Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 14, 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 Absent: Commissioner Barry and Jackman Staff: Planners Livingstone, Oosterhous, and Vasudevan, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 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 lawgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahingaction on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR SD-95-007.4 (503-82-006) -RODEO CREEK HOLLOW -PHASE II - K2M ASSOCIATES, LLC, Paramount Court; -Request for a two year time extension to Phase II of a previously approved Tentative Map. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0) 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. 2. DR-O1-036 (397-18-048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to remodel and expand an existing single-story 3,375 square foot residence, and construct a new 875 square foot second-story. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence would be 26 feet in height. The site is 28,229 square feet, and is located in the R-1-40,000 zone district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-0 ) 3. DR-O1-028 (397-17-033) JALAN, 19805 Versailles Way; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,037 square foot residence and demolish an existing 4,217 square foot home. The proposed height is 25.5 feet. The lot is 40,060 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 4-1, ) 4. DR-00-056 Est V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) - SOBRAT0,14800 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,281 square foot residence, a 755 square foot garage, 1,512 square foot open pavilion (162 square feet enclosed) and a 4,598 square foot basement on a vacant lot. As an alternative, the applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The Variance would allow the pavilion to be fully enclosed and 751 square feet of open vaulted ceiling in excess of 15 feet ceiling height. The site is 6.19 acres, and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 3-1-1, HUNTER ABSTAINED, KURASH DENIED) NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. 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 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 FROM 10/24/01) (Request for continuance toJanUary 9, 2002) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Heritage Preservation Commission request to participate in Planning Commission sub- committees. Staff requests confirmation of the Commissioner's availability for a special meeting scheduled prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2001. See attached Notice of Special Meeting. COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 10:30 PM TO NEXT MEETING Special Meeting on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 5:00 p.m., at St. Andrew's School, 13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 13, 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, NOVEMBER 14, 2001 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA DR-O1-036 - BRAMLETT Item 2 14920 Farwell Avenue • 2. DR-O1-028 ~ - JALAN Item 3 19805 Versailles Way 3. DR-00-056, V-00-022 - SOBRATO Item 4 14800 Bohlman Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please cgntact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,137T1 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 24, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any membcr of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agrnda The lawgcnerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR SD-95-007.4 (503-82-006) -RODEO CREEK HOLLOW -PHASE II - K2M ASSOCIATES, LLC, Paramount Court; -Request for a two year time extension to Phase II of a previously approved Tentative Map. (OOSTERHOUS) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appeaz and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Sazatoga 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. 2. DR-O1-036 (397-18-048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to remodel and expand an existing single-story 3,375 squaze foot residence, and construct a new 875 square foot second-story. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence would be 26 feet in height. The site is 28,229 square feet, and is located in the R-1-40,000 zone district. (VASUDEVAN) 3. DR-O1-028 (397-17-033) JALAN,19805 Versailles Way; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,037 square foot residence and demolish an existing 4,217 square foot home. The proposed height is 25.5 feet. The lot is 40,060 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) 4. DR-00-056 &t V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) - SOBRAT0,14800 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,281 square foot residence, a 755 square foot garage, 1,512 square foot open pavilion (162 square feet enclosed) and a 4,598 square foot basement on a vacant lot. As an alternative, the applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The Variance would allow the pavilion to be fully enclosed and 751 square feet of open vaulted ceiling in excess of 15 feet ceiling height. The site is 6.19 acres, and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. (SULLIVAN) NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. 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 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 FROM 10/24/01) (Request for continuance toJanuary 9, 2002) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Heritage Preservation Commission request to participate in Planning Commission sub- committees. Staff requests confirmation of the Commissioner's availability for a special meeting scheduled prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2001. See attached Notice of Special Meeting. COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 0 MINUTES ~Vi ~ " ' ~U SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 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 v' ~/ Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp and Planner Christy Oosterhous . APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 10, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 2001, were approved with three typographical corrections on pages 2, 9 and 11. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: Roupe 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 18, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff report. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 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 reflectors and house side reflectors. 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) Commissioner Roupe asked that a Public Hearing be opened for this Consent Item. Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a request for Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting to include six globes on black poles with downward streetside reflectors. • Added that per the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, this proposal is compliant with industry standards. • Concluded by stating that staff is recommending approval of this request, finding that the installation will be both decorative in its appearance and functional in promoting site security. Commissioner Kurasch inquired why the applicants did not choose to install lights on the buildings instead. C7 Planner Christy Oosterhous said she would defer response to this question to the applicant. . Chair Barry opened a Public Hearing regarding Consent Calendar Item No. 1 for proposed parking lot lighting at Azule Crossing at 7:09 p.m. Mr. Brent Londre, Frank Electric, Project Lighting Contractor: • Advised that the selection of a pole in lieu of placement of fixtures on the buildings was made because of the structure of the parapet wall, which juts out. Installation of lights on the walls would not enhance the architecture. • Said that the installation of lighting is for safety. • Informed that he has proposed a fixture that is identical to the one used on the adjacent residential project. • Said that they have provided a photometric layout. • Said that these proposed fixtures provide enhanced light in a way that addressed spill with a top and side splash. • Added that a lot of thought went into the selection of this particular fixture in this installation. • Pointed out that to the south of this site are train tracks, to the east are residences and to the north a convenience store that already has an electrolear streetlight. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Londre if they have spoken with adjacent residents regarding this lighting proposal. Mr. Brent Londre replied that he has worked only with the owner and has not interacted with any neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 3 Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff contacted the neighbors. One came to see the plans and expressed no concerns and did not elect to come to this evening's meeting. Chair Barry: • Expressed concerns with the fact that some of these poles will be located in front of homes, almost in their front yards. • Suggested that alternative lighting located on the face of the stone wall might be preferable to the proposed 15-foot high poles, which will be clearly visible from the adjacent residences. Mr. Clint Sanders, Associated Lighting Representatives, Oakland: • Suggested that wall fixtures on this project would be an eyesore. • Said that it would take a great number of fixtures to reach the lighting level required. • Added that these proposed pole lights are ideal and meet all requirements without imposing glare on neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch asked if these fixtures tie in with the ones already on site. Mr. Clint Sanders said that there is just one fixture existing on site. Added that this was a nicely planned outjob. Commissioner Kurasch: • Suggested an alternate installation, perhaps using a combination of fixtures that would be more sensitive to neighbors. • Said that the homes will see these 15-foot high light poles directly from their front room windows. • Inquired why such lighting is even required since the stores are not opened beyond 5 p.m. Mr. Dennis Griffin: • Said that the installation was designed to provide security for the stores. • Added that employees working on site leave late. • Stated that perhaps the poles don't need to be as high as 15 feet. • Said that light fixtures placed on the building walls would not provide adequate lighting for necessary site security. Mr. Clint Sanders: • Said that a reduction in height might require additional fixtures. However, if taller fixtures are used, perhaps fewer fixtures might be required. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the building. Mr. Dennis Griffin cautioned that placing lights on the building would cause the light to shine onto the residential properties. Chair Barry wondered if the lighting could be placed on sensors so they would not be illuminated when no one was on the property. Mr. Dennis Griffin replied that he was not certain. Said that if the lighting were on sensors there is potential that they would be on all the time as people and/or cars passed by. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch: • Suggested a combination of taller lights at the ends of walls so that the fixtures would not be visible directly from the homes. • Proposed placing one fixture near the planter holding a tree. Mr. Dennis Griffin said that the property owner has a legal requirement to provide parking lot safety to their tenants. Chair Barry: • Said that the Commission does not disagree about the need for security but would like to see an alternative to very tall poles. • Added that they are open to suggestions. • Said that the applicants have heard the direction of the Planning Commission and can now work out the details with staff. Mr. Dennis Griffin said that he is willing to have the Planning Commission select an acceptable alternative. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested that the applicants confer with staff. • Said that installing lights on the walls would be less obtrusive than 15-foot high poles. • Asked that the applicants look at alternatives and work with staff. • Said to look at safety but in a way that is less obtrusive. Mr. Brent Londre: • Said that the professional standard has been met and all considerations have been taken. • Added that wall fixtures placed at a low height are oftentimes vandalized. • Added that it is not feasible to use motion sensors with this type of light fixture. • Said that this proposed installation addresses the needs while wall packs would shoot light out. Commissioner Roupe: • Reiterated that the issue for the Commission is not the illumination standard but the aesthetics of the 15-foot high light fixtures being visible from the residences. • Said that they would like to see a more subdued installation. Chair Barry: • Said it is not the Commission's intent to put the applicants on the spot to make a decision this evening. • Pointed out that the adjacent residences have not yet been sold and are currently unoccupied. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Director Sullivan said that staff would visit the site one evening to assess the potential impact of this proposed lighting on residents. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 5 Planner Christy Oosterhous questioned whether a 10-foot high pole is found to be out of scale by the Commission. Commissioner Roupe said the Commission would defer the final decision to staff's discretion. Commissioner Kurasch instructed staff to direct the placement of fixtures and minimize the number of poles installed. Chair Barry: • Said that the proposed lighting fixtures are a nice design and that the only issue is their placement and the height of the poles. • Reiterated the suggestion that a combination of fixtures be installed to meet the lighting needs while also being sensitive to adjacent properties, to the satisfaction of staff. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission instructed the applicants to work with staff to develop an alternative lighting plan for Azule Crossing at 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Drive that takes into account the safety and aesthetics with a test to be conducted from the adjacent residences to ensure that no adverse impacts occur. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Barry announced that Non-Public Hearing Item No. 4 would be taken out of order. NON-PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 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 two dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is pre-zoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows: • Said that currently staff is not supportive of this application but that consultation is needed with the City Attorney to develop potential alternatives which staff can support. • Suggested that the Commission make a motion to continue consideration of this application to the next meeting on November 14, 2001. Chair Barry asked the applicant if he will support a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Cooper replied yes. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 6 • • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-O1-019, V-0-011, UP-O1-016, BSA-O1-001 & 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) Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there are technical corrections to the staff report: • Page 3 -lot coverage is 13 percent not 17 percent as reported. • Page 6 -replace net site area with gross site area, with the percentage being 13 percent rather than the reported 12 percent. • Advised that this project site is being evaluated as net site rather than gross. The lot coverage has been calculated using the total lot area. • Informed that the proposed structure is a 26 foot high, 4,830 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage that is 14 feet high. A carport is attached to the detached garage. The site consists of 1.42 acres. • Said that the property has a slope of 31.17 percent. Therefore, this project is not Categorically Exempt. • Said that staff did an Initial Study for this project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Added that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project as well as to review the Building Site Approval, for which the same findings apply as are made for the Design Review. • Added that two variances are required for this application. One is to allow building on a site with a slope greater than 30 percent. The second is required per Code because of the need for two retaining walls, which cumulatively exceed an allowable height of 10 feet. This project requires two sets of retaining walls, one at the front and another at the back. • Said that the Design Review is very straightforward. • Added that the Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a detached accessory structure that is 14 feet in height. • Said that the proposed structure steps up the hillside on the most stable portion of the lot. The proposed home meets Ordinance requirements and geotechnical clearance has been obtained from Engineering. The lot complies with the Subdivision Map Act. • Distributed a color materials board. • Advised that staff believes that necessary findings can be made in support of this project and recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Council. The Commission would conditionally approve the project with the requirement that Council finalize action granting the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the ramifications of building on property with greater than 30 percent slope. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 8 Planner Allison Knapp advised that the lot coverage is calculated based on Hillside Residential standards and that allowable lot coverage is reduced by 10 percent as a result of the slope being in excess of 30 percent. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the Geologic Report is part of the Environmental Approval. Planner Allison Knapp replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out page 58 of the report that describes slope stability as being relatively stable. • Asked if the Geologic Report is compatible with the Hillside Specific Plan. Planner Allison Knapp: • Replied that all on-site improvements are taken into consideration at the discretion of the Commission. Staff finds that there is a net improvement in conditions over existing conditions with this development following mitigations. • Added that the residential footprint is outside of the area of landslide movement. • Acknowledged awareness that maintenance of the driveway will be required but that this is a private property issue for the owners and not the responsibility of the City. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern for the approximately 20-year old home situated directly below the project site. Planner Allison Knapp: • Assured that required setbacks are being met. • Acknowledged that the carport will be but 20 feet away from the existing home. • Agreed that there are tough Design Review issues with which to grapple. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that the earth is shifting all the time according to acquaintances she has in this area. • Asked if staff and the applicant are aware of that fact. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is why the application was required to submit a privately performed Geotechnical Report. That report was then peer reviewed by the City's Geologist in a process that takes six to nine months to complete. Commissioner Hunter asked if this proposal is considered safe. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and more importantly the Geotechnical Engineers find it safe. Added that the residence will be constructed with a significant foundation. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the excavation of the basement could potentially disturb the hillside itself by causing shifting. Planner Allison Knapp advised that this question is one reason a Geotechnical Review was required. The report provides a menu of what has to be done to mitigate and prevent sliding on the site. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that compacting the soil will help prevent any problems. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 9 Director Tom Sullivan said that new things are learned after every major earth movement but, based upon what is known right now, this project is a sound one. Chair Barry asked whether any soils on this site are considered unstable since both the net and gross is calculated to be the same. Planner Allison Knapp replied that there are no "MD" soils to be netted out. Commissioner Hunter questioned the request for two variances to accommodate this project, stating that she was under the impression from personal experience that any variance is difficult to obtain. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are three primary findings that must be made by Code. These are outlined in the staff report. Chair Barry pointed out that while there are two slide areas on the property, it appears that only one has proposed mitigations. Planner Allison Knapp assured that both slide areas are being mitigated. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that an incorrect site address is incorporated into the supplemental geotechnical report dated January 10, 2001. Said that it is a concern since it appears on the page that is professionally stamped. . Director Tom Sullivan said that this appears to be a word processing error, which will be corrected. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Charles Brown, Applicant's Representative: • Stated that the retaining walls would be installed prior to the basement excavation to provide stability. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if any mitigation was proposed down the ravine or if just the area on which the home would be constructed would have mitigation. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the old major slide area on the property would not be mitigated while the property where the new house would be constructed would be mitigated. Chair Barry asked if the old major slide area could be mitigated. Mr. Charles Brown replied that they are following all guidelines prepared by the Geotechnical Engineers. Planner Allison Knapp reminded that both a private Geotechnical Engineer and the City's Geotechnical • Engineer have authorized the proposal. Chair Barry suggested that adding additional conditions to require the mitigation of the second mayor slide area should be imposed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Charles Brown advised that this is a long time slide that is older than everyone present this evening. It has not caused problems to the property below in more than 50 years. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that it appears that the best probability is that the old slide area will remain as it has for all these years. • Suggested that an Open Space Easement is a possible mitigation. • Added that additional mitigations are a reduction in the size of the building as well as the placement and design of the building. Said that she has concerns and questions. • Suggested moving the home away from the edge of the slide plane and slope as is possible. This is the east property line. Mr. Charles Brown: • Said that they are willing to do anything that is constructive. • Added that perhaps the Variance for the retaining wall would no longer be required as a result but that a different Variance for encroaching into the other side setback would be needed instead. • Said that they can move the house as far as authorized by the Commission. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested at least five to ten feet. • Commended the design, which blends into the slope. • Supported the shift in Variance to the East Side setback in order to accommodate moving the house back or uphill. Mr. Charles Brown said that they might be able to move both retaining walls too. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the garage could be moved. Mr. Charles Brown: • Responded that they could leave the house and slide the garage/carport five feet up the slope, which would reduce the retaining wall needed. • Added that they have met with the property owner of the home below this project site on two occasions. They have agreed to provide extensive landscaping and that property owner is satisfied. • Said that there will be five feet between retaining walls, which will be landscaped to provide future screening of the walls. Commissioner Garakani asked about the thickness of the walls. Mr. Charles Brown said that the engineer who ends up designing the wall would determine this. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the garage and rear of the home would be what is visible from the road. Mr. Charles Brown: . • Said that they have made the best possible use of the site. • Added that the view of the property is limited due to the trees and the turn in the road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 11 • Said that they are making every effort to make this home pleasing to the eye. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the placement, size and design on the West Side are of concern. • Said that this elevation is different from the rest of the house with the maximum number of full height walls. • Said that the mass of this elevation is so big that it looks like a condo complex. Mr. Charles Brown clarified that the plans are shown two dimensionally and that in reality the structure will not appear as massive. Based on the slope of the property, only the bedroom is visible and not beyond that. Commissioner Kurasch said that she still has concerns about the massiveness. Mr. Charles Brown said that he tries to pay attention to massing and scale. Commissioner Garakani asked whether moving the house up the slope would adversely impact the front entry feature. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the move would only impact the living room and not the front entry. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house even further than five to ten feet. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the applicant work with staff and the Geotechnical Engineers to decide how far the structure can be moved uphill. - Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the size of the structure is large for a property with a small buildable area. The use of a home with the maximum floor area ratio is hard to accept and/or justify for such a constrained lot. Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the parcel consists of 1.42 acres and that the allowable square footage has already been dramatically reduced because of the slope of this property. This proposal is actually a relatively small house for a property consisting of 1.42 acres. Commissioner Zutshi asked why the garage needs to be 14-feet high. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the roof pitch is 6 and 12. Added that City Ordinance allows a matching pitch for the house and detached garage. Commissioner Zutshi said that this lot cannot simply be looked at as a 1.42-acre buildable lot. Due to the slope it is not considered that way when determining what can be constructed on it. Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the house they are proposing is something that would fit on a much smaller lot. Added that the rest of the property will be vegetation and open space. Commissioner Roupe suggested a dedicated easement to open space. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 12 Director Sullivan provided the term of "scenic easement" and agreed that such a condition could be • included in the motion for approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if this is an acceptable proposal. Mr. Charles Brown replied yes. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the Commission can require the planting of indigenous trees. Director Sullivan replied that this would be a separate condition and asked Chair Barry if she was looking for these trees between the house and the road. Chair Barry said that she was actually looking for these indigenous trees at the second slide area as a means of stabilizing that area. Director Sullivan cautioned that these trees would not serve to remediate a slide condition area but can be requested as additional landscape screening for the site. Chair Barry: • Said that this is a constrained lot on which this house looks big. • Suggested that the Commission could ask for a reduction in square footage. • Asked Mr. Brown if he has considered this possibility. Mr. Charles Brown: • Replied that they originally wanted a much bigger home but greatly reduced the home based upon the geotechnical report. • Said that they are hoping that there will be no further reduction required. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested that this project can be approved with conditions, including having the applicant work further with staff to move the structure eastward on the property for a distance that makes sense to help mitigate the impact of the retaining walls on the property below. • Added that a scenic easement should be required and appropriate landscaping installed using native trees in the non-buildable slide prone area. • Said that appropriate landscaping should also be included at the front of the property to mitigate the retaining wall impacts and to protect the view of the property below this site. Director Sullivan suggested that the condition incorporate a requirement to use native landscaping based upon review and approval by both the City Geologist and City Arborist. Commissioner Roupe supported that suggestion. Director Sullivan advised that since this project was specifically advertised for variances, the proposal for moving the house uphill requires its own public hearing following appropriate advertising for obtaining the necessary variance for that aspect of the project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission limit the next hearing just to the variance for moving the house up hill and no further design review should occur. Chair Barry suggested a condition that asks the Project Geologist to provide a written statement that assures that the second slide area poses no eminent threat. Director Sullivan cautioned that this is a nexus issue that will require discussion with the City Attorney. Chair Barry said that the report states that the site will be improved with this development. Commissioner Roupe said that the property is only improved in the area on which the new house will be built. Chair Barry said that the Commission has the right to ask for site mitigations as long as they can establish proportionality. Director Sullivan agreed that this can be looked at. Commissioner Hunter announced that she plans to vote against this proposal based on precedent because she believes that constructing on this property will be potentially unsafe for the people living below. Stated that she does not believe this is a buildable lot. Director Sullivan reminded that following the mitigations prepared by the Geotechnical Engineers, this lot can be considered buildable and that there are exceptions in the Code to allow approvals for construction on property with a slope greater than 30 percent. This prevents inverse condemnation. Commissioner Hunter said that she has a problem with a project needing two variances as well as a home design where the rear of the home is the elevation that is visible from the road. Director Sullivan said that the Commission has to be careful when Engineering says a proposal is viable. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she has concerns about this proposal and that an applicant does not have an automatic right to a specific project. What must be considered is the appropriateness of the design. • Reiterated her belief that this structure is too large and massive for this location. • Said that it is important to approve something that has the least amount of destruction and/or impact on the area. The Hillside District is an important area for Saratoga and the higher standards established must be respected. Pure and simple, this project is too big and cannot be justified. • Added that she cannot support encroaching on a neighbor. • Suggested the project must be scaled back so that it is more in keeping with the actual physical site and the intent of the Hillside District requirements. Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Kurasch how much reduction she is proposing. Commissioner Kurasch replied 10 to 15 percent in order to get away from the absolute maximum. This property should be developed in aloes-density way, honoring the ruraUsemi-rural area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Garakani pointed out that this reduction would equal about 300 to 400 square feet. Commissioner Kurasch agreed. Chair Bany asked if this reduction should occur on the first or second floor. Commissioner Kurasch replied that the ground frame would have to be reduced or she will not support this proposal. Chair Barry agreed that she would like to see the reduction occur on the first floor or footprint of the structure. Commissioner Roupe reminded that this is a 1.42-acre lot and the proposed house is not unreasonably sized for that size property. Commissioner Kurasch restated her concerns about the nearness to the adjacent neighbor. Chair Barry: • Said that a number of suggestions have been made this evening. One is not to approve the project at all. Another is to scale the house back by 10 to 15 percent. • Said that the Commission must adopt a Negative Declaration, which is hard to do with the house at its current size. • Added that an informal indication of where the Commission stands on the Negative Declaration shows that four Commissioners are not comfortable approving it as the proposal stands. Commissioner Roupe: • Asked his fellow Commissioners for clarification as to what is unsupportable in adopting the Negative Declaration. • Reminded that the geotechnical conditions will be mitigated. Chair Barry replied that the issue is not geology at this point but rather aesthetics. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out that there are already two large homes already in the immediate area. • Added that he didn't even see this lot as he was driving to it. • Said that this house is less intrusive than other large structures already in the area and additionally the applicant has offered to install more screening trees. Commissioner Zutshi informed that some houses in this area are not within Saratoga city limits but rather fall within County jurisdiction. