinus offcinalis Rosemary. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Raymond J. orne , iSA Certified Arborist #WC-0132 ASCA Member Sept. 24, 2001 Arborist's Tree Inventory & TPMs, c/o Hwy 9 & Three Oaks Wy, Saratoga. Page #6 of 6 • SPSIIGP ~ • GITmnROW P~PP~ cay , I ca,rmr I MTE OFT6f SWOP SNafb~ tlAAO E 2 O1A O.O tnOi'D ~~ 1'~mQ9 Q1CG N I r r ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ lD~ln OtD©tD0 ~~nwww~~~ 1 ~._N i i 1 L o _ o • © o • 5, ~? '`G • o l! ra • ~t Ct /w V ~. w 0 U w 0 a 0 • • V W ~ o n W ~ 01 I ~ N ~ ~' V ~~ X ~X i W ~/V~ Y / /~//~ V~ O lf~ LLB 0 00 ~ O T 0 ~ 0 ~ a..+ a.d ~../ L(~ to O O aornoo ~N ': O /W V a w 0 U Z H ~_ X W • • Location A (Comer of Farwell and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) Sprint PCS cannot locate on this pole for the following reasons: L~ Sprint PCS is required by the Joint Pole Authority to place its antennas 10' below the lowest transmission line, transformer or appurtenance. In this case the requisite 10' would place the antennas directly in the path of the existing trees. This would significantly reduce the signal strength from the antennas and thus effectively not satisfy the coverage needs of this site. 2. CalTrans was only interested in Sprint PCS locating its equipment in the public right of way currently proposed. This is significant because the antennas are connected to the proposed equipment cabinets via steel coaxal cable. Assuming that Sprint's antennas would not be blocked by the existing trees, Sprint would Gave to trench its cables across Farwell Avenue and cover approximately 250'. In addition to the complexity of having to-trench underneath Farewell Avenue, the 250' presents a technical hurdle. Co-axial runs in excess of 150' create signal loss and degradation. (A good analogy would be to say that there simply would not be enough water pressure to effectively reach the antennas from the equipment cabinets.) 3. To compensate Sprint would have to utilize co-anal cable in excess of 1 1/4" in diameter each (there would a total of 6 cables - 2 for each proposed antenna). The girth of each cable prevents Sprint from being able to flush mount the antennas to the wooden pole. Instead, Sprint would be forced to mount its antennas on arms projecting from the pole. Additionally, since coring the interior of the pole is impossible, the cables would have to be mounted to the exterior. 4. Sprint PCS believes that this design would be far more visually intrusive than the proposed slim line pole. The proposed design would hide from view both the antennas and the associated cables. • Location B (On Subject Right of Way) Sprint PCS did not consider locating on this pole because of its proximity to the nearby home. This pole sits back approximately 15' from the e~sting sound wall The original design (the bus stop) placed the antennas appro~mately 50' from the sound wall The new design sets the pole back approximately 25' from the sound wall. • • • Sprint PCS cannot locate on this pole, because the Joint Pole Authority would require the antennas to be located 10' below the lowest guide wire. This would place the antennas directly in the path of the ezisting branches and thus reduce signal strength and integrity. • Location C (Corner of Three Oaks and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) U • Sprint PCS did not hate in this area because the landlord was not interested in leasing any ground space. • Location D (Corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) RICHARD CONNOR RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 2420 Camino Ramon, Suite 380 San Ramon, California 94583 (925) 901-1001 Facsimile (925) 901-1011 September 10, 2001 Mr. ltakesh Sethi 14930 Farwell Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: UP-O1-007, Sprint PCS Mr. Sethi: COPY Via Overnight Mail Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me at the Planning Commission hearing on August 22, 2001. Last week I received the list of comments you forwarded to Mr. Tom Sullivan of the City of Saratoga. Sprint PCS has reviewed your comments and is currently working to re-design the proposed facility and will try to meet the majority of your concerns. At the Planning Committee, you expressed how difficult it was for you to obtain our documents from the City. To prevent this from happening again, I invite you to meet with me and we can review this site together. Additionally, I can arrange for the engineering firm of Hammett & Edison to measure the current cumulative EMF levels at your home and show you what the estimated levels will be after the site is built. Sprint PCS us happy to provide this service to you. Please do not hesitate to call me at the number above- if you would like to meet with me to discuss the re- design of this facility, arrange for an EMF reading or, if you require any additional infom~ation or documents. Thank you. Sincerely, RI CONNOR RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Ivan T s Q ~ . Attachment 6 ¢o x ~,;: 3 O,~g~ ~ - ~ >c~a N ~ °'s~~ L ~ ~./ ~ W~ ~ _~I ~ ~ V fi~A' ~t ~e ~~ F~~ ar: w , ' 'FZ~ rj~ ~' ~ '2~,~ p _ +~ ~ ~ O C1 ~ }' - Sd~ i Sr ~ a S •.1f F' ~~ ~ F li ~ ~ ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~^.' r ~; ~ ~ °' `. k ~ f.N ~ a~ O ~~ 3 +~ a = , .' i = - L ` ~ i fr, ;~ t~ ~ ~'" ~_ ~ f ', .