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if design changes can be considered when the variance application comes back before the Commission following necessary advertising. Director Sullivan said yes if that is the concurrence of the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch said that it would be better to have it back before the Commission to consider the reduction and relocation of the residence on the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Garakani agreed that this is a good idea. Commissioner Roupe said it appears the Commission is considering a continuance. Chair Barry said that the Commission does not have to take a vote tonight. Commissioner Hunter declared that this application represents the most serious house application since she joined the Commission and that she would appreciate a continuance. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be important to provide guidance to staff and the applicant. Chair Barry said that the Commission has already given clear instruction to reduce the residence by 10 to 15 percent as well as the appearance of mass and bulk. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that it is not necessary to assign a specific square footage reduction but rather to require the applicant to reduce the appearance and how it fits in the lay of the land. • Suggested a continuance to the December 12, 2001, meeting as the best option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission moved to continue consideration of DR-O1-019, V-O1-011, UP-O1-016, SSA-O1-001 and ED-O1-001 for a new home on property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2001, with the following direction to staff and the applicant: • The house should be moved east toward the fence up hill to help mitigate the impact of the retaining wall, with the ridge line staying constant; • The unbuilt portion of the property will be dedicated as a Scenic Easement and delineated as such on the site plan; • Appropriate landscaping, including indigenous native trees, shall be installed to the south where land falls away; • Appropriate landscaping screening shall be added to the west to help screen the retaining wall from the house below; • The geologist shall be asked to certify that the second landslide area, in light of the request for landscape screening. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry asked the Commission for an informal poll on what Commissioners are supportive of the suggested 10 to 15-percent reduction in square footage. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 16 Planner Allison Knapp: • Informed the Commission that this evening's would be her last appearance before them since the Department is now fully staffed. • Commended the Commission and staff and thanked them for all they have done to make her time with Saratoga a positive experience. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 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. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless transmission facility to be located within an existing Caltrans right-of--way on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Said that this item was continued from an August Planning Commission meeting where concerns were raised about the pole proposed for behind the bus stop included within a light fixture. The Commission asked for alterations to the proposal. • Informed that the revised proposal retains the underground installation of support equipment as well as the landscaping of the bus stop. The proposed pole has been moved 100 feet closer to Three Oaks Way and is a total of 35 feet tall. The pole will be nestled within a cluster of trees with new screening trees to be added. The bus stop area will be landscaped, much' lcke another local bus stop that was privately landscaped by local residents. The plant material will be drought tolerant and flowering, which will be a positive addition to the area and help act as a deterrent against dumping on this property. • Recommended that the Commission approve this proposal. Commissioner Roupe asked about the continuation of the bike path. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the applicants will provide a continuation of the bike path across the site. If the Commission wishes, the path can be positioned either in front of or behind the berm. Commissioner Kurasch asked the purpose for the short wall. Commissioner Garakani suggested that it is to obscure equipment. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that the berm is to allow for landscaping. A cubbyhole will hold the benches and bus stop. The undergrounding site is behind it. Commissioner Hunter asked what the wall would be made from. Associate Planner John Livingstone at first replied cinder block but upon review of the plans clarified that this wall's material is proposed as Douglas fir. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Ben Davies, Zoning Consultant, Sprint: • Pointed out that two antennas will be located and obscured entirely within the 35-foot pole. • Clarified the need for the site is to improve currently poor coverage in the area between two existing Sprint installations. • Said that the neighbor who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting prefers this proposal. • Described several alternatives (Locations A through D) and explained why each was less desirable to Sprint, from being even closer to residences to a lack of interest by property owners to allow this installation on their properties. • Said that the only real change from the August proposal is the move of the pole by 100 feet. Director Tom Sullivan said that in the future, antenna applicants will be required to provide signal strength tests in order to allow the Commission to evaluate data that is real. Chair Barry questioned whether this pole is closer to the Highway than the PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies replied approximately 10 to 15 feet closer. Chair Barry asked if this distance makes any real difference in signal. Added that there are already Sprint antennas located on PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies said that this distance could make a difference. Added that it is an easier install like this than atop existing poles. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is interference when situating antennas on power poles. Mr. Ben Davies said that an existing power pole is not as preferable as a separate pole. Said that they reduced one of three original antennas from their proposal for this location. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification on the position of this new monopole. Mr. Ben Davies pointed out the position on the plans. Commissioner Roupe said that this appears to be 20 feet closer to the road than the. existing power poles in the nearby area. Chair Barry questioned why this particulaz installation has to be on an individual monopole when the other local installations are atop PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies replied that this proposal will be more effective in covering the distance between the two other antenna sites. Chair Barry stated that she is unable to make a decision without knowing different effectiveness numbers for the different locations. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the bus stop, bike path and berm would disappeaz with a PG&E pole installation. Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies if the monopole could serve as a co-location with another carrier. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Mr. Ben Davies said that it would be possible but is not typical. Page 18 Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Davies if there are any antennas currently location on Location A. Mr. Ben Davies replied no. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any other obstacle other than trees to placing antennas on this pole. Mr. Ben Davies said that such antennas would be structural antennas that are visible. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:02 p.m. Ms. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that she likes the nice country road and does not want to see clutter across from where she lives. • Emphasized that she does not want to see a new monopole installed in this location as it would be intrusive and unattractive. • Said that she is afraid that something ugly will be installed. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the bus stop already exists at this location without any improvements. Commissioner Hunter reminded that currently the stop does not include benches. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she does not want it to change and is not supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Garakani said that cell phones are now just as much a part of life as television is part of daily life. Chair Barry advised Ms. Baker that the Commission is entertaining design issues because it does not have the option to simply say no. The only question is where the installation will take place and not if. Said that the proposed monopole will be hidden within a grove of trees. Said that there is no choice that does not impact someone. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she felt it was important to speak in opposition this evening as a concerned area resident. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she thought it was wonderful that Ms. Baker took time to come this evening to express her views on this proposal. • Added that it frustrates people in Saratoga to have poor cell phone service and that Sprint has gone out of its way to make their installation as pleasing as possible. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she will trust the Commission's judgement. • Commissioner Roupe: • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 19 • Suggested that Sprint consider placing its antennas atop an existing power pole instead of installing this monopole although he would hate to have to lose these proposed site improvements. • Said that the Commission needs data over supposition. Chair Barry: • Declared that it is important that a cellular vendor sends a technical person to answer technical questions. • Said that she hopes the failure to do so this evening does not happen again. • Suggested that Mr. Davies bring along an engineer in the future. Mr. Rakesh Sethi, 14930 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga: • Disagreed that trees would degrade coverage. • Agreed that each site creates problems for somebody and that neighbors need to be respected. • Asked for more data about coverage. • Offered his personal checklist of considerations that should be undertaken when evaluating a potential antenna installation site. Included are not being nearer than 80 feet from any living space, not sacrificing view aesthetics or line of site, plans for sharing cumulative exposure, prohibiting any competitive carrier within one mile and requiring the regular provision of data to the City. • Said that Site A is an exceptional site but more costly to the applicant by 50 percent. Chair Barry asked Mr. Sethi to provide his checklist to staff and asked if he has a specific question. Mr. Rakesh Sethi said suggested that Site A be considered. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he does not feel that installation of a new monopole is the best way to go. • Suggested that power poles are the least intrusive and encouraged Sprint to reconsider their plans. • Said that he needs to see more specific data on all the proposed placements. Director Tom Sullivan said that a labeled site plan will be provided. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that two members of the community completed speaker cards but could not stay through this hearing. One is Ms. Donna Paisley, 14870 Three Oaks Court, and the other is Ms. Patti Workman, 14918 Three Oaks Court. Both of whom support this project. Commissioner Kurasch asked why Site B is not supported. Mr. Rakesh Sethi replied that Site B is visible from his living room and he does not want an already unsightly pole made even more unsightly. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there are differences between directional and Omni directional antennas. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:32 p.m. s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 20 Chair Barry said that no decision can be made tonight without all necessary data. Added that the • Commission needs actual figures from engineers to show the size of the detriment for each potential placement. Mr. Ben Davies promised to bring an engineer to the next meeting. Commissioner Roupe said he questions whether directional antennas are required or if line-of--site antennas would work well enough. Commissioner Garakani suggested that data for existing power poles A through D versus the proposed monopole be provided. Mr. Ben Davies said that they will make a clear demonstration through their technical people. Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies to be prepared to discuss co-location potential. Commissioner Roupe added that cumulative effect should be evaluated. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are about five cellular vendors serving Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission is interested in seeing a coverage map. Director Tom Sullivan advised that preparation of that map is underway but not yet completed. Commissioner Roupe pointed out this consideration of cumulative effect to evaluate health concerns is something that would have to be discussed with the City Attorney for appropriateness. Chair Barry said that it is simply a means of establishing compliance with FCC standards. Commissioner Roupe said it is important to clarify with the City Attorney the scope of what can be asked of a carrier. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that the reason for such data is not only to consider the best advantage for the carrier but also to evaluate the aesthetic impacts of these installations. The applicant should be able to prove why a site will or will not work. • Said that denying an application is more appropriate than putting in something that is not going to work. Commissioner Hunter said that there will be objections to installations on power poles too. Added that she feels Sprint has done a good job here and this installation will be a nice addition to the area. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Commission may end up concluding that this is the best of all alternatives. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed and said that this creates physical aesthetic clutter. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 21 • Chair Barry instructed Mr. Ben Davies to come back to the next meeting with more data on all alternatives, a better site plan and accompanied by a technical person to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of UP-O1-007, to allow a antenna installation on Caltrans right-of--way at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenues, to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2001. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Posting of Exhibits/Inclusion of Full Size Plans in Packets Director Tom Sullivan advised that per the request of the Commission, staff will resume posting copies of exhibits on the boards located behind the Commissioners beginning with the next meeting. Asked the Commissioners whether they are finding the inclusion of full size plans within their packets to be useful. . Commissioner Roupe said that he finds them too bulky in the packets. However, bringing full-size plans to the site visits would be helpful. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Barry distributed copies of a news article describing a talk to be held by Sir Peter Hill on Livable Downtown Areas. She added that she will not be at the next meeting and neither would Commissioner Jackman. Commissioner Roupe advised that he too would miss the next meeting. Chair Barry suggested the formation of a Commission Subcommittee on cellular antennas. Commissioner Garakani: • Advised that he has attended two Ad Hoc Committee meetings at which options for the Safety Plaza have been discussed. • Added that three options have been considered. One is the combination of the three parcels (Post Office, City property and Fire Station). Another is the creation of abelow-ground parking lot beneath the existing ground-level parking lot at the Federated Church. A third option is the potential of one of the three existing uses leaving the area with two to remain. The Post Office was the most viable candidate for relocation. All options depend upon cost. • Added that 145 parking spaces are needed to support all three uses. Chair Barry asked if these Ad Hoc meetings are open to the public. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 22 Commissioner Garakani replied yes. He added that they are held weekly on Mondays at 5:30 p.m. • Added that the Fire Department will be seeking a permit for the temporary use of the Contempo Building for temporary operation until the completion of the new permanent facility. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. • • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Page 23 Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, November 14, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • Incorporated October22, 1966 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 ' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker MEMORANDUM stars 6ogosian John Mahaffey Nick Streit Planning COmmiSSlOn Ann Waltonsmith Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner November 14, 2001 Request for Extension: Phase II Rodeo Creek Hollow Tentative Map REQUEST: The applicant requests atwo-year extension for Phase II of the approved Rodeo Creek Hollow Tentative Map. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ' The approved Tentative Map subdivides 9.42 acres of land into 12 single-family lots. The 12 parcels range in size from 13,091 square feet to 46,000 square feet. The project site is located off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road The eastern portion of the subdivision is zoned R-1-12,500 and the western portion is zoned R-1-40,000. Phase I of the project includes construction of single- family homes on lots 1-5. Phase I is near completion. Phase II includes, but is not limited to, construction of single-family residences on lots 6-12 of the approved Tentative Map. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: ITEM 1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6, a tentative subdivision map approval is valid for 24 months. The time at which the map expires maybe extended for a period not exceeding five years. HISTORY OF APPROVAL AND EXTENSIONS: The Rodeo Creek Hollow Tentative Subdivision Map was approved in 1996. The applicant has received a total of three-one year extensions since 1998. The tentative map is scheduled to expire in 2001. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the request for extension consistent with the Subdivision Map Act; therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the request for atwo-year extension for Phase II M of the Rodeo Creek Hollow Tentative Map. 0~~~~ • ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution SD-95-007 2. Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit A, date stamped and received November 5, 2001. • • 000002 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION N0. SD-95-007 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP OF KATHRYN KENNEDY; 13121 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Vesting Tentative Map approval of twelve (12) lots, all as more particular- ly set forth in File No. SD-95-007 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated August 14, 1996 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the environmental Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted duly noticed public hearings on August 14, September 5, September 25 and October 9, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on October 9, 1996 and moved 4-2 (Abshire, Murakami, Pierce, Siegfried FOR / Kaplan, Patrick OPPOSED) to approve the Vesting Tentative Map marked Alternative #3 and to direct staff to prepare a revised approval Resolution for the October 23, 1996 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vesting Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated "Received 7/17/96" and is marked Exhibit "A" (Formerly Alternative #3) in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Prior to submittal of a Final Map or phased Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner ~~00~~ • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SIINNYVALE ROAD, KENNEDY locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map or phased Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required in Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. Each Final Map shall contain all of the information required by Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the follow- ing items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety days of the date of submittal of each Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of each Final Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of a Final Map or some later date to be specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then su-fficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights of way on the Final Map or initial phase Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to any Final Map approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of. the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the ~0~~0~ • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SUNNYVAI,E ROAD, KENNEDY City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map or each phased Final Map. Initial Phase 1 improvement requirements shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a. The removal of the existing earth dike and culvert system located on Rodeo Creek at the southerly boundary of the subdivision. Rip-rap and/or other permanent erosion control shall be placed at the location of the removed dike/culvert system. Fish and Game and the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be notified and all required permits obtained prior to commencement of work. b. The existing pathway along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road shall be removed and replaced between the limits of the subdivision. In addition, concrete curb and gutter and A.C. pathway shall be constructed along the frontage of the subdivision, extending north from Paramount Drive to . the driveway of the adjacent property owner on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road north of the subdivision. c. The frontage and roadside landscaping, irrigation, and fencing. Final Phase 2 improvement requirements shall include but not necessarily be limited to: a. A 134" A.C. overlay shall be placed on Paramount Dr. from Rice Ct. to the northern boundary of the subdivision. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time Improve- ment Plans are submitted for review. 8. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agree- ment with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Cbde prior to each Final Map approval. 9. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to each Final Map approval. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to each Final Map approval. 11. Prior to each Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall Q0~~0rJ • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SIINNYVALE ROAD, KENNEDY furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commit- ments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements. 12. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to each Final Map approval. 13 . All public and private improvements required for each phase of the project shall be completed and accepted for construction by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and/or the appropri- ate officials from other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to issuance of building permits for any lots created during each respective phase. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation in-lieu fees prior to each Final Map approval. 15. Subject to the determination of the Public work's Director, prior to Final Map Approval of Phase 1 the owner (applicant) shall: a. Enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for maintenance of the newly created landscape areas along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and the newly created cul- de-sac off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 16. Subject to the determination of the Public Work's Director, prior to Final Map Approval of Phase 2 the owner (applicant) shall: a. Enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for maintenance of the emergency vehicle access road/pedestrian bicycle parkway ("Parkway"). This Agreement shall be in the form of CC&Rs prepared by a qualified professional and recorded against each of the seven newly created Phase 2 lots which will encumber each of the Phase 2 lots and each owner and successive owner as covenants running with the land. The CC&Rs shall establish the Association that will own and maintain the Parkway. The owners of the seven Phase 2 lots shall be members of the Association. Membership shall be mandatory and the Association shall be responsible for all necessary maintenance of the Parkway. b. Record an emergency vehicle ingress/egress easement to the City of Saratoga and the Central Fire District and a public utility easement to the water company over the Parkway. 0~0~~6 • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SIINNYVALE ROAD, KENNEDY c. Record a pedestrian and bicycle ingress/egress easement to the City of Saratoga over the Parkway. d. Prepare a landscape plan, subject to the Community Development Director's approval, for the Parkway. e. Cause to have the northern portion of Paramount "Drive" changes to Paramount "Court". 17. Subject to the determination of the Public Work's Director, prior to approval of each Final Map the owner (applicant) may be required to execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner or any successive owners of any of the lots created by the subdivision to protest the annexation of the lots into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1. The owner (applicant)~agrees to such waiver. 18. Subject to the determination of the Public Work's Director, prior to each Final Map Approval, the owner (applicant) may be required to execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of the owner, and any successive owners, to protest the formation of and/or annexation into an assessment district for the purposes of undergrounding utility lines serving the properties. The owner (applicant) agrees •to such waiver. 19. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic- es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 20. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents within 500 ft. of the property at least five calendar days prior to commencement of construction in such-form as deter- mined by the City Engineer. The applicant (owner) shall reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence work on the project for each phase of development. 21 . All new structures shall be connected to the sanitary sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District. The applicant will be required to annex to the Cupertino Sanitary District sewer service area. 22. Any existing septic tank on the property shall be pumped and backfilled in accordance with the standards of the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Division prior to Final Map approval of Phase 1. 23. Any and all existing wells on the property shall be properly registered with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards prior to Final Map Approval of.Phase 1. ODDd~~ • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD, KENNEDY 24. All containers identified by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division shall be removed from the site and disposed of as hazardous wastes per Division requirements prior to Final Map Approval of Phase 1. 25. The owner (applicant) shall install public fire hydrants at a location and spacing to be determined jointly by the Central Fire District and the San Jose Water Company. 26. Prior to the respective Final Map approval, a riparian habitat preservation/open space easement shall be recorded for Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, sixty feet from the centerline of Rodeo Creek. No built improvements, with the exception of open wire fencing with spacing between the wires of at least four inches in diameter, shall be permitted within this sixty feet. 27. Future development of Lots 1 through 11 shall require Design Review approval. Building sites shall be consistent with the approved building envelopes and based on then current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. All structures shall be located to maximize tree preservation. 28. Initial Y~ome construction on Lot 5 shall be limited to a single story structure not to exceed 22 ft_. in height. This restriction shall expire upon Final Occupancy approval of the new home and the property shall thereafter be governed by then current zoning ordinance requirements. 29. A requirement of Design Review for lots 3 through 11 shall be the submittal of landscape plans indicating native and/or drought tolerant tree species in conformance with the City's Xeriscape Guidelines. Landscape plans for lots 3 through 5 shall include a minimum of one 24" box street tree, lots 6 and 7 shall include a minimum of two 24" box street trees, and lots 8 thorough 11 shall include a minimum of two 24" box size street trees and two additional 24" box size trees to be located per the applicant's preference. 30. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding that the proposed structure is compatible in terms of scale and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary Design Review fihdings can be made. 31. No grading or building pad improvement work shall take place on the individual lots until Design Review applications have • been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 32. No ordinance size trees, with the exception of those trees shown to be removed for roadway and/or public improvements per Exhibit "A", shall be removed without a tree removal permit. ~~0~~8 • • • File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SUNN'YVALE ROAD, KENNEDY 33. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated August 31, 1995, all tree preservation requirements shall be met prior to each Final Map approval, including but not limited to: a. All trenches for any utility or drain lines shall be plotted on the map and reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. b. All recommended tree cabling, pruning, and end-weight removal for tree #6 shall be completed and accepted by the City Arborist. 34. Prior to the commencement of any construction or demolition activities, the City Arborist shall oversee and inspect the following work: a. Installation of tree protection fencing at the driplines of all trees to be preserved. This fencing shall consist of five foot chain link tree protective fencing mounted on 2 inch galvanized iron posts driven at least 2 feet into the ground. The fencing shall remain in place throughout all demolition and construction activities. b. The removal of those trees in conflict with the approved roadway construction and shown to be removed on the approved Vesting Tentative Map. No other ordinance protected trees shall be removed. 35. The owner (applicant) shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Planning Director, security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee the installation, replacement, mainte- nance, and/or preservation of trees on the subject site. This security deposit shall be released at the time of construction acceptance upon the City Arborist's finding that all tree protection measures have been adequately followed. 36. Prior to Final Map approval of Phase 1, the applicant shall .submit a revised subdivision landscape plan to indicate that the size of the trees have been upgraded from 15 gallon to a minimum size of 24" box. 37. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determina- tion of an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. 38. 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 ooooos C7 File No. SD-95-007; 13121 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD, KENNEDY or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 39. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 1. Conditions must be completed within twenty-four (24> months or approval will expire. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code,~this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 23rd day of October, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried NOES: Asfour ABSENT: Abshire, Kaplan C~ r, Panning Commission ATTEST: ~~~ Secretary, Planni g Commission • 0~~~1~ ~! IV I" 6 '+ • • onm: YRS. KA1Nt111 NUI(DY 17180 PUKE ROW SMAIOGA CA 95070 DEYQOPER EMGR1EfR. YRS. KAR/RNI ItEM{pY M0.1E AIO ASSOCIATES 13190 PU7CE ROW W S YMKET STREET. SlpiE 300 SMAiOGA CA 95070 SM! ASE, CA 95113 PRESENT USE: RE510ENCf ANp NNEYAA05 VICINITY MAP ~.~ ~ ~ i ~ i - , ~/ ~ ~ ~+' ~ ~ 1 ! II PROPOSED USE: AESIOENOH / r _ - . PROPOSED L015: PHASE I - 5 LO15 It 11NU 5 . COYNON) ~ ~- i ~. ~~ PNA~ X - 7 LO75 (8 TNRU 121 ~ ~ % I f 1orA< Eon - 17 EfuSTNG 20NR1G: R-1-10,000 AHD R-I-12.500 ~'- t I i ~ \ PROPOSED fONaO NO CHANGE I , ~. ~ .~.+~--'~• fi S1d91 DRANAGE: piY D< SMATOGA ~ ~ I - I,: ~ ~\ SANITMY SENER CUPEN1Rq SRNTMr DISTRICT \ `, ~ I '' ~ } ' ~ i ~. ~ I r ~' t !' ~ ~ I iIAE PR01EC110N CENiRAl FNE pS1RKi STREET 1NROYEEIENfS PER OIY a SMAiOGA ~ ~ r ,~ ~ _ •`~•, r - J I TEIEPHUNE: PAgF1C BEl! / .. ~\ _ .o ~ ~ 1 { `~ I r s i e - ~ // ^ ~ ! ~ rl ~ 1 ~~ CAS AND FIECTPoC: PAOIDC CAS ~![I ElfC7RIC CO. ~ + ", ~' NA1ER SUPPLY SAN ASE N,~ER CWPANY I } - I ~ i /.~ I ' ! I .~ ti, ~ a 1 ~~ .! ', ' I iOPOCRMNY: GEOCADO AERIAL 10POORAPNY , \ _ -~,. CROSS MLA: 9.17 ACRES ~ ~"'~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ` 1 ~•, ~ • ~ ° % i ! II ' ` ` I I ASSESSOR'S PMCEI~NII~ERS 503-19-IB.7Pl75 I ' ~ ~tt } - , ~ I r . ,~ ~~ ~~ / ~ { .y~ I - ~I fOSiNG STRUCTURES: A!p p1TBtAlONICS ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~t l ~ ` t\__. ~ S / `~ ~ `y ~\15.495 $b~~ '~,1 -,` •~ ~ I ., .111 A~ i~ "G;M' 1 I DATE SUBMi1FO: , 1996 , - '' t; APPROVED Br PLMIONG CONYISION: . 19% \\~ r ~ !ss~ ~: ~~ r ~~ ~. ~} ~ ~ :-~ l~ ~aa sE (xErl ~ " _ ~~.'. w u~.a ~ ~ ; ~ / f tI , 1.. J ~ ~ ~ f ' a.:. F . C ~~ ' ~ ,t ~. ~ r ~ / h ~~ T I ~ ~s ~ ,. ' ~ 3 ~ ~:, I ~ ~X ~, ! 1 } \ ~'~, 1}1 Y'y ~ ~ i X I~ / ~ i _ ,tY' IA.i Yr t ~ 1 ~ ~ 79 !. ' t ,~I ! ~~~ t ~~II` ~ ~ ~ 1 r ~ I ~9,E35 SP ~ .~ ~ A'• 1 1 ~. / .<2. ~- (~~,°~ >~oM,' I ~ I '; `` ` I 1 ! I ~ - a I .>< j ~ . A ! \~ ,,, .< -S'16 SOD SP mnAl , ~ ,RC Y ( + I '~ ~ _1. ~ $ 1 :!' ~ ~I of ,,~a +~1 ~t~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ K0. 7]SE ~ T~ I I 9 -' ~ J 1{ yJA ay ~•1'•~ s~5 .a•s~ ~I~i-. 1 ~~. j '` ~I I ~ ~ ~ a ~' / I .... I ; i 1 I . ~ ~ ~~~ ~ \ ~~ \ ~, w , ~ t. ~c v ~' ~~ ., 1 4 1 ~ 3 }~ ~. a y w {..,; i,r'E .. ~ ~~ ^ - I ~ qY ~', 1 ~• 11,138 Ef ~ 13.091 . m ~' ~ T I ~ IY. S .r~ ti, ~~ ~ '$ ~ L ~C ~.~~ .fit i I, , i ;A ~" I ;~.. , Iii I ~ ;:: r Yi I~NT O IV ~~ ~ Nuns _ ~,pr~~ ~,~ ~ -('";~`', - ~ !_. -, 1 ~~~~ `/~~ I ~~• I - r .. .'~. 'I I ~ 16.0005E - \ ~' •~"°7°^m' ~ tr-1~ /y M!;, ~ tom. •/ ~ 5: T. ~ .d ~ ~ ~ 1\1 } !~ A' i ~ j 11 i 0 gg v ]yY ... ~ ! I A 1 S /~ r / _~7!JY--~ ~9 ~ 18.16 Sf *17( 'I ~/ 4. ,~~\ t 1:, fwa t\~ j 1 I' r 7 I I l ~ l I r ~~ % E r 1fNK1F Access/ 9 ~` a%S • J ~/~~ ~ ''. A ~~ tti ~=.t%/ '4~ \ l 1 I! ~ ,w NC'rC1F I B 1~~ ' ~ _ __ ri t E _ G+ fi?C !3~•,n I I p ~ ~ seo 1d) ~ ~ ~ ~., ti. I / J j 1 7 v k i / ~ ~ ~. 'I }~ ~~ ~. IR Ij it t ,t ~ ~ .,L.. }~ ~/ ~~ .ik I i ' I ~~ ~ F g '~ ~~ ! ~ rte,/'~ / ~. . Iro,a ~ {' 1 ~ / / ,, e~aenant 1 _" ~ _ : ~ ~ 1~` ~' ~ .-_ 12 ~ ~ S~,i ~ ,,~ qt * //~ ~' • ~a ' K esE aNONC gleA« urc I .F.:, 1.. ~ `. I 1 ~ ~,~ ~_ , _ It.IA $ t 3 `~ 1 ! `~ J . ~ ° Dec dRFR --~~ -nom a \ i I t v~ \ \ \ "A-~ \ - -.~_~_ 50 SidN 911AN FYI 'I ~ ` I •~~~~`~ x !9 ~ , ~ I }} ~ S 1 ~ r+ ~ ss suarrsfrlR 1~ 11 t ~ 1 , ~ - , 1,.-. 1 G ~ ~5 I Y ~ i f .~ r ~t r ~r~. ~ ,~\ }~.~~ ti ~} ~ :~-! ,, ~' ~.~ ~ ~ }, ~ i - r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . >n NOV 0 5 2001 J 1 ~ ~~ 1 1 t ~ Aft t ~~ i ~~ 6 (~ t ~ A r ~ t 7 ~ I ~ 1 ~, t.? r% 1, ~ r ~.. J C ~ t~.~~! `~~ ~~~ I_I f ~ Y' ~ ~~~\ ~~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ }~ ~ ~~• n• u 1 N 1 ~ CITY~FSA TOGA ,.A ~1' ~ 1 ~~ i~ ;, ~ .; '~I r ~ i ~ ~ COMMUNITY DE ~ v I ~ ~~ E 1,OPMENT i%. ~ 1 / ~~,~~ ~/ . r :._ ~ ' '~f ~.' i j ~ ; `ii ~ as ra_m_ ~sT (i nYeNC 1611 P,dAIItl~EL,~ ~~~"~ I}' 1 ~ ~ .~ MAP A3 APPROVED BY P ANNING COMMI3810N `~ ~d+~ 4 9An otwrgn ~ NOLTE and ASSOCIATES, Inc. sNEe3 - ~eA16 - Y./9~'0' IM «1wa aNMN1 niNe 9YN M VE9TINd TENTATIVE MAP - EXHIBIT A T.~ 11NRN 1r AL7QA Aa N ,e.PNner la, a 1tlN la. Englneeni J Planners J SUN2y0f5 ~,1NO1wA cPr wAIAaYN o9Nr9N lea reA el AYaN _ LANDS OF KENNEDY 1 a~_~_n `, lROtc, YwAen, IPA 1Nw IYrN. M eANgn le Ne MNA - :." ~' :.r 1!.w ~N ~"S :~~ AMt N N wNYq W nNY N A9perel 1- - -1 *~ wocra„- er nr PrAPaa el IMN pAAA _- _ -1 --_- II R t;_ - 60 $oYEfi AMrkat STr~I 51Rn ~. SRN b14 CA 95113 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Otq-M-ot E RJSr rr., A S:e10T'JC'~G+G7`. :!FJhC c M f s ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue SCHLOH/ BRAMLETT Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner (~ November 14, 2001 397-18-048 Department 000001 i~7w i~ai wcu r~vcuuc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 08/17/01 09/07/01 10/3U01 10/31/01 10/26/01 The applicant requests design review approval to remodel an existing one-story 3,375 square foot residence and construct an 875 square foot second-story addition. The maximum height of the proposed 4,752 square foot residence will be 26 feet. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the design review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-036. ATTACHMENTS 1. staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution DR-O1-036 3. Arborist Report, dated stamped and received by the Community Development Department 06/03/99 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A",date stamped and received by the Community Development Department 11/Ol/Ol • • 000002 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS • • ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 28,229 square feet SLOPE: 3% Average Site Slope GRADING REQUIRED: None Proposed Attachment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes remodeling and expansion of an existing single-family residence, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in a residential zone and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish will be beige smooth stucco with classic gray trim and stone veneer accents. Roofing will be wood shingle. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. 000003 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue • Lot Coverage: Building Footprint: Driveway, Walkways ~ Patio (e) Pool TOTAL (impervious Surface) Size of Residence: First Floor: Second Floor: Garage: TOTAL Setbacks: Front: Rear: Left Side (north): South Side (south): Height: Residence and attached garage Proposal Code Requirements 29% 35% (9,880 sq. ft.) 3,877 sq.ft. 3,438 sq.ft. s4o sq. ft. s,ls5 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: 3,001 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. 876 sq.ft. 4,752 sq.ft. 5,142 sq.ft. Minimum Requirement: 45 ft. Front: 30 ft. 125 ft. Rear: 50 ft. 12 ft. Left Side:12 ft.' 12 ft. Right Side: 12 ft. Maximum Allowable: 26 ft. 26 ft. ' Per Section 15-65.160, reduced side setbacks are allowed because the lot is substandard in terms of width. 000004 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue • PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant requests design review approval to remodel an existing one-story 3,375 square, foot residence and construct an 875 square foot second-story addition. As the attached floor plans indicate, some of the exterior and interior walls of the existing residence will remain. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence will be 26 feet in height. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. The applicant has proposed a California Ranch style home, similar in style with the existing residence. California Ranch style homes have a low, horizontal appearance and have low- pitched or hipped roofs. The rectangular windows proposed for the home are typical of the Ranch style and reinforce the horizontal appearance of the facade. The proposed low-pitched pyramidal rooflines vary in height. The first floor level will have a large pyramidal roof 20 feet in height with a lower roof element 13 feet in height at the entry area. A portion of the roof at the first floor level will have exposed beams or open framing to allow more light into the family room area of the home. The second floor level will have another pyramidal roof with the same pitch. Staff was initially concerned with the ex ansive a earance of the first floor roof as shown on p PP Exhibit "A". However, the proposed wood shingle roof material will blend with the surroundings of the site and mitigate the scale of the roof. The proposed lower roof at the entry area helps to breakup the expansive appearance. Also, since the roof slopes in towards the center portion of the home, the scale of the roof will appear smaller to a person viewing the home from the street. The proposed two-story residence is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of style, proportion, size, mass and height because there is a mixture of one and two-story homes in the vicinity of the project. The neighboring property to the north is a recently constructed large two-story home, while the other neighboring property to the south is a small, older one-story ranch style home surrounded by many trees. The property diagonally across the street from the project site is an older two-story brown shingle-style home. 0~~0~5 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue • The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence has a low, horizontal appearance with architectural elements including varying rooflines at the first, second floor and entry areas. The rooflines are punctuated by three chimneys. The stone veneer siding proposed for the chimneys and certain columnar elements of the facade provides contrast with the smooth stucco exterior siding of the proposed home. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are proposed for removal. Since the proposed colors are earth-toned, the residence would blend well with the surroundings. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The neighboring site to the north has a large two-story newly constructed home set back further than the applicant's residence. This neighboring home has some front facade and small side windows that currently look into the backyard of the applicant's property. The project does propose a second story master bedroom window facing the adjacent property. However, Staff feels that privacy will not be an issue since there is at least SO feet between this window and the neighboring home. The second story addition will have minimal impact on the neighboring one-story property to the south since there are already sufficient screening trees and the windows proposed are very small closet and bathroom windows facing this neighboring property. There is no structure directly across the street from the project site. Since the backyard of the Bramlett residence is large with tall trees, there are no issues regarding privacy or views with the property directly to the rear of the residence. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is. approximately 3%. The subject parcel and the parcels immediately adjacent to the site are relatively flat. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The Bramlett residence has been designed for energy efficiency. The deep overhangs of the proposed roof will mitigate heat gain during the summer. Furthermore, the house will be well insulated with high-efficiency equipment. Parlring The Saratoga City code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached two car garage. • OOUOU6 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue • Grading No grading is proposed. Trees The City Arborist Report, date stamped and received June 3,1999 (attached), contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. This Arborist Report was prepared in conjunction with a Design Review application at this project site approved by the Planning Commission on July 14,1999. This current project application proposes a slightly different building design from the previous application. However, Staff determined that the Arborist recommendations contained in the June 3,1999 report can be applied to this project application. There are ten trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, five of which are Coast Live Oak. No trees are in conflict with this development application. Tree #7, a Black Walnut, was in close proximity to the previous project proposal approved by the Planning Commission in 1999, and was a candidate for removal. However, the current project application does not require the removal of tree #7, since the proposed residence is not in close proximity of this tree. • Conclusion The proposed residence complies with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and satisfies all of the findings required within Municipal Code Section 15-45.080. The proposed residence will preserve the natural landscape to the extent feasible and will not interfere with views or privacy. The proposed residence will also minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the design review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-O1-036. • ODUUO'7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ODU0U8 • • File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue n APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-036 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attachment 2 WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to remodel an existing one-story 3,375 square foot residence and construct an 875 square foot second-story addition. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence is on a 28,229 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 is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of asingle-family residence in a residential zone. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: 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 view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The neighboring site to the north has a large two-story newly constructed home set back further than the applicant's residence. This neighboring home has front and small side windows that currently look into the backyard of the applicant's property. The project does propose a second story master bedroom window facing the adjacent property. However, Staff feels that privacy will not be an issue since there is at least 50 feet between this window and the neighboring home. The second story addition will have minimal impact on the neighboring one-story property to the south since there are already sufficient screening trees and the windows proposed are small closet and bathroom windows facing this neighboring property. There is no structure directly across the street from the project site and there are no views of the property to the rear of the residence. The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is approximately 3%. The subject parcel and the parcels immediately adjacent to the site are relatively flat. OOOOUy File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue 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. No trees are proposed for removal and no grading is proposed. The proposed colors of the Bramlett residence are earth-toned and blend well with the surroundings. Minimizeperception ofexcessive bulk: The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The proposed t~vo-story residence has a low horizontal appearance with varying architectural elements including varying rooflines at the first, second floor and entry areas punctuated by three chimneys. The stone veneer siding proposed for the chimneys and certain columnar elements of the proposed facade provides contrast with the smooth stucco exterior siding of the proposed home. Compatible bulk and height: The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and the natural environment; and shall not unreasonable impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonable impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy: The proposed two-story residence is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of style, proportion, size, mass and height because there is a mixture of one and t~vo-story homes in the vicinity of the project. The neighboring property to the north is a recently constructed large two-story home, while the other neighboring property to the south is a small, older one-story ranch style home surrounded by many trees. The property diagonally across the street from the project site is an older two-story brown shingle- style home. Current grading and erosion control methods: The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City: No grading is proposed for this project. Design policies and techniques: The proposed main structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.0055. • 000010 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #I: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence has a low horizontal appearance with architectural elements including varying roof lines at the first, second floor and entry areas. The rooflines are punctuated by three chimneys having a stone veneer siding contrasting with the smooth plaster exterior siding of the proposed home. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are proposed for removal. The proposed colors are earth-toned and blend well with the surroundings. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The neighboring site to the north has a large two-story newly constructed home set back further than the applicant's existing and proposed residence. This neighboring home has some front and some small side windows that currently look into the rear elevation and backyard of the applicant's property. The project does propose a second story master bedroom window facing the adjacent property. However, Staff feels that privacy will not be an issue since there is at least 50 feet between this window and the neighboring home. The second story addition will have minimal impact on the neighboring one-story property to the south, since there are already sufficient screening trees and the windows proposed are small closet and bathroom windows facing this neighboring property. There is no structure directly across the street from the project site and there are no issues regarding views into the property to the rear since the project site has a large backyard. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The project site is not located in a hillside area. The average slope of the site is approximately 3%. The subject parcel and the parcels immediately adjacent to the site are relatively flat. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The Bramlett residence has been design for energy efficiency. The deep overhangs of the proposed roof mitigate heat gain during the summer. Furthermore, the house will be well insulated with high-efficiency equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section I. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Marlo and Debbie Bramlett for design review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: C7 ooooii File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. No ordinance size trees shall be removed without review by the Ciry Arborist . 6. Storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices shall be included in the construction plans submitted to the Building Division. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. ~ ' , 7. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted. CITY ARBORIST 8. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report, date stamped and received June 3, 1999 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 9. Protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." Tree protective fencing surrounding the dripline of tree #7 shall also be installed. Protective fencing shall be five (5) feet high chain link with steel posts buried 18 inches in to the ground. 10. Landscape plans shall be submitted for administrative review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to granting final occupancy approval all approved landscaping must be installed. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, security in the amount of $11,384 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of all ten trees on the project site. 000012 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue M 12. Prior to granting final occupancy approval. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protection measures. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. Roof covering shall be fire retardant. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the pro~~isions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, l6-60-E.) 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detachedgayages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) 17. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 4,752 square foot residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 19. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption 000013 File No. DR-O1-036;14920 Farwell Avenue PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 14th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~~ Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • oooo~.~.. Attachment 3 BARRIE D. C-.SATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-354-3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 14920 FARWELL AVE. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Erik Pearson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Srte Visit by: Walter Levison May 18, 1999 Job # OS-99-106 • RECEIVED JUN 0 31999 P1ANNING DEPT. 000015 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMII~NDATIONS AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 14920 FARWELL AVE, SARATOGA • Assignment At the request of Mr. Erik Pearson, Assistant Planner, this document reviews the potential impacts that may affect existing trees during demolition of the existing structure, and construction of a new single-story residence. This report also provides information about the health and structure of trees on and adjacent to the site which aze protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations for mitigating damage to these trees before, during, and after the construction of the proposed residence aze also included. A visual inspection and assessment of the site was performed on May 18, 1999. The site plan reviewed is sheet Al dated March 15, 1999, by E. Gary Schloh, architect, of Los Gatos, California. Summary ^ 9 trees large enough to be controlled by City ordinance on or adjacent to the property will require tree protection fencing. ^ Walnut #7, rated as `mazginal' condition, is in conflict with the proposed building plan. This is a low value tree. o The proposed wallcway rerouting under the canopy of Oak #4 may affect the health of this tree. This walkway should be constructed completely on grade with no trenching. Pervious materials should be used (see `recommendations'). Other landscaping restrictions aze detailed in the `recommendations' section. ^ The total appraised value of all trees that may be affected by the proposed construction, including Walnut #7, is $59,818. A bond of $10,783 is suggested to ensure tree protection. (see `value assessment' for details) ^ The appraised value of Walnut #7, a candidate for removal, is $601, equivalent to five 15-gallon native mitigation trees. Observations on the At~ects of Construction and Landscaping Trees large enough to be controlled. by city ordinance that are expected to be significantly impacted by landscaping and construction activities have been rated according to their health and structural attributes as follows: Tree # 1 Deodaz Cedar Tree #3 Cork Oak Tree #6 Douglas Fir Tree #7, 8 California Black Walnut Trees #2, 4, 5, 9, 10 Coast Live Oak Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S imens Marginal S ecimens 1,3 5 6,9 10 2,4 8 7 Ezceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Prepared by: Water Levison May 18, 1999 000016 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 149?A FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA • Fine specimens must be retained if possible bui without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but have either marginal health or potentially hazardous structure. Some of these defects are repairable. Mitigation is intended to prevent decline or to reasonably correct structural hazards. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. These typically have reduced health, an actively hazardous structure, or both. Where these specimens are retained, mitigation is designed to prevent decline and/or reasonably correct a structural hazard. Cork Oak #3 is currently surrounded by a brick tree well. Removal and/or alteration of this well area in the middle of the existing driveway would cause damage to root systems that have developed within the confinements of this space but mediation is possible. Trees #1 and #2 will be affected by landscaping activities. If the original landscaping on this Southwest corner of the property is retained along with brick siding near the trunk of Oak #2, significant damage to these two trees is not expected. If landscaping is altered, or if existing fencing along the South side of the property is replaced, these trees will be affected. Tree #4 will be affected by the proposed walkway (shown on map) which would be located approximately 6' to the West of the existing walkway. Removal of the existing walkway and construction of the proposed walk, if not installed on-top of grade with no excavation beneath the soil surface, may significantly affect the long-term health of the tree. Up to 20% of the existing roots will be damaged unless demolition/construction fencing is erected at the canopy edge (line `A'), -during demolition and subsequently moved to accommodate construction of the proposed walkway beneath the canopy (line `B'). A large scaffold limb on the South side of Oak #4 may require end-weight reduction pruning and installation of a cable to reduce the likelihood of a branch failure. Trees #4 and #5 have a several inches of soil covering the root collar area at the base of the trunk. Existing on-grade tree wells surrounding the trunks of these two trees provide approximately 1 - 2 feet of bare soil space which normally allows for proper gas exchange between the atmosphere and root system. The existing level of the soil around these trunks will require root collar excavation. Since these trees are surrounded by frequently irrigated turf', and water is obviously striking the trunks, these trees will eventually be killed by oak root fungus unless the turf is removed within 15 of the trunk Fir #6 is partially surrounded by a metal gate. Demolition of the eausting residence may require the removal of this fencing. Tree #6 may sustain trunk tissue damage during this Preparod by: Water I.evison May 18, 1999 00001'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECON>IViENDATIONS 3 AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 14920 FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA • activity unless the gate piece is left in the tree. Removal or alteration of the cement walkway between the existing structure and Tree #6 would damage absorbing root mass on the South side of this tree. Walnut #7 is in conflict with the proposed building plan, but that is an unimportant tree. Walnut #7 is a candidate for removal if the building plan is approved as proposed on Sheet A1. Walnut #8 is in better condition than #7. Its location on the East Side of the property allows for tree protection fencing to be erected around the entire canopy without conflicts between construction activity and tree roots if it is to be retained. Oaks #9 and #IO are similarly located on the East Side of the property near the brick retaining wall above the pool. The brick retaining wall has been redrawn on the map to a higher degree of accuracy than on the original blueprint. The~existing swimming pool and surrounding brickwork will be retained (personal communication with owner, 5/18/99). Recommendations 1. I suggest that tree protection fencing be erected as per the enclosed map. The proposed fence line at Tree #10 is the brick retaining wall line (see map). Fencing material must be chain link, 5 feet in height, mounted on steel posts driven a minimum of 18 inches into the ground. This fence must be • erected prior to any vehicular traffic or construction material arrival on site, and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction, except at Tree #4 to facilitate walkway construction (see map fence lines `A' and `B'). No materials, liquids, or substances are to be placed or dumped within the perimeter of the fence. 2. It is suggested that fencing at Tree #4 be moved from line `A' to line `B' after all construction on the proposed residence, other than the walkway, is complete. At that time, fencing can be moved to `B' to facilitate construction of the walkway. 3. No alterations of the tree well at Tree #3 should be made. 4. Trees #4 and #5 must receive careful root crown excavation by hand tools. This should be performed by, or under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist or contractor with experience in this procedure. 5. It is suggested that existing fencing at Tree #b, if it is to be removed or replaced, be taken out before erection of the tree protection fencing. Tree padding may be required to avoid poterrtial damage to the trunk during the removal of the gate. The existing ' cement wallcway, if removed or replaced, should be done carefully without excavating below grade. b. I suggest that the walkway under the canopy of Tree #4 consist of porous materials such as ground rock, bricks, or sand only. Cement, if poured completely on-top- of grade, may also be used. Construction must be performed on grade with no trenching. If porous materials are used, a 3" layer of pea gravel or drain rock should be lain on grade as base. Borders of cement should be poured on grade to hold the medium to place. Borders must be a minimum of 5' from any oak trunk. Prepared by: Water I.evison May 18, 1999 000018 TREE SURVEY AND PR~:SERVATION REC011IIVICNDATIONS AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 14920 FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA • 4 7. Landscape stones and cobbles must be kept a minimum of 2' away from the trunk tissue of all trees to be retained. 8. If possible irrigation trenching should not be installed beneath the canopy of Tree #2, or any tree to be retained on the lot. ff necessary, trenching must be in a spoke arrangement radiating out from the tree trurilcl. This will help minimize the loss of absorbing root mass by trenching in-line with the natural direction of root growth. Radial trenches must be no closer than 10 feet apart at their perimeter Trenching must not encroach closer than 5 times the tree trunk diameter from the trunk. 9. Irrigation beneath tree canopies must be drip only, with no overhead spray contacting trunk tissues. Summer irrigation should be kept to a bare minimum in the landscape design for all areas beneath oak canopies. It is suggested that existing overhead irrigation between Oaks #9 and #10 be converted to dripline or soaker hoses. 10. It is advisable to carefully remove turf grass, if possible, from areas under the canopies of Oaks #4 and #5 to allow tree roots to grow without competition from rye grass roots. 11. Pruning on the oaks, other than dead wood and end-weight reduction is not recommended. Oak #4 requires end-weight reduction pruning on a large, horizontal scaffold limb. All pruning should be done in Dec.-Jan. or July or August: the summer dormant period for Coast Live Oaks. Pruning must be performed by, or under the supervision of, an ISA certified arborist. 12. Drainage discharge should not be designed to flow within 15 feet of the trunk of any oak. 13. Walnut #7 is a candidate for removal if the plan is approved as proposed. 14. It is suggested that Trees #4, 5, and 6 be given supplemental irrigation through soaker hoses at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter throughout the construction period until the first significant rains. Irrigation must be supplied once every two weeks to increase the probability of long-term tree health. Soaker hoses are to be lain just within the tree protection fencing perimeter, at the dripline, or at least 6' from the trunk. 15. Soil storage during construction must not be within the perimeter of any existing tree protection fence. Protective fencing for all trees remain in place throughout the entire development process except as specified for Tree #4. Value Assessment The value of the trees in this report is calculated according to the ISA Guide for Plant rai ,Seventh Edition. The appraised value of trees #2, 3, 4, S, and 6 is $32,412. A 25% bond of $8103 is suggested to ensure tree protection for these specimens that are at risk of significant construction damage. The appraised value of trees #1, 8, 9, and 10 is $26,805. A 10% bond of $2680 is suggested to ensure protection of these trees that are at some risk of construction damage. ' Irri~tion Beneath Trce Canopies Prepared by: Water Levison May 18, 1999 000019 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BRAMLETT PROPERTY 14920 FARWELL AVE., SARATOGA • The value of Tree #7, is a candidate for removal given the existing condition of the tree and the severity of the root damage that will occur during construction. Its value is 5601, equivalent to five 15-gallon native mitigation trees. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Tan oak - Lithocarpus derrs~orus Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervireru Respectfully submitted, Walter Levison, Associate ~~ (,O'~~ B e D. Coate, Principal , Enclosures: Map Charts WL/wls • Prepared by: Water Levison May 18, 1999 000020 • 49 0 F rw II Ave. Job #(IS-99- Job Tale: Bramlett Property Job Address. 1 2 a e Mea surem ents Con dition Pru ni i Nee ds PestlD iseaa e Prois kms R ecom mend . ARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (~OA)3531052 23575 Sawai tort La color G 9saoo • ! Plant Name ~ I ! ! ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ,. F >: ~ I I i ~ ~ - W ~ `~ ~ W ~ ~ ; i I ~ = = ~ v ~ i j ; , ~ I ~ ~ ! ~ ~ v ~ I ~ ~ ~ l s N " ( ~ '' ~ y $ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ! t i ~, ! ? { u~7 v ~ ! I z ~ Z z ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ° ~ ~ l o ! W ~ 3 U l ~ ; ~ I Z 1 `n ~ ~ U i ~.. ~ ~ W i 31 z i W ~ ~ ,. ! ol w z ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ a Z ~ I ! i i ~ i N ~ W ~ ~ W, ~ ~ b Z 3 ~ O f o: W ~ l ~ i ~ i ~ I ~ ° ~ 8 I ~ ; 1 ' ~ t ~ > I ~ ! ~ Z ~ l Fi v ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ! J i 0 F- ~ g W ~ s ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ^ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y O Z ~ a ~ ~ a 1 Deodar Cedar 18.0 17 55 25 1 2 3 Cedrus deodata . in 201 X f27hq. M. = f 5,426 X sp. class 7071 = 13,798 X cond. 9011 _ = 3,418 X loc. 70% = f 2383 Told Valus 2 Caast lJw Oak 15.0 17 40 30 1 3 4 ~ 1 Querars . In 177 X f27/aq. in. = f 4,7~ X sp. dsss 100% f4,769 X cond. 75% = f 3,577 X loc. 65% f 2 25 Tahl Value 3 Cork Oak 19.0 x 15.0 37 45 35 1 2 3 1 Quereua suber . in 373 X f27laq. kr. = f 10,071 X sp. class 100% = f 10,071 X cond. 75% = f 7,553 X loc. 80% f 8043 Tohl Value 4 Coast Liw Oak 28.0 ~ 3' 29 45 50 1 i 3 4 1 4 t1 X sp. class 100% = f18,817 X cond. 75% = f 12,483 X be. 85% = f 10 SBtS . In 815 X f27/sq. in. = f 16,617 Total Valus 5 Coast l.lve Oak 16.0 x 17.0 137 45 55 1 l 2 2 1 4 . in 388 X f27lsq. in. = f 9,936 X sp. class 100% = f9,938 X cond. 90% f 8,942 X loc. 85% = 7801 Total Value 8 las Fk 30.0 ~ 32 50 45 2 1 ~ 3 ! menziaii ' . fn 707 X f27lsq. in. = f 19,078 X sp. class 50% f9,538 X cond. 90% ^ f 8,584 X loc. 75% = 8438 Total Value 7 Black W M 30.0 31 40 45 2 4 8 j i I i ! ~ 3 ~u h ~ 1 ~ ' l 45% f 858 X loc. 70% = f 801 . In 707 X f27/aq. M. = f 19,078 X sp. class 10% _ (1,908 X cond. Tohl Value REPLAC6NEM TREE VALUES 5-pM ^ t3e 1SpM ~ 1120 21'bat = f120 3Eboec = t7,Y20 40'baoc ^ fS,1100 S?Lox ~ f7,000 ~~ = st s o00 1 = BEST. 5 =WORST Pape 1 012 Job 't'itle: Brarnlett Property Job Address: 14920 Farwell Ave. Job #OS-99-106 1 { '? BARRIE D. COATS i ; ! s ~ ~ i i ' ; ; " i o I ~ 1 I ` ' ~ ~ ' sx i ~ iw ~ ~ w ~w IQ ~? and ASSOCIATES t`t i i ; ~ ! '' ~ ~ ; ' ; . ; ~ ; '; ~ 1 ~ (40353.1052 t i ~ w i i =z I ~±, z i i~ iw io= ~ iN i~ ~G', i iN ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I s ~-~ 1 i~'~ z - !~ io ~z sd io4 1° i~ ~~ s`~ i~ o: ~ s a 23575 5~eii Rw1 i ~ i i i ~ ,~ i w ~ ~ ~ a- ~ i z l~n l ~ i z w a>r ~ 3 ! Q i ~ = ~ ~ i= 1 O t,» Gala G 95030 1 an 1 1 ~ .