~ l.~ ~~. _~~ '~ . j ~v 5 7T iii ~~ :y _ ~~ ~ ~~ b 5 i ~ a~ 1 m ~~ i' ''i :€~ ~.: ~ ~.._ ,~ ~ ~ - u Gr's:.'' i~: ~. ~ 3 1 ~ _ ~ i 1 `~~ ~ c _ Q - •'~ 4tV ' . ~,yy' t. U •: 0 ~ ~ O <~` ~~ o~ mill 0 ~. h O ~0 M O .~ ~0 Of O ~+ ~0 L H O H ~0 d Z O h 0f C O O 3 as .~ ~. 0 0 ~o _. 3 .~ 0 0 s ~ ~ r ya -~ ~~ y~ & ii m o O ~ 11 }} A ~ ~ a o~p \ ~/ yy a ~U ~~ p j ~N u U Z ~ ~ z ~~ v' zo a zx~ g v~oc~ ~ a o p Z O o ca o~ o ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ O N I I Q°D o z U a vai la N ~ . U O r Q ~~ N r W ~ J ~~ r ~ W Q O as d ~ U ~ ~ 0 z z O N 0 0 2 W L 1-" m n 1 °n N ~ w d N mX 9 N ~ w O oho o I c R = c N °;~ m m p~j .~ a.. m 0 W a a (~,~ L~ ' ~J~ ~- _~ ~,~ ^/~~\^\ n V I.I a a II Y Y ~ x U ~ I' m W i Z a K O .~ ` ~ C ~ ~ N O o . a' ~ ., Q n ^ n R•!1-l1 r~ ~ ~ ~ o U r ~ O U 0 II U Z O ~ 0 IN W U W ~ a m r z W W w w 2 = 1/1 f/1 c z u~ WO Kp _€~ W ._ ~ pr` zoo O oJz zU Z , z~W W ~ ° O O u~~ S °' ~ ~ ~cn~ ~ QU \/ N~W N I Z z N m 1.1.. a°zdW ~ ~ ~~~W O I O ~ u Z W ~~s~ ~ N ~~~~_ ONo W z CW Q O ~p N Z3 0 (.1 C1 ? m zp u O ~ ° W O U WJ U U' D O p ~aa- V ~y W LOj W m i O ~ WZ z <22 U U ~jF ~i 1~~ O N N O ?~Z22 25223p jy UY 1D I J ~ p0 Yp Z Wp~tVKlw] ±. °n ~WW~~ i W ~ <~w ^ c ~ i4~o~W ~~a °o znN °n .. C x~= <<OU q ' ^ ~ O npU00 J2~U~2~ W i ~ ~ ~tN~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q t? i e nmoi o'~i Z ~~0°,3$ U°m~ W W O ~ mW~jg _Q <sXe x~o~° W W W ~ ~ ~~~zW °u~ o Z /J u°iZ9~a ~~~~a (9 (~ Z Q ._ ~-_ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NVy~UW ZW Wp VC~OW LL- N~1`N.~ CmJYY1 _ _ -_ ~ - ~.~~__:~ __ _ _ ~ ~F +o= mi o ~ffi ~ ~ (Ol N Zia~uG Z ~'hug~:°. W Q W ~ ~~ s~p~v ZQiJ v LL d ~^ n ~ N V a ~ d O N O ~ p~ON~ C V ~ ~O V r~ O ~ V H ~ - z H V_ N W ~UWNZ pumpQS 1a W ~ Z vi FI-` vi Q vi Q' vi ~ W Nri: W N<i= U NrH S N<H ~ Nor O~yy z~aa~ ~~ ~ o~ s sz O ~' WNU.. J ri'~i ~' aNYi U a~Y= W sNYi LL ~o~in4 m = o~ oho ~ o <~ ~ sso zo ~7j~o zo W p zo s3~o zo ~ i~`ax--c°~ =~~pm$~~c°.i V fA ~~uua (~ ~Z~~c°.ra N 3~~c°.ra ~ ~Suc°~a LJj,J 3Quua a ri ri v vi .~ ~ Q ~~ N d' ~ -~ Ot~ z ~; ~'~ Fu aOa ` w kiosz a° vai iza Q O N K 2ZZ ° $ ~=~Wt Z ~O ~ =<mmmO WON O p g n0 p N O t t J ~ oz_o~~ tea// mn Z ~oluul~ll~ ~~ ~0`3~ xN ~ ~ZZ~~ O~~n~ LL. S~ ~ Nz JO Nn ~rc~p tmvn N m Oyq Z _ ~j ~ Y ~Q SZ~<N /~/~ x ~ C~Jr COaaJJO_``Yy] N Z ~LL<p ` Q _ ZjNZxCc VJ w ~ my ~ ~~~~ vv ~U~O ~~ H m O O > 6' I NZS Z W W„ O S ~ ~ ~ W O W F OV O ~ Nm LL O N = a ~ Z `F'~1 J ~+'~ep' _ }Z ~ p W ~QFi zp i F~ Q ~2 Z°Z a't ~ U Z ° S z ~1y- I^ F w Z Z= J_s O' LL1 Q Z<<<<(W 1~ ~ 'Q1 N`OmmZ< I.L O ~ O R 6' ~22UW O U a`OW ~ a I^ .. N U IOy p N~ O ' ~ ~ ~~ Wm`-'3 I..L a KanD~pO ~ Oi~pOp O z~Cpo O~" W ,Jl ~ i K 2 a ~Z< a Q W~]JW~ Q univasa ~ ]O< ~~ UU< ~ 6t<i < v 2 U8 U N d S ~~Z3~u J o. J mW YW = F C ~~ ~~ W o ~~ O~ a m~ Z z°ZQ O 4 N<W z x o vm~ Q W" U N5~ W 3 5rco ~ 3 _ ~ a'WO '~nn C pN V val xo~ z 53W Z V01Nx y O ~ // o ~~a ~ -= 0 s ~O~ • • • G Zi z o r o 0 0 5 S Z y S z 2 < D s F N W a 0 o W Z O ~ W N ~ ~ 2 O < 2 O << o ~ a in ~ ~TT w y w uWxi ~ J Q (y Q Q ~r 3l6VAlIf1L! .i< QO 'p~~ W x ~4`~ -•~Vj ~ ` - i Y < m a N 'L 1 ~~O ~3 ~ ~~ '~ ~~ U oa oA~on _ ~ • • • ° ~.• FA ~ I Nmo V ~ o°'° ~= - U E ~ `, \ /, i ' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` ,, r ILIA % ~- D ° / g i' 73'SO' z E i .s.. ~~ ., _IZ A~b ~ ° ~ ~ `., m ' ,y ... f~T. ..` / ~ ~ f~ ` ~ ' ' , Ulm ' f,, ,i ~/ ,'/ / , I m tn~40 , tn~xO ,.,. -'c1 ~ 91~ i ~k. %r ~ ~ f ~ ~ NGA UIJC ~'o aa I , ~ A DZN~ J.k, ~ / ~ ! / rD !. ~ o 4 vmA . v ~~ i '/ •' ,c rj ,', ° ~ - i . ~ as -.:// i , ~Z,': ~y~r? / I ti~, ~ °rA a n ,~Q^3' ~? ~ , i i' ~ ~ + / It ~~ ~ au m % ~~ € ;: L , m~pp ~ O: -~/ yi y~m . I :~ €[i 3: i~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ti f , /, ~ /yam O ~~ yx , ~ Z ' ' , / ' / 111 / (~ ']~ ;'O -•( % i ~ ~ 3 / I ~ v ~ m N~ / i' . ~ r S O a A ~ O l+i.~pOy 1 % ~ / % i / ma b~Dti O m Ut~GO to mAXV ~ i/ UtNi ° n % • O m ilN~j {~ 4 ~ / , ~ m m m fa DZN~ m~ '~a' %'' tnm r/ ~ m = ymg x ;m ~/ C ~ ~ N `gig ~' B r J `/ ~ D rD O -.m //' v ittn rN ~ 4~P ti~ •p O' ~ r ~ CO Z D ~ ` q / nl ' /, ItO - pN ' O I ' ~` m ~ ANA ~ ~r D m ~ `, t O 1 omA X040 ~ Y ,'r r // ,~'~ ~ s ~ ~r :` ~ 'r 6 • ~ rt~/~ ~ , ;' ~ / % mz4a , , ~ + ~yl ~ r %O-1 '~ ' `~ ~ v~F / ~ O D N ` S~m ' ~ r ~^ 'L'W" o / `~ _Ja y l1~ , ~y f NORTH AZIMUTH ~~~'/ vv sa ~ . r - ~ :' ~ 79' Q' 22 y O ( , a / t . , 1 , / ', c ^ ~ y ' ~+. `` ' ~ • ~i-a CND ~;~ ~ a ~ m Jy 4 ~ ( /~ '/ i ! % m/~ . . / ' ~ N yy y ~ / / ~ ' r, O / ', ~`~ ~L?~ 4 0 - - d / / ~ m f y xn Y .t.OOiP R' ~,9 5 y I/ /' ,. j u~ ~ / NNO Z; N D~~ ~..., m Gtn , / / ei. /'~ ~y ~ ~~ ~ S p G Ga4m ~ NOO 1 ' 0t1R ~', _ N Nam DS~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ x ~~~ ~° ~ . ~ ~° ~ - y --0-~ -- m - =0 mo m 2~N y1 ° A y v v v np ~ v b44 ITl (/~ 1 - ~ - y 10 ° ~ O A N 4 N ~ N L S 4AO~ =rN 4N0 ~ , OO p Om2 NNA ONiO pq ~ ~• N NO t+!Km NNO (nv01 /^~ \I ~ O n = N sic A bOq fn"N ~~: O "' ~ omo ~DtSO ~1;/1~ r1A0 4 .° ~Z y J Z 1 0 I ~;~ rlll0 r0 r O n ~ 1 ,4, Z Z z Z 2 2 O `: o ~° ~ ~ OR ~f r M I •UbU S p y'`Z RO A 9 'P ~ U V A N U P Ovi I ~?O V A ° O '` ~ ~ N A N m ~ ~ i < ~ H ,'~d'~ ~ 4 O 4 P m m U ~ N m b Z TT x ~ p /~~ / Vw o BSI I~ o ~ 5 ~~ ;`s'. D r pA t4n~a ~ ~ oIp m s Vw ~~•, ~~M7p ~ O p ~ ~ ,I_ FA RµELL AT,L. N H O otao `" ~ ~ ~°o-'b" '^ ' i UE " 4 m a ~ ~°.r Z S • If A PEPPER L ANE ~ ~ m g a ~ ~. ° ' +'P, i I ° ~ ~ ~ti '~ y O T N ~ m N m pP pJ , N p ppVp0~1 m 0 a ~ D to N O ~I~ ~~ < D p U p N e N e N n e u U N `~ I ~ C U N ~O A A b ~ \ ~ ~Q a b N m m C1 ~ a .. ~~ ~ z n m FRU1IVALE AVENUE ~ VI s rm /~ ~U~ A 4 N Z ~~O D N m ~ ~ ~ ~1 rp D D A m ~ O ~t 4 ~ C ~ e=n N 00 SL ~ IL K ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ yl~} ~~{) ~ ~~ O O yD0 '~jnmy Zp.Zly Z~ln ~ Nf•~l 1~1 D C? mI~ ZZ ~~~2^A~ p m OLV~ am ZCQ m~ -b1m ~}'+ y -1p y A N~+1 +1 ~ m~f1A V1~ U~AZ DU,~ZAOm DAD md"'O. OmOrO 1n KD2 F' y vs Gly ~ 0 0np DN m~ 2 ° p O y; YI 4y .. y~ C b ~ ~ fyl Z d ~ 0 -~+ C O m m m D > ~m yp> y A A~ NU1 00 = f D D Z m m !m ~ ~ 1/11 YI i T `~ r ; A ~ DZ -~ N N_ y !nv '°v-ym~4md~ 1>A~OS O D Z mmA O_: ; 1nr y O ~ y C y N°t~IN~(I~~i NPm K Om m Y Cl QV D°m qm ZDA 7nFA ~ ~ ~ nn << mOl~t~wNml~~m(Zl mONOOD +~rti m°'Y12mD CON~m_ QC O Z y~ D ! p 2y i ~ N Oto m ~ ~ 2 S < ~ N O O +~ +i p C N A 9 $m .. m Z O O m C z y D ~ ~yyy CO~Z 9mmgaD O'~~(xI>~ b C ~m~p Pti Fat \ ~ O p ( ~[A~byO ZA p yy ~-~1 ° 2 Z m N ~sC ~yOm ?GZ'f ~SffAn al p 9 mn_ D y M D ° ~ A "'I y ° N ZD < p m p 2 D ~ y Z ~ ~ O ~ O -~ Z ~ C ~ m.. 0 m fj ~ h 1 G .~ C (2 Z o iii ; V p O v .i O m0C~2 O~ b O Nm v~N~1~1°D S_1 D1~OA ~ ~ ~ pD~pyn V=N r mm y O Z y ~ /.. A Oy1y'n-~Omr~pO V1A Amp2 Z~A2y N~OIn D_ ~ m G1 -=i D ~~ ~ ~ ~. . y N ~ y y ~ s m ~ Z m D'O 2 Dm900=ytrnmm '~ p o ZCmsZ$OZ C mD ~ ~d0~ m = 2AD O~V2DZ .~ s y Cm n Z 3 C ~ ~O OY 1 Fin fD/IZDyny N £ O O ~ ~~N y=`O n TI~1 ~ p ,~0~2 yp~OODOO °~Z D~m O ~N'1 ~ ~ D 9~ Z ~ ~ ~ O N ~ m m r V p A nt UI I I O ~1 Z p m y D pO Ar OCC =~ ~+I~m KZAO D O~ m 4 O1I1°OpOoLt ~ m n= ° ~ O mm OmS A -, Z=~ m A D ~~ ~ ZOZ ~ m ~ K `. ;~ ~ rA = p p ~ A O 1 O CZ _ .. __ -_ _y ( j v r v _ _ I ±1 ~ ~ X O • I <° ~ ~yi1 DyO~ Z OS o Fi °m I~Z+DI IAmmUiti~ D mD yyN;U=AAOV p ~ ~ Z C'paZ gAp~yZ20 2r >C ~ D ;~ A nZ D t11 ~ j~02 O = y y ~ m j=ym Q~O~D2 Sl~nmpD OZN 3: m~<m maZy4 `+D -~Z v = ~ 2~ ~ O r X m ZO Z + 2 N 4 -Z 2 O~~ f1bN'~ t,• ~ p ~ ~ m. O V D' A O yy Z m O Z N I ~ ~ ` Q A Z_m _n0. N ~m mZI7Z DN~~ j D 20p CZ_ U O 2 ' V/ ~mww ~Amr ~rr -- ZD tj~ pK yD~A nn ~l ~ ~ ~ OEOPOyD2Ce V1Z mm4 m KDaLA Z~OSD Z ~ O O ~ m ~ R~ ( m~ N A ~ < ~ D K O O~ O \ i S a D \ \ Dim DDDD ~ D D ~ sDA N VVV ]0 m D n n p A~ O O r11 p~O$emt2m NN OrD, b O d 1/ly ~} i ~m KN02+~ D Z l~1 2D Z ~ ymm 40m OC 'lgm~m ~ ' ZA Om y0 O mO O C \/ % ~ p n(~ 8N A N 7 pp 4 iu ?~ m aD m O uy yOm bDD~ X~ 0 ZAr^ p r- ' y DN ~~ V 2 O ~40 n ~ m 9 = r yy U 00 °f°n DCDDIf a r 3:r UD m 9 ~~ ZXO_Gl O i/N .TT o Ay u7 2 m,ww 40y = 2 Zy =yn 22~ 'ZS~D V2V1 ~-'~n2 m2 In4-~-~ ~_ C Zm ~ pp KA 2 .. y' ~ N2 ~ O N N O 4 O A > Z N OZOo G r ~ N O O~• DDCD D y 9 f~2£ , O H~ I X ~ ,~ [ nn D = ~ ~ m ~ Oo O 2 O r 100 ; Z OOIATO U sOA mym ~ T ~ ,y y$X,y_ r~Z Dim ' rm m K~f ~ VI ~ O A-~D04° m OOtIDy mIV~..m Np~Sr A+~ _ O ~ ~° ~ I~n m v Z yt~ ~ .0 CZ ~ y DN Nr~l 1 O R E A2< A S OO9 Z ~P D I ~ c •' IZ,10l~Im CII~Hm D AOObo;D S ~ rl lim^°^tiyZ o O~^VIN =b y> Ob A ~ nN=O~Q~ Sm y~D AO Om r ZO°i• DO~ AKV17C ~O1 O ~ c , ~G z'~ ~1 AC D N $ r y a m K m o rn p r mp(~]O nO.U ~N n r +~ZNV Q2 my ~iio c ~ ~A '~ o s o ~ 0 ep ZOm ~90 ~'~ Z2 mmo i~ ~'nA D~ zz m c $ < Z n o~ UK O z I m i, o ~yy..,o °S ~?p ° r _, << O ~ mlm~l y pp 2m A Z mw~ om = ; .~ yO H~ I AO-1~0~ O +' g C ~ ~ i I - I ; D O ~D ~m~Km ; ~ QyCmC O +12A~Z A ~ C K vi m u, m -1 C O) A (/~ -1 ~ m O "'t 5 ~° O II r Z UI O D f7 2 D to n Z C ~ U1 A m r i o D ~_ C 'A PT A ' O y +l ~t ~A ~ to ~ A ~ ~ o (p ~ m -a o (j //~f .1 rt O Z v/ L D'o o m ~ Cz ~ ~ ~ x as A< C m ~ ~ ~ z ~ I I ° m m R (A V v < w ~ } ~ ~ II II D N G P N ~ W 4 a \ \ \ O o O O O ~N oN Oo ;m ~C ~C Om D< ~ ~O ~O p ,~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ A ~ m N m N m N m N to rn ~ C C A T A ~ ~ ~ G 11 D m O m y ~ m ~ ~ D U1 Z S m ~ A Vl 8 ~ - Z p Z ~ N 0 ~ "~' ° q~ {~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ D~ ` m j D ~ > i 5o ~ ~ Z pt s Z ~ ~~~ °o~ ~ Z fl/ ~a TTDD ~ ~ O N O • II ~ ~ ~ m • • • m ~ m _.... _------------------ - -------- ------- ~ o0 ~ co g~ ~ 9 ~o ico s ~o 0o c A~o cgo Z ^ ---- - m~ •'• 9 ~pp ~ 9 V Am~ ~ZO .90 O N p N VO N ~ 17 ~O A;O O ma ti~ n m Zy N 9 QQ Vy 20 ;SmO ;~O ON nCm ••m r n l w n l p C 0 ~ O O O vA C o'o"N ~E op m pA O Z O ~~ O Z K <.