- 1~ Z i ~ V I A i~ I w i Z a .. ~ i 2S w <~ I~ o. i~ _ ~ iW ~ ~~ ° ~ ° z ~z I iz I~',N z ~;c~i 13 ,°~ i ~o ~ ~ i~ ~ _ w x 1 7 ` x 1 ~ ~ w ~ ~ i ~ ~ ° I ~ iit ~ ~ ~ ~ a~C '~' ~ I J ~ w i w j ~ ~ ~ V ~ V W W i Key! Plant Name ~ ~ g ~~ D x ~N x iN ~~ ( ~ •(J Iv U jU'~ i~i a ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ar z z i~ K 8 Black Walnut 27.0 ~ ~ 3' 27 35 40 2 3 ~ 5 ! ~ i ~ i i 1 ~ i . in 572 X i27Jaq. in. = s 15,451 X sp. chss 10% _ =1,545 X cond. 60% _ = 927 X loc. 75% s 895 Total Value 9 Coast Live oak 24.0 x ~ 20.0 140 45 60 1 = 2 3 ~ i ` ~ 2 I I 1 ' . in 809 X =27/sq. M. _ = 16,443 X sp. class 100% _ =16,443 X cond. 90% = s 14,799 X loc. 85% S 12,579 Total Value 10 Coast Live Osk 28.01 28 45 45 1 i 2 3 . In 531 X i27/sq. in. _ = 14,328 X sp. class 100% _ =14,328 X cond. 90% S 12,895 X loc. 85% i 10981 Total Value 0 0 O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-pd=f3H t =ft20 21'box = 5420 = (1,320 1 =BEST, ST ~ 72"Daec=f15,000 P of 2 ,~ ^1 ~ 1 ~„ *~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations BARRIE D. COATS ' '~ ~ and ASSOCIATES At the Property of Bramlen e ~ woei353•los2 14920 Farwell, Saratoga 3 ns3s w..~ ewe Lx Gyef, U 95030 ~ ~ )ob #OS-99-106 '- ' ' HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: Ma 20, 1999 _ ' ~ ~ °a' CONSULTIN,~~1tG ARBORIST r ~W t ~ t •r r' • r...y.••C a i.Y10~U d jf1~•Y •1 •_ r) ~i3 ~•{ }~' ~• ` _ { + I W ~: .., .. ~ ,3 r~ _ f'^ r ' _* } ~ ~i ,w`'t , ~ .: ,:~ ~ ray ~ J '~, ' ...} .`. X00 ~ '~ ~r~ r: t tfi`; ~ r ~ ~ i ~ , , ~ . / t > , `d v ~ yC _ / Q •` r ., • r ~` 1P n K l __ _ ~_ : ' ' ~f.i ,~~ rl \ _ ------1 \~~ lv .. 7~1 C'7 `'~,+ ,' t'. t I \ \ - s 'v~ `~ r'~~ ~ j _ , r~T~ ~ ~I, r ~ • ~~, ' ~~ (OQQ sddd ~p r k" ~d i ~~ J 44 ~~ ._ s s ~ O 0 0 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • , • r~ 000024 .~:: ` e e a ~.~ ~uVI~INC~ ~T1CN `~MM~~ ~~~ ~ r~~• 1 ~~ic {~~ ~CGi14N6 "~~ 1_ ~ YAM ` JN ~' ` ~'~;°'~~ X `~ r r~fti ,~ y1'IVGI~J~ _ _ _ MNRt~ awl t~~ie ex~ ~'1T 14r'Rc> AEU. p,~. ~o~ SITS a,~ ~~~, :~ ~s-3~of QI I LVVI\ /'~~{~~ h ~ G17Wh1~~ifd1C~ ~, 001 ~T ~~ UP=~'NIC:'~ a'i6 g ~LPRPr~ v7G ~ ~~ tOfAL tiDVR, Al~i~ '`~,?52 51z pU.dtWEU R1X)IC P~ 7,1 ~}Z 5P `.~RLGTURC 3, $77 ~ C ~vewAY I,'79z (bl°t~L ~ WMKS/~-o I,~~~ 7Uipl.IM~VIou~~~; 8,11a3~~'1% (~)Ih~ Pao c~~ : 3;375 ~ -~~ Pty ice. WNNSTNI=D 6 ., - _ B (H~ ~~ ;c~ ~~ 4; (Ki 4: 25! ,~ F I r~o ,o~ (F I!r I ~2. ~ (y a -T ~ "~' (I: m - { ___ m ~,, NrE0.fQUE .+aaocut~ maw ~r.+ YOyPII~ y~ wwrr ~. i a ~ o d r _~ NI hlkf ~ ~.Urp11GN MAC No za46~ 1 ~oF ~~ Y,~,~y I~' _°f0 I \ I I \~ _II _ ______ i . ~~ _, `'i~ ~ ~~I' .\ ` ilk Q ~e ~\ 05 ~~ ~I lW , , ~~_ __,_ , ~ ~~~ • n ; z ~ I (6'dt~'IRM~~.` .I60 ~ a ~lVCI~Na9~ r111R 1p ~ ~ r ON b(11re11Y11Ki RtG ~s Of I~CORD !DO _ C~1l,CMII~N 1H-ri~L ~~Mb ~/f~'OKCII~~ R-N5 51 ~ ~~, .NOV 01 ?001 SARATOpA ~MMUNIDF ~DEVELaPMp~ ~~ ro+ ~ tzo.o~~ ~' ` ~ ~ ~ v=~..._ _~' _ I ~~ ~~ .~~ fee cam ~ ,~ ,;~ =, .l ~ ,$~ ~- L, ~ ~~; l .3011•~~atb ~+- I ~~~~~~ ~ " ~ . pp ~~Ib ~s ~ I'~POffD ` ,i ~'~~ ~ n~~ ~ ~ _ ~ -~~ '' bblEi 6F~-ct uwsinot~+t~ ~~ ~ ~ ~---, , r---a ~ ~ ~ I ~_., P ~; RMp~,eu ~ I ~ NLV'..1.'~ r_....__~ ~`'~ ~S~s eaiit~ ~~~~a i~ba~~ f~~~ ~~ ~~,. ,:.. F'; , ~.,:-~: ~, :. `A1 ~~ ~/ , ~~: e~ ~, i I. i `, _~~ ~~. ,u ~ ~?'~ I 3 N a i .~ ~,~"1~ ~~ ~'~~f bJE1t~.l.L f- t- ~ --i"F ,.3 .-~ r ~ ~~ ~~I~ ~ I r-~~~ - ' i rw 'fn~'`jr).~~~ I _-,_F ~~~ ~ --r- ~ '~. L I i~ , 'cd~G+ ~ ~' ~ ~~J ~~ ' ~ ~ '' ~. ~ ~ ILD ~P i 'f ~e~ - Y ~ Rc~'p G..--------- ~ ~ Inv I ew, i ~I j ZIx-2 ~ ~ Zl~vo I ~ I ~ •~._. -- _ - ~----~ IC I i-- J ~.~~ -- _ ~I~ I~~~ ~> _~ _It~ IZ"r l2" P.a~12 .{. . j au .. i~ ~ 0 0 1~4 l2X~l~ ~z~nb 2 (~b~'G b~D" eal+msr to ~part,~;~ JW.O• {~D~ ,~ ,~ ,~ ,~ ~~ ., ~, ~, ;~ ~~ ~~ ,1 ~I i~ i it ii i~ ~, ;, _: ~~ ~~ ~o~ (~ 2566 ~' l down ~~ ~ l+rUal uP ~,7 6 ~ Td~ Lim 3 $74 ~'' ~ ~ 0 ~ I~k i1 • ,,~e 2 ~ I ~~~ `~ ` ~~, _... ~~ f~ ~~a ~~ ~~~ ~' • ~~ 4~~ ~f ~~ ~_,-., ~t-,~ r ~, . :, w :, ~, ~.. ~ ~ ~-~ ~~~ t-r-~ ~~ ~~~~rf tl~r~D MBA ~~ ~ r ~ L- \ i \ ~~ i ~ -- ~ --~ ~ ~ ~ ' --- I ~~ ~I~ ~' ~' ~~» ~~~ '~1rLk N/ NsiNL~ -.. ~ ~- 'S~~ 'i ~,~ _. anm r~ ~ ----- ~ ~. _ __ ~ -- ~Jtd Qrrd SIAM C~j11 ~---- - ~~ ++.a~M sryy t/gam ~ ---_~ - ' 1J i --- -- - ; T 'r ~ `K~ r f ,I~ -- l~ n' ~ - -- - `- ~ a .~ r. - r ~ _. ~' ~ ~ , J61 ;~ _____ ____.~ ----~ ---_~ ~ ~ z~ ~''~ ; ~ ~~--___.- ~ lava 3,-dKS/ins oaarn r ccwb ~~ I ~ 1 ~. a ~a • • • ~~ -140" YlE1N °jiilr f~~~~~a ~~iba~i~i ~~~~~p1 ~~ 1~1 ~~ ~~ ~~s 1 ~~~ P5 • b,~ilt f ~~~~~. ~~le~~~ ~~~Y~4~ ~~, ~~ ~~~ °~ o. ~~~ • ~~ duI 01µd becT ioN ~ S IH bLe ~TO~ "sl~j" ~-ML.gTT R&SIDGNGi t •.a~ ~ - ~,~ ; , ~ ~ /~ I ~. ~G~' ~, u f i I I, rJ-'> 17~1i'.G111-. 'iB rb4c~: ulJ± .. I i ~~'~ ~ ___~_ r r ; ~~ - ~-~- ,: :~_ ~------- i ~ j,' ' • ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ I Lx~61U}~~1~ G4wEkIeY . i~ I I / ,~~ ~ III ~~ ,' I , ~ i i ,t.w ' _'. T _._..__...._ 1 _ -~ - - --- _ _.. - s. ) -~~ ,~'r I I I ~~,a"T'° ~ ~ ~= ~ \~~ I I ~ ~ ;' `. ssz ~~----~ I _ 1 s~~ `E'+eL WA~e '~ - - - - :-•~ I ~' I I ~ ,~ ~(E~diuca ~\ ~,~m ~ ~ \ ~ !."~ ,- ,' 1~': ,,~ ~ . 'I ~, ~, iw.~~,~,.,a~~r ~ ~~ I AgAfla~ - I ~ ,. ~;.... 5~ 46'L'1. ,r ~ I i , M ~ ~ 445/ ~ _ 1. a i M / ~ % r ~ _c ,I' ~_._t y~ rJ a o AU Nc+rEC~ • V,,.~.; 223.5b c AA _ _T .._~_ .... ~~..... ____.- .._.__,._..k ._. _. _.____ S i ~ ry I I try ~~~~ J~,~~N ,I i~ ~`'~°ass ~~ ~'1e~ ~XI~TIN~ GONDITlON~i - MITE f l.aN _.r., 1 , :6 alx r... 1_ .: , .~1,Y I NI0 .B. b0e ~//1l ~ /~ ~ YK. so-6s•~ ,1 ~ f~0/ Z o 0 4 y '•'"~ b~ g .~ ~ - w° fuo•I.b~sd ~Tr~ ~ u >D- ~~ iG ISi ~~~ b• ~ ,~ ob0~8b8b ~ ~u,~ 7d ~ • p ~ 95 CSf fl1 IN %N581't OOd+ t~' ~ ~t1 ~ ~ i N ~ bK•: • $la a ~•7` '' o :: c ~ • is lbr0~ 113M~d~ 'ft- ! ~~./ ~. .r.e ~ .F :4i ~;.! 7H~fb01 j13NT'4EOt ~i :~~ ~! ~~~ id OOBi/~ . ~ ;. .,r. ,_ s~. _. _.... ... ~ s ~ a •~. ;.~ .T i d, u ~ hie I _ ,..._ . ' ~ 'a T Q~ ~ ~ ti u ~ ,• , { ~ •. 5 ~\ terra ~~, 1n •~ Il ~ I/+' \ ', i~ i J~, , .~ j~ ~ '~ / ~ ~ ' ~9:. ' ~ ' ' i. rts,n~y rtt~e ~~ ~'a ~ ~ ~917,70~! :7~ pi;c ~•.KI ••~ ~k / Sa ... ~ 1' ._..__._._ .....__...._. __... .. .._..__ ~ au.. .......:~tL K.i sS~ ./ `~ J 4 J Ill 3 a Q ~N' lO~a AM ~xt~•le•o~e todE: R 14oar~ ex~i!! ~; ~~~ !i i i~~'~ ir~% t i ; ~ I ~~ ~1 ; V ~. LL ~l lalr`~ ~- ~~::.~.•. u ~, aeol . ~ ,,Deno. )~Zi L"i4,1 ~. . Y ; , ~~ rRO.`1-~•~9 3 JS~ Z • [~ ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-028;19805 Versailles Way Applicant/Owner: JALAN/PAUL DOBEL Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: November 14, 2001 APN: 397-17-033 Department BLAC N VERSAILLES WAY 3 ~ W 'ti z o S 0 ti ~ 3 `~ FARWELL AVE . 6 0 0 500 1000 F et 19805 Versailles Way 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application deemed incomplete Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/25/01 7/17/01 &r 9/1U01 10/23/01 10/3U01 10/3U01 10/26/01 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,217 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 6,037 square foot, one-story residence with a 3,209 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 25 feet six inches. The site is 40,060 square feet and is located within an R- 1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-OI- 028. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-O1-028. 2. Arborist Report dated July 25, 2001 3. Correspondence 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" C7 • • 000002 File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 4~,~60 Sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 3.3%. Slope at Building Site 1.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,669 cubic yards to a maximum depth of cut is 12 feet. Of the total, 1,463 cubic yards of would be necessary to construct the basement; 102 cubic yards of cut would be necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 518 cubic yards. A total of 1,169 cubic yards will be off hauled. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish is proposed to be La Habra Hacienda (beige) stucco, wood framed windows with a trim color of buckskin (medium brown) and gutter, fascia and eave molding is proposed to be Sherwin Williams Quail Brown (medium brown). Cast stone in a brunt apricot color (light brown) is proposed as trim and a clay roof the (palace blend) is proposed as the roofing material. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. • C \Myl~cumentsV9805Versailles SR DR01028 doc UUUU03 File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way Lot Coverage: Building Footprint Driveway Walkway Covered Patio/Carport Pool and Patios TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Pro osal Code Re uirements P q Maximum Allowable 32.7% 35% 6,037 sq. ft. 1,609 sq. ft. 804 sq. ft. 919 sq. ft. 3,740 sq. ft. 13,109 sq. ft. 14,021 sq. ft. Floor Area: First Floor 5,348 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor ~ 0 Garage 689 sq. ft. (Basement) (3,209 sq. ft.) TOTAL 6,037 sq. ft. 6,000sq. ft.' Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 49 ft. 30 ft. Rear (30 ft. at the knuckle) ~ ' S0 ft. Left Side 90 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 31 ft. 20 ft. 22 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 25 ft. 6 in. 26 ft. • 1 There is no height penalty with respect to floor area in the R-1-40, 000 Zoning District. C\Mylbcuments\198~05Versailles SR DR01028 doc ~ V ~ V O~ File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 4,217 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,060 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood was at one time predominately single-story large ranch style homes on large lots. Over the past several years, the neighborhood has and is continuing to witness a change in architectural style. The large rambling ranch style houses are being replaced with one- and two-story structures that are more `palatial" in style. The architecture is palatial in terms of the detailing, mass of the roof lines, use of auto courts that are based upon the Porte-cochere style, the "statement" that the entry-ways announce along the front elevations, and very large basements (3,000 sq. ft.) with living quarters that could easily be converted to secondary dwelling units. The predominate building materials of the ranch homes, wood and brick with some use of stucco is being lending way to stucco and the with the construction of the newer homes. Ten lots along Versailles Way were surveyed in order to evaluate this application. The lots include the two lots at the corner of Versailles Way and Wild Oak Way, the lot at the corner of Versailles Way and El Puente Way and all the lots that directly front Versailles Way. The site location map on the cover of this staff report shows the block. Three lots have larger style homes constructed on them (19737 and 19753 Versailles Way and 14551 El Puente Way). Recently a Design Review application was approved by the City Council (on appeal) for 19752 Versailles Way. The house is across the street diagonally from the subject property and as proposed is a tear down and rebuild. When the 19752 Versailles Way structure was before the Planning Commission it was noted that the proposed architecture was nearly identical in all respects including style, colors and materials, to that being proposed by this application. Both projects have the same architect; as such changes have been made to reduce the appearance of duplicity of design. The architect has submitted a letter that addresses these changes. The house at 19800 Versailles Way is undergoing a remodel that is in-keeping with the architecture and materials of the original ranch-style homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, out of the ten lots surveyed, five have been or are under review to be constructed with larger "landmark" homes. A few questions arise when evaluating this application for compatibility with the neighborhood. Do we evaluate the architecture in terms of its compatibility with the ranch style architecture that was originally constructed in the neighborhood? Clearly there are some older well-maintained and remodeled homes within the area that are likely to remain for some years to come. Do we evaluate the proposed architecture with respect to the other newer and larger homes in the area? The newer homes on the block all seem to have their own architectural style that lends an eclectic feel to the area. Do we evaluate this proposal) . in light of both styles of architecture in the neighborhood; the "statements" and the "ranch style" architecture? The latter approach, although a bit more complicated results in C \Mylhxuments\19805Versailles SR DR01028.doc 000005 File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way acknowledging the eclectic nature of the area while still attempting to preserve a sense of the history of the neighborhood. The proposed architecture is more in-keeping with the eclectic architecture of the-three other "statement" homes in the neighborhood, although there is no common thread in terms of style or materials between the project and the other three homes or between the other three existing homes. The proposed architecture is a departure from the ranch style of the area and is no less compatible with the ranch style architecture than the other three homes. The proposed project does implement applicable Residential Design Guidelines as discussed below. Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography". The lot is nearly flat with an average slope of 3.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Policy 1, Technique #3, "Else Materials and Color to Reduce Bulh", which suggests softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of materials that create horizontal proportions. The project proposes stone columns to create vertical pedimentation and window trim and an eave line with corbels which provide horizontal detail. The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and light browns to break up the • mass of the building. • Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulh", Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height", suggests varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The roofline is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Breah Up Massing". The front entry portico is 49 feet from the front property line. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 70 to 78 feet from the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet. Both the existing and the proposed are much closer if measured perpendicular to the knuckle at south-west corner of the property. The proposed structure is at the minimum setback of 30 ft. The proposed entry porch (at the49 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with rectangular windows. C~Iv1yD«umentsu9805Veesailles SR DR01028.d« n C VOO~OV File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way • Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as much as possible. Twenty-three trees are on the site and four would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 24-inch box trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist, which are included as conditions of approval. The replacement trees shall be Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood or any combination thereof. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy", which suggests the use of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. The conditions of approval reflect this need. • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings" suggests screening and controlling outdoor noise activities. The pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in area of the lot that is already screen by redwoods, pines cedars and oaks. The garage is proposed to be located in a similar placement as the existing. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect the neighbors from excessive noise impacts The proposed 3,209 sq. ft. basement is shown to have direct access to the outside. The size of the basement and the direct access to the outside lends itself to being used as a second unit. The applicant, through this entitlement review, should be put on notice that no conversion of the basement to a second dwelling unit shall occur in absence of abiding by the City's secondary dwelling unit process. A condition of approval is also included that addresses this issue. The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. There are no additional conditions from the Public Works Department as this is a fully developed lot. Comments from the City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 689 sq. ft. three-car garage Grading • C \Mylbcumcnts\19BOSVersailles SR DR01028 doc ~0000~ File No. DR-01-028;19805 Versailles Way The project involves only minimal site grading as it is a flat lot. The vast majority of the grading is for the basement. The basement involves 1,463 cubic yards of cut to a depth of 12 feet. Geotechnical Review The subject site contains Sbr soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable Ground". The average slope of the site is 3.3 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical review was not required. The City Engineer has determined that the standard conditions of approval are sufficient. Trees There are twenty-three trees on site that would be exposed to some risk due to project construction. Four trees, as discussed above, would be removed in order to construct the site improvements. The four trees proposed to be removed are two Monterey Pines, one Monterey Cypress and Dracaena. Four 24-inch box trees are the proposed replacement trees. The native replacements can be any of the following; Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood. The project grading was redesigned pursuant to the Arborist's recommendation in order to reduce the impacts to a stand of Coast Redwoods. The Arborist's Report contains other tree preservation recommendations, which shall become conditions of approval and are included on Sheet AB 1 of Exhibit A (the architectural drawing packet). Fireplaces The plans indicate that two fireplaces and one chimney are proposed in the new residence without stating wood or gas burning. The plans omit the chimney associated with the fireplace in the living room. At the time of zone clearance, all chimneys will be delineated and the construction plans will indicate which one of the fireplaces is to be wood burning (if any) the other fireplace shall be gas burning. Correspondence The applicant has provided a copy of a letter sent to the neighborhood regarding the proposed project. The project Architect has prepared a letter detailing what changes were made to give this house a different look than the house approved at 19752 Versailles Way. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minim~e the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning C \MyDocuments\19805Vetsailles SR DR01028.doc (~, aOOV~~3 File No. DR-01-028;19805 [~ersailles Way regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-OI- 028 r~ CVv1yD«umen[sU9805Ver,ailles SR DR01028.d« O OO ~ ~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00000 • • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-028 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA JALAN;19805 Versailles Way WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 6,037 square foot residence on a 40,060 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 is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, titled "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Re~~iew approval, and the following findings have been determined: • The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that twenty-three trees are on the site and four would be removed in order to construct the project. That a mixture of Coast Redwoods and Coast Live Oaks be planted. These replacement trees shall be 24-inch box trees. Said trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. Additionally, the pool is proposed to be placed in a location on the lot, which is already screened from adjacent properties. The proposed entry porch (at the 49 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback. ^ The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minunizing 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 in that the lot is nearly flat with an average slope of 3.3 percent. The proposed grading is to 000011 File No. DR-01-007/BSF-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Additionally, twenty-three trees are on the site and four would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 24-inch Coast Live Oaks and or Coast Redwoods are the replacement trees. 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, in that the roof line is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. The project proposes vertical cast stone columns to give pedimentation; additionally, window trim and an eave line with corbels. The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and light brown breakup the mass of the building. The project also proposes large stone wainscot of a burnt Apricot color on the structure's public facades. The front entry porch is 49 feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from the front property line. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 70 feet from the front setback. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air comdors. ^ The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction require aCity-issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique #4 "Minirruze Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique #3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy C:\MyDocumentsV9605Versailles SR DR01028.doc 00002 File No. DR-01-007/BSF 01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way • 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique #4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of RAJKUMAR JALAN for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Tile roof shall match the stone of the building material. Plant additional mature Redwood trees to provide screening along the east side property line. 4. Plant additional landscaping in front of the building to soften the entry. At a • minimum plant mature 48 inch box olive trees at either end of the portico. 5. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Title Report prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the Ciry Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. • iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. C V~tyDocumcntsU9805Versailles SR DR01028.doc ~ OO File No. DR-01-007/BSF 01-011;19752 Versailles Way iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that the vertical and horizontal are as approved by the Planning Commission." 7. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree #'s 7, 8, 9, and14, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 8. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 9. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 10. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the • construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. The recommendations found in the Arborist Report are to be considered Conditions of Approval. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Four 24-inch box Coast Live Oak and/or Coast Redwood trees shall be planted as replacement trees. The plantings are also required to provide year-round privacy screening. 12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $15,422 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. C \MyDocumencsV9805Ve[sailles SR DR0102d.doc 00004 File No. DR-01-007/BSF 01-011;19752 [/ersailles Way 13. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the Ciry Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 14. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 15. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence, pool and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to trees; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 16. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 17. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 18. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 19. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 20. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). 21. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 22. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY . 23. 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 C Vvtylkxumen[s~19805ve[sailles SR DR01028 doc n~nr~rL~ c File No. DR-01-007/BSF 01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way 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. 24. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City -and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • • C\MyDocuments\19805VersaillesSRDR01028doc ~oo~! ` File No. DR-01-007/BSF-01-011;19752 [~ersailles Way PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date C Uvtylhxumentsu9805Vetsailles SR DR01026.doc OoOV~~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK oo®o~~ • • • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE JALAN PROPERTY 19805 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist July 25, 2001 Job # 07-01-150 Plan Received: 6/28/0 ] Plan Due: 07/30/01 • 00009 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvvIENDATIONS AT TI IT JA[.AN PROPERTY, 19505 VERSAILLES WAY, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing home with an existing swimming pool, and to construct a new home with a large basement, and to construct a new swimming pool. This evaluation reviews this proposal in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes twenty-three trees to some level of risk by construction. Four trees (#7, 8, 9, and 14) are in conflict with the proposed construction and would be removed by implementation of this design, and one tree #11 would be so severely damaged that it would not be expected to survive. Installation of replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A combination bond is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are fourteen trees on this site and nine trees located on the adjacent property toward the east that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The twenty-three trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 Giant sequoia (S'equoia gigantea) Tree #2 Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis `Kaizuka') Trees #3, 4, 16 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #5, 6, 10 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees #7, 8 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree #9 Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) Tree #13 Blue Atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica'Glauca') Tree # 14 Dracaena (Cordyl ine austral is) Tree #l5 Italian cypress (C:upressus macrocarpa) = 8 trees PREPARED BY: MICHAE L L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 (-~100 :O TRLE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TIiF. JALAN PROPERTY. 19805 VERSAILLES WAY, SARATOGA i Number l 5 represents eight trees that are in a row on the adjacent property on the east. 2 The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S imens Fair S imens Marginal S imens Poor S imens 3-6, 10, 14-16 1, 2, 12 7, 8 11 9 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Tree # 1 the giant sequoia is in decline and will continue to decline. It has a disease Botryos~heria dothidea that is untreatable in this species. Because cypress trees # 15 (8-trees) and # 16 are located on the adjacent property, I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regardless of their condition. The root collars of trees #3 and 4 are covered by fill soil. This condition expQSes them to disease, such as oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea), which can kill infected trees over a period of time. This risk can usually be eliminated for all practical purposes by removing the fill soil, which fosters the conditions that favor the disease. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCFI, CONSULTIIVG ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 000021 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIvAZENDATIONS AT j THE JAI.AN PROPERTY. 1980 VERSAILLES WAY. SARATOGA Impacts of Proposed Construction Trees #7, 8 and 9 are in conflict with construction of the proposed pool. In addition, tree # 11 would be so severely damaged by pool construction that it would not be expected to survive. Because of the low condition rating of these trees, replacement for these are recommended. Also, there are six small coast redwood trees in the area of proposed pool construction. These trees could be transplanted. If at least four of these coast redwood trees can be successfully transplanted without jeopardizing the retained trees #2-6, 10, 12, 13, 15, or 16, I recommend transplanting as the preferred option. The smallest of these coast redwoods could be moved using a tree spade. However, this option is incumbent upon avoiding damage to the retained trees by the tree spade truck such as soil compaction in the root zones. The spade truck would have to operate completely outside the driplines of retained trees. It appears that it would require that the small redwood trees would have to be transplanted after demolition but before the initiation of construction. A grading fill area is proposed (contour elevation 460' on the Grading and Drainage Plan) for pool construction within a few feet of the trunks of trees #5 and 6. This grading would expose trees #5 and 6 to severe risk of root loss. Also, the proposed fill to change the contour elevation to 462' would put tree # 10 at significant risk. In my opinion, this grading must not be done. If retaining walls must be constructed to avoid this grading, I recommend retaining walls be constructed. In this event, retaining walls and the space required for the construction activity to construct the walls must be kept a minimum distance from the trunks of the retained trees. The minimum clearance distances must be: Trees #5, 6 8 feet from the trunk Tree # 10 l 5 feet from the trunk Tree # 12 12 feet from the trunk Tree # l 3 12 feet from the trunk Tree # 16 is at risk of significant root loss by the demolition of the existing concrete path and dog kennel on the east side of this property. The concrete must be removed without disturbing the soil, which no doubt contains significant volumes of absorbing roots directly beneath the concrete. Trees #5, 6, 50, 12 and l 3 would likely decline if these trees do not receive supplemental irrigation during construction, assuming construction would occur during the dry season. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: l . The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 000022 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOI\~IIvIENDATIONS AT THE. JALAN PROPERTY, 19A05 VERSAILLES WAY, SARATOGA 4 5. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 6. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 7. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I recommend that the Grading and Drainage Plan be revised to assure that no grading, construction, or construction activity would occur within the minimum clearances required to prevent significant damage to trees #5, 6, 10, 12 and 13. See Observations section of this report. 2. I recommend that demolition of any portion of the concrete pathway or the dog kennel within 25 feet of the trunk of tree # 16 be done by hand. The exposed soil following demolition of the concrete must be covered with 3-inches of wood chips in order to prevent desiccation of the absorbing roots. The wood chips must be spread immediately following demolition (1-2 hours) the spreading must be done by hand and thoroughly wet down. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 1 &inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 0000 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE JALAN PROPERTY, 19805 VERSAILLF,S WAY, SARATOGA 5 6. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose for each tree laid 6 feet from the trunk. 7. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 8. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 10. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 11. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 12. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 13. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 14. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. 15. I suggest that transplanted trees (if done as described) must receive weekly supplemental watering like any other newly installed containerized nursery plant. The root balls of transplanted trees must be kept thoroughly damp but not saturated at all times before transplanting and during transplant and after transplant for at least one year. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1992. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2W 1 000024 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIvIE2dDATIONS AT 6 THF. JALAN PROPERTY, 19805 VERSAILLES WAY, SARATOGA Trees #7, 8, 9, 1 1, and 14 are expected to be removed by implementation of this design. These have a total value of $1,588. An equivalent replacement would be four 24-inch boxed native specimens or one 36-inch boxed specimen. Transplant of even two of the existing small coast redwood trees would likely equal or exceed this value. Replacements are suggested. I recommend that the owner be given the option of removing or providing protection for tree # 1. If removed its value is $1,204, which is approximately equivalent to one 36-inch boxed native specimen. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. I recommend a combination bond (a + b) as follows: a. The combined value of all of the retained trees with the exception of # 15, is $49,112. For these, I suggest a bond equal to 20% of their total value ($9,822) to assure their protection. b. The Italian cypress trees represented by tree # 15 are quite valuable individually. Each tree is at least equal to a 52-inch boxed specimen, which has a value of $7,000 each. For the protection of these, I recommend a bond equal to the value of 10% ($5,600) of their total value ($56,000). Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macroplryllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submi Michael L. Bench, sociate ~~ B oate, nncipa MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction PREPARID BY: IuQCHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 nnn~~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMEAIDAT[ONS AT THE )ALAN PROPERTY, 19805 VERSAILLES WAY, SARATOGA Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 25, 2001 ~QODI~V job Title: Jalan Job Address: 19805 Versailles Way Job #07-01-150 Mea surements Con dition Pru nin / Cablin Nee ds PastfD lsaas a Pro blems Racom rrand . BARRIE D. COATS , i I I I o , ! ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ o and ASSOCIATES „ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ' ~ ~ 52 ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ w ~" w '~ ~ NOB) 3531052 m 'o 1 ~ , w I w , LL ~ , ~ ~ z ~ ~ O c~ i z t c~ z ~ ~ O W .. 