-.N -Zi00~ o N ~ O Z - V <f Zr- <~O C r DAB c= p y> O m ~Z~ CpAO ~ ~ > m J 0 y m I N O m O1 r0 =~ ~ c mo '^o~ O ~ AN <•t g ... ~' ~ C --E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E-----E z cm C ~g ;off sm --}----~----r----~-----r-- ~ ~ N y~ ~ - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -y-1 ~- - - - - - - - - - '' - - - - - - - - ~_- /- - - - - - - - ./ ~ v ~~~ \ ~ . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . ~~ S i _ / : ~~~_. apt / , -~I -E- I I ~ • ~: ~ _ _ RY I ~ ~ ~ 1 - - 0- - - r RADIO 'CABINET ~ K UP I I [ ~ m O I ~ ~1 j [ EQUIPMENT CABINET ET I I [ w N . "`.. ~-`""~~1~ /~~ p 4 N P /f n) ; O Z ~ h /fin` M1C'n G, ~~ [ 7 ~ ~i ~ V ~ ,mm~ ~/ ~ ~ I D V m... v pm [ ( g5 v ~ Z V 9 [ 10 3/4• C273.OSOnn) 6• C752.400nn] 6 CI52.400nn] ~ ' ;5Z VI O IVI» y O;on m c 5'-11 1 /16~ [1.82448 M ~ N O 0 2'-Il 3/B' [899.160nn] 2'-7• C787.654n n] 2'-7• 78 .654nn] ~•>~ ~r;n ' - 16'-0' [4.876800M] r: --,,--E/OH ---E/U!1---------E/ON---------~~--E/O!i E/L C/Un CiGli- i. m ~ t7'-2 1/2' [6.245100M] -- ------_ ~ m o • .. 21'-0' (6.400800M] LEASE AREA - _ .. /O.._..__....-.___E/Gn....._-__.._..-._ _._-.____.E/Gy______._•_._.__E/On_...__..___._.-_E/0,..._______.....__- _.E py_____.-.-_._._. E ~__ i ...__ j e - I 1 ~ ..^a- '%Cii E/UH ,".^,H F..j U!! jOH E/OH- W ~ N N ~ ~ _-,_~ /~{ '~ • ~ ~-- `'~ i D ~ +10 " ~~ A° j /w /~~^(! 51OA 1 ~ - 0 A OT f9 - "~v ~~ °~ S ~~A~ u'i b0 O II Vr V Z ~ t~V 9k`V 9 m ~ ARATOGA LOS GATOS RD ~_~ quo °~ ~~~ ~~ ^~ r^00 OSO"-7 O =mN0 11^O A 1n m Q~ ~ N V ~ V '~~ ~~~~• O CZOO`,'`~. N ~ N a Z _/ ,1 Zfn / L a ''-- - O O ~NQ ~ ~ ~ r1 I } VZ I ~ = O ~ p O C min Z ~ n 1 ~ O om m `,O / ~ ~' ~ y ~ O Opp ~.. ~ O~„'_'~ AV ~ ~`-'-'~~. _._•.~,,,,,-~ A G ~~ ~'rm y~?m tZ'rOO p --r f I Af rl rI G ~ _ $ C_ O 3w ~= C -- / ~ ~ -~R-mom I o /j~~ _ \ O ~p pN *~p~ rn ~0 0o O ~ p ~ Z=vci tl~z. cZim mpg sO ~ ~ ~ ~ p N oo =o-D.oo tAf v n • N ~}- ~ ~ y ,_i/ N~ ~ ~ i yy Q ~ pN ~ N ~ ~ p fIL o m O' 0~ ~m ~_ .. ~ ~'Vl +r A ~ g ~ = C~ v Z OZ~A ZZZi22 : m p ~ ^ ~+t u o `o p rp A ~sam ~ m ~~$ CC~ fi ~~ - 4 ~" ~ w ~ r9 -- _ _ p a < __ _ - - °r _ _ ___~ -_ __ - ~ -_ ~ - - -_ - ~ - _ - _ " ~ ,, !'! - ,. ' (bl~.,) ~_ - - --___ -_ %~ ~ •~ __ 7 _ _. - ~ -E--- -E----..:~ --- -J =~___~__= ,- ,: i - ..;ice--~ i '. _ ,7C/h 17'-11' [5.461381 \ `~.,iK ~. _~~ - Jl' 4' (9.550104M] / ..~ ~i _ ~=_=5~=== a=}~ - _ ----_--- -^e'7 ~T ~-----T^~~~~i-----7f ~~--T- - - ~i ~ _ _ --~T-- --t"--- _ ~~ , V, ~" .. ~. ....... , /G•{-- E/ _ _ % __. _ s ' ~ F /C41- / i' f _... _. /G_... _ --__ -i/r~R.__-_-`__ ___ iJ,,..-~...-_.._ ,..=.1}31`--~-- #_' ~ ~ ~ N3 mow- -_ .`/ ~N_ c .. ___. - ~ ` ~ \ ~ ._..__E; I=lIF.~..__-___'-E~Gt U: __:--_._. ,~:~.;__.-_.__-..; :0.~__- ' _ :; _~ el~i,i __--___.E~~t:_ ___._._E/Urc-+. f., ~ 1' E%nr`. ,' `:G _ _,._ ._- r E _ _ _ 011.--_._..._.. -E/"t r E/'iN E./ )f /OH :li--~ `~G..v-._._._ Z E E~: `~ Ei~,__._.,,., -- -- - -- '-- --' -- --/ ( -- / DOA A ~r+~ mp~ A \`~ ~ -- ' `^\Y ^ ~ "._. m $-. r m z y a_ a r ~ - m ~ n ~ ~~ p I m ~__._i ~` ~~~' N o 9 ~V\ ~. 007 / n' m':.r^ =i1 _ - • \ ~...- a m mom ~ \ ~~ 7 ~ ~ ,, ` v N i V N m A ~ ~ ~ o .. ~ ~/-^~\ 1 "- ~ , `..' z E ~ s ~ tC~ O S O J!/ ~, //}~ ipf g ~ ~ ~ m "--~ _ io rCNi r ~ ~ n v~~i ~o~ moo ~ ; ' ~ /•-- /- \ ~- ~ / J 1 a -- _-_ _~. j r ~..-.~ ' ~ ...L L _.___-. / _-___. ~ ~ i , i-_ (%1 Z c m m D ~ C .Z7 Z ' '2 ssz~ ~ N ~ (/1 ~ 0 Z O) ~ O II O Z m m ~ II D II '~~m N p v U O V^O °o ~'~ O~o yy A C X O~oN _ ;~ ~. m N A .N. N N /v o D 1 b b T T1 O w 0 0 N C7 ~ C O ~ m ~ m ~ rn ^~ ~ 1'° ? Cn t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DD< C7 tn ~ -i z Z om ?O N O \ C m yA N D~ R• T ~-~7~7 ~ O ~ G7 y D ~ O Z O O f7~ C ~ ~' ~ x JY D o 1 y Z z _ m Z ' '^ ~IJ ~'^ Z ~ n > N ,"0 ~ 00 ~ tin / VJ O C D 0 OO cyi F ~l Z y V V1 ~ ~ ~ • fA l7 • • • O ~~~> s~~~-~" <.y.c ~ 4A ~ s ~ ~ ~~ m m ^' C y ' V~ O" t ~~ + ~ y O d~ ~ m }~ ~' b~ w ~A!~c• ~ o r't: I ~aa.>~' ...~tc3°S~i=av a ' ~ i i ~ ? '~ '` ' " `au a~ I ~ ~ Q Z ~~ ' .: a a s ~~ ~ I ,8,~M1 a i,( >it`rY, ~~a,i ;,.,, . ~ p ~ ~ DO Di _ ~ ~ Ap•IF ~.~ V -1 n OA ~ 0V5 r o r~ ~ o ovy p p 00 Ago _ O D _O 9N S ~ oc ~ Noo A ,u r' -•r(al' 3 3` U A .y trams. >+ ' ° ~ ~? i ,at }p-~ ~, ~ 'SK t°r • ~~xs ''~'„:: '°° ~ ~ ~! g I o o o Za m ~ m o ~ ov ~vo v o v oA ~ y,n v,ym i voi ! I b°i o~ '^ 2 ° g o0 00 A m mac `~~ io ;_" ~~3 ! '~:,~Y 'It~ •^,3~ ~ o ~ I m g Vp o A o py ~ A Z pC im .. ~• ' ~ I µ m o p ~ m o I 1 0 I y n O G= ~Z ;O a0 2 mN y O v 0 m = 2 w m C Cn pP VIN . C._.... [.._...__.._._ .,~ 6" - - . ~~i,. cya • ~ > ~ ; !/! 0 O~ ~ ~~ > 1 ZS m m •1 ~y lD~1 y m p n ~ o D gy=m ~ o 2 ! I f~" ~~~i j~•f`• r~4M yI' ,3 : ? X61 ~ ~'..~•> /1 ~'#~~a o~ .~ t ~ ,; • b' ~ • N ym o I I L _ I I 1 . ~ kit fig. h ~ . ~ . 1 m1 :~? iii ~. ~%'. + I I I I 1 I ~~ ~ I I I Tf ° i l i tam,. y~.,, ~ ~s ~~o- .$4 T •G~M ~+.et~{ti ~d D Z ~.. ~~~ I(,'t ~ -- ----.`' X17 m ~ O ~ ~ ~ •; mrly ~zo =ovpi j, .,, ~ ??, t r ~~•. .: -~~ s~ r ~ :L`'. +.:d,<~°~`>i4~~ a~ .~~s ,• O w A ~ me.. .. ~µ •L I ~i,m N r v r~ r v ~ 4 ~ (((~nnn .~,y' } ~{ tea„ zt^~y.OL ~~! I '1 1 ~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~1 y s '~j~~'i . j j1 1' 3 1 ~ i C7 ~ p ~ ~ ~ p~ m yl ' 1 __- ijJ.~~ aF y ~ r1~(!/S' ~ '1 ~ 'R.r7Y'T'~.. ~,µ ~ ¢` 44~ A n ~ p ~ v I O r~ µm ,~ ., 'vr° y~ c r~~~', ~H ~ • ~~ -+~ y f'%•~xv'' ~}~Y~s'+i~~j~ , F.+. - ~[ ~ '~ `I` I ,'.,~-~-.t~,y66e~ .n ' $te•a z , -y,$g G . ?~;' e~a~ ~s '~C )(„n ,>is~~ . q hl `~ ~ ` ~'` '~ ~ 7a mar: ~a a ~1s; umi '~ • ~~fSs' w ~ l ,4i e 's c t ~ v r ;---"".`_'. ~;' F'° ;a - :. '. i ~ yy yep ~ .`~ a ;~ ~ O oO ~f~/~/ /ro ~ ~ II ,11/11 ~ }riY.; ~~mr~=>~~~~ 3 ~~ •5 Nmo[~ ,'•• ~ v .4.. ~QI~~ •.~. 32•~a5 m~ :vb. ~ zy , ri .. .i a Y s w~a N '•°L D ai i.r .`i~r. v . " ~ '~ .1tY~• aw 3. ~ .vhf"~ t~°.~~• ~';N ~ _~°._ .~ ~~• r~ ~~a 1 ' ~. ~,'- r '.:•. .rt . ' ~' - * , ~~!,;..t1f.~ >Pa°'"Yr~!" ~ ~ F~ 11 ill ~. .,1. ,~ ' ' ~ ~ ,r..SS ; . ,' ~'`~' _ ~ t' -_ - •• °a+'~ ac'+ •~ spa r ; r i ~ i `arr• ~ •t.1 ~'~ :~ ;a~` a° J ~rjj!.((~ _..D~ . av S"wa ``.n~~~' , /' III: ~...~ f.i i .~ :k! _.----~::::::;_. , fir. ti;Cd '~•c• I ~/ i~ ~ . j' •:~J°S:. • : ^. •••°~ I `,~::.@'d` a.~, . a.-~/ Ali ~ ~ ~I r a v o ___ ..~ y, •' - - _.~ ~_ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~~~ ~jv2 ~~~'''yyy ~~ N ~ 4 +1 G n~ • ~ <o n ~ 2 A A t ~ ~~,.rq ~a ..Q "n~? I 'fi''rLY O ~n°~3 rl I P° o ~ r ~ •~ ,a } °_. "' ~' f t w d '`¢ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ o ~ - ~:_%~ '' ~' :••~:~: • tlro. r. . > „ ~: m ~: -n'~d °}nT ice' T. `'Q Ka4 A~ ~ +d• x ~ c I r~!y (~y I y r!A x m .. S!R ~_b~N'lh 2 Z C m D 0 N ~ x r N N Z O Z ~ ~ mf Z 2 W n 2 ~ II II N~a Ln 0 V .„.M N yV~O 0~.~ oQa ~'b o ., ~~~ m N N 0 V N I 4 J .O --1 m 0 w O m 0 V z 0 m ~ N O C ~ ~ Fz ~ O ~p ma I I y ~ TI rA=1 -I m r ~ ~ ~ G Z n m II O .'v. ~ C v1 ~ a n ~ ~ Z ~ z ~ O O> Zm O m Z \ ~ ~ ~ D y r ~D~~ ~~ D ~'A rn il c L7 ~ ••1 ~ o ~ Z ~ Z ~ m o Z 'n \ ~ n ~' N .Z1 Zoo DO 0o c ~n r~., t ~ O II ; •~' W o • • • z =~ m "''° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~R~s I - ~. aG a ., i~ c~74a'.p~e~ _ ~ ,f~rb„~H.S.'s.Y'"3 `p a ~o m ? v>~~ C e "'.~ `~~C~`F ~Q~-~~ ¢ _~~'~'" It ~{ 1 i~ ! l ~ : : ~ ~ ` ', ~ , ~ ~ e ~•T•.~ yo'y!sc C~~a t~~ r ~ " ~ < : < ; 1. `~" tl'1-:' S,°. Fa_?» p ~ 1w ,y i1: t_ +.'a'^?* ^, "~ :v L Ra~t ~'r"cYn^° y 4Y,.r • t• ~1 ty i i ~ d:'-n ~~~, ~TM. ~-_. 'f"` ~'' Zi °.~^ ~q p 1 .____. .~.x, ~ . 7@ 1 q ~ n/ l I i `' ;~ Z m ; V ; ~c^. _.:___. _:_•~'__•~ .... F a QM.R ~• TeY2 Z O Oyyp A ' __.__`\ ~~ v i A ~ 900 i o . y O ' + .~. ,.'a~~,ob .x• `a, ¢~ RegC ~~ ~~~~C+aV^~K ~~ Y2~RF'R ~' ' i~p:,~o .~ 3 - S;m~ _ T~~ 'C^' - .~ v0=9 y p Aff IIDI . ~~' ~ ~' 'sdR~ dx I O 1 ~ a yR Ii ° Q Y r~~ R;<' ~ . ¢ ? S Iti 6 iY ~ A f~ O~y •Fy'k O• ~ ` aN Crti . y O lrn ~~ .~'i . ' N - ~_- O it m - •H yR m ~yy N O 1'f RY ~ .m,. v ~ ~ s. h. `_ ~ ~ - e o0 r ~ ~ • 1 ~ i Fi % ~` •r~ ju~~`. N e ~Y ~ ` .~ ~ ~ I 1 I I I I y°~ °° • `y fir. '3~~ °+~^~r° h'R s L_.1__~ 2 9 r p ~ ~~Q ~ ~> ~ •R v • pm O ~ mp Zp 1 O DO ~-~ Opp 9 1 A ~ ?fi'r' ~~ $o•,~y° 2 < Im/1 ~ ~ ~ C Cm ~ O 1 V Q 1 ~ r 9Vp Cf >Ny 1 O O.U Z2 l O I ~ I V NO S~'~ ~ o C y0 11R ~O O Om ~V m 2 Z 02 O m M m _[ O +T . ~ .,: ~ C!. r .)~y. rs ~ •hI j: ~~yy [a qk°R •.N ~R.~. ~ yJ R ~ R 'f / r2 O m O C OTO ti~ S O O µ y'~+ON . ~• f 6 tr N;`~? '"' ~ f p ~ ~ N O _ ~ y N Z O S Z y> Z O N ~ p g -zi ~ O o { r v3 r n 9 _`_ . _...___ ._:: i~ ~ ~.~• .' ~' _..~...> .( i / w k oP' °~ N ~ ~~ ;` °w p p i ` . . _ Wy ' Odri s.Y' ;Y T ~ ma Nio 2 m ~ 3 L^ pi ~ c ~ VSd'o'v¢7~ _ ~g '°°, yliuf}al < R yq. i9 F z n m 2 U~ _ r.~ ~ 2i P C~ 4 Ot~d YYV~> ~¢ }. , ~ ~ . <;< p ~y. p~ f~ i W '~~s ~~ya ~~ ' //~~~\ C ,~ ' r ~ O N Z ~ ~; ~ rz, ~: N I ~ /N~ S Z p=0 Z D ~ ' ~' m ,,, I f 0 O O ~C .. JJ '~l y Ir O I ~ m I µ = ° i. ~ OJ _ _Z O Imn N I ._ n 0 ~ ~ ( I p 4~ ~ I I~ O p ti N N2 ~ ! O C •i. '... b' Y O p ~ I i ~ I ~tp y~ - I ~ I OOi C Z O ~ i I Z N :n •, h• ~ ~ . • ~ ~~ b~ ~•-~s y~T'.T.l~w~.'~p~Q MMM a n 1 1 i i ~ E g I 1- I 1 ~-^ E a-~-+¢P kF O z z N uop N .1 m o m Ipil S pop amA 9 ~ N N _ o p ~m I I r ~--1 -r io~1;X~ °Th: ~'• `~.. t '~ ~~' °i ..~q ~'.'•~ c..1UUF~v•. :i'.~i .C.: Y T.i.T~ ~F~'° R '~3 //yypp bn• ~t na a~ p~ ~ , c~ S p o OA p a m N ^ p Z N O 1.1 ppZ ~ `` t y _ G^ ~y~. ~ P. y ~ t~k •$ ~ ;pm ~~.140~ O AOD z cZO ~o l arP K ¢~ n 1 4 n y ~mp tp _. ~ - i I I ~ ~ ~ m o~~ EW ~`.