1 °~ l ~ m I ' ' m I G ~ "' ~~ O U ~ O ~' ~ w rJ. ! ul ~ T1535 fuasl Aad n W = w i .- = W ~ ~ F- ZQ I ? ' O ~ ; Z ~ ° W W I ~ ~ ~ W ~ O W GatM, a 9'!030 ~ ~ i ~ ® ~ _ ~ , x , Z l ~ W J ~ x t A i w ~ W W K 0. ~ i 3 ~' O ° O ~ w J J Q W pj ~ ~ I ~ _ s ~ = j c E ° 3 1 3 ~ 3 3 o w i ~ c~i ; ,°~ v ~ v y w ~ ~ x ~ x x ~ 52 W x ~ ~ z E ~ O~ O 1 0 O ~ ~ ° Z ° V W w i g ~ 2 H O $ F- O ° ° U Ke ~ Plant Name m O ~ m m w o. H O 1 o: o: m o: w ~ m y l~ ~ w w u i y ° ° ° ° x y x w v x v v I U v o: v o. i -- ° ~ o: o: z z oc 1 Giant S uoia 29.01 33 55 30 3 1 4 ~ Se uoladendron i anteum ~ I ~ I 1 s . in 660 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 17,825 X sp. class 30% _ $5,347 X cond. 75% _ $ 4,011 X loc. 30% _ $ 1,203 Totai Value 2 Hull ood Juni r 8.0 I x t 4.0 3.0 i 1016 ~ 25 i 30 2 1 1 3 ~ ~ ~ i I I I Jun! eras chinensis 'Kaizuka' I 1 x2 xl i I i 15x2 I ~ I I j I I I ! , s . in 88 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,376 X sp. class 70% _ $1,663 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,497 X loc. 60°k = $ 898 Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 24.0 ~ ~ 25 40 j 45 1 3 ~ 5` ~ 3~ I 2 j j I ~ ~ I Quercus a rltolia I 1 ` ~ I 1 I I s . In 452 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. class 100% _ $12,208 X cond. 75% _ $ 9,156 X loc. 75°~ _ $ 6,867 Total Value 4 Coast Llve Oak 24.0 ~ 25 1 40 45 1 1 3 5 I ' , I 1 ~ ~ I ~ I t ~ i 1 ~ I 1 I ` ' s . in 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. class 100% _ $12,208 X cond. 75% _ $ 9,156 X loc. 75% _ $ 6,867 Total Value 5 Coast Redwood , , 11.0' ~ I 112 ! 50 ~ 20 1 ( 2 2 I ! ` ; i I I ; Se uoia sem ervirens ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i ; i t s . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. Gass 90% _ $2,308 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,077 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,246 Total Value 6 Coast Redwood 11.0 = 12 45 20 1 i 2 2 ~ _ ~ ; I I I I ! I I i ~ ~ i 1 ~ , 1 , I s . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. class 90% _ $2,308 X cond. 90°k = $ 2,077 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,246 Total Value 7 Montere Pine , 18.0 ; ~ 19 50 45 2 3 1 6 ; I I 1 , 1 Plnus radiate , f 7 ; I s . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 30°k = $2,060 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,236 X loc. 50°~ _ $ 61 B Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = 5120 24"box =$420 36"box = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48" = Ss,ooo 52"box = S7,ooo 72~ $15,000 ~ Re 1 of 3 s 7 501 joi~tle: jalan Job Address:~5 Versailles Way Job ~O1-150 7/25/0] Measurem ents Condition Prunln ICabUnp Nss ds Psst/D issss• Pro blems R ecom mend . RABBIS D COATS ~ i! I I ' s i I ~ ~ o ' , and ASSOCIATES l m i I i ~ i ~ I I cv ~ ~, ~ z l F ~ Q ! ; ~ 'n v , i w i ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ i ~ o ~? ~) 353' 1052 ~ I ~ i , LL ~ I H (7 Z 1 2 ~ i r, w l ~ ~ , :' U O ~ W W 1- 23535 Siwsi Bad t. cam U eso3o ~ I W -~,~ = F ~ i i ~ N ® ~ i _ i `~ ~ ;n w ~ ~ I~ I z ? ~ q ~ ~ I ~ Z O ~ ? i ~ I ? y I `~ °z ! x w i W C w w Q x a p l Z i "' i ~ i -. y ... } ° cai o ~ ~ o: g ~ o: ~ a ~_ ~ x ~ °z ~ , } ~' I -- i~ ~ t o ~! ~ ~ ' ' z o N I~' o c 0 0 ; ~ a ~ ~ ~ #i i { ~ x ~3 ~ x ~ z z z z~ ~ y ~ w ~ Ke ~ Plant Name x - m O ~ x x m m l !~ i W 0: a ~ i~ z C I O r~. O I rx O O O~~ I ` Q: Q: ~ W as ~ O ~ I w ~ i~ ~ O ~ O O I O O w W w W c~ W y o o o o x rn x ur I v x O O O v z v a ?~ o f- tz ~ z z tY CCC 8 Montere Pine 16.0 ~ I 17 ~ 45 30 2~ 3 ~ 6 ; I E ~ ~ i i ` I I ~ I I s . in 201 X $27Isq. in. = S 5,426 X sp. Gass 30% _ $1,628 X cond. 60% _ $ 977 X loc. 50°~ _ $ 488 Total Value 9 Montere C ress 9.0 ( x 4.0 12 i 20 20 4 I 2 i 5 i i ~ I i Cu ressus macrocar a t x4 i 1 I I i I i I ~ i i i I ~ ~ s . in 89 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,403 X sp. Gass 50% _ $1,202 X cond. 45% _ $ 541 X loc. 40°h $ 218 Total Value 10 Coast Redwood 20.0 x ~ 20.0 18.0 40\1 75 35 1 3 5 ` { I ; ' ~ I I i I ~ ` I I I s . in 672 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 18,144 X sp. class 90% _ $16,330 X cond. 60% _ $ 9,798 X loc. 60°k = $ 5,879 Total Value 11 Coast Redwood 8.0 i x~ 3.0 I j 10 ~ 30 115 3~ 3 j 7~ i i f I I ! ~ I I I' ix3 14x3 I i I I j I I i I I i s . in 61 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 1,647 X sp. Gass 90% _ $1,482 X cond. 30°k _ $ 445 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 267 Total Value 12 Coast Redwood 24.0 ~ 26 i 100 20 3 2 I 5 i " ~ i i I i I I i I i ~ I I I I I I I i I i i I I I s . In 452 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 12,208 X sp. class 90% _ $10,967 X cond. 60% _ $ 6,592 X loc. 60°k = $ 3,955 Total Value 13 Blue Atlas Cedar 17.0 i x 6.0 i 5.0 ; 19 ~ 75 30 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ i I ~ ~ I Cedrus etlantica lauca .x2 I I i I I I I i ~ I i s . in 261 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,047 X sp. class 90% _ $6,342 X cond. 90% _ $ 5,708 X loc. 60% _ $ 3,425 Total Value 14 Dracaena 5.0 ' x i 5.0 i ' 9x3 I t0 115 1 3 4 i I ~ , "'' Cord line australis ~ Ix8 17x4 ~ ~ i i I s . in 98 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 2,646 X sp. Gass 30% _ $794 X cond. 75% _ $ 595 X loc. 60°~ _ $ 357 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"box =$420 3i5"box = 51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Patze 2 of 3 C1 0 O job Title: Jalan Job Address: 19805 Versailles Way Job #07-01-150 7/25/01 ~ ! BARRIE D. COATS I ~ o . ~ ~ ' ' ~ v ° ' ~ a~ I , I = ~ ; and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ I ~ ~ I s ; ; ~ ~ w ~ ~ 140813 5 3 • I <~ 2 ~ ~ ~ I LL = ~ ~ Z 3? i' Z ~ ~ Z ~ W ~ ~ o ~ j ~ ~ p ~ y 33535fwsi8ad A i w ~ I N I ~ ~ ~ `, ! ~ ~' ~ - I d ° Q ,~ z I v ~ < ~ ~ w =' ° -L., H { pJ mo= w ~ 4! ~~ I rn ~~ W w m 3 ~° I c> ~~ g Q ~' z L« CaIM~ CA 95030 I} I I rr ... I~ ~ Q ~ U F=- ~ a ~ ~ 2 O O S l w~ W W ~ v, I w ~ x~~ ° z z z l z cn '~ rr ° 0 0 3 a i x169 ~ x 2 I g wg S2 ~ ~ m I Z 4m O O O~ O ~ J ~ w W 93 i I j~ p~ p~ W W y m O m l m ~ 5 w a ~~~ ~ O~ a o: ~ m ~~~ w ~ ~ y~ m ul I m O O w w t~i Ce # Plant Name ° ~ °~° ° x rn x rn v x v v ~ v v I m v a i II ~- ° ~ s o: m z z 15 Italian C ress 8 trees 9.0 ~ ~ I ~ 10 f 30 ` 5 2~ 1 3 ~ ~ ! ~ I I I I I I Cu ressus sem ervlrens ~ ~ ~ ~ I I _ s . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 50% _ $856 X cond. 90% _ $ 773 X loc. 70% _ $ 56,000 1 tree ual to 52" boxed s ecimen or $7,000 each Total Value 16 Coast Live Oak 35.0 ~ ` 37 ' 45 ~ 60 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I I . in 962 X S271sq. in. _ $ 25,964 X sp. Gass 100°~ _ $25,964 X cold. 90% = S 23,367 X lac. 75% _ $ 17,526 - - _-- - -_ Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = S1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"bo =$5,000 52"box = 57,000 ' 72"~ $15,000 ~ ~e 3 of 3 Q C C ~ ~ ~ x Lrr. r--~(~ Q~DOyQ~O _ ~, ' ~ _ _ o _~ _ .1 ~ ~r P ...r ~'1 1 fr,kt / ~ ~ I NI ~T Rera~rrd -- _ Q:.,.i I~ :. ,,~... I; ~~~ _ ~ ~; ~ ; '~ ~~ j° ~' O O 'O W I O • • _ ,y / _ _ _ ~ ~_s rvi ~.~~11 ~ ~-' a uoe co..wt.~n ~`~ rs (weisi lose i33 I Iie mgt Rd for G9tor, Ce 95ir11 ~ ' I~ rip I,Ine of Tree C~nopY .. r. otertlre FtncinR I ~ I ~ ~w ,. i ~n,room~ ni n~. n.o,m-~<o - -- ~ r.~/- z~ ' Ikyvtmmr ., P ~ ~, .trtSARL~S 1e~y Uf(fj ~`~JA !~, S 7(>( Attachment 3 City of Saratoga Communit}' Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, A1CP Community Development Director DATE: November 14, 2001 RE: Project Architect's Description of Differences between the two Versailles Way Projects 19850 Versailles Way differs from 19752 Versailles Way in many of the finishes being used on the house. 19850 Versailles Way has a large, horizontal eave with a wood soffit, heavy timber wood corbels and a half round copper gutter. 19752 Versailles Way has a smaller eave consisting of a cast stone moldings and corbels with a painted ogee gutter. The stone wainscot on 19850 Versailles was originally a coursed, precast stone. The revisions by the Planning Commission for 19752 Versailles Way added a coursed precast stone and consequently we have revised the stone on 19850 Versailles Way to an Both homes have stucco siding and a clay "S" the roof. The stucco color for 19850 Versailles Way is a browner color than the cream color base of 19752 Versailles Way and the roofing the for 19850 Versailles is a blend of buff and smoked apricot colors. Based on the Planning Commission comments, the roof for 19752 Versailles Way shall be revised to contain some brown to blend with the coursed stone wainscot. ashler, natural stone with a variety of hues. The cast stone moldings on the houses shall have colors that blend with each roof's. 19752 Versailles Way has a browner cast stone color, which will blend with the revised, browner roof the and on 19850 Versailles Way; we are proposing a cast stone color "Burnt Apricot" which will blend with the smoked apricot tiles of the 2 color roof blend. The most significant visual difference for the two houses is the front porch. The front porch for 19850 Versailles Way is one arch wide and the porch for 19752 Versailles Way is five arches wide. Gregg Kawahara, Architect 000031 The Members of the Planning Commission, ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ - ` ,~ The Members of the City Council, The Planning Staff, TOOZ ~' ~'~ C ~' C/o The City Clerk, City of Saratoga, ~^~-- . ~:, ;~ ~11~ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- ostentatious but high quality character of the neighbofiood. ~C That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. o The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally oui of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. ~ The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; ~ ~~ C!- ~ 1 ~- ~. ~~~~ L % 2 Address ~ ~ 3 YSGU P ` ~ . ,Saratoga, CA 95070 0~000~2 Signature Date :~, November, 2001 • • ~~ ~~ ~ The Members of the Planning Commission, r~~, h,_. The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, ~ 'a City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; ~~The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- ostentatious but high quality character of the neighborhood. That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. o The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally out of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. ,~ The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that de1~m~~pponstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; ~~ ~ m u-- ~ ~~~Iti~Yi n~ ~ I ~,, Address ; ~97 ~ v~r-Sa~• ~~e.S' ~ ,Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature ~/;`!~ A~ /~' Date :~ November, 2001 000033 The Members of the Planning Commission, The Members of the City Council, The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; 'y~ The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- / _ ostentatious but high quality character of the neighborhood. o That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. ^ The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally out of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. ~ The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; /.~lf~/Z~'ii4, ,~ ~ ~ •-~ Gri .'li ;= c;~f- Address ; I ~ ~ ~' !~~ ~ ~~, ~z , /~--, ~ „~_. ,Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature ~~L>~,~ z~ _ <.,`~~- ~~_,~--~,~: Date :~, November, 2001 • 000034 The Members of the Planning Commission, The Members of the City Council, Cray c'~ ~..__.~,~~ The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, C, NOV 6 2001 City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, 2 ~ ~ e nn ~ ~j , Saratoga, CA 95070 L~ V U Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; o The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- ostentatious but high quality character of the neighborhood. That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. ^ The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally out of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. ^ The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; ~r~ C~ `I r :~ti Address ;~ y~s~' I/~e~-..QC:`.-//~,, ~/•:,~ ,Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature ,, ,~ ,,..,J Date ~ 6~;-November, 2001 • 000035 The Members of the Planning Commission, The Members of the City Council, The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, ~~~~o~~~ Nou o s 2ooi crrv uE~ snw~rocn COMMUNfT}' DF.VELOPMFNT As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- ostentatious but high quality character of the neighborhood. ~( That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the I~ neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally out of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; /"` /~ ~~ (~ r/~C~ Address ;.~~~~ ~ ~(.~.~~ ,Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature Date :~, November, 2001 • 000036 ~~~~o~~~ NOV 0 6 2007 WL- CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _~ ~ ~ ~1 ~l, L/ ~Ltil. ~'~ ~~~~ ~,1~ •.}'_G •.~/~ I~~li 1 C~~~~~Vk~'~~ ~~ ~•4-.~-t .~~~ _ L //J • • r ~~.i 'J \ U ~. ~~~`~ ~~/ L ~1~ ~ 1 r ~-~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~~~ l,~ ~~EI~ ~~' ~~ I ti'.~~1 U ~J 1 I n n~e,n -~--, Property Address: 19805 Versailles Way The following outlines my concerns and recommendations regarding the new model for the above property address: (1) The swimming pool equipment is located too close to my house. I recommend moving it further away from my house and closer to the owner's swimming pool. (Z) There is no privacy between the owner's bedrooms and the neighbors. I recommend planting some trees/scrubs to ensure privacy for both residences. (3) Since the house will be so different from the rest of the neighborhood (tall and large), I recommend the owner to install additional trees in front of the house so that the outside would not appear as prominent. (4) The height poses another concern. The entire Wild Oak Way has lower ranch style houses. I understand why the height for a two-story house might be essential, but don't understand the need for 26 feet height on a one-story house. The architect explained to me that the high wall is for the high windows so that the house could get more sunlight, which isn't convincing. I believe a 23 feet high house can still support the structure and serve the same purpose. This way it will blend in better with the neighborhood. Regar~ , ~- ~ [~C~C~OdC~ ` Tzu- u an Catherine Lin Nov o s 200 C[TY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT w ' The Members of the Planning Commission, The Members of the City Council, The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We are concerned that ; That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighbofiood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. • i~ being that w~live in. that Grp generally out The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. ~' Name (Print) ;-~~~~~~ ~~j~0 ,~ Address ~ ~( Q'~ ~~>~Gr~ E~ ,Saratoga, CA 95070 ,_, Signature ~ ''" ':~' ,~ .. ,, Date ~ ,November 2001 NOV 0 6 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPN~N7' UUUU3y .~ The Members of the Planning Commission, The Members of the City Council, The Planning Staff, C/o The City Clerk, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re :Neighborhood Concerns regarding Development Activities Dear Sir or Madam, As members of the community that encompasses the neighborhood around Versailles Way we want you to know of some of our concerns regarding recent developments and/or planning applications for development in this general area. We ar concerned that ; The homes being proposed are out of character with the quiet and un- ostentatious but high quality character of the neighborhood. pr That homes being proposed are excessively tall and detract from the neighborhood's character as well as often intruding on existing home-owner's privacy and views. o The homes being proposed use colors and materials that are generally out of character with the old, established, and under-stated quality of the neighborhoods that we live in. ~t The homes being proposed are excessively large with some homes approximating 9000 square feet on one-acre lots. We are concerned about these general issues and ask that you do not approve Planning applications for properties that demonstrate the attributes above. Name (Print) ; ~ i 1c a N ~Q ~ ~ Q V J Address 11~ f f U ~oc~..t jC.¢~ G~ ,Saratoga, Signature Date :~, November, 2001 CA 95070 ~~~~o~~~ NOV 0 6 2001 COMMUNITY pgy~LOpM~, • • ~000'~0 • C7 • ~-ur~ -~sr iaser- Jalan Residence 19805 Versailles Way Saratoga, CA • • • r~o~»o~ rrY.rol.~./ I -- I ~ ~ ~"' ~ ~-- ~r-° 1 - 1 ~ ~ ~. . ~ -- e :: ~ ~ a.~..~~r• 1 rrrs..r ' r..~. 11101S1aR .... i .. art ~ rrr:rr . .L . rrli ll/ur rrlrr/LUfar,g71N i i rr~q.lf-4~111LI.++1b1tl~..4fY.KY11.. r r + r '~ Irru~..Mlrr.Y.w.r+Yrll.b.rr rlrfr.rrrr Ylr..r I ' Y.Itlrii.Y.r.rrrrrwrl+ + f b'rfrrrrryYrrrlrrf.rYr y, / IIIf.YY/M.rr/Itl.rr..4440rtlw ryrbM.rr.rrrlrfrrlr.rr r.Rla1L.IM.grlN.rrbM.~IfYYrt b.l..r/LfiL><r.11f.a+l~rlrrllr orrrrblwbllrflrrrr rr r g . ar r.rrr.rr/.r+l~rr. Nr.rw.r.l*rrr..r...rrrlr bwr...frf.a...r..rflrlr.r.a../ • ; mrr..aYrrlbr+..lr^rY.rrr~ll fwl.la/rNr.. frrrrr r / rrrr.wrr..rrr.rrrrr./r a p.rr:+frYr.wrrrplrrrr YrrrafW/ L9Y rtlr l r r r r b. r . rrrrrrrr.rrYrr..rrralf.r. r r .IY.wrlrr.rlwrrrrrrY wMrlwlrbr..rlY.rilW.frr~ ' l ~ .r r I ~ I~/llrr..ral~rlrrrrrrfl.f.lll. r . t rlgY/wr1~Y~.IbaYNrYl~r..a - . . - . u . r b rrrr .LI-f s1Y1nw1~arlo~r+AA* a. b.rr.rY/p./rrrf/rYr.r.. frr.allYlb.wfParrr.r.rY.rrar. frr.tr.rrr.r.brrY.~.rr- . ~ ,r.rlr.rrr r.rrl. ~ '. O.rrrrrarl.lY.fa.a Y1/YSa.~/o ~ rraurY.u.Y.wlwrr ~ w.rlJrrM~.IdLr-~4rrarr{4¢ ~ rN.l~.bar.f/. KII/rtr..a~r..rr, , rnrl,,,rrlr .rlwalrrPr. W.rrrrrr/rarf r drr 1 rfrlra.rlr.4(r/.~Irrr.lwr I.I~/rr.rY/.rYr/IrY1.pllr/~w.r Iltrl/Yy./WILrrYwrrb.ilrM.Ml 11r1~~lY~ILf r.r/raalp.lY. 'i rYiwA.IYr..Y.~~rrrbrrfab ~ 44.41rrrrM.y. rrrrYr,rr,l/glrYr.Y.r.YW . rr.pfrl.~Ya>i.rr./r r Yrill.~ rylpy ~ Or.r~r rrf /Yapgr..Ir/Irlfr/ r 11..r Yrrr.rr.frrrr.rr..fr '. ~..rrrrt.r rr.rrr.r r,IlrYrrarbPll~rrlr.Prr/IRr/ I ~~ , bM.1lplrra~al..IrY.r•r..fw a Yb11.YyrYr.b.rrrwrfra.Y/rrl rYr rMbr ry 4rrraxa r.aU11r1..11brasrrfr7lwlr/r.A.r .rarr rr r i . ~ rr..~.lrrr....4~rl.r-arr ~ I..I..rrrar.rr-rr..rtlrrr.rr .ii '. rYM..fafr1l..lprrlrYl*.r/I rrlr Yrrrr.rrr. rrY rl..rrr.rrrrr..rlrrrf.rr ~ y .rr r1Y.rrfrly. . . i~lr/Y.IYYI*r.rra.r.rY frrr rr~11I~~IIee ~ * r' . b~j..INrrb/a.rrrrfrk.r.l. ', .Hirrarr.Y~./rl. .rr.r.fWrr . rrYrrIr~ rr+r.r,~~yyr~rw ' . ~r.r.fA4.wy.~+y..r.rr+. r.l.r.r ~. L l.r.//gla.r.rrr..rrrr.l.brf rrrr.rr/I.-.pY.rrra4 . ! ~~ r4/rYr.flr. . I r1~4r• qq ~ ! prrr.rrlY Yrlr/r r tl rM P IY IrF ~.g ~ rlrr.r.rr.rrfrrYllrrr/Y/lyrl ^ f l Y L Irrrrrbr.lgr.lrf.l/tl/~Y.p~r j l 1.Y*MIrIrR.W...r.wr.rwrq Ir~1.r1a1.Yr-W./r. ~ YITW Orr1 r. l rs , I . . rrMYll.rbfY/I~rrrNI.YM...f 1 1 ,, ....rr/.rrt r . a r.Wr1Yf.~.rU.Iri.YY+Mr•Y ~ a~rq..rf.M.11~rYrril.wr ~r~r/.A/4rr4ta..r raYrprrrYSrrrrlllrrrir/ ~ _ r4 Y~ ~ ' w r.IW.r.Y~.d...l. rr . '', ~ wlrrrr/rfl.lrtl.brrr/r..11rllYrl sfYl^ba rlrl.la/I.rfr. r.nrlwryrwr,. Rlrrrr. iYlml.r. rrI~11,Ir.~,7 i ( Y.r.f.r../r.W~lr.rfrra.rr Il..ar/rrWf rrrll~ .r rbrtl.r. w.rrl w..~rirala ~Ir.rrrrlrrr4rrlrrr.. j yrrrrrlrlrf/IrrrrlrY.Yll.rr '~. ~ :Il~rrrlY.f.rllYfrrrNlgbrl rr..r.rrrwl.rprrfr..l ~. r+4 I bw/b ", T•L Y.rrrwrrnr.br ar.rr.IlYfr..l.IrbryrarrrrY ~~ YrrYrrf/IrfrrlYrbrLbaf..lr I ILIIa1rYiNnrYrlral.r/rr.rYl.rfr l bbrp.rq.rbrltl.~raNYrYYb.w ~ IWLIYa l ~ ''. Il.r..at•Y1Yr11.rw~r.r1Y.1.11.r.Y1 I M~r..r~7rrY.Kl.y.rM.YaIYMr Wrr ~~ Tr41 IrY.rr Irrl•Irrl.frrrrY.~rr)YrfrwY r r14.r.1.YYa.Y~.lYrra.wlrr _ ~, Ir`I..rQ~1r~1.1~i1~rI~11.r.YfM111tlM i yA1M r . rar ~ rr tlrrrr ~ rllibr.Y.llalrrq.tirYr.Mr1 I..Iry LLIr.Alflll.rly.r^Y}rrwWrra.f frlr.YAl/q ~. .rrr.~.lYr.wrrwr/.rrr ~~' ryr.rrwlM.b.rrr. rrYYrnlYrr,Y i ttim Ilrrrr ; rr.rbrw I r~rrrfrrrr..r. rrr i ~~M~~~ ~ rr.rrrlrrl.I~Yfr.rr.r.yw I W l/ r .r A ~ l I.~IYrrr.~rlryYp~W.lrr.rl.r ~ 1 Y + O.rr-Par/Ar YIrINr '~I .Y..r.r.rrrrrl.rMrAw ~ Ir rr fr l f.plaafr.//i.f,Yp.lrl/.fr raft.. y l . IrnY^Yf1~.Irrbr/rr l r11~rr.rrYfr b.rrYrrrw . W 11rrii~.rlNiW rrlylfl 4.rt rlr~Mllr.rr'r r;rYYf.ll./r Ilrrrriryr..YrrYrrrr.7.r r+agYrYril.arl.rwfNr.t Y1~r ~1r"Pa°~ r rrrrrr.Y fPbn~l rrrrr.arY~rrrrrrrrl.r. i w.rlrrr.wrrMY.rrfrrfr rrf~.rrr..l}.rrr/.~.r• ~. rYlYf/.rwr ! lYMr1Y-`r7Ma -rrrK... crrrr Irrrrrrr ~ IY.wrIM ~ b.r.fr.rYr.fwrrr.a~I.~rw I.f-.b~1 ..wYrr.... ..r./.IM.Irf.w.a.~b1lra.rAr. r-Yrrlb.M ~ ..r.l/. Yr brrY YYLLr'I.Yr/fY.f Il lYrir .rrYrl rraa i l. ~ wlr'i1"Illrl.lb/.~ r~rwrrw..ir..rlWWrlr.r.l ~' r/1Y/.rrYYrrrrrr.rr lY.r. 1r4llL4rtl.rr-rrlwrrrr.atlla.al ' ^ r l .rrrr ~ , l1 K p rr/ragr.rYrrb.r.rr.. ~ I r ' alrrl.irrrirrr.r.r. rrrr.rwlll.rbar i Ybll./a.r.al.~ I a tl..rra+srra~r..wrL.rrrf. I.r..a•)rYarrr.b ' I . br/r,.r r+w.r/. n.n orga0lrlyl...1 ' ~ rr...rmpryrn.W.rq..fa.f.1 ' /rb/ralrrar.Ylr~Yw.a/tar frrraprw.r+r..r.rlr+pw. i lal.rrrrtr..lar..walrrr.y _ li ~~ . rrrrarr ~ y y r '. n.a Mr1a I ~rrr.rrr.r.lr.a.a.frrr. frYr.yryll.rr.r..rrf.lr r~.rw.r~rrrrr.~.r.+r~. .tlr.l...yr.fr.yrryrr~/.rrr.rrlrb ^ ~ { ~. ~ ~ 1W Tlwr4a~ Owilrryfa..p+..l i 11.r+.rrrrl.wrbYalr.r.yrr• I br.brffrr/.rrrf~.rra./. Yr. ar r ' rrrr i ' laa~ ~W.~rY.^Y.ri~I..LtYf fur p[iFI1ED b.4} rrrlrprrrl rrM e l rrr.wr4lr.•raLrrrrYwrr. WfrTYikrMYalrr/rr~/I.A.ab.r~1 , l . a. ~ brfyfrr.r ' .~rrr.~a-rlrrra./n ' Lr.rr~rrY.r.llwar.YL.lrrrrrr rY/.I.rlrr.pA.Mr.r.rWp. 1. n II Ililltltl lr../rR}.. Ye Y ~ 1x111 r./rI.rlOlbr.rbr '. rrrrr/rrrr.rrarir ~ 1 brrar.r, r.iarrr.wrY,IIY. /rr.rrrglp.rarr/a .,rraYrYrlwLi.ru.l..YrlYlrrr 1 r.rrlrYfr Afr.rfr.r.r./.fr I frlwr. rraf/1r.rrlr.yYMrIYYi.r YII.Or law. OIr1fYr ~ mar.M OYY.rIa/I.. ' n.r OawaYrYllrr/ i..N lrllarLl/....r.r,n•Ir IsaL saa, .ra .r.~.r.rrrr ura. A lY1.Y.rrrwYw~I..YYIYq.rtl.. i I rYY Y j 1r rrarbri ' _ ~wrYYlirrYlrArO.d. ~' j a.ar :. raurr.urrr I .r..ararura mnr '~. Y i.rwrrLrrw~r r.ar rr.rrl WbIaYll.rrCr/. ~ I I ~ I ~ w Mr.M. I+..r_r...bly raa.. I Mr+.r. MA.rrv.r.l. MINI ~~ ~ ~ ' : ~ 1l I~ l~ ~ '1 `~ 1i E 1~ f ~ ~ ' lrlL•._IY • . ' rwa r ~-r r~el~.a.r. ° r...eL.r_ - ae._r. ~ __. ewe...ya rot - r~._ua ~.r Y I .r r~w .IR0.(0111YOM00(Itl ~' rll.brG..nr/ tldtArW rporau ~i rrl/rrr.rgrtl Wr.a~.WIrYrYarYY ~ ~~r•.. 'i ti..nlrnr.rr.rgrrrrw ar..rr.r. r r.rr.rlrY-a.. ' .+r r//~..Y.aw.r..ri ~llryW r.r.r.r+nrrr.r. rl Ml.r.I.rra.rP.r11Y~.rl.rrrl. .irir~rr. ~yr~~gr:.r..'r.. i r ..fir wYlr 1+ ~rii:WiM~q rrrd.r•.rt.a+r.rllrr.rbrr rr+rr+rrl.ryrfr rr.tirr.rarrr..rr..rrr- a.rrrrl.+. I/.•rrrarrrM+rr r.nrr+.rrr+.r.rrr..ra a,l.lrr-. rrr. Yr.Yw.rlll W rr. rrrr+rrrrlrr n.rr.4rr rrr.rrrrt ~w~r.rrfrrrrr.r r•rrrrr.r.rrrr..rr.... .r..l.rrr rr-..r..l.r..Y.rWIr rr.-.r.a.rlr.r ,q..rrr.w..r u-rrrrrrrtrrr s ~ t a ti l~ ~i l i° :l ti ~~ t'~' r.~ ,. >t ra./>_Ial r~iAaa . .,. ~. aea.~ .~ . _.. r ro w~.AaL .err ..r .r'.:uww Mlr 0.ml11arw4Vr r.l..rrrr bRr4Hr tlrrrrrraru mwmaw~ ~~~ aunens u~rrrl-r.rrrr or iwlrn..Y1..Ya.Y Yrrrrrrrrr ral.rfr r riu. Irrrrrrrirar.r..arr.r..r y W rlMr.ir..YYarl.ti y,..lrrrryyrrrrrrr~+l.r ~.~~~.Iyr~.r .rr rti.rr..4r I.Ya~Yrr~rlrrrra/Y=Yrlrrrl Y. l ;.Yr.,` ~~IY~Y .~lir ~r~rr...rrr.IfrlrTii~ r r,.,.~.rrr+.rlM.... r.r1..IrII1..LL .r r.r.r./I Yrr..w ryrrrrr~~.rrw~r.r.rr.r+n~r b.raf.rr~~rNr.rr.rr+ara ~Ir rr rlrr./...rr. r;rYw+rrr.l M arnr r+rrrrralnr,.l r ,rl.s .rrr.rr.rr rr A ~~i.+~lYr*i.Yi~Y.~r.MrwYati .~ „,,,,,nr.,r+r.lwrrrr~rn.,rr ~ r.yl.w.rf+rrlY a.lr'~."~"..~.lyrrr~Yrrrr...r ..a.ww+.a.rl.r.wrr.r...r M1bFl. M.alrrrrrF r.ao.l ~~ 1~ ~' ~ i ~ I~ I i tl i~ :_ ii ~~ i .wL• ^al r ~, a.n ue..r ~~~ ...rir..~i..i~ rr..~.rr~... ~l.r ~/ L . r... ~.r. r.. ~:.`i~rri l y .~ ~.....,.• I,.nw ~_-- r t ~~.. rn.~w...r e -.._-_-_-.. •lu u4 rl..rr. ...,- ...r.~....~r... .~.. -.._. . .._ ~~: . I~r~fr•r i ~.. I i .~-Iw lu..wrr ^ WB.OY. r.au "+~~ a..yr..rr. r..w+. b111111i.r. lxwrgr rr ~ _ ~ 7 4~~ '~ ~1 In1~an Y.lYr.gr Y.r1 cpa..INIrrryyw ra r Ar y..l. r .u r..6.~ eM~.yYrrr.e.a q,rl.wrlYl.r~r..r.. .rr0/r.rg1 YYrt+l.+r rr r,r.r. r. Y ro~r.y „~i+Yn.l r....I.r 1...r.Mbrr.rr.r t-(.~.1 ~~ 'I r _.~ ; !F ~ • 'I _ 6 . _.___ _. ~ I ~ k~ ,' i; _~ -. . I _ __ ff _~~ C.,, 1 ~~'!:^ 1 ',~ f(lI1AlL FlCt1EEX8~[IC~ly.l1.¢ rn pql= /~ r~r a~~' I.rMlfri.r. ~ ~J Arborist r Reporf as i ~~-0~ • • saaR„•.,.• _ N oaoa•oo- a e4s.oz• YS~ Ia1.N ~~a~kYa[d~~l6illll Nam...lrm/ , ,e.. _ _... _ _ ~ ~ / •'ti,l «I'mNN /, __ _~~~ _ i ~- --------- ~ /~ .~ ~--~~ aas ~_ _________________ I. // {6 A/ I I . / I I L_ / I 1 I I .or / ~ /' ~ caeA. C aLA I `M4M I r_____________~. 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ 1 I I I I I I I I I M3.G VICR~i'IY MAP WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. JAL,AN~-RE DE"1VCE aT, xuaT6AIIQfA GRAD~IN~G~I~AYDRA$IIIIII~I~E~APLAN OATEi L.4. 199 1160.7 BIC BA41N YA1~ SMAfOCA. CA %070 110!1667-02N .~ N~. Ya~f) NEEI Ire . x1 Y ~1 I I . . .M4.n oM oil N 4..Ar~lllmvaYrv4 I , 1 ll 4 o.r BMarN2YrYY~ Adi{Ue MNhi7Bdlm 1 ' I i p 7aaY~pala41~M,110 Ibflrt MMaCCf / I I I Iy AY~YIPYrAa~(1100 1 217V 46 fW l u ~~. ~ / ,',' A U ` .'1 ~~~T T.. i l , 1a g wa~F YAde~ll~li SIP 1JY4E iBle ~ ~ - ~ i I LNI NnaOsi 4B1'IV II If I , I I I i D lllsr 4J0441 Y~ali~Aac I1,IB6P O1M1 i I D ~MalICA.XMe IAY I U II AwffIN71gR 7.M ~ M I II .-~1 i 1 II l.)I / i y I ~' I II I VICINfI'Y MAP , I ' ~ h I . . 11 ~. i i. PNtitIYOtK QUANRIE9 IP I ________ I ~ __y I II Yp,(ng h ppgR gA,¢A,~!( 116)C.Y I I A76 IMC.Y I' , . w.n , y I I I '7' VOLU!l TOOL tl6CY OFFOI SIIE x71 CY _ I yw.u I rA I r` , i i B m I root IEOCr , x r , I I onwct I>o-c. ~ 1 '" ' ~ I.u>mu~orrl+acvr uerEr I / 1 I w~n>KOanIaF2u. ee~r T II I ~/ ' l ii IL eA Ae7a,,7r star . w.x i r / I', W.M / 1 ~ I I ~'~ I 1 xl.x~ 1 r I 1~ I I y~ Y. 1 / ~ I I ,( IY~ ~ / I ~ II I Q ~ ^', TV!/ , I , I 11x.p I II .. j i / ~ I ~/ I II i W ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ / ' II , ll ~ I I I 1 M 1 II / I I I I rQ 1 1 I I I N ~ ~~ N ~ LL ~ 1 I I W.x / I ~ ffyy]]NN11~, ~ I • I I I I I I ~I ~l.li J__ ~Nl.o ~ I I ~I I I J I ~~ l // I I ~/ r I ~hh i l i + ~'~ r ~~ ~w.a . ~ Ixi.e Op ~ i I ~' I_."" 22 .50 '~ i .'F;: x . ; I', 2 'tea ~ E ~ i 1.u ry a 4 . 1.~ ~Iw.x ~ ~ ~M • nAnDLwL eulellC[ ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- - r. 161. VERTICAL SCALE: I Inoh 10 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: I Inoh = 10 feet o..nea Lln. • xaMrn creMna 8.111 L1Xe Ptgnd ePwXI • srAMpwD OAADIXG PI.tX xorss NDTe: Tics DFAMIN] Is APPSmnID sA,tar m 1. V 1 q[Nln) Is sublmt to obwrvatiw W tM Cley. Nr.leew or r.prwmaelw .toll ..tier tM elty of s.rmoq. ue 11011 erg-1]61 at least tl howa Mlara (tart of my gtadiig. 1. Approval of eh/a plan applir only [o tM eanvatlw, pllaret. m tagcclao a[ wtwal earth rtuiaM. Thle apptowl doer rot omtar mY rlphta o[ entry to eitN[ public proprty x [M prince ptopertY o[ othen, ApprerLL of this pion alw done not eoutltute eppronl at my laptoreNanta. PraposM igiwerot an ab)wt M mlw sea approval M tN reapauible autbrltlu and all atM[ required pwlu sMl] M obtained. 1. !t atoll N W napow1Dl11tY at tM Nrlttw or agent to leeetlty, loeme .ne pwemt all whtgrrM ucultlee. ISdralN Wd»alltotYr ~t rWll rirdeln tM et[uu, public tlghtn t-wy N • elem. wte end uaabie coadl[la. All apple of oil, rack ou contmcclon NDrL aN M reeMN trw eM ppuubb111e1Y ow=[ property dwing dwituet4Xl Ind npos engletlr of tM pw)wt. All adlac.ne prop[ty, print= ar pobllc atoll M rin[atrd Ln • clam, wte and walla ecndltlw, 9. All gradlXp Wll M pattorrd to man a nmoar ae co caaply rich eM atatlaNe rtaDlLhed by tM Afr Owluy M1nMruu D1atrIR Tor airMme parelculmw. r. hll knwn wll. lawtlaw On W rite heva hem NoludN. aM Iuc6 wile atoll M g1MLLrd Ot ehaMevW aemtdiig Co wnmt ryML[lw abrlnlmeM Dy tM 9mta Clara galley alter Dlatrlet. G.. Ilwl YAS-]600 to uranN [oi dfetrltt oMerva[lcu at all wll apendMrnta. 1. Thia pim dOSe not eM romal of eresa. Appteprlata t[N reeDVal pen~te and rthoN of tree preservation .Male M obulnea ere. tM cur carwuy IMwloprnt Degrtrpt, I. SM C1v/1 ~glnrr, Mrttell Cglran, Inc.. 19513 Big NXln May, A[atopa, G. 95010. Xr Nalgned thN ptolect to a•ply rleh tM gMlnp [ecarenNtlra !n tM ptolect geotwMNeal repot[, IL required, prepared by d Nted 9- ui grading a ton to approved apwitiotttme ~ sry~ Wtwn of attwhed Mteco. 1[31 gtadlog wrt shall M approved by she wll anglvwr, eM roll anglrar sot at Nat 11 • ew m ng any ~Iay at talapbM nvsMr Uoobened W urpproved grading Tort atoll M rewve~plared unNr oEMtva[lon of [M pro)ecr wll englnwr. .tpna Aprl~~ne(`niu rlu roc M f..uee Mtrsen acaber Istn y »ar vlthwt approval by cM Dlrxcor of Aunlic Ib[ha. NDrys: 1. swyss a u a otuTa Awr PXa Ile walwnax slue. Xp MAINTAIN ALgID IN6 WlIIIl IOllll'fpR POX A DI9nMCY 09 5 P88T XINIMXI. 1. AL4 WOP DPA1X3 m BP 0[9dhRdm DNto N ADBp11ATL XItAW X1OCR9 DP COMrOYID 1X10 110M® CGWIT bTSIM. 1. [wTALb MIN~DIAIN AAOIMD Tw pOl[wT/= roOOYtTiCN I~ XRAINiIR MALL !N ACtOXWnI NITII BOIII pDI1YX'8 XeOpeWNTICp AMD ~ XIS D1AYCrIOM. tIY We-MAIN t0 w D1iCRX[aD IXm TMX 9letp. TNe Olet1W01 m BX p101P1m lflttl A XAC[IIOII IYywteA. 1. TINAL 80RIKE tMINAD6 QUDSOR BXAI.D Y IWIIOw Aw WILT ~ AB M DlpdCr NATiR a)MT 110N tw WItDSeOB Aw roUmhT]Dltl. 9. 9LwB CANt AD011LLtr m ro19Mt10[16 Bv.r.r. 9LDPX A'A•T XNr tlt8 romllxritw. c EcEron rtnilr rNVaMp •lre W nnit, ___ ton ________ a Tixa.nu~ ____ i rx _ At 9~x ~a l~ U ,v ~ /unRX ~.nav rr. n r~r. rn rNnuxrer wt rr. r.r. ..r. . er wyc emner - er MtL 61yLt .ue pppl ~ w• pylp, ~. ,.. ,e. JALAN RESIDENCE spas-.a LAr. I-.t.• WESTFALL ENG I NEERS r I NC . GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN aopelo, de n,Xre¢ trlaAl. Xa B~ ,gyp, w De1Ei l1e(d ne w1M wr, eauTaw. M aewo Ilmw-QII ~ 98'05 VERSAILLES WAY. SARATOGA : Gregg Kawahara, Architect 516611011. CMk LiwrsOri, G 91550 ro~s-419fit8t >~ t9:st 113-16s+ • Jalan Residence 19805 VersaiQes Way Saratoga, CA Do61e & Son Custom Homes,lnc. Notes FIRST FLC~17R 5,916 5F 6vIRA6E 669 9F TOTAL 6,097 5F ALLOMIAe1.E b,Ot05F 909 5F C~ REV1510N5 A 0ec~e-riax o0s awM • u, ~~~~~~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~.~.~.-0. PAI • • • ----' - - ------' _I I ~ I I I r__~ I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ~ I _ __ I 1 I I I I I _ _1 I i I I 1 I I I I I L______________ _____J I ~ I ~-- -------- I ~----------_. .. _. .. I__ ~ I___ e N Gregg KawaAaro, Archkect 5166 Nair Ctdr Lhrrtaae, CA 91550 (9YS)149.4182 Fu 1925)113.1651 Jahn Residence 19805 Versailles Way Saratoga, CA Doble & Son Custom Homes, inc. rr~ REV1510N5 rni T ~n a~ BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN VI'.I'Q' a2 Gregg Kawahara, Architect 5166 Modr Click tlvnoon, G 94550 (9151 N9~618Y Fu (9Y51113.1654 C, dalan Residence 19805 Versailles Way Saratoga, CA Roble & Son Custom Nomes, Inc. ~p • • ' REVISION S R/ mc~rron a+s awN RDOF PLAN A3 • • evnet rwsuA Aln u`neas yeuru wuu'e awn. aaa« ~~ rAUCe etero cur lue i nev atvx ~~ --------~ iw,n+nx artACe PARTIAL RIGHT (WEST) ELEVATION -~. Gregg Kaarahara, Architect 5166 Mow (5rda IJrrrsoe, CA 9/550 (9YS1N9fi18E Fu pY5J 113.1651 Jahn Residence 19805 Versailles Way SafatOgB, CA Do61e & Son Custom Homes, inc. A9,ara AFltlLOr Gvl'NMAW AI u xAerw Iwc~eaA ~~ /14AtlM ~'' ~-~ .W RIM AHlKOi S1aE 1n7lD/W - fM5MARKf -• -~-______ -- - Cep 1 __ .-~. ~- . _ ~_ _____________~__ ___~________ 1 ARA 1 i t j - -- tr-- ___ ____~ ----- L-' ; 6(ag WW. 6 l N 574 I wmrrolwn+lsneco L_, L., r , r__ i l ` Aa a1aR A'RKOT Cwsr ware ULLfN --rutuv. awtt L-, L., 1 , 1 ~I 1 ~ l-, ~ ~i ~ -AW dOMr MR1'Or g411Y,Or L-, L_~ L I i I~ I ~ ~-lwTiRK GRADE- L., ~ 1 ~ l L-, '1-~ I i i ' ~ - - ~ ~ . e~w~n+xa^I.a. RfANT /G/FCTI FI FVdTI(1N REVISION 5 fn ~~ TDRAM' • rrcu>rt i~uutnl ti.tvAtwn FRONT ~ RIGHT ELEVATIONS ~,~.~-0. „~ A4 DM/N OAf! F]TO Grigg Kaarahara, Architect 5166 Mott preM Lba~on, G 9!550 (9851 e49fi1Q8 Fu (985) N9a654 Jahn Residence 19805 Veroallles Way Saratoga, CA Do61e 8c Son Custom Nomes, Inc. 71.\_ _ ______________ ____ 1 F1WSM 6FADE ~--ruuu BRACE ,~'- ,`GA PALACE &B0 LLAY rl{F -__..__.__j 6LRiB2 FASLIA AIO LLRmS ~j 51W1N 1YLIJA'tl GWM1 ?70M1.---~ ~ I U rMdPA N1Ct10A PLa4}pl---r Aw n/av APRI(Or cast start rEUVUis RAn~w eRAOe ~~ -~, KA.AI.ALEHBOIXAY rl~E --1 nmec FASGLI wo cn~s ~~~ Aw aRx ArRrgr awsr G ~ ~% sra[ rgivab- f uM9RA WGtIOA H.KiBt ~MIIlAAL GRACE ku NV+r wxicor aa~r ranR,u eRAae Brat rafnR~s EgNr A9lIGar K4WYOf LEFT (EAST) ELEVATION JN ~~ &G~Cm ~ I I I ~ ~ ` NUMMrMRKOr WT Illull 9rat MGLLDOIi --.__.