~ ~a I .S ex• / .' ~, 5R .Y4 !x T t t! AYO pp I - i --., i~ E fm ° ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ I fb; ~. qq ~~ ~ ~ `~~ ~uR m t "'" S ~ O /~. ~~ e ~c >t y. OFF Wes, ,P p ~ I ~ ~f>`~~ a3~a' ~ p j za i __ _r --_ __ ___ ___-__ _ ~ ~, _ Z IZ -Di ' ~ o vmCi O _ : 1 O 1 f~l 1 µ P = _ IF m ~ o c p ~v as 6 c °s I I~ ~ N ~ ~ m ~ ~~ m ~ rn* Z S ~~ > `z Z z f/1 c N A a ~ v ~a u: S Z cn o I ~ ~^r C m ~ ~ m D'1 A F ~ O rl r'9- rn w Z ~ C m ~ x ~ ~ o m ~ C W ~ i*1 m rn ~ j. D .-Z-.1 off' ~- ~ a ~ ~ ~ u ~ m 'S A ~ ""I Vl ~ r D D n ~~ '1 Z Zn O m ~Tl oQ n m O ~ II m Z D 0 ZO +1w yy to O O n 0 ~ DA N ~ - I N S v m J ~ N n ~ W ~ C) ~~ (n Z ~ 'p y~ ~ II o n o Z V' ~ _, Z o o D AC N I^ VI O ~ D ~ ~ u ~ (I ~O C _ ~ ~• o n Z D ( N °+ " ~ O ~ O -% ITEM 4 City of Saza[oga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner DATE: October 24, 2001 RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GARROD/COOPER VINEYARDS BACKGROUND The applicant's property is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The applicant has applied for an Architectural and Site Approval through the County to add three residences to the existing property. In order for the County to process the application, they require that the proposed plan meet the General Plan Policies of the City of Saratoga. Staff did not recommend the project because the proposed plan is inconsistent with the Hillside Specific Plan. The applicant is asking for an interpretation from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the General Plan policies stated below exclude the proposed project from continuing forward with the County. _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to build three new homes on an existing 10-Acre parcel on Mount Eden Road. The parcel has two existing homes on the site. Two of the proposed homes ~~~ould have 3,000 square feet for floor area with an additional 840 square foot three-car garage. The third proposed home would be 2,595 square feet with a 546 square foot two- car garage. The proposed project would require approximately 1,575 cubic yards of cut and 1,295 cubic yards of fill material with 280 cubic yards of material being exported off the site. RESIENTIAL DESIGN The applicant is proposing three single story houses that are very basic in design and are typical of a manufactured type of home. The City of Saratoga's Zoning Code requires that new single-family homes are consistent with the Residential Design Handbook. Staff feels the proposed architectural style of the homes would not be consistent with the style of the new homes that are being built in the area. DISCUSSION City staff has reviewed the proposed plans and feels the proposed project is in conflict with the policy stated in the Hillside Specific Plan which states the following: 000001 r Planning Commission Memo RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road October 24, 2001 Paget COLINTY LANDS/SECONDARY SPECIFIC PI~4N ARIA City should control the development of adjacent lands (developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density- of 20-160 acres/unit depending on slope. A second policy that may be applicable to the proposal is located in the Open Space Element-of the Ciry of Saratoga General Plan that states the following: INCENTIVE TO ARGRICLILTURAL LAND OCv~VERS Allowing additional dwellings on family farm oberai-ion~; when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses cor~sist~~nt with Williamson Act provisions. This ~,~ill not constitute a residential subdivision of the land ur~.der the lilliamson Act. The section referred to in the Open Space Element of the (Jeneral Plan indicates that the City should offer incentives to agricultural land and lists in~:entives that could be implemented. The Hillside Specific Plan specifically states that on hi]].sid~ properties in the unincorporated area of the City the density should be limited to a minimum of on.e dwelling unit for every 20 acres. Staff has interpreted this section of the Specific Plan to have precedence over the section in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission reviev~ the proposed project and pro~~ide the applicant and staff with an interpretation of the inte°nt of tl;.e General Plan. ATACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Letter 2. Letter from Santa Clara County 3. Plans "Exhibit A" • ~rtnrnnn~ • ~1 GARROD TRUST 22600 MOUNT EDEN RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 Tel: 408-867-3335 Fax: 408-741-3459 Mr. Tom Sullivan Director of Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mr. Sullivan: U ~~~ StP ~ 5 2001 Cll~l' OF SA(UITOGA COhih1UNITY DEVELOPMENT The Garrod Trust has provided the Santa Clara County Planning Department with a Site Plan which would enable the Trust to build three homes for employee/beneficiary housing under the Williamson Act. These homes will be for the occupancy of Trust Benef curies who aze employed by one of the Trust businesses. Two of these currently must live with parents and one must commute 70 miles each way once a week. The Garrod Trust was formed in 1970 with the purpose of retaining its 250 acres in agriculture and open space. Approximately one half of this acreage was sold or gifted to the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. The remaining 120 acres is devoted to Garrod Farms Stables, equestrian activities, and the Cooper-Garrod Estate Vineyards which comprise vineyards and a winery. These employ 21 full time employees. The land has been in the Garrod Family since 1893, successively being farmed as orchards, horses and vineyards. In the mid 1960's the orchards were no longer profitable and were replaced by horses, a riding arena and the stables. The first vineyard was planted in .1972 with an additiona128 acres added over the years. A commercial winery was established in 1991. The equestrian activity, which in addition to boarding horses, instruction in riding and vaulting are recognized internationally. This years highlight was hosting the 2001 International Competitions (Concours Voltige International) in June. Seven countries were represented. The wines produced have consistently won top awards and the Tasting Room that was opened in 1994 has become increasingly popular, drawing customers from throughout the United States and abroad. Considerable interest is shown in the fact that Garrod Farms continues as a "family" operation. 000003 The Garrod Trust was formed not only to ret~iin the property for agriculture but also to provide employment for family members why were :interested. With the restrictions imposed by City and County General Plans i1: has ba:.ome increasingly difficult for Trust Beneficiaries to build homes on Trust property. l:t hf~s therefore become necessary to apply for Santa Clara County approval to build 3 homes for beneficiaries who aze also employees of the Trust. In this regard as we are within the City's "zone of influence" we must obtain a release from the City of Saratoga stati~ig that we conform with Saratoga's General Plan. Based on our meeting last wee;k it ap~~ears that it may be necessary to obtain an interpretation of the General Plan from the Planning Commission to accomplish this. The paragraphs which I sent to you which were; taken from the Report of the Clpen Space Task Force and adopted by the City Council 11/17/93 should be helpful in this regard. Sinc ely, " Geor e Cp~ er g P Trustor • SEP 0 5 2001 CITY OH SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000004 '~~`~ Sent By' SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING; County of Santa Clay r~ • Gnvironmenlal liesources Agency Ptanninf Uflicc C:UtIniV G~wcnmr(rru Cc+nrcr. P.~rst ~~'in~?. 7th Floor 7O ~tiest Hedrling Street San Jose. Cafdomfa ~S t t ~>• 1 70 r408; 299-z:~:,a f=:\X 14081 288-9 1 98 ~•~tita'. sc:cpf annin~;. or g 408 288 9198 Aug-30-01 7:50AM; Page 2/3 August 21, 2001 Garrod Trust 22600 Mt. Eden Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 FILE NUMBER: 8060 - 19 - 59 - O1P - OlA SUBJECT: Use Permit; Architectural and Site Approval SITE LOCATION: Mt. Eden Road DATE RECEZVED: 7/3/20.01 This letter is written to inform you that your application as submitted on the above referenced date, is incomplete. in order to complete this application, you must sutmit the following information and an application for the re-submittal to the County Planning Office counter: ~,. Planning Office Section 37-11.7 (3) of the County Zoning Ordinance requires that there is a "demonstrated need to provide permanent residences for bonafide agricultural workers based on the nature and intensity of the agricultural operation." Section 37-11.7 (2) requires the "occupants of such homes shall be engaged in an agricultural pursuit on land owned, leased or rented by the operator." Section 37-11.7 (~~0 requires the "occupants of such units shall be individuals engaged in significant agricultural pursuit from actual farming practices..." Explain why 3 additional agricultural worker residences are needed, based on the acreage and scope of the agricultural operation, noting who will occupy the residences, their occupation, and number of hours per week they work in the agricultural operation, in sufficient detail to address the required findings. 2. Section 37-11.7 (5) requires that the "units shall be of an appropriate size and design for the intended use." Two houses are proposed to be 3,400 sq. ft. with an 840 sq. ft. garage, and one is proposed to be 2,595 sq. ft. with a 546 sq. ft. garage. Explain why the proposed size of houses is needed and meets this requirement. 