-) PRaWIf WpV RALIIU y~ rnaveRAx -- i+ArueA~ eRACt ru+uw. BRACE ~RAruoa 6RAx REAR (NORTH) ELEVATION ' REVISIONS REAr? ~ LEEr ELEVATIONS P,•.,a• A5 PARTIAL LEFT (EAST) ELEVATION ~~ ti • • Gragg !lawadara, Architect 51661k6e ttrdr 1JNr.a., G 9155D t9t51149.618t Fu (9t5)1[3~654 Jahn Residence 19805 VersalUes Way Saratoga, CA Do61e & Son Custom Homes, Inc. rr~ SECTION 8-B II i i I L REVISIONS ~~ cw~ SECTIONS sECrioN p-A_ w•.ro• A6 ITEM 4 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No. /Location: DR-00-056 and V-00-022/ 1480.0 Bohlman Road ~, Applicant/Owner: JOHN M. &t ABBY SOBRATO Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AIC Date: Novembex 14, 2001 APN: 517-13-018, 517-13-019 ~ 517-12-001 Department Hea `i PROJECT SITE 0 14800 Bohlman Road 000001 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Project Withdrawn: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: November 2, 2000 June 27, 2001 October 31, 2001 October 31, 2001 October 26, 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STAFF ANAYSIS The applicant has requested approval of a Design Review and a Variance. The applicant desires to construct a dwelling that has 6,205 square feet on the main floor, 820 squaze feet on the lower floor for a total living azea in the main house of 7,025 square feet. Additionally, there is 724 squaze feet that is vaulted space over 15 feet and the pool house or pavilion is 1,350 square feet. The Variance request is to allow the total floor area to exceed the R1-40,000 limit of 7,200 pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 15-45.030 (d). A total square footage of 9,261 is being requested via the Design Review and Variance applications. variance Application Discussion Code Section 15-45.030 etal establishes the maximum floor area for single family dwelling development. The City's zoning regulations regarding floor azea establishes maximums for each of the residential zoning districts. By the formula in the zoning ordinance, a parcel of 200,000 squaze feet or more could have a maximum floor area of 8,000 squaze feet. However, the ordinance also has downward adjustment for site slope. The property has an average slope of 2796; as such the net site azea is reduced by 5196. The site is 6.19 acres or 269,636 squaze feet. The formula, using the slope adjustment, would allow a 7,321 square foot dwelling, however, the R-140,000 zoning district has a maximum floor azea of 7,200 square feet regazdless of the size of the pazcel. The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an additional 2,103 square feet of floor area. This includes 724 squaze feet of vaulted ceiling area in excess of 15 feet. It also includes enclosing 1,350 square feet of the Pavilion. Code Section 15-70.020 grants the Planning Commission the authority to grant variances. Code Section 15-70.060 sets out the mandatory findings that must be made in the affirmative in order for the Planning Commission to exercise its authority granted in Section 15-70.020. Is thcre a special circumstance? Does it constitute a special privilege? Is it detrimental to the public health, safety etc.? The Commission may want to discuss the two parts of the variance sepazately. The penalty of having to "count° ceiling heights over 15 feet as floor area is to reduce the bulk, mass and size of new structures. Enclosing the pool pavilion's three open sides will increase total habitable floor area in the property. C7 r~ Q~00~2 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road Is there a s ecial circumstance? P The first of the three mandatory findings is the one dealing with special circumstances. The Commission must be able to make the finding in the affirmative that "because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation (maximum floor area) would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the ~~icinity and classified in the same zoning district." The zoning district is R-1 40,000. The applicant has provided a list of properties that have "cabana-like" structures. The applicant has also provided a letter in which it is argued that Saratoga's regulations that limit the floor area maximum deprive him of the full use of the property. It is further argued that in the neighboring communities of Monte Sereno, Los Gatos and Cupertino the proposed amount of floor area would be allowed without the need of a variance. In a piece of correspondence from the applicant, dated November 2, 2000, the two parts of the requested variance are addressed separately. The comparing Saratoga's regulation to the regulations of near by cities does not fulfill the test in Staff's opinion. The question that needs to be answered in the affirmative in order to make this finding is; is there some physical special circumstance that precludes the applicant from using this property in the same manner as other owners in the vicinity and same zoning. Staff does not feel this finding can be made. The only special circumstance is that the parcel is large. Does it constitute a special privilege' The Commission must be able to find that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The applicant presented arguments for the first two finding jointly. Again, comparing Saratoga's regulation to the regulations from other cities is not the appropriate argument to make. In this finding, the question is, by not applying the City of Saratoga's regulation uniformly will it constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties with the same zoning. Staff does not feel this finding can be made. Allowing the floor area to be greater than allowed by the zoning regulation would be a special privilege. Is it detrimental to the public health, safety etc.? The Commission must be able to find that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff feels this finding can be made in the affirmative. Looking at the two different areas that are requested to have variances granted are quite different. Enclosing the pavilion is substantially different from counting or not counting the vaulted area higher than 15 feet. The applicant can leave the pavilion open on three sides and construct a ceiling at 15 feet and avoid the need for a variance. The applicant could also reduce the size of the overall structure by the 724 square feet and retain the vaulted ceiling. This would constitute about a 10% reduction. 000003 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road Design RevrewApplrcation DISCUSSIOn The proposed structure is asingle-family dwelling of "Shingle Style" design with wood shingles painted moss green, natural stone veneer, white wood painted trim and a the roof designed to appear as weathered wood shingles. The main residence is 7,025 square feet in two stories (820 square feet in a lower floor). The main residence also has a 4,918 square foot basement. The project includes a pool pavilion that has 162 square feet enclosed and 1,350 square feet open on three sides. The project parcel is 6.19 acres. Approximately one-half of the project site will be maintained in open space with a recorded scenic easement to protect the future uses. The purpose of design review is to ensure that the construction or expansion of single-family dwellings and certain accessory structures do not constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light and air, and create adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. The zoning ordinance and Residential Design Handbook establish the criteria to be used to evaluate proposed design. Code Section 15- 45.080 sets forth six findings that must be made in order to approve the Design Review. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Due to the size of the parcel and the location of the structure on that parcel there are no view or privacy issues. This finding can be made. (b) Preserve natural landscape. Condition 24 of the resolution approving the subdivision required that "On lots 1 and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a recorded as a Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easement will be determined at the time of Design Review." The applicant is proposing, consistent with previous Planning Commission action, a scenic easement on approximately one-half of the 6.19 acre parcel. Additionally, condition 24 requires that, "At the time of Design Review, the Planning Commission shall approve the design and location of all fencing." The applicant proposes that this easement area will be unfenced and left in natural open space. This finding can be made. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. While the proposed project is indeed large, the design has minimized the changes to the natural topography. Please note that the project site is terraced to follow the contours. The project's materials and colors are harmonious with the natural landscape. Moss green is proposed to be the principal color of the wood shingles. The Applicant is proposing to use a stone veneer natural river rock for pedimentation. The roof is proposed to be a the shingle in a brushed shake style. Architectural features are used to breakup the massing of the structure. (d) Compatible bulk and mass. The fact that this is the first of 10 residences to be built in this subdivision and the structure's setbacks (front - 330', rear -170, left side - 95' and right side 85') makes the compatible bulk and mass finding less critical than in other locations. There is not an existing neighborhood in the classic meaning. • • 000004 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. Condition 24 of the resolution appro~~ing the subdivision states, "The Planning Commission shall review and approve all grading plans at the time of Design Review. On Lots 1 and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural land forms and vegetation; it shall promote compatibility with the natural terrain; visible, flat pads surrounding the main residential structure shall be avoided; and the grading shall assist in the integration of the architectural design into the natural topography." The project engineer has provided a separate, full size grading plan for this lot and a written explanation of the plan which implements the directive of the Planning Commission. The Commission should note that the construction of the driveway generated the most of the required cut and fill. A previous driveway design had less cut and fill but created a greater impact to native trees. The current design was requested by the Ciry Arborist. Staff feels the finding can be made. (f) Design policies and techniques. These findings have been incorporated into a - dabove. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny Variance application V-00-022 with findings Approve Design Review application DR-O1-056 with findings and conditions ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolutions DR-00-056 and V-00-022 2. Correspondence supplied by the Applicant 3. Correspondence from Applicant's Engineer 4. City Arborist Report dated December 1, 2000 ~. Ciry Arborist Report Update dated Apri15, 2001 6. Geotechnical Report dated September 20, 2001 7. Full size grading/scenic easement map 8. Plan set, Exhibit A • Qo~o05 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road PROJECT STATISTICS ZONING: R1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Lot 1 of the Tentative Subdivision is 6.19 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: House: 276 cubic yards Basement: 2,800 cubic yards Pool: 230 cubic yards Site Area: 1,380 cubic yards Driveway: 3., R~ phi var s Total Cut: 7,950 cubic yards Total Fill: 1,100 cu. yds. Proposed LOT COVERAGE: Existing: 0 Total: SETBACKS: Front: 330 ft. Right Side: 85 ft. Left Side: 95 ft. Rear: 170 ft. HEIGHT: 26 ft (Above natural grade) Fill: 430 cubic yards 0 0 1,110 cubic yards l.~ fi i~hi var .s 2,566 cubic yards Max. Depth: varies Code Requirement/Allowance Proposed: 26.5% • • • 000006 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. DR-00-056 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOBR.AT0:14800 BOHLMAN ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for • Design Review; 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, and the following findings have been determined: . ' The proposed project is in accord with the objectives set forth by the Planning Commission in their approval of the Tentative Subdivision because the Proposed Project complies with the Conditions of Approval found in Resolution SD-99-003 (A), in particular condition #24 which establishes grading and fencing criteria. ' That the proposed single family dwelling complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance such as the building floor area allowed in'the ,R-1-40,000 Zoned District section 15-45-030 (d). ' That the proposed single family dwelling complies with each of the mandatory findings prescribed in Section 15-45.080. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Due to the size of the parcel and the location of the structure on that parcel there are no view or privacy issues. This finding can be made. (b) Preserve natural landscape. Condition 24 of the resolution approving the subdivision required that "On lots 1 and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a recorded as a Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easement will be determined at the time of Design Review." The applicant is proposing, consistent with previous Planning Commission action, a scenic easement on approximately one-half of the 6.19 acre parcel. Additionally, condition 24 requires that, "At the time of Design Review, the Planning Commission shall approve the design and location of all fencing." The applicant proposes that this easement area will be unfenced and left in natural open space. This finding can be made. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. While the proposed project is indeed large, the design has minimized the changes to the natural topography. Please note that the project site is terraced to follow the contours. The project's materials and colors are harmonious with the natural landscape. Moss green is proposed to be the principal color of the wood shingles. The Applicant is ~~~©~~ File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road proposing to use a stone veneer natural river rock for pedimentation. The roof is Section L After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of John M. Sobrato, DR-00-056 is hereby approved. proposed to be a file shingle in a brushed shake style. Architectural features are used to break up the massing of the structure. (d) Compatible bulk and mass. The fact that this is the first of 10 residences to be built in this subdivision and the structure's setbacks (front - 330', rear - 170, left side - 95' and right side 85') makes the compatible bulk and mass finding less critical than in other locations. There is not an existing neighborhood in the classic meaning. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. Condition 24 of the resolution approving the subdivision states, "The Planning Commission shall review and approve all grading plans at the time of Design Review. On Lots 1 and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural land forms and vegetation; it shall promote compatibility with the natural terrain; visible, flat pads surrounding the main residential structure shall be avoided; and the grading shall assist in the integration of the architectural design into the natural topography." The project engineer has provided a separate, full size grading plan for this lot and a written explanation of the plan which implements the directive of the Planning Commission. The Commission should note that the construction of the driveway generated the most of the required cut and fill. A previous driveway design had less cut and fill but created a greater impact to native trees. The current design was requested by the City Arborist. Staff feels the finding can be made. (f) Design policies and techniques. These findings have been incorporated into a - dabove. OW HEREFORE the Plannin Commission of the Ci of Sarato a does hereb N ,T g ty g y resolve as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Title Report prior to issuance of building permits. 3. 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 com lete construction Tans inco oratin this Resolution as a () P P rP g separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 00048 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road i. Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendations of the City Arborist established for the subdivision shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iv. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree #'s, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS -The project fences shall be as shown on the approved exhibit A. Furthermore, the area designated as a Scenic Easement on Exhibit A shall not be fenced. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. A scenic easement shall be recorded over the area as shown on exhibit A 8. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated April 5, 2001 and December 13, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 000009 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $ pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 12. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 13. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree # l; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the Ciry of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 16. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 17. Plans shall be checked for weedlbrush abatement accessibility. 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). 19. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 20. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. Geotechnical Conditions 21. Lot 1 development plans are locally inconsistent with subdivision roadway plans dated November 2000 (i.e., Plan for the Improvement of Cuvilly Way and Cuvilly Court prepared by Kier ~ Wright). Consequently, the applicant's consultants shall review the subdivision plans and Lot 1 plans, and standardize and modify plans where appropriate, in 0~00~.0 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road accordance with comments presented in City Geotechnical Consultant's previous review memorandum (dated June 4, 2001) and red-line comments previously provided to the City. The revised (corrected) plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 22. A portion of the access driveway, including gas, sewer and water lines, will cross the Dls. Consequently, we recommend that the landslide be explored and characterized prior to making decisions regarding the need for, or type of, slope stabilization (as discussed in a meeting held on June 19, 2001). A key aspect of the landslide characterization is to determine whether any proposed structures are currently sited over the landslide. Depending on the results of geologic and geotechnical analyses, mitigation measures might involve removal of the upper portion of the landslide and replacement with engineered fill, construction of a shear pin wall across the landslide, or drainage improvements and limited grading to help maintain stability of the Dls (if stability evaluations demonstrate adequate long-term stability). In addition to the landslide issue outlined above, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall address the following: We note that PVC SDR 35 is significantly weaker than SDR 40, and may crush under medium loading. Consequently, we recommend that SDR 40 be specified in lieu of offering an option for a SDR 35 subdrain pipe. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall consider the benefits of recommending drainage improvements beneath the proposed basements and pool. Typically, a gravel (drain rock) blanket underlain with a central subdrain pipe is installed at the base of basement and pool excavations. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Characterizations and Evaluations shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 23. The applicant's geologic and geotechnical consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining • walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval 000011 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 24. The geologic and geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations, basements, swimming pools, and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe and log foundation pier holes and excavations for basements, foundations and cutslopes during construction, and utilize that data to modify geotechnical recommendations in the field (as needed). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permit. • 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's re~~iew of the project prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 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 prior to issuance of Grading Permit. City Attorney 27. 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 applicant's project. 28. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 000012 File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, and 14th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof,`and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 000013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000014 Attachment 2 June 11, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. John M. Sobrato 14420 Evans Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 Mr. Tom Sullivan Community Development Director City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Sullivan: To aid you in your review of my application for a new home on Lot 1 of the Sisters of Notre Dame subdivision, I have enclosed the following background materials sent to the Planning Department over the last 8 months since submission of my application: • November 2, 20001etter to Assistant Planner Pearson included with the original application providing justification for the required exceptions/variances. • January 17, 2001 letter to Assistant Planner Connelly providing further justification for the FAR variance. • June 4, 2001 letter to Assistant Planner Connelly listing homes in the vicinity of the subject property with cabana/pool house structures, many of which required and received similar variances to the one I have requested. • May 22, 2001 letter of support from the three adjacent neighbors to the subject property. We have spent many months working with City staff, the City's arborist and its other consultants to create a house which is: • Appropriate for the lot and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. • Designed to respect the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. • Beneficial to the neighborhood. • Sensitive to the environment by minimizing the impact on the hillside, the wildlife and the nearly 1000 trees on the site. • Supported by the adjacent neighbors, each of whom I have met and reviewed our plans and requests with in detail. I also have a scale model of the home and the pool house which I will bring when we meet which you can also keep for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting on the 27`h. I will look forward to hearing from you after your review. Best regards, o M. rato 000015 • Mav 2?, 2001 N1r. Mark Connelly Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mark: John Sobrato has reviewed the site plan and elevations for his new home with us as adjacent neighbors to his proposed development. He has further reviewed the exceptions he is requesting relating to grading and fencing limitations as well as the variances he is requesting relating to the maximum allowable square footage and accessory structure height. We find the home as an adjacent neighbor attractive, thoughtfully designed and appropriate for the neighborhood and for a lot of that size. We feel the home will have a positive impact on our property as it is situated and designed in a manner which will respect our privacy. We thus offer our complete support of his application including the exceptions and variances he is requesting. Sincerely, ~'~ ~~,~ Jon than H. Snell David W. ~ /V ~ LL t ;~ ~ ~ ~ - Sudin Vittal • 000016 • June 4, 2001 Mr. Mark Connelly Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mark: NIr. and Mrs. John M. Sobrato 14420 Evans Lane, Saratoga, CA 9070 Enclosed please find a listing prepared several years ago by my adjacent neighbors at 15243 Montalvo Heights Court in support of their request for a variance for an accessory structure which was subsequently approved. I believe this listing lends credibility to the arguments I have made in prior correspondence that my request for a variance to enclose the pool house is consistent with requests made and granted to other neighbors in the area. Further manv of those houses are situated on one acre lots compared to the 6.2 acre lot for my proposed home. I will be concluding my meetings with the adjacent neighbors this week. All have agreed to support my application including the requisite exceptions and variances. I will forward to you next week a letter signed by each of them outlining their support for inclusion in the Planning Commission packages. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to the hearing on June 27'h Best regards, John M. Sobrato s 00001'7 • Addresses of 36 other Homes in the Montalvo Area which have Cabana-Like Structures Montalvo Heights Court (15243,15265,15222) Montalvo Heights Drive (20480, 20520, 20440, 20650) Montalvo Road (20433,15252,15107,1555,14930,14768) Vickery Lane (14941,15615, 20643,15015) Hill Road (20301, 20400.20411, 20252, 20120, 20080) Bonnie Brae Way (14900) Mendelsohn Lane (20200, 20127) Piedmont Road (15176) Madrone Hill Road (15315,15255) Horseshoe Drive (14702,14655,14671,14690,14600) Farwell Road (14911,14855) • 000018 • Addresses of 36 other Homes in the Montalvo Area which have Cabana-Like Structures Montalvo Heights Court (15243,15265,15222) Montalvo Heights Drive (20480, 20520, 20440, 20650) Montalvo Road (20433,15252,15107,1555,14930,14768) Vickery Lane (14941,15615, 20643,15015) Hill Road (20301, 20400.20411, 20252, 20120, 20080) Bonnie Brae Way (14900) Mendelsohn Lane (20200, 20127) Piedmont Road (15176) Madrone Hill Road (15315,15255) Horseshoe Drive (14702,14655,1467'1,14690,14600) Farwell Road (14911,14855) • 000019 1~Ir. and Mrs. John NI. Sobrato 1~i~120 Evans Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 January 17, 2001 Mr. Mark Connelly Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mark: On November 2, 2000, I submitted for approval of a new residence on Lot 1 of the Sisters of Notre Dame subdivision which will be my family's home. At the time, I wrote a letter requesting consideration of a variance for 751 square feet for the main home and 1,350 square feet to enclose the pool house. I have since learned that in order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must make the following findings: 1) enforcement of the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity, 2) the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and 3) the granting of the variance will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. I believe the Planning Commission can make all three of these findings. As to findings #1 and #2, I have researched the restrictions applicable in the surrounding cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Cupertino. The residents of these communities are no different than those in Saratoga and all share Saratoga's desire to protect our neighborhoods from monster homes and unsightly development. Yet in each of these cities, the home I propose would be permitted (subject of course to approval by their respective planning commissions) without any variances required for the additional square footage. It is for this reason that I feel that enforcing Saratoga's regulations both deprives me of privileges enjoyed by other properties. in the vicinity and would not constitute a grant of special privilege. As to finding #3, my house will not be visible from any of the existing adjacent neighbors nor from other areas of Saratoga and thus will have no negative impact on any properties in the vicinity. I believe Saratoga's regulations are generally quite workable and fairly consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. It is only when the lot exceeds a couple of acres, that the 000020 Page 2 January 17, 2001 • arbitrary ca of 7,200 s uare feet becomes unfair and inconsistent with other citie . P q s To further emphasize this point I note that if I had proposed no subdivision of the 23 acre convent site, I still would only be permitted a 7,200 sf home, even though I am removing an 40 unit apartment, a church, and an office building. What makes my request quite unique is that I have created a lot in excess of six acres and have agreed never to further subdivide this lot. I thus believe the development of Lot 1 that justifies the special consideration I am seeking represented by the variance. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, J M. S rato • • 000021 i~Ir. and Nlrs. John v1. Sobrato 1-~d20 Evans Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 November 2, 2000 Mr. Erik J. Pearson Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Erik: • Enclosed please find the planning submittal package for my planned new residence to be constructed on Lot 1. Architecturally we have divided the home into three major sections to provide several benefits 1) to provide a vertical look true to the shingle style architecture we desired by allowing the width and height of each section to be in proper balance while staying within the 26' maximum height, 2) to add visual interest, age and character to the home by giving the appearance that the home was expanded over time, and 3) to reduce the overall mass of the home by varying the roof lines from about 24' to 16' at the points where the sections connect. We have carefully sited the home and terraced the site work following the natural slope of the hill so as to minimize the grading and tree removal required. We propose to construct the home completely of natural materials consisting primarily of stone and wood. The 6.2 acre site allows us to site the residence over 200 feet away from the nearest home and to site the pool house 160 feet away from the next nearest home. The combined result of all of these factors is a home which, while large, will blend into the landscape with no adverse impacts on the adjacent neighbors. We are quite pleased with the design outlined in the submittal and trust the staff and Planning Commission will share our enthusiasm for the project. My primary purpose in drafting this letter, therefore, was not to focus on the design of the home, but rather to give background on the reason for the two exceptions and one variance which are a required part of our submittal. At the very end of the tentative map approval process, the Planning Commission added the HR grading and fencing limitations to Lots 1 and 4. Though I objected at the time, I decided that rather that attempt to deal with the issue in the abstract, that it would be better address the requirements more specifically during approval process for our home. While we have found no way we construct the home without an exception, I am 000022 Page 2 I~lovember 2, 2000 ho eful this will not ultimately be a cause for concern as I do believe the desi of our P gn home is sensitive to the issues the HR restrictions were intended to address, though for the reasons outlined below we were unable to comply with the letter of the restrictions. Hillside Grading Limitation The HR restriction provides a cap on site grading at 1,000 cubic yards. Our plan requires grading of 5,350 cubic yards (4,250 cut and 1,100 fill). When you review the cross sections, I believe you will see that we carefully sited the house to follow the natural grade. My assumption is the HR grading restriction was imposed as a condition of our tentative map to ensure that the home was sensitively constructed on the site in such a way as to minimize change of the natural slope. I believe we have done this, and see no way to construct the home with any less grading required. Part of the problem with this restriction (and the fencing restriction discussed below) is that there is no adjustment for lot size or home size. 6.19 acres with an average slope of 28% percent (or 2.8 net acres or equivalent flat acres based on the City's criteria) is an extremely large lot and nearly unprecedented in recent times. We have designed the home as single story to achieve a variety of objectives, first and foremost, was to ensure the home did not take a on big box monster home look that the community abhors. The single story design combined with the long driveway required due to the lack of an adjacent public road has resulted in our inability to design a home which did not . require an exception to the HR grading. Hillside Fencing Limitation The HR restriction requires a maximum fenced area (excluding the pool are related decking) of 4,000 square feet. Our plan has 12,282 square feet of fenced area. I understand the fencing limitation was enacted to ensure that wildlife can continue to forage in the hillsides unencumbered. Again I believe our plan meets this objective. The only area of our plan is fenced is the hardscaped patio areas in the backyard. All other areas -the entire front yards, both side yards including the entire creek area covered by the landscape easement and the majority of the rear yard is unfenced. In fact, the though we are fencing three times the permitted area, 93% of the site is unfenced. Surely leaving 93% of the lot unfenced meets the intent of limiting hillside fencing. Further the area which is fenced is hardscape and not the portion of the site where native animals would want to roam -those areas are the creek area and surrounding natural planting which will be left untouched and unfenced. Variance -Maximum Square Footage R40000 zoning permits a maximum house size of 7,200 square feet regardless of lot size. Even if I had not proposed to subdivide the 23 acres, the maximum size house I could have built on the entire convent site was 7,200 square feet. Here again, the intent of regulating home size is valid, yet the having an absolute cap, like with grading and fencing is not equitable with very lot lots. The City's zoning ordinances recognize that larger lots are able to accommodate larger home, and thus it provides for each 1,000 sf ooooz3 Page 3 November 2, 2000 in net lot size in excess of X0,000 sf, the s uare foota e of a home can increase by 20 q g square feet from a base of 6,000 sf. Nevertheless, the ordinance then caps the maximum home size at 7,200 sf regardless of lot size. Our request for this variance results from two conditions, one related to the main house and one related to the pool house. I would like to address and have each considered separately. Variance related to main home. The main home is 7,951 sf and is thus 751 larger than permitted. This is due to the fact the area in the Great Room over 15.5 feet is counted double and totals 753 sf. It is important to note that the variance could be eliminated if a flat ceiling in this room were constructed at 15.5 feet. Thus with no change in the exterior elevations or massing of the house, the house could comply by changing the shape of an interior ceiling space which no one will see but those inside. Surely, the square footage limitations were intended to limit the size of homes and not affect whether one could have a vaulted ceiling an a room or a high flat ceiling. Vaulted ceilings are a trademark of shingle style homes and thus request I be able to retain this feature. Variance related to pool house. Here again the structure can be built as proposed without a variance provided it is not enclosed on two sides. We will build it unenclosed if necessary, but again I feel that this limitation benefits no one in the community and harms only us. We have thus requested a variance to enclose the pool house which adds an additional 1,350 square feet to our requested variance The large lot can more than accommodate the structures proposed in our plan and the adjacent neighbors have absolutely no problem with our request for a variance on this issue and several have received similar square footage variances for their accessory structures. To summarize, I understand the City has rules for very valid purposes and we have tried very diligently to live within the various restrictions. Nevertheless, unusually large lot and unique nature of this design has resulted in the need for the exceptions and variance outlined herein. Most importantly, I believe our requests can be granted without in any way compromising the City's objectives with respect to wildlife, hillside retention, neighborhood and character preservation or without adversely affecting any of the adjacent neighbors or broader community in any way. It is for these reasons that I requested the Planning Commission approve our project as submitted. Sincerely, John M. Sobrato • 000024 • • Environmental Information Zoning: ~ - 1 - 4 0 000 APN #: General Plan: Existing land use: ~/A C A PlT ~ P~°-~T o F j,ES G HATEAU X GE Nc~~ 17A-ME PA~F Surrounding land uses: North ~~ lb• South tZESI D• East RES l U West ~ZESI D Parcel size (in sq. ft. or acres): 6.19 dG Natural features & vegetation: UAK• Wootx.An~D AND NATIVE GRaS/LAND Slope at building site: ~~°l Average site slope: Z'7 °° ,[NC.LvO~.~ P.cnL ~ Q.C~-D ~ O~SfT~ L1lA~~iP/NCB 1 Grading required: Cut: 4'2~ cu. yds. Cut depth: /~. ~J Fill: / 100 cu. yds. Fill depth: ~o • 5 ~ Architectural Details Size of structure(s): 1 I Proposed setbacks: Front 33~ Rear 101 Left Side ~~ Height: 2'~O ft. Impervious Coverage: 4''riss~ sq. ft. ~26.4s%~ M >4l N L Existin sq. ft. LOWER FLU01~Z sq. ft. Other structures: ~ _ sq. ft. TOTAL: sq. ft. Right Side g S l Proposed ~glsq: ft. -T SSsq. ft. ~.2 sq. ft. ~(`~ esq. ft. w~ v~~~N~ X53 Ceu~~ J.~`SZ (P~v~l.au) 7bT,~ L Materials & colors proposed: NEW RE'SIDEIJCE W/GG $E Op ~~-IINCTLC S'T`(LC ~ CSI CAN ['1{11o0D gH 1~1Gt.eS, SToNC VENEE~Z, wHl7'E" Prl• 1~rTED sQ, FT OWooD TRIM.)" t Proposed new landscaping: PRE~ERalAT101~ o~ EXtsT1~J(r o~4K• 1NeODf.A+~tDSd NSW' R>rnwoot~ a+p RFtoboDetJtifzeNl GrRovES NEW ' Mtat~ow A¢t=~1' ®NEw LAWNS 4,ua G¢+-P~ AR Bogs NOTES: nlnformation~DR Fact Sheet 1/99 DESIGN REVIEW FACT SHEET O~~OFra) APPLICATION PROCEDURE Preliminary discussion with Planning staff. Submittal Requirements: a. Application form -completed and signed. _~/ b. Fees and deposits as required and in effect at the time of application. l/ c. Title report - a preliminary title report, prepared within one month prior to filing the application, describing easements, encumbrances, and building restrictions. d. Materials board. e. Letter of authorization if agent is to act on behalf of property owner. f. Plans - A minimum of two~2~ sets of full size plans are required. Thirteen (13)sets of ieduced plans (11 in. x 17 in.) will be required three weeks prior to the Planning Commission meeting_date. Additional sets of plans niay~e requtred~fo`r the ~ foIIowing departments and/or consultant review if applicable: Fire District City Engineer City Geologist City Horticulturist 3. Additional exhibits as may be required by staff or the Planning Commission (e.g., landscape and irrigation plan, photographs of existing site conditions structures, etc.). 4. Planning staff will review, comment and notify the applicant of the application's completeness within thirty (30) days. Staff will review the proposal as it relates to required findings, zoning ordinance objectives and general plan policies. 5. A notice of the project shall be advertised in the Saratoga News and mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the site's boundaries when the project is ready for public hearing. 6. An agenda and staff report will be mailed to the applicant the Friday before the Planning Commission public hearing. Questions should be directed to the project planner prior to the meeting. • 7. Public hearings before the Planning Commission are held the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:30 p.m., to accept public testimony, review staff reports and plans, and take action. The Planning Commission must make all required findings for the application to be approved. nlnformation~DR Procedure l/99 nn ~IQ~~~s DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS Article 1 ~-=1.080 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 the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views 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; grand changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighborins developed areas. Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. d. Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. e. Current grading and erosion control standards. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. .J~Information~DR Findings 1/99 00002'7 b7 ~"~' r~ T~ . J D~ i_ i. ~~ a~'~® ;~ 13"r 7. FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, C ALIFORNIA 9~O i 0 • (-105) SIiS-1'?OU File No.(s) Dat/e submitted: 3 ,~JU (v1 Design Review ~LgNNING SERVICB RBOUEST Sran Bcoos~a~~ u r~;ar, hiera^ Fee : $ y, ~ SDI --- ,~~m Shale Receipt No. ( ) Tentative Map Approval ( ) Administrative Design Review ( ) Building Site Exemption 3,~~ (~ Variance Approval ( ) Lot Line Adjustment c ( ) Use Permit Approval ( ) Site Modification ( ) Temporary Use Permit -( ) General Plan Amendment ( ) Second Unit Permit ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Fence/Soundwall Permit ( ) Administrative Structure Permit ( ) Modification of Approved Project ( ) Extension of Approved Project ( ) Heritage Preservation Review Address of Project: ( ) Zoning Ordinance Amendment ( ) Environmental Assessment ~~~~g ; h1Y~ ~~~ ode . 7 ( Geolo is Revie~-~ . p ° Authorization T I (~)~Horticultural Revi~~d~7 CdC~,~ Authorization '''KKK ( ) Central Fire District ( [~,~Sarato-ga~Fire District * ~~ ( y' other : (mac. ~/}~ -~~, ~- Q-- Received by: Assessor's Parcel No: Name of Legal Property Owner:.~oHN MICHAEL ~eP,4To Owner's Mailing Address : 1'420 VANS l-AN~~ SiaR~ToG~~ C,'~ 95070 Telephone No . Home • ~b - 3 D - 05 3 Work : '{-08- ~-4b - 0 7 0 0 Agent' s Name : JGF R T ?~R~, ft l A 'TKE STE/NF~R(~ ~Rov~ Address : 60 P/ERGS AVE. SAN .~o~ 9jr(/0 phone : '¢'~g" 8 ~ 7 - 3i 76 *Must provide separate check paid to the applicable Fire District. QOOQ28 List the names, addresses (including zip code) and phone numbers of persons to receive copies of staff report and/or agenda i.e., applicant, architect, engineer, contractor: ~ 1~- ~ Ga -JT ,4 N o ,4 G~ iS~- o N ~y Provide a brief description of the project ( i~icluding square footage, existing and proposed uses and structures). NSW s~KC~~.~ ~~M~~Y {zes~a~~C oN 6.19 ~G PAtZc£L Is the residence hooked up to sewer, or proposed for hookup? SHE PR°J~T W II.L 8E GaN~vEGTE.P To TN & NEW ~' (J ELI TI ES ! N STAU.Eb ~v R r N 6- TH C SvP~vtstorJ co~vs7'2ucT'la P ' IPSPORTANT PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THE FOLLOWING IINTIL APPLICATION IB PRESENTED AT THE CITY OFFICES. being duly sworn, deposes and says: That the facts, maps and documents submitted herewith are true, correct and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. If application is granted, the undersigned agrees that the provisions of law, City and State, will be complied with and the conditions, if any, upon which the application is grant- ed, will be carefully observed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this day of 19~_. (Pro~er~ ~ (o~ner or~uthorized agent*) J~ Signature: Address: ~~'C~ ~ /~ 9/V?~ ~yO ~cr ZOn CG~~~'71'y!~ G! Phone Res . ¢~' ~d- ~~ Bus . ~~~~~~ 414b 9f'd~¢ Done before me, tary of the City of of Saratoga Planning Commission, 19 for the Secre- this day • Planner, City of Saratoga *Submit letter of authorization GW/PLRQUEST ~ ~ ~~/~ AI~Th~lLLJ7YpV ~"'~ j'/i-1'~t Gf~'' a/d-~E ~E ~ev.~o wi~~ .ti,~ .~~LWn~ • 000029 CITY OF SARATOGA A EIVIENT FOR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR A_PPLICATiON PROCESSING FOR CITY USE ONLY: Customer Name Issue Date Address of Project File No. Copies to City Attorney Finance Customer TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: T0: City of Saratogga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Phone: (408) 867-3438 Project Description N S W S I N CTLE ~,4 M I t.`1 f ZESIDEI.IGC o N x.19 aG Pa•RCEL.. I, John M. Sobrs~-c (insert name of applicant) agree to pay all personnel and related direct and indirect costs (including 10096 of direct personnel costs for employee benefits and overhead) for review and processing necessary for the subject project, even if the application is withdrawn, not approved, approved subject to conditions or modified upon approval. Applicant agrees to make a deposit(s) to a applied toward the above costs, in an amount and at such time as requested by the Community Development Director or the City Engineer. Applicant further agrees that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the project until all costs are paid. Payments are due and payable within 30 days. Interest will accrue at the maximum legal rate on all costs unpaid 30 days after billing, and the City is entitled to recover its costs including attorney's fees, in collecting unpaid accounts. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attome}rs fees, incurred by City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Cit}~s defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court challenging the City's actions with respect to the applicant's project. If applicant is not the property owner, applicant agrees to pay such costs unless the property owner also signs this agreement in which case both the applicant and property owner shall be jointly liable for such rnsts. Name: Jo ti n M• ~c bra ~'0 Telephone: 408- 44 (e - o'I o0 Address 14'4'20 EV/~NS LANE (Number & Streetl Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Print Name -~ CITY OF SARATOGA By J:\ W PLnhINRSw\2 73MG AEfi~APPFEfS. W 61 ToG,q C a 9SO d e ~~P) So 6 ra -~o • • • 000030 is ~b% J~JUU 1 . . __ .i VJ~bb /bJ~7 l..l ~ ~ Ur Jh+f[Fil Ul7.d -.+UG J~ FENCE PER1titIT FOR ENCLOSURE EYCEPTIONS F4CTSHEET Assessor's Parcel No. Project Address: Project Description: ~.' (,~"r~l'l (L1vSIC~ENG~ :Name of Legal Property Q~vner: _ i 10E'y'll~ N1• ~p ~R.RZ'O Address: ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1/f~ll~ (..~ . ~p'~'~A Phone No. -~]~U Site Area: ~~• Area to be Enclosed by Fencing: ~ 2 ~ 2 ~' Maximum height offence: S ~ fl ~~ (measured from any side that would give the neatest height measurement) Proposed setbacks: Front R. Rcar _ft. Rigb.t Side ft. r,efl Side R. - ti~ jenal~ _and Color: I 01~.~ w r v,~a 1~-~- ~ j roh W ~S-F-~ v~ Gv to rn n 5 2 e In Hillside Districts: Except for fencing around recreational courts and fcnciug wliicli cuiistitutc3 part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission, which approval may be granted in any of the following cases: (1) Where the Planning Commission finds and detcttnines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topo~ aphy, landscaping or other features of the site. (2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reasons. (~) where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure h<ss bCCU ~ataEcd by the Planning Commission fora "designated neighborhood area". (SMC §IS-39.020(c)) t pP.plannme~jharoniPlanniog Apphcaiivns~FfllvCE YElL`fIT ac[ sheet- eaclosurc,~ccptiou.doc n ~~ G , 000031 ,~ r ~_ f r f f .... ~ , _.1 r( i-i C i 0 0 W N • ~ ~~ . ~ t11P~E STEEL f~~ PAat~trE~ Fl.~4T ~-A4~- - S -o r,4t_.1_~ ~ ~ Ps~N~LS . j~ sTot~t E GGL.U M N S 20 ~ o • G . (~ tK~T-ct-i- STcuE cal }i ot1 S ~~ . ~So P,~RATt7 fLE51 DE-N Pa~L. ftfz-Ea FEtJ ~ 1 " = t' - o' ~, c c venuu~ l.u. ivv• ~ 1Vla~L iv...~.. . . • - . The Northam Trust Company SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES Chicago. IL 0710 70- 3e Paysble Through 719 JOHN M . SOBRATO 19 8 5 TRUST (3 7) Northam Trust Bank/DuPage NO . 0 0 2 2 Oakbrook Tarrace, IL ~. ~ 10600 N. De Anza Blvd, Suite 200 Cupertino, California 95014-2075 11 ~ 02 ~ 0 0 * * * 10 0 . ( PAY TO THE ORDER OF *****ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS & 00 CENTS***** I SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT J $IGNANRE MA$ A COLORED BACKGROUND BORDER CONTA~N$ MICROVRINTIN~ ~l' L68 3 3 211' ~:0 7 ~9 2 38 281':0000 1408 ?11' VENDOR: CITY OF SARATOGA ~ VENDOR NO.: 89637 No. 00220 INVOICE DESCRIPTION 11-02-00 PLAN APPROVAL JOB32 Vendor I.D. No. TOTAL AMOUNT 7,150.01 7,150.00 .. .• -. SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES Chcago,hL 071rOst Company 70- 3e Payable Through 719 N O. 0 0 2 2 0f JOHN M . SOBRATO 19 8 5 TRUST (3 7) Northam Trust BanklDuPage - Oakbrook Terrace, IL r ~ • = 10600 N. De Anza Blvd, suite zoo 11 02 00 ***7, 150.0( Cupertino, California 95014-2075 pqY *****SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS & 00 CENTS***** TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF SARATOGA ~ n'ti6833 LIl' J -..GNATURE y.15 A CCLCRED BACKGROUND 9JRDER C'JNTSINS ~Y~CRORR~NT~Ni. •:0 7 i9 2 38 28:0000 i~,o8 711' 000033 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000034 • KIER ~ WRIGHT Civil Engineers Surveyors, Inc. Mr. Tom Sullivan Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Sullivan, Attachment 3 October 23, 2001 Project No. 98221 ~~~o~~ ~ NOV 0 2 2001 CITY OF SARA'1'OGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I understand from Mr. Sobrato that it would help the Planning Commission's review of his application for a new home on Lot 1 of the Les Chateaux de Notre Dame subdivision for our firm to summarize the grading design for the site and its compliance with the intent of the language of Condition of Development number 24 to the Tract Map as recently modified. • We were directed by Mr. Sobrato to approach the grading design keeping in mind two primary objectives: 1) to minimize the overall grading quantities by respecting the existing terrain and 2) minimize the removal and endangerment of the existing trees which proliferate the site along with other natural landscape features. We believe we have accomplished both of these objectives, though as I will outline below, the objectives were sometimes in conflict. The vast majority of the grading was required due to the 1200-foot long driveway leading from the subdivision cul-de-sac to the home site. We initially explored accessing the site from Norton Road to minimize the length of the drive, reduce the number of retaining walls and to reduce the cost of construction. This alignment was determined to be unacceptable due to the steep terrain and the wide expanse of the seasonal drainage channel in the area. We believe the construction of a bridge to cross the channel, considerable tree removal and extensive grading that would be required to access the lot from this point, within this sensitive creek area, would be unacceptable to BAWQD, Fish and Game Army Corps or the City of Saratoga. • Thus, the only feasible alternative was to access the site from the subdivision cul-de- sac. The seasonal drainage channel could be crossed at is narrowest point with a simple culvert. This culvert work was approved by Public Works and all the applicable state and federal agencies as part of the subdivision approval, which was completed earlier this month. We initially designed the driveway with less grading impacts, but after review by the City's arborist, Barrie Coats and Associates, it was determined that the driveway location now before you, while involving additional earthwork, would retain several significant heritage trees and thus would be F:\ PROJECIS\ 98221 \ 102301TomSullivanLetter.doc 3350 Scott Boulevard, Building 22 • Santa Clara, California 95054 • (408) 727-6665 • FAX (408) 727-5641 (1~ll~lll _'2 ~ • environmentally preferable in the opinion of the azborist. Ernie Kraule of the Sazatoga Fire District dictated the driveway width, turnouts and turnaround radius. The house was situated on a portion of the site with the least slope to minimize grading - in fact there is only 2 feet of difference in the existing grade from the front pad of the home to the reaz. The patio azeas in the reaz yazd were terraced to respect the existing grade, again to minimize grading. The balance of the grading was necessitated due to the pool and basement. Most importantly, no grading at all will occur on neazly 70% of the 6.2-acre site. I have summarized the quantities of cut and fill for each of the major azeas of work in the table, which follows: House 276 CY of cut 430 CY of fill Basement 2800 CY of cut 0 CY of fill Pool 230 CY of cut 0 CY of fill Site Area 1364 CY of cut 1110 CY of fill Driveway 3280 CY of cut 1026 CY of fill Total 7950 CY of cut 2566 CY of fill We do not mean to imply that the total cubic yazds of earthwork is insignificant. However, we find no other reasonable way to develop the site to accommodate a home the size permitted under existing City regulations. The current design best satisfies the criteria established by the City of Sazatoga, Fish and Game, the Fire Mazshall, BAWQCB and the Army Corps and provides the Sobrato family with a home that meets the criteria they have developed during the past three yeazs. We believe what is before you represents the best effort to comply with the intent of Condition of Development number 24. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, KIER & WRIGHT gene R. olobic, PE Principal cc: John Sobrato F: \ PROJECIS\ 98221 \ 102301 TomSulliv ante tter. doc QO~~~V - BARRIE D. _ .1ATE AND ASSOCIATES Attachment 4 - Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPERTY SUBDIVISION 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Mark Connolly Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist December 1, 2000 Job # I 1-00-286 Plan Received: 11-15-00 Plan Due: 12-13-00 00003'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRE' 'ATION RECOMMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPER? _ ~(JBDIVISION 1800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Mark Connolly, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to construct a long driveway through a wooded hillside and to construct a new residence on a vacant lot of a new subdivision in context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes at least 149 trees to some level of risk by construction. Several trees would be removed by implementation of this design. Design modifications are suggested to reduce the total losses, especially to retain trees that provide a screen between this site and adjacent properties. Replacements equal to the value of removed trees are suggested to the extent that open space is available for replacements. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 1 S% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are likely well over 1000 trees on this hillside property, but it appears that only 149 trees are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. In some instances, a single canopy represents a cluster of trees where it is not practical to represent the canopy of each tree individually. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number, which corresponds to the designations for trees on the plans provided. The metallic labels found on the trees has been done by another company prior to this survey. In order to maintain consistency for the benefit of all parties involved, the same numbering system is used for this evaluation. However, because of the fact that some errors with the numbering of trees presented by the maps provided are discovered during the field work for this report, because of the fact that several trees are not included on the maps provided, because of the fact that several trees tagged and noted on the plans are not large enough to be controlled by the city ordinance, and because of the complexity of this project, considerably more time has been needed to perform the field work and to prepare this report than is usually required for a typical project with this number of trees involved. The 149 Trees are classified as follows: 2 big leaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) 1 river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) 21 valley oak (Quercus lobata) 118 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 3 Califonnia bay laurel (Umbellularia ca/ifornica) 1 hybrid oak (Quercus species) 3 black oak (Quercus ke/loggii) PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 1, 2000 00008 TREE SURVEY AND PRE 'ATION RECOMMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPER7 . ~UBDMSION I.t800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA A description of each of these trees is provided on the field survey fonms, which follow this text. Among other information on the field survey forms, the health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of l to 5 (Excellent -Extremely Poor). The information is converted to a single descriptive rating to aid with planning as follows: • • Exceptional S imens Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal S imens Poor Specimens 271, 276, 311, 270, 272, 273, 278, 323, 330, 326, 334, 384, 279 347, 359, 378, 277, 306, 307, 362, 369, 374, 486, 532, 554 380, 381, 386, 309, 314-317, 375, 387, 388, 431, 443, 478, 319, 320, 324, 425, 432, 469, 487, 489, 535, 327, 328, 333- 473, 553, 556, 539, 542, 585, 336, 341, 343- 567, 577 586, 590, 591, 346, 348, 362, 644, 648, 649, 363, 366, 368, 652, 653, 656 370, 373, 382, 383, 385, 420, 421, 423-424, 426-428, 437, 442, 449, 460, 462-466, 468, 469, 470, 472, 474-477, 482, 483, 485, 488, 490, 491, 510, 531, 533, 534, 536, 538, 552, 557,563-566, 578-582, 584, 587-589, 643- 647, 650, 651, 654, 655, 657- 659 661 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent fiuther decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORI5T DECEMBER 1, 2000 000039 TREE SURVEY AND PRE CATION RECOMMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPERT z ~UBDMSION 14A00 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #649-656 are located on the adjacent property toward the east. Trees located on adjacent properties which would be affected by this grading must be treated as Exceptional, regardless of condition. Please note that there are at least 4 trees that bear numbered tags that are different than presented by the maps provided. These are: Map Representation Actual Tree Tag 373 37g 431 425 462 does not exist at location shown 465 462 Trees #378 and #557 are very large coast live oak trees. These two trees are in good to excellent health, but tree #557 has some structural defects that lowers its overall rating to Fair. Tree #557 is one of the rare specimens that is not adequately described by the rating system that we use. Although tree #557 has some structural weaknesses, it is one of the larger specimens in the Saratoga area, and is aesthetically magnificent. Most of its structural defects can be addressed by cabling and endweight removal pruning. Tree #378 is exceptional. Both trees #378 and #557 are well worth preserving at all costs. All of the oak trees on this site, but especially trees #378 and 557 have root systems that extend well outside the perimeters of their canopies, and their entire root systems (a conservative estimate are root systems that equal 1 'h times the trees canopy diameters) must be preserved if they are expected to continue to thrive. If any construction, including any type of landscaping, should be done within their extended root systems, the construction must be carefully planned and executed. Impacts of Cvnstruction The following 43 trees are in conflict with construction or with grading and would be removed upon implementation of this design, if approved as proposed. Trees #277-279, 320, 325, 327, 328, 330, 346, 366, 368, 369, 370, 375, 380-384, 468, 475, 476, 489, 491, S10, 531-534, 536, 538, 579, 580, 581, 582, 584, 585, 590, 646, 647, 657, 658, 659. Five of these are Exceptional specimens (#380, 381, 489, 585, and 590). The preservation of any of these 43 trees would require design revisions. In addition to these there are at least 14 trees, mostly coast live oaks that would suffer such severe damage by proposed construction that they would not be expected to survive. These are trees #316, 319, 388, 420, 462, 464, 465, 477, 482, 483, 531, 534, 552, and 553. None of these are Exceptional, but 12 are Fine specimens. As a result, a total of 57 trees would be destroyed or badly damaged by implementation of this design. Although there are open spaces on this property where replacements could be planted, it does not appear that there is sufficient open space to provide replacements equal to the value of all of the trees that would be lost unless a quantity of large specimens are used. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER I, 2000 000040 TREE SURVEY AND PRE CATION RECOMMENDATION AT 4 THE SOBRATO PROPERT r SUBDIVISION 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT t SARATOGA Another 19 trees would suffer significant root damage, but these would likely survive if mitigation procedures (addressed in Recommendations) are used. These included trees #385, 387, 421, 423, 424, 425. The design of the proposed entry driveway is located within 10-12 feet from and parallel with the property boundary for a distance of about 200 feet on the east side. At least 10 trees (#478, 531- 534, 536, 538, 657, 658 and 659) presently provide a significant screening between this large open space on this property and the neighboring properties on the east side would be removed by construction of the driveway. One of these 10 trees is Exceptional. It is #478. Eight of the other trees in this group are Fine specimens. One (#532) is Marginal. In this case, those trees rated as Fine specimens are in excellent health but have some structural defects that can usually be corrected by pruning and/or cabling. In my opinion, these 10+ trees make a significant contribution to both properties as a screen, and in that sense, these trees should be given consideration for retention, despite their rating. This would require relocation of the proposed driveway, and no doubt redesign or at least a reorientation of the residence and marry of the related features. Whether or not this is reasonable or not to suggest depends on the value that may be placed on these 10+ trees that presently provide an excellent screen. The fimctional value of these trees may be worth more that their economic value. Also, it may be useful to note that if the driveway is installed as planned, it would not be feasible to plant replacement trees in the narrow strip between the new proposed driveway and the property boundary in the area between trees #650 and 656, because of the competition with trees #650-656. Only shrubs should be planted in this narrow strip for purposes of providing a screen. Trees that are planted as a screen in an area where the competition is intense will in time produce tall spindly specimens that become fairly useless as a screen. Neighboring trees #650-6561ocated on the adjacent properties toward the east are all at risk of significant damage from soil compaction during and after construction unless some type of barrier is constructed on the east side adjacent to the proposed driveway in this area for the fiill extent of the canopies of trees #650-656. Trees #299, 300 and 302-306 are not included in this survey, but they could be affected by grading and paving equipment should the equipment be parked under the canopies of these trees. This could be prevented by the installation of protective fencing. Trees #464, 473, 474, 469 and 470 would suffer severe root damage by construction of the stone walls and back fill, if the stone walls are constructed with a footing or if the backfill is not thoroughly porous. A number of trees (#420, 421, 423-425, 460, 463, 586-589 and 591) may suffer root damage by construction of the proposed garden pathways if the pathways are constructed by excavating the soil 4-6 inches, which is typical for pathway construction. Trees #643 and 644 have been added. Their locations are only estimated. The proposed 8-inch drain across the root zone of either tree may result in severe root damage, depending on their exact locations. Trees #443 and 444 would suffer severe root damage during construction of the adjacent 8-inch drain. These two trees may not survive over the long-term should the trenching be located as proposed. Tree #443 is Exceptional. Trees #441, 445, 447, 448, 460, would be moderately PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORISf DECEMBER 1, 2000 000041 TREE SURVEY AND PRE: ATION RECOMMENDATION AT 5 THE SOBRATO PROPERTY ~UBDMSION 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA affected by construction. If this drain were relocated midway between these trees, they would all survive in good condition. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 5. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 6. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 7. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape featwe inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I suggest that consideration be given to the preservation of the existing trees (#478, 53 I -534, 536, 538, 657, 658, 659) that provide a screen between large open space on this property and the properties located toward the east. This would require relocation of the driveway in the area, which extends approximately between trees #649 and #539. In my opinion, this deserves higher priority than preservation of the Exceptional specimens that are directly in conflict with the proposed driveway before tree #468. I suggest that the driveway entry to the building site be located between trees #468 and 463. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 3. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. 4. I suggest that the old road between trees #343 and 344 not be used. 5. I suggest that the access between trees #359 and 360 not be used. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 1, 2000 000042 TREE SURVEY AND PRE: ~ATION RECOMMENDATION AT (j THE SOBRATO PROPERT7 ~UBDMSION 13A00 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA 6. I recommend that the proposed entry road, except in the area described by recommendation # 1 be used as the only assess to the construction site or to any other part of the site. 7. I suggest that the stone retaining wall located on the south side of tree #464 be relocated a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of tree #464. 8. I recommend that the stone retaining walls proposed near trees #646, 469, 470, 473, and 474 be constructed without a footing and the back fill material contain 10% or less of clay, or any material that would restrict rapid drainage or an exchange of gases. 9. 1 suggest that the proposed drain lines be relocated as noted on the plans. 10. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 11. I suggest that tree #557 be treated as Exceptional before, during, and after construction. 12. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. 13. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved our office must be contacted. • 14. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 15. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be built completely on grade without excavation. This includes but is not limited to trees #420, 421, 423, 424, 425, 460, 462, 463, 586, 587, 588, 589, 591. 16. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 1 S times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches 'may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 17. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 18. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. ' Radial Trenches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 1, 2006 000043 TREE SURVEY AND PRE: ATION RECObIMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPERTY SUBDIVISION 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA 7 • 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 20. If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundatioq 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 21. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 22. If trees are in the path of discharge drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 23. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. I suggest that replacements be planted for the trees that will be removed to the extent feasible that the open spaces on this site would allow with spacing a minirnuln of 25 feet apart. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifo/ia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Black Oak - Quercus ke!loggii Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyl/um California buckeye - Aescu/us caJifornica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens I suggest a bond equal to 15% of the total value of all of the trees (5456,714) on site that will be retained to assure protection. That totals 568,508. MLB/sl Respectfull~+ submit Michael L. Bench, A sociate ~~ B oat~~~e PiSnZrpal ~'- ~ `" i PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIVG ARBORISr DECEMBER 1, 2000 000044 TREE SURVEY AND PRE:. ATION RECOMMENDATION AT THE SOBRATO PROPERTY SUBDMSION 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD LOT 1 SARATOGA E nclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 1,2000 000045 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurements Condkion PruninglCabllnq Needs PesUDlsease Problems Recommend . f ~ ~ ~ I I I BARRIE D COATS i i ' s ' ~ ' i ~ ; ~ ~ i ; I ' ~ ' ~ ; o ~ ~ i I . ,v 'o !~~ ~ Imo ; ~~ ` ;~ ~ and ASSOCIATES '; '; '; I ~, I ~ ~ ' v ~ I ; ; ~ I ~ I o (40A13S31052 LL , O ~ ? o I 3 I c~ I o W ~ ~ I ~ N i ~ ~~ ~ ... Z I~ ~ ~ Z z I Q , Z F I ~ ~ w i ~ 0 o i Z ~ ~ i i} i (Y Q a' ~ 'J 23535Nwaditad I w ~ ® I F ~ I® I w ~ r- ~ I o: ~ z LLJ I? to I U J I x w I d~ W ~ z w I 0: a 'n O I p Q O ~ g ~ g W F 0 F- rr z lOr GrNr, G 95030 ~ i} I W ~ I~ 7 i~ ~ U~~ i i w Z C7 ~~ W ~ O p i 0 ~ 0 ~ u 1 3 i LL ~ J i 1 i ; F~~ x ~ x i V I t I U D' J 0 Z 2 i Z; 2 ~'~'~ ~ ;~ i y i ' w Z fn R F~ U U l l I~ I Y I U I U i i ~ N ~ h F i i J~= i= ~ i i ~ i~ i 7 i i i~ i Z i g O ~ Q' Q i Q i Q l i J i '~ i m i Z ~ i W w i W i Q i Z ' i~ T F" i~ i Q O Q I O I w i w I U Ke • Plant Name Y I~ m I m l ~ ~ o ~ o~ o w l a x m u I~ x v~ I U z rr I rr ~ z U I U U I U ~ w I~ I ~ rr a Z I F t x I D~ H 1 0 ~ O ~ m rr w o w I w z z 0: rr 270 Coast Live Oak I 9.0 ; 10 25 ~ 20 ~ I 1 2 3 I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I i ' I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ s . in 84 X S27lsq. in. = 5 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 90% = 5 1,555 X loc. 75% = S 1 188 271 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ~ 11 ~ 20 ~ 25 1 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ f ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I t I ` ~ I ~ ~ I s . In 79 X 527ISq. in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 100% = 5 2,133 X loc. 75% = S 1 800 Total Value 272 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ; I ~ 13 20 20 1 I 3 4 I I I ~ ~ ! I I I I ~ k I j ~ I ! I I I ~ ~ ? i ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ 1 , s . in 113 X 527ISq. in. = 5 3,052 X sp. class 100% = 53,052 X cond. 75% - 5 2,289 X loc. 70% = 5 1 802 Total Value 273 Coast Live Oak I 10.0 ; I 11 1 25 15 1 2 3 I j I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ , I ~ ~ ~ I ~ f ~ ~ ~ I i s . in 79 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 90% = 5 1,920 X loc. 70% = S 1344 Total Value 278 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ 25 125 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ~ E ~ I f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! ' i ' I J ~ i ~ . ~ ~ I i s . in 79 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 100% = 5 2,133 X loc. 759'0 = S 1 800 Total Value 277 Valle Oak 10.0 x~ 7.0 ~ ~ 118 35 40 1~ 3~ 4 j I s I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ ' I ~ 1 I I s . in 98 X E27/sq. in. = 5 2,648 X sp. class 100% = 52,848 X cond. 75% = 5 1,985 X loc. 75% = 5 1 488 Total Value 278 River Red Gum 11.0 ; 13 40 25 1 4 5 ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ I Eucal tus camaldulensis I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' s . in 95 X 527Isq. in. = 5 2,565 X sp. class 30% = 5769 X cond. 60% = 5 482 X loc. 80% = S 277 Total Value 0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 0 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box 52"box = 57,000 72 box of 21 , 1 01/00 Job T~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 1286 . Measurements CondRlon Pruninq/Cabllnq Neads Pest/Dlsease Problems Recommend . i , , ~ ~ ; BARRIE D. COATS ` ` " v ' and ASSOCIATES x ~ '~ ;~ ~ i~ ~ = ~ i Z I ~ ~ ~ o ,~ ~ (4M)353.1052 N~~ I N ~~ Z z 1 2 t O ~ Z~ 3 ~ w ~ ~ ~ O N~ Y~~ ~ m~ ~ C ~ 135355r.sd8aad i W ® i y ~~ ~ i W~ ~ I m I z i F q ~ z~ u~i ~ w y i d t o i ~ ~ W 1 w ~ m ~, z 1 3 o: ~ o~~ I g~ g i p Q~~ I W a S La caw, G 95030 } ~ W i ~~ Q V ~~ m a i~ v o 3 LL!~ v i i~ l i ! o ~?~ t! x ~ i~ ~ o i o a: z i z i z ~~ i 3 W I~ i i 3> ~ w i ~~ ~ 3 ~~ Y ' m i m ~ i l x x ~' m 4 i 4: 2 i s O i O~ O i ~ Z O~ ~] W W w ~ ,~ , ~ , Z > i O O O' O , W ~ w V K ~ Pl N ~ , m m i w i a ~++ i F O i 4 m i z ~ ~ i o: i w i m N I m i u~ i m i O I O i w w i w ey ant ame i i o i o p x i m x i ~n i v 1 U I U I v i v i x i i s ? f- i o i F i m i x z i z o: oc 279 i f AAa 29.0 ; i 31 ~ 35 i 50 2 5 7 i 4 i i x 1 Ater macro h lum i i i I i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i 1 i i i s . in 880 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 17,825 X sp. Gass 30% _ $5,347 X cond. 30% _ $ 1,804 X loc. 80% _ $ 983 Total Value 306 Valle Oak , 14.0 i x ~ 11.0 ~ 1 19 35 ' 40 i ~ 1 i 2 3 j 4 ~ i i i i i , i 4 i x 1 1 i I i i i i i i i i , i i i 1 s . in 202 X $27/sq. in. = S 5,454 X sp. class 100% = 55,454 X cond. 90°k = E 4,909 X loc. 70°'0 = $ 3 438 Total Value 307 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ~ ~ i 12 ~ 20.20 1~ 2 ~ 5~ 5 ~ i i I I I I i i i i i i i i i ~ i i i i I i 1 i I ~ ~ ~ i s . in 95 X S27/sq. in. = S 2,585 X sp. class 100% _ $2,585 X cond. 90% - $ 2,308 X loc. 70% = S 1 818 Total Value 308 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ; x 4.0 ; ; 11 ~5 ; 15 j 15 1 ~ 2 5 5 ~ E ~ i I i i , i ~ ~ ~ ~ I i i ~ ~ ~ , I t i , s . in 88 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,322 ~. class 100% _ $2,322 X cond. 90% - $ 2,090 X loc. 70% - $ 1 483 Total Value 311 Black Oak 18.0 ~ ~ j 18 ~ 40 40 1 1 ` 2 ~ i I I ` ' Quercus Kell ii i i { i ! ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I t I I ~ I ~ ~ i s . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,428 X sp. class 100% _ $5,428 X cond. 100% - $ 5,428 X loc. 85% = S 3 527 Total Value 314 Coast Live Oak 13.0 ~ i ~ 14 ~ 15 i 20 1 ~ 3 I 4 ~ 5 ' I ~ ~ i , i i i ` I I I i I i i ! i ' i I I s . in 133 X $27/sq. in. = S .3,582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,888 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 881 Total Value 315 Coast Live Oak 7.0 ~ x 8.0 ~ 6.0 ~ 115 ; 20 30 1 ~ 3 4 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; j , ' i i i 1 i i i i ~ i ~ I i i 1 i ` s . in 87 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,809 X sp. class 100% _ $1,809 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,357 X loc. 80% _ $ 814 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box = Ss,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 21 1 01/00 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurements Condkion Prunlnq/Cabling Needs Pest/Dlsease Problems Recommend . I i ? i i ~ ~ i BARRIE D COATS ' ~ ` ~ ' i ; ` ~ i i I . i i i i ' i i lV ' ~ i Z i i ~ ~ i i w i ' i i W i W ' ~ `~ ' i ' ` ~ and ASSOCIATES i 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 i ~ ~ ~ ' ' 1 1 ~ N i i ; i ~ I 1 (4Up353.1052 i i i ~ ' i t `~ i Z i~ i p Z i C9 I~ i p I 1 I# i t W i Z i~ i h~ ~ I y ~ i v o w ~ M ~_ 13535f AR d 1~ N ~ i Z i y i i ~ ~ ' '~ ~ i}' 0.' ~ I~ I~ ~ r.a a LaGfr G 95030 i i i I~ ~ ,~ i w i ~~ ~ I? j ~? ~ Z I W ~ i s ~~~ I o I~ I g I g i F i F 7 a a , ® i} I i i~ I I I w I o =~ i 0 x~ i V z i~ i~ l z l 1~ I W Z i I ' i Z ~ i p p w l O O I ~ I < I W i u 3 1 u. i M s ~ '~ ' i i ~ ~ Q Q i W C s J i 7 i ~ i 3 z E~ i~ z> ~ m I i> i I J Z F I v 1 3 p I W i o v v 7 Y i Z l ~' ~ F' i i ° ° ~ i~ :m im i w is ~ i~ io i ~ m° !° ;° ° i~ iml ~ I y !~ ~ ;~,o o i , w w Key ~ Plant Name - l o t o t o x l m x l h I U I v m o: l v ! U m I v ~ I~ l a ?~~ o i~ i¢ ~~ i l z i ~a 317 Coa Lf Oak 9.0 I ; ~ I 10 i 1 15 i 15 1 I 3 i 8 1 7 ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ I ' I ~ ~ i ! ! ~ ' ' 1 I , i ~ i ; i ; 1 ' s . in 84 X E27/sq. in. = E 1,728 X sp. class 100% = E1,728 X cond. 75% - E 1,298 X loc. 85% = S 842 Total Value 318 Coast Lice Oak 9.0 ~ I I I 10 1 25 1 18 I 1 2 1 3 1 3 I i i I ' I i ' i i , I i I I I I I i i I I I i I , I I s . in 84 X E27/sq. In. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = E1,728 X cond. 90% = E 1,555 X loc. 80% = E 933 Total Value 319 Coast Live Oak , 8.0 I x l 3.0 i ! 10 130 120 , ~ 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 i I I t ~ i 1 i i I I I ~ i I I i i I ~ i I i ~ i i i I , s . in 54 X E27lsq. in. = E 1,458 X sp. class 100% = E1,458 X cond. 90% - E 1,312 X loc. 80% = S 787 Total Value 320 Valle Oak 10.0 ; x 8.0 i 7.0 i t 2\l 0i 20 35 1 3 i 4 8 ' `` 1 i i == I I 1 i I i i i ~ i i i I ~ ' I f i s . in 124 X E27/sq. in. = E 3,348 X sp. class 100% = 53,348 X cond. 75% = E 2,511 X loc. 85% = E 1,832 Total Value 323 Valle Oak 11.0 i I i I 12 145 i 35 2 i 3 i 5~ 7 I i i I I i l i i l l i I~ i i l ! i I, s . in 95 X E27/sq. in. = E 2,585 X sp. class 100% = E2,565 X cond. 80% = E 1,539 X loc. 70% = E 1 077 Total Value 324 Valle Oak I 8.0 ' x i 8.0 ; 3.0 , 1219 i 35 30 l i 3 i 8 i 8 ~ i i i ' i I i i i , , i ' I i i I i i ; i ' i , ! i i i i ~ I i i i s . in 79 X E27/sq. in. = E 2,133 X sp. class 100% = E2,133 X cond. 75% = E 1,800 X loc. 80% = S 980 Total Value 328 Vall Oak 12.01 , ; i 13 1 35 i 20 3 1 8 8 3 I 1 I , ! f I I E I i I ~ I I i , 1 i i i i , 1 i ~ , i i i 1 i i i 1 ' I i , s . in 113 X E27/sq. in. = E 3,052 X sp. class 100°k = E3,052 X cond. 45% = S 1,373 X loc, 80% = E 824 Total Value Q Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES O 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = 52"box = 57,000 ~"~ ~ ~ P f 21 , 1 01/00 0 0 Job Ti~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition Prunlna/Cablinq Needs Pest/Dfsease Problems Recommend . RABBIS D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (4i19)353.1Q52 7353!lr.sAAoad tn~ ~, U 9l0~ e ~ Plant Name Y i ~ ! ~ ~ y ~ ®} i i rq ! i $ ~ Y i -- i J i x i x ~~ m i m ~ o o ' i W I LL ~ lnJ i W ~ i ~ l o i i ~ i ~ I ~ ~ i~ ~ !r w~ a x y ~' " ' ~ i N i? i ~ I ~~ i p .., ~ ? ~ ~ w I ~ ~~ j ~ Q I ¢~ x ~ t l o I U ~ i~ ~ o m ~~ Z I u~ I F i 0 ~ x i y U i i i ! z ! ~ ' ~ ~ _ Z' Z'~ i~ i~ . w z i i O~ i i 3 ~ w ~ i Z i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ? y i ~ ~ i ' w i V i~ ~!~ i w~ Z ~ z i z z z i~ i v~ 3! 3 13 ~ 3 i~ b i O O O i O i I i m i rY i m p o: i w I~ ~ U i v U U m i i N yv L C m Q rr a Z z ~ m s i i i ~ ' ~ " ' ' v ' ~ i W i i i W i W qy ! W i ~ i "' i i~ i~! y rn ~ u, ~ ~ O ~ ~ I ~! ~ i U i ~ ~ z ..., t i o: I o: ~ 3 I ~ ~ ~ ! g g ._. I O i ~ i w I 0 ! 0 ~ i v 1 3 i Y ~! v U i w o! z i~ i~ W W i~{ pp i 0 i ~ tr ~~ i o: i 0 I O -- o ~ H ~ m ~ x ' i i~ i ~ ~ i K i ~ W -- 1 i~ ~ ~ O F ~ ~ ! 3 I W i~ y i N o i^ I W W V w l w i tay z i z i _ ~ ~ o J ~ 327 Valle Oak 9.0 I i 10 ~ 25 20 1 ; 1 ~ 2 ~ ! i i ~ i ' ' I i ' ~ ~ I I i i i ! i I i i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i i i i i ~ ~ ~ ! ! ~ I s . in 84 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 100% = S 1,728 X loc. 80% = S 1 037 Total Value 328 Valle Oak 9.0 i ! I ! 10 i 25 ! 15 1 ! 2 3 ! I'I ! ! I I ! ! i i i i I I i i i ! i I I i i i i I ! i i s . in 64 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,726 X cond. 90% - S 1,555 X loc. 80% = S 933 Total Value 330 Valle Oak ~~ 8.0 ~ x i 8.0 515 i m! 30 40 1 ~" 4 i 5 i 8 ~ I ! i ~ ~ i ~ i I i i ~ ! i i I i ~ I i i i { i ! s . in 95 X S27/sq. in. = S 2,585 X sp. class 100% = 52,585 X cond. 80% = S 1,539 X loc. 80% = S 923 Total Value 333 Coast Lice Oak 7.0 ! x ~ 8.0 ~ 5.0 10 25 ~ 15 1 ~ 3 E 4 ` ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' I I i I I I in 82 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,874 X sp. class 100% - 51,874 X cond. 75% = S 1,258 X loc. 85% - S 818 Total Value 334 Coast Live Oak 9.0 i x i 7.0 j j 108 i 20 i 35 1 i 3~ 4 i 5 i ! i I i i i i s . in 84 X S27/sq. in. = S 2,268 X sp. class 100% = 52,288 X cond. 75% = S 1,701 X loc. 85% = S 1,108 Total Value 335 Coast Live Oak 9.0 i ` 10 i 20.20 1 1 2 i 3 ~ 3 ~ f ! I { _ ~ I I i i i i I ~ ~ ~ i i i ~ ii i ! ~ I I i ! ~ I ~ i in 84 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 90% = S 1,555 X loc. 70% = S 1 089 338 Coast Live Oak 8.0 ~ x 8.0 ~ 12 ! 25 I 15 1 2 3 i ~ i I ~ I i I i i I ! ; i° l i i i !! ! i i i! i i i i s . in 85 X 527/sq. in. = S 1,755 X sp. class 100% = 51,755 X cond. 90% = S 1,580 X loc. 85% = S 1,027 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES rgal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"bon = 51,320 48"box = SS,000 62"box = 57,000 72"box =515,000 Job # 11286 . 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 4 of 21 1 01/00 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurements Conditlon Prunlnq/Cablln Needs PesUDlsease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (40 353.1052 T3l3SirsARad La Gala, G 95030 ey M Plant Name I I I I } I I I } I I ~ I I ~ } ~ ~ i W ~ ~ H } I } ~ ® rn ~ ). i i i~ } an I I i w }~ } 1 }~ } ~ } m } m 1 I p I p I p ~ 1 } p ~ I~ w } a x l an o ` ~ I } ~} } } ~ I ~, ~ ~ ~ z `~' ~_ 1 ~ c7 ~ 1 w I ~ } ~ " i a: I z ,~ i 0 i~ x~ I r_ i p ~ I~ } p I~ ug I ~ } O ~ ~ x~ I v } I I I I ' } } I I I I z ~ I } }~ i I o I } _ } } ~ Z c7 ~ } } ~ } at ~ Z } z I O } z } 3 w } ~ ~ } ? i y ~ ~ ~ d ~ w } ~ ~ x w q~ z l w o. U i F }~' i w i Z' z I z I z I z I~ I u~ I Z 3 3 1 3 }~}~ I ~ I z ~ } ~ I ~ + ~ } w ~ } ~ v v I v v I mo} a I ' ' " ' o ~ l e i ~ w l I I w } w I N ; I I ~ } ~ '~ } } '~ 1 ~ ,n } O I y } p i ~_ } ~ } U I p v~ } 3 } p } ~ } g } g ~ I 1 0 I ~} ~ I Q I O' w I O, O ~ i V i 3 } x v V V i w l p I z a- }~ y I ¢ ~ ~ i ~ } O } O i t a- I p I~ I~ I~ } } }~ } ' ~ ~ I ~ ~ I y } ~ F } ~ } O Q~ i w i ~ w M o~ o~ w ~ w a~i z l z I 7 = J 2 QQ o: 341 H rid ek , 8.0 1 x } 5.0 ; } 12 1 20 } 20 1 2 ~ 3 I } I } } } I i } I } , I I Querous s ies } I 1 I I 1 I I } ~ I I i I } ~ i I } , I i s . in 80 X 527Isq . in. = E 1,820 X sp. class 100% = 51,820 X cond. 90% - S 1,458 X loc. 70% - S 1 021 Total Value 343 Coast Live Oak 12.0 } x 111.01 113\12} 30 } 35 1 } 3 } 4 I } ~ ` I ~ ~ ; i i I } I I } } } I I } } } I i } I }, } } I } s . in 181 X S27/sq . in. = S 4,347 X sp. class 100% = 54,347 X cond. 75% = S 3,280 X loc. 70% = S 2 282 Total Value 344 Coast Llve Oak , 11.0 I 1 } ~ I I 12 ~ 20 120 1 i 2 3 I 1 ~ 1 I i } 1 ~ , ' , } I I ~ } I I } 1 I I I I I } I I I I I I ' } s . in 95 X S27/sq . in. = S 2,585 X sp. class 100% = 52,585 X cond. 90% = S 2,309 X loc. 70% - S 1,818 345 Valle Oak 10.0 } } } ~ 11 ~ 25 } 15 1 I 2 } 3 } } } I ~ } I I } } I I I I I I ~ i I I 1 I I I i ~ I I I I ~ } 1 I s . in 79 X S27/sq . in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100% - 52,133 X cond. 90% - S 1,920 X loc. 70% = S 1344 Total Value 348 Valle Oak 9.0 i i } } 10 i 35 I 18 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 } } i i i } } , i I } I 1 I i } I } I I I } ~ I I } } 1 s . in 84 X 527/sq . in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 10% - 5 173 X tot. 70% - S 121 Total Value 347 Coast Live Oak , ~ 12.0 I I I ~ I 113 120 15 } ~ 1 1~ 2 } } i } i I I I , } I I } I I I I I I I I i I I I I I } I I } I I I } I } I I s . in 113 X S27/sq . in. = S 3,051 X sp. class 100% = 53,051 X cond. 100% = S 3,051 X loc. 70% = S 2 138 348 Coast Live Oak , 9.0 ' I I 10 } 25 } 20 1 1 I 2 } 3 I I I } I I I { , 1 ' } I I I } I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I i } } } I ~ } } I s . in 84 X S27/sq . in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 90% = S 1,555 X loc. 70% = S 1,089 0 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"boat = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 0 48"box 52"box = 57,000 ~ 72"box ~ n . 1 01/00 Job Ti~obrato BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (/~ 353.1052 23S3S frail Rad La Gfr, G 95030 ;ey p Plant Name 359 Vallev Oak 382 383 368 (Coast Live Oak 388 (Coast Live Oak 389 (Vallev Oak 373 (Coast Live Oak Job Address:14800~1man Rd. Lot 1 Job # 1186 . 12/01/00 ! i ~_ ' i~ i '~ i Z i N i W i W I W i 1~ ~ i i W ' i 2 ~ U i U' O i '~ i ik ~ i '" ~ i~ i 1 i _~ ,n j K~ L. I W t h 1 0 ~ t ~ ~_ ' I ~ i LL ' N I~ i Ur QZ r Z i~ i U' I~'° I a, { ~' ~ ~' U r° v'~' W _~ ~ i W i i i N r i W ~ { ~ yJ '? I N i N' d ~° i ~ ,o i Z r ~. i} i o: i 2 w i J i 0 ®ih I i i® i ~ I~ ~z i ~q v i~ ~w~ I ~W 'wl a v~3 ~p~ !3 ig Q i~ ~ ~ l i i i W {~ = i V i t l° z i z i z i i!~ ivi i i ~ i~ i 3 i Y ~ i~ ~ i u~ i~ i E i J i= i= i~ (~ 1~ 'Q~ i~ i 2' s~ U i Q i Q i Q i ~` ! m i j W i W i Q° i j i O ~ ~ i W i a i~ i m i m i g$ W i s LL] r F i O i Q 0' i R i 2 i R i W i~ i D.' ~ i QQ i W i 0: ' O! O W i W i r i° i° i° S i y = I m 1 U 1 U r U i U i U l C i i d Z i F i° i F i d' r 0: Z 2 1 r~ 0: 1 { 12.0 i 1 i i 13 i 40 40 1 1 1' 2 1 i i I i i i I 1 i ' i i i I i 1 i i ~ i i I I I I I I I ' i ' ~ 1 1 ~ I I I I 1 I 1 i in 113 X 327/sq. in. = E 3,052 X sp. class 100% = E3,052 X cond. 100% = S 3,052 X loc. 70% = E 2,138 Total Value' 11.01 I 1 12 ' 25 i 15 1 1 3 4 1 I I 1 1 I 1 i 1 I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ I i I 1 ~ I i i 1 i in 95 X E27/sq. in. = E 2,585 X sp. class 100% = E2,585 X cond. 75% - S 1,923 X loc. 70% = E 1,348 ` TotallValue 12.0 ~ ~ ~ 13 ~ 40 ~ 20 1 ~ 3 ~ 4 ` i ~ ~ i i `1 i ~ ~ i I I 1 ~ I 1 1 i i i 1 i I I 1 1 1 i i in 113 X S27/sq. in. = E 3,052 X sp. class 100% = E3,052 X cond. 75% - E 2,289 X loc. 70% = E 1,802 Total Value 10.0 i ; 11 ; 30 20 1~ 3 i 4, ~ i i i i ; I I 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 t i 1 i 1 1 ' in 79 X E27/sq. in. = E 2,133 X sp. class 100% = E2,133 X cond. 75% = E 1,800 X loc. 70% = E 1,120 Total Value 9.0 1 x 1 3.0 1 1 1041 i 30 i 20 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ' 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i in 88 X E27/sq. in. = E 1,838 X sp. class 100% = E1,838 X cond. 75% = E 1,377 X loc. 70% = E 984 Total Value 1 11.0 i x l 8.0 l 7\3 113\ ~ 30 ; 30 1 i 4~ 5 i i i i 1 i I i i ! i It ie\e 1 i i i i 1 i ~ i ~ ! 1 ~ I in 143 X 127/sq. in. = E 3,861 X sp. class 100% = E3,881 X cond. 80% - E 2,317 X loc. 85% = S 1,508 Total Value 29.0' x 1 25.01 22.0 ; 85 45 1 55 1 3 4 5 1 1 { 1 3 1 1 I i 1 i I i 1 1 ~ 1 i ' 1 I i 1 ~ 1 1 1 I in 1097 X E27/sq. in. = E 29,619 X sp class 100% = E29,819 X cond. 75% = E 22,214 X loc. 70% = E '15,550 Total Value V REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =336 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box =38,000 82"boX = 37,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 6 of 21 0 0 N Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condftlon Pruning/Cabllnq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . I { I ~ ~ ~ I i BARRIE D COATS ' ' ~ ~ ' " ` = ` ~ ` ' . ~ v _ ~ ~ ~' ' ` ~ ~ '' and ASSOCIATES I ' ~ i ~ i ~ ; ~ _ (1~353.1a52 ~ LL I 1 ~~ I z i~~~~~ ? I W I o I~ 1 o I~~ ~~ I o - j y~~ ~ ~ ~ C7 ~I z ~ Iz io z 13 Iwl o ~ I ~~> Ix Zo: . x l l Y3535fr•sANa~d ~ w l 1® ® h I I W l~ F Q: I z ~ I z I c y ~ 1 d l o ~ ~ w ~ a N z ~ ~ I p~~ g~ g W ~ ~ ~~ La Gta, U 95030 I l o: i> i 1 ~ = i O ~ U I F ~ ~ W Z ' v ' I O ' O O Q ~ i ~ W , h, , ~ F i S O0Q W x i f .. x i t i 0 J i 7 ~ i i Z, Z, Z I Z 3~ 3 3~~ i i U i~ I !A Z ~ Z fn R i 0 i ~ i I Y i U I U ~ ~ Z ~ ~ , LL i~ , ' i J' i i j i W Q i 2 i s i O O ' ~ J ~ Q i W i W i Q O i O i O Ke # Plant Name W i~ ~ m i m i `S - i d W ~~ ~ O Q R ' ' R' I~ i 2 i Q~ ~ ~ U i~ i W i 0' i O i O W i W I W y I o i o t o x i v~ x rn U x U U U I U I x I (S a ?~ o~ I~ I x z I z I~ oc 374 C li mi Ba Laur I 12.0 ; x ; 10\B ~ 9\8 ; m 40 ~ 50 1 I 4 5 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 Umbellularia califomica I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I ' s . in 242 X 327/sq. in. = S 8,534 X sp. class 50% = 33,287 X cond. 80% = 3 1,980 X loc. 70% = S 1 372 Total Value 375 California f38 Laurel , I ~ 15.0 ~ x ,12\12; 12.0 ~ m ~ 50 ~ 80 1 I 4 ~ 5 I t I I ~ ~ I t I ~ I ' I 110x4 i t I I ` I I i I I i I I ' I s . in 505 X 327/sq. in. = 3 13,635 X sp. class 50% = 38,818 X cond. 80% = 3 4,091 X loc. 70% = 3 2 883 Total Value 378 Coast Live Oak I I 28.01 x l 11.01 130 150 ~ 85 ~ 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 I i I 1 ~ 1 I { , I ' 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I i ! I I I I I I I 1 i a . in 884 X 327/sq. in. = 3 17,928 X sp. class 100% = 317,928 X cond. 100% - 3 17,928 X loc. 75% = 3 13448 Total Value 380 Coast Live Oak , ; 28.01 ~ 31 1 55 1 50 1 2 1 3 I i f I i i j 1 i ; i I I , ' I I I I I I I I I i 1 I 1 I t I I 1 i , s . in 815 X 327/sq. in. = 3 18,817 X sp. class 100% = 318,817 X cond. 90% = 3 14,955 X loc. 70% = S 10 489 Total Value 381 Valle Oak 18.01 1 1 1 17 40 30 1 2 1 3 1 1 ~ i ~ ~ 1 I ~ i l l 1 i l i l i 1~ I l i l i ' s . in 201 X E27/sq. in. = 3 5,428 X sp. class 100% = 35,428 X cond. 90% = 3 4,883 X loc. 70% = 3 3 418 Total Value 382 Coast Live Oak , I 15.0; x 1 8.0 ; 4.0 1 18 1 30 1 35 I 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ' 19\5 I i ! ~ s 1 i 1 1 1 I I 1 I I s . in 197 X 327/sq. in. = 3 5,319 X sp. class 100% = 35,319 X cond. 90% = 3 4,787 X loc. 70% = 3 3 351 Total Value 383 Coast Live 08k , 11.0 I 1 ~ I 12 30 125 1 2 1 3 1 ~ I i I I I I I ' l i ' l i 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ?' I I 1 i s . in 95 X 327/sq. in. = 3 2,565 X sp. class 100% = 32,585 X cond. 90% = 3 2,308 X loc. 70% = 3 1 818 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box =~ 52"box =57,000 72"box = Job # 11-00-286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST P~f 21 , 1 01/00 Job T~obrato Job Address:1480~1man Rd. Lot 1 job # 11286 Measurements Condltlon Prunlnq/Cabllnq Needs Pest/Dlsease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (409)353.1052 23535isfadfad La G~a,G 95030 e # Plant Name Y ~ ~ ' ! a I I ~ I W ! ® m ~ l y l I ~`kf ! 1 i v i F i J~= I= ~ ! ~ ! o ! o ~ ~ LL ~ ~ I ~ I W ! ~j i ?~ g ! o ! ! ! p ~ ~ Q i W (~ ~ a. a i ! y o ; ~; ~, "' !~ O ~n { w I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ! Z ~ = l~ ! O 0 ~ U t d' J i O' O y I Z ~ { O ~ ~ ~ { U ~ ! ~ ; I = " ! ! ~ W o ~ Z i!? ! O I 13 I w ~~ ! ~ o u~ Z v~ r? d ! w ~ U ! ~ I ~ ~ ~ ! w { w ! a Z Z i 2 Z i µ~ I Z i U I i i >'~ i? ~ i 3 i 3 i 3 Q ! J i Z 0~ 0 ~ 0~ 0 1 2 fC I~ Q: ~ o: ~ a: I rr ~ w ~ ~ U { ~ ~ I U I ~ I ~ ! a ~ ! !o ~ ! I ` " ` v ' ~ ! ~ ; ! ~ ~ ! y l I ~ l o ~ ~ o ~_ ! ~ I v ! o Z I ~ ! o I T ~ g ~ g ~ ! p I O ! ~ ~ ~ ! ~ y a' O 1 0 O 1 0 ~ i U i t i Y i U i U U i W i O i Z'~ I~ W ~ w I] i 0! O I a: ! ? { ~ I o ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ' ~ o ~ ! W = I y ! W ! ~ I O < ! ~ ! W 3 1 twi l i N I N' , W I W U i ! i 4 ~ " ~ a s J ~ 384 st Li Oak 7.0 ! x ! 8.0 ~ 8.0 ~ 10\9 ~ 20 ~ 15 2 ! 3 ! 5 ! I ~ ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ! ~ ~ I ! ! ! I I ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ! I { I ~ ~ I ! I I s . in 87 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,809 X sp. class 100% _ $1,809 X cond. 80% - $ 1,085 X loc. 70% _ $ 780 Total Value 385 Coast Live Oak 18.0 ! x 19.0 I ~ 18 ! 30 135 2 ! 1 3 ! { ! ~ ! ~ ! I I ~ I ! I I I I ! I I ~ ! { I I I I I ! s . in 233 X 527/sq. in. = S 8,291 X sp. class 100% _ $8,291 X cond. 90% = S 5,882 X loc. 75% - $ 4,248 Total Value 388 Coast Live Oak 27.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 28 ~ 45 ! 40 1 ! 2 ~ 3 I ! ! ! I i ! ! I ! I { I I I { ~ I ! ~ I I I ! ~ I ~` I ! ! E ! { I s . in 572 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 15,451 X sp. class 100% _ $15,451 X cond. 90% _ $ 13,908 X loc. 75% _ $ 10 430 Total Value 387 Coast Live Oak 9.0 ! x ! 3.0 ~ 10 I 15 ~ 15 2 ! 2 ! 4 ! ! I ! I I ! I I ! ! ! { I I! i! ~ ~ s ~ s . in 88 X $27ISq. in. _ $ 1,838 X sp. class 100°% _ $1,838 X cond. 75% - $ 1,377 X loc. 75% _ $ 1 033 Total Value 388 Coast Live Oak 7.0 I x { 8.0 ! 5.0 ! 10\7 ! 15 { 15 2 ! 3 ! 5 ! ~ ~ ` ! ! I ! I I ! I I { I ~ I f I I i ~ I I i s . in 82 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,874 X sp. class 100% _ $1,874 X cond. BO% _ $ 1,004 X loc. 70% _ $ 703 Total Value 420 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ~ ~ ! ~ 12 30 ! 20 1 ~ 2 4 ! 8 ~ I E I ( i I ~ ! { I ~ ! ! ~ I I ~ I I E ! ! ~ I E ! ! s . in 95 X $27ISq. in. = S 2,585 X sp. class 100% _ $2,585 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 85% _ $ 1 500 Total Value 421 Coast Live Oak 13.0 ! ! ! ! 14 ~ 25 ! 35 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ! 8 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ! I { I ~ I ! i { ! I ! ! ! { ! i ! ! { ! ! ! { ! ! i s . in 133 X 527/sq. in. = E 3,582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,224 X loc. 85% _ $ 2,095 Total Value Q 0 Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I~ 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box = $420 36"box = 51,320 W 48"box = SS,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box =535,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page B of 21 1 01/00 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurements Condklon Prunlna/Cablln Needa Pest/Dlsease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (40Q 353.1052 7353! &oad 8wd La C,iiM, U 95030 Y Ke # Plant Name ' i ~ 1 i~ W ® i y i i~ i J 1 x , x ~ i~ 1 m 1 m - p p i ~ i W w I® i o: i W 1~ I ~ p i ~ i ~ S' p U_' 1 Q' w 1 a x l rn ~ 1 i p^ ' ~, ~ u~ f? i 1~ 1~ O ,~ i w i~ l~ ~ i 7 i 0 ~ F E U 1 t l~ J 1 d' , Z i u~ ~ F i O i~ x 1 cn v i ~ i i i ~ i N i 4 ; C7 i 1 ; a: 1 r Z 1 Z i 2' i W p 1 t z ;' f0 1c2 i i m ~ 1 z 1 v~i i N d w l~ U~ F~~~~ i W l Z i a y~u~ Z; Z ' Z i Z'> i W Z O O I O O, p J, Z m I m I a: ~~ I w 10x0 i~ O i U v O m I U f a ', i i~ 1 ' " i ~ ~ " ~ w 1 ~ ~ W ~ lL i ~ i ~ ; ~ i I y~ ,n ;~ i O y p~_ O p ~ I z i p I r l m i~ i O l O l~ 1 g 1 g , 1 p l 0 ~ i U i 3 ; Y f U i U V i W i O , Z i F i F ?~ u~ ~ o: f O i 0 ~~~ 1 p F o: ~ ' ' ~ i o , m i ~ I W l~ ~-I w~~ 1 p a i W i W ?~ w' i h i h ~~ p l p w 1 w l w z I z !~ ' ~_ ~ t 423 C Live O k 14.0 ~ ~ i ~ 18 ~ 25 15 1 i 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i i 1 I ' I 1 i ; i , ; 1 i : , i ; ~ i i I E i i i E s . in 154 X 527/sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 90% = S 3,739 X loc. 80% = S 2 243 Total Value 424 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ i j i 13 30 1 15 l i 3 i 4 1 i I i ; I i ~ i ; ' I i i i ~ i i i I i ~ 1 i ' i i 1 s . in 113 X 527ISq. in. = S 3,052 X ap. class 100% = 53,052 X cond. 75% - 5 2,289 X loc. 80% = 5 1 373 Total Value 425 Coast Live Oak 10.01 , I i ! 11 1 25 1 15 3 1 4 ~ I I , i i 1 i i 1 1 , i 1 1 i { i i 1 1 i i 1 1 i ' I I 1 , I i ~ I ~ I 1 1 1 i 1 s . in 79 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 75% = 5 1,800 X loc. 85% = S 1040 Total Value 428 Coast Live Oak , 14.0; 1 i ; 15 1 35 ~ 30 1 1 3 4 3 I 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ~ 1 , I I i ~ ~ ~ I ~ i s . in 154 X 527/sq. in. = E 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 75% - i 3,118 X loc. 85% _ S 2 025 Total Value 427 Coast Live Oak 18.01 1 1 1 17 1 35 1 30 1 3 1 5 1 5 ~ ~ 1 i 1 ~ i i i 1 , i I , 1 i i ~ 1 1 , I 1 I s . in 201 X 527/sq. in. = 5 5,428 X sp. class 100% = 55,428 X cond. 75% = 5 4,089 X loc. 85% = 5 2845 Total Value 428 Coast Live Oak , 22.0 i 1 1 1 23 i 35 ; 40 1 3` 8 1 7 i E i 1 1 I i 1 1 ` 1 i , I i i i i i i i f E I ?!' ~ i 1 I in 380 X 527/sq. in. = 5 10,258 X sp. class 100% = 510,258 X cond. 75% = 5 7,894 X loc. 70% = S 5 388 Total Value 431 Bi Leaf Ma le 9.0 i , ; i ~ 1 10 1 30 ~ 15 1~ 1 2~ 1 i i ~ 1 I 1 i i , i i 1 f i 1 i 1 f i i i f i ~ ' 1 } i ' s . in 84 X 527/sq. in. = 5 1,728 X sp. class 30% = 5518 X cond. 100% = 5 518 X loc. 70% _ S 383 Total Value 0 0 Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES '~ ~ 5-gal =536 1'rgal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box =51.320 ~"b xx =~ 52"box = 57,000 " 1 =BEST, 3 =WORST P~f 21 1 01/00 Job Ti1~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11286 Measurements Condltlon PruninglCablinq Needs Pest/Diseese Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (4081353.1052 23535 frsl Aad La Gila, U 95030 e ~ Plant Name Y i i i i j j ' j i j i I ~ ` ~ I ~ ~ I~ ~ a a ~ i 10 ~ 1~ j ; I m } ~ i~ ~ ! i W ' 1~ ~ i ~ F- j J x x ~ i~{ m I m I i to o o ' I j i ~ i oQ ~ i W S? i 0: w j a x cn j ` j o~ ! j ~ ! ~, i ~ j ~ ~ f ~ i c2 j ~. j~ ~ z ~,jW ~ v tY j z i ~~ 1 0 i x j~ i t i o ~ O i 0: J ~ 7,° i ~ i 0: i Z i ~ F j O j~ x y O ~ i i 1 i j ` ~ ~ ~ j ~ i ~ ~ ~ ° ~ F.. ~ # i ? ! ? ~ ~ ~ c2 ~ w o j z z j Z ~ 0 ; N ~~ ~ o i O ~~ iNi iz Wig J = 1 w i w I w i s U i H, (Y ,~ Z, z~ z i z i z ~ i cn t i i ~ ~ ~~ w ~ ~ i~ i~ i~ i J i Z O~ O~ O~ O i~~ m ~ 7 rr I o: i m j o: i w j~ I~ v O i Ov i~ a i j I j a ` " j v ' ~ 1= i ~° j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o I ~ j ~ ~ o j Z .., ~ i rr j m ~j3~°i~~gi5 i O i i J j J O i 0 w i 0 O ~ v 3 ~° i v i V j . Y i V i W o 2 ~ f' ~ f' w W ~ i 0 i 0 Z j m I u~ I m i O j O ir- to i~ ;o: a: j i ' ~ ' ~ ~ I i ~ ~ = o: -- ~ y j ~W ~ t J ~~ ~i~~~ Q~~ i w ~ 3~ v_ y y W ~ W j U w i w w z z im n ~ ~ J a 432 Live Oak 24.0 j x i 16.0 j ~ 38 45 ~ 35 2~ 2` 4~ i ; i i i j ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ i i i , j 1 ; 1 11 ! 1 ~ i i j i j ~ ! j j i s . in 553 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 14,931 X sp. class 100% _ $14,931 X cond. 75% - $ 11,198 X loc. 70% _ $ 7,839 Total Value 437 Coast Live Oak 9.0 i i 1 11 j 25 i 151 1 ~ 2~ 3 i I j i j ~ ~ j i I i ~ j i i j I j j ~ i I i i s . in 84 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 1,728 X sp. class 100% _ $7,728 X cond. 90% - $ 1,555 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 089 Total Value 442 Coast Live Oak 11.0 i ; j 72 = 30 j 20 1 i 2 i 3 ~ 3 ~ i ~ ! j ! j ~ I ~ i i i ~ I ~ ~ i I i ~ i E I 1 j ~ i s . in 95 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 2,585 X sp. class 100% _ $2,585 X cond. 90% = S 2,309 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 818 Total Value 443 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ~ ~ ; ~ 11 ! 25 20 1 11 1 2 I i ,' i t i i { i ~ j I ~ j I 1 ~ ~ i s . in 79 X $27/sq. in. = E 2,133 X sp. class 100% _ $2,133 X cond. 100% = S 2,133 X loc. 70% _ $ 1 493 Total Value 449 Coast Live Oak 10.0 x j 8.0 ~ 12\9 ; 20 ~ 20 1 j 3~ 4 j j j j i I j ~ i ` i j ~ i i i . in 104 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,808 X sp. class 100% _ $2,808 X cond. 75% - $ 2,108 X loc. 70% ~ $ 1 474 Total Value 480 Coast Live Oak 14.0 j i j I 15 ~ 20 j 20 1 j 2~ 4 1 4' i i j j i ' j j j i i j ~~ ~ j j ~ I s . in 154 X E27/sq. in. _ ~ $ 4,158 X sp. class 100% _ $4,158 X cond. 90% - $ 3,742 X loc. 75% _ $ 2 807 482 Coast Live Oak 14.0 ; x ~ 4~4 i 4.0 ~ 15 ~ 25 ~ 30 1 ~ 3 = 4 j 4 j ~ i ~ ~ ~ i t i 1 ~ i i ~ i i i i j i j j ~ j I i ~ ~ l i ! j s . in 175 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,725 X sp. class 100% _ $4,725 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,544 X loc. 75% _ $ 2 858 Total Value O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES O 5-gal = 53b 15-gal = S12U 24"box =5420 36"box =51,320 48"box =55,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 = BEST, S =WORST 1 1/00 Page 10 of 21 0 0 0 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condkion Prunlno/Cablln Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D COATE I 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ` I I ~ 1 ~ I I 1 I I 1 " I ,~, ~ ~ ` ~ 1 ; 1 I 1 , . d ASSOCIATES 11 ' ' ~ ~ 1~ ' ` v ~ ~ 1 1 ~ I~-1 o, , an I~ ~ ~ O ~ I 1~~ 1 ~ (108) 353.1052 ~ ~ LL N i ~ ~ ? 1 ~ Z z_ ~ O ~ ~ I Z' Z i O i Z 1 w i~ i W i _ 1 I O i ~ i~ ' O ~ O 1 m ' LLl t~ _ 23535 fr.md Road ~ 1 ~ w ~ ~ j F ~ ~ ? 1 ~ w _ ~ ~ I z j ~ ~ o ~ LaCaW U 95030 ~ ~ ® ~n ' ' ~ - v~ ~~ z ~ 1 ~ ~~ x w~ ~ ~ i w~ ~ a o ~ ~~ 3 ~ O 1~ ~ g ~ ~ I ~ x ~ a a S , D ®! n i w ? ~ i ~ i = 1~?~! O i F i~; i I W I Z ~ ; ~~ O i W ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I O i O a 3 i W I LL ~ J ;~ o ~!5 o ~l~o!~ z z z z ~!3i~i3 1~ 1~ !~ i i° ~iwo I v ;" t o E ~ ~ o J x~ 2~~ i 1 i i m m ~ ~ 1 rZ w ~ a Q i~ i 2 i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O O i O i ~ m ~ m f or ~ z ,~ m ~ ~ w ~ z ~ x lz w I W Q~~ ~ I i x m ~I~ 8 1 0 i W i ~ ~ w I V Key # Plant Name ~~ l o o t o x l m x l w I U I O I U I U I U rr 1~ l r a ~ ~ ~ r ? 1~ 1 0 l~ 1~ ~ i j z ~~ ~ 483 Cox t Live Oak 1 11.0 I x 9.0 ; 8.0 ,12\12; ~ 25 1 30 1 2 3 ~ j ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 I I 1 ~ I I 1 1 1818 I I I I 1 I 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ I 1 ~ ~ I 1 1 ~ I I I I 1 1 ~ ~ s . in 191 X 327/sq. in. = S 5,157 X sp. class 100°% = 55,157 X cond. 90% = E 4,841 X loc. 75% = S 3 481 Total Value 484 Coast Live Oak 1 ~ 29.01 x, 20.0 ; 125\211 30 40 1 1 2 1 4 5 E ~ 1 1 ~ i ~ 1 I 1 1 I ' I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 I ~ ~ I ~ I 1 1 I 1 ' s . in 809 X S27/sq. in. = 3 18,443 X sp. class 100% = 318,443 X cond. 90% = E 14,799 X loc. 75% = S 11 099 Total Value 485 Coast Live Oak 13.0 I x 17.0 ~ 8.0 I m 1 25 ~ 25 1 I 3! 4~ 5 1 f I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 I ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 I I I I ~ ~ I 1 1 s . in 187 X 327/sq. in. = S 4,509 X sp. class 100% - x4,509 X cond. 75% - 3 3,382 X loc. 70% - S 2 387 Total Value 488 Coast Live Oak 9.0 j x 3.0 ; ; 1144 ; 15 18 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 3 ~ j ~ ~ ~ i I I 1 ~ I 1 1 1 ( 1 ~ ~ 1 I 1 I 1 { ~ I ~ ' s . in 88 X 327/sq. in. = E 1,838 X sp. class 100% - 31,838 X cond. 90% = E 1,852 X loc. 80% = S 991 Total Value 488 Coast Live Oak 9.0 I 1 1 110 1 25 25 1 1~ 2 3 1 3 ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I t ~ 1 1 ~ ~ I ~ i ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I s . in 84 X 327/sq. in. = 3 1,728 X sp. class 100°h = 31,728 X cond. 90% = 3 1,555 X loc. 85% = 3 1 011 Total Value 489 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ x l 12.0 ~ 11.0 I m l 30 140 1 ~ 2~ 3~ 4 t ~ ~ I 1 E i I , I I 1 1 ~ I 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ s . in 218 X 327/sq. in. = 3 5,888 X sp. class 100% - 35,888 X cond. 75°k = 3 4,415 X loc. 85% = S 2 889 Total Value 470 Vali Oak 12.0 ; x ; 11.0 ; ~ 13 20 15 1 ~ 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 ~ I 1 I ~ I 1 1 I I ~ I I I I I ~ 1 1 I I I I ' ' s . in 181 X 327/sq. in. = 3 4,347 X sp. class 100% = 34,347 X cond. 75% = E 3,280 X loc. 85% = 3 2 119 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = 5120 24"bon =6420 36"box = 51,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box ~ 52"bons = 57,000 72"box Pa of 21 , Job # 11-00-286 1 01/00 0 Job T~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 IYleasurements Condition Pruninq/Cablinq Needs PestJDfsease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (408) 353.1051 T3535fr.aAAoad LaGfr,G 95030 e N Plant Name y i ;~ ` ; i I i w ~~~ ~" ~ w ~ I i ® ~ i I m i Y ~ i W '~~ i ~ ~ ~ f f i x x , ~ ijC I m ~ m ~ ,° °° ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ° i b ~' ~ R w I o. x m ~, ~ ` ` v ~ z ~~~ i ;~ i w i ~ ~ z I z ~ ~ `-' i~ i Q t x I U i t l~ ~ I~ i° i ~ i K ~ Z i ~ ~ -- O I x~ U ` i =; ` ' ° ' ~ ' o ~ O i ~ ~ * z I ~ ' w ° z l z i 0 I z 3 i w i ~ ? ~ v~i i ~ d f w ~ f x w i z ~ Qq w i U i~ i~ i w i Z' z ~ z i z z i ~' i i i ~( 3 i 3 E 3 i i ~ { O i O ~ O i ~ i~ i m( o: m o m i m I w I< U v v v o: U ~ ~ m ~ o. C9 z z ~ m o. ~ ~i ~ v ` ~ ~ i ` ~' ` ~ ' `~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i h ' ~_ ~ O ' i° ~_ i I v I° ~n i z I ° I y ~ m ~ m ~_ ~ 3 c~ g 5 O ., ~ fn i RD' i 0~ 0~ ~~ o ~ U ~ 3~ x I v I v U w l° (z i~'~ w ~ w i i~ i~ ~ Z I m ~ m I O I ~° ~~ o: m ; ' ' ~ "' ~ m ~ ~ I~ ~ m W ~ F ~ ° ~ z m a , w i w vii ~ cLLn ~! °!° W W W z z m - ~_ ~_ J < 472 Coe t Li Oak 10.0 i x ~ 7.0 7.0 ~ 13 ~ 20 20 1 3 ; 5 ~ 8 i ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~ i i i i ! i i i i i° i i i i i! i i s . in 118 X S27Isq. in. = S 3,188 X sp . class 100% = 53,188 X cond. 75% - S 2,390 X loc. 85% = S 1 553 Total Value 473 Coast Live Oak , 2 9.0 I x 8.0 ; 3.0 i 12 120 10 3 E 1 i g 5` i i i i I ~ i I i i II i ff i I I I i i I I I { I I ~ I I II s . in 93 X S27/sq. in. = 5 2,511 X sp . class 100% - 52,511 X cond. 75% - S 1,883 X loc. 85% - S 1 224 Total Value 474 Coast Live Oak 9.0 1 ~ , ~ 10 I 75 ` 15 1 i 2 1 3 ~ 3 i ~ ~ I I ` ~ I ~ I , I I , I ; ~ i , i i i i i i ~ , i ' s . in 84 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,728 X sp . class 100% = E1,728 X cond. 90% - S 1,555 X loc. 85% = S 1 011 Total Value 475 Coast Live Oak 9.0 ; i 10 i 20 i 15 2 1 j 3 I = ~ EE i i E E i , , ~ ~ j i E E l i~ ~ l i I s . in 84 X S27/sq. in. = 5 1,728 X sp . class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 90% = S 1,555 X loc. 70% = S 1 089 Total Value 478 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ; i ~ ~ 11 20 20 1 j 1 ~ 4 4 ~ ~ i ~ I ~ ~ i ~ s . in 79 X S27Isq. in. = S 2,133 X sp . class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 75% = S 1,600 X loc. 70% = S 1 120 Total Value 477 Coast Live Oak 8.0 I x ~ 9.0 ~ 10 i 18 ` 18 1 ~ 2 I 3 ~ 5 I I ~ ~ ! ; i I i ; ~ , I I I ! i , II , II s . in 54 X S27/sq. in. = S 1,458 X sp . class 100% = 51,458 X cond. 90% = S 1,312 X loc. 70% - S 919 Total Value 478 Coast Live Oak 21.0 j ~ j 23 30 ~ 35 1 1 2 ~ ; ; i I } i I I I I I i i ~ I i J ; s . in 348 X S27Isq. in. = S 9,347 X sp . class 100% = 59,347 X cond. 100% = 5 9,347 X loc. 70% = 5 ' 8543 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =336 15-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = 31,320 48"box =35,000 52"box = 57,000 72"box =515,000 Job # 1286 . 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 1 01/00 Page 12 of 21 Q 0 Q~ Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition PruninglCabllnq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . ARRIE D. COATS nd ASSOCIATES (4081353.1Q52 1353SfrsilAoad LaG~,G 95030 Y Ke # Plant Name ' ~ ! 1 ! ~ ' ! ! ! ! ' i i ; ~ ~ ~ ! ILL ~ ! F ! lnJ pJ ! > ' ! ! o: ~!~ ! 1 w i ! ~ ~ 1 I~ Fd ~~ I x I x I m m 1 {° ! o ° ! I 1 ~ ! 1 !° ~ 1~ ~ m w ~ a x 1 m { 1 ! I !o ! ~ ! ` ~ ! ~ i ! Z i ~ ; ~ 1 ~ ° ,~, 3 w 1 ~ ! ~ = ! ~ ! O ! ~ x 1 ~- 1~ ° ~ v 1 m ~ I° O ~ m I z !~ F- 1 0 x~ rn 1 v 1 ! ~ I ! ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ ' C9 i ~ i ~ ~ I ik ~ z ~ z ~ O ~ w 1 ° I o: ~ ! ! vFi 1 v_> 1 d 1 ° ? z ~ O ! ~ 1 m 1 ~ ! w ! Z 1 a z z! z! z { 1 h i ! ~ ~, w 3 1 3 1 3 3!~ 1 ~ z o O O O I I m I~ m o: 1 0: m w I Q: U v v 1 O 1 m !~ 1 a 1 { , 1 ! " ! ' v ' " 1 { !~1 ! I°!~ 1 1 w 1 w ! ~ ! ! ~ ~ " 1 ~ µ1 ' ~ i i ,~ i > i N ! p ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ! o ,~, z ~ ! 5 ~ g v ! ~ 3 O ! ~ ! JO 1 JO N{ m !° I° v! v ~ v 3 x v! w !° ! z ~ ~ w I w I I° o i o m m~ m l ?;~ 1° {~ 1~ !~ ! ! 1 1 ! 1 { ~ , 1 'n ~ 0:' i ~ I w ! w F ! C ~ ! < I w ! ~ 3 I" I~ ~ ~ I °!° { w w C> 1 i~ z I~ ? _ g ~ s c 482 oast Live Oak , ~ 14.01 ~ I 15 ! 30 ` 25 1