3. The property is located in the Urban Service Area of the City of Saratoga. Conformance with the City of Saratoga General Plan is required. The form that you submitted, signed by Senior Planner Bob Schubert, did not address General Plan conformance. Take the enclosed form to the City of Saratoga Planning Office for completion, for both General Plan Conformance and Contiguity/Annexation. I:~r u<t UI 5utu~n•itir,i:ti: DC~rl~l(I F. G:1S;C. 13I<u:Ca :\It'~ fE+CiU. Pet r.. R1<:Hil~;h .IRf11Cti I. He•~~It .li t_iz Kiii__, Crnurt~' Gxccuti~•c: RIChOr(f ~~~itlenberg !?' .m. 000005 -- ~r_~, Sent By: SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING; 408 288 9198 ; Aug-30-01 7:50AM; Page 3!3 4. File for an Environmental Assessment or Categorical Exemption and pay the associated fee. 5. There are two existing residences on the property. Explain who resides in those residences and their relationship to the a.gri~~ultural use. Land Development Engineering 6. Proposed grading includes 1,575 cubic yards •of cut, 1,295 cubic yards of fill. File for a grading permit, including the grading design standards form and seven (7) preliminary grading plans (as defined by the' County Grading Ordinance, copy enclosed). Include on the grading plans the gLantity of grading for the house pad, and for areas outside the house peids (for access road, drive~;ay, landscaping area etc.) The current fee for a grading permit is $617.00. 7. Provide a copy of the deed recorded pursuant to lot line adjustment file nunber 6506-97LA, for this parcel. Northwest information Center 8. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological sites. Submit 3 copies of an ~irchaeological report prepared t,y a qualified consultant (list enclosed). Foz mere information, contact Leigh Jordan, Coordinator, Northwest Information C'ent:er, at (707) 664-2494 or (;07) 664-0880. If the requested information is not submitted withi~i 1'BO days, you will be requirec to pay a fee of 10 percent of the current applic:ati.on fee at the time the requested information is submitte3. Any resubmittal after 1 year will be processed as a new application, subject to new fees and requireme~its. Pi~RTIAL RESUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that fees required at the l=ime of resubmittal will be in accordance with the most recently adopted Board of Supervisors fee schedule. If you have any additional questions regarding thi;a matter, please feel free to call me at (408) 299-2454 ext. 229. Sincerely, G~~~Gc~ Gary Rudholm, Secretary Architectural and Site Approval cc: Carolyn Walsh, Jiir. Sirr, Zachary Goldberg George E. Cooper :22701 Mt. Eden Rd. Sara•togei, <;A 95070 enclosed: General Plan conformance Contiguity/An7iexation form, Referral List for Historical Resources (:on;aultants, County Grading Ordinance. ` • ooooos N1~d 3115 e o r o ~ ONtl 39tlNItl80 `9NINtl89 r ~ ~ i ~ z '~ m ~ viNao~lid~ dool~-ads lS ~ ~ l 4Wff1T tl ~ Six! S ~ ~ m c 1 ~•, J _ m ~-~ m m ~ (~" "' Y E /~ I ~ ':~ m m rN 3 m m J `. --_, C J T p~ p~ t7 ~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~- '~ T m J Y ~ „ ?. r y c i_'- C p C: W N ~„ :_ G ~ u 'j ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ amo k r~ C ~; f (, %I I ~ ~ ~ +~ `~ c ~ V O F ~- ~ 0 a w a` w a` - ~-- ~ O U ~" ~~ i_' `- ~• ~R ' V ~ `+ M _ J-- ~--- . - - I -I - - - -. - i~r '' 'L ~~ i ~. ; ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~z a ~ ~ H Z U oNlsnoH A~~wd~ swad~ aoaado o ~ ~~ h ~ Z Z Z ~~ n ~ OZ J ~~ m I ° . C7 C7 ~ F- ~ Q CU N c J J A ~ o ~ °' ~ ~ C9 ~ N (7 Z aS W i Z I Q~ a ~, ~~ ~ W ~ ,. . I c6 ds O W cn W a U N H .. W Z m l a 'tu F- w~ H V N Z ~ Q N> ~ w O Z- F z ~ r > i ci ci : Z m _ Q. = W J ~ : h N pQ W y v c ~ ~ N ~z~ ~ m - ~ N M .f "~A O ~ ~ F- ~ J ~ ~ O C E X F- ~ F- F- F- 0 0 N m ~ ~~ v O c w w w W W ~" ~~ z 3 ~ P ~~ E _ - ? In _ -- N• _ N - N - N '-Q _ CO ~ - --- m p m ~ _ W . » z a m a-OM'xJ Ol 10]'8113 38 AYII OW 3tV S1 1~OffilR~ Si ONMYNO SMlI 90-ZO ~31tl0 ]Old OSL ]Old 3lld dOd ................ .~~ ~,.,...~ .., w..,~ »~, • • • 4 0 0 ~~~~ SNOIIVA3'73/Nd~d aOO'1d ~ 'g 9 3SAOH VINZIOdi~d~ `d9O1VaVS oNlsnoH A~Iwv~ swad~ aoaado ~ ~ i e ~ ~~N o i~ ~M ___ .` o a ~ ~ W ~ F a, ~; Z ;, ~ O. ~ ~o Z O F W q ~ ~ r b O Z O 'Q j o W m ; W n N D O ty{ Z O Q q W m W e ~ ~ (V H , IVJ77{111 ~an+o a u~ s ~.vn a. L a uoro 0-90-GO SNOI1tlAS'13/Ntl'Id a00'Id tl SSAOH m ~ ~ M m ~ ~ @ ~ u ti ~, ~ ` ° tllNao~l~tl~ ~r~oltlatls ~-°„~„ ~° 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ oNlsnoH A~Iwtl~ swatl~ aoaatl~ ~ ~ ~ M d 1 z W J Z~ ~ O. ~ ~ u~. ; ~ _ O Q W J b. ~ ~ b ~ f ~ ~ ~ ` ° .. Z O a J W ;, i W m ~ ~; O i z g ~ m ~~ om ~ O• ~~ ~ ~. ° z O a J b W ;, ; W m ~ O ~~~ ~ lV ~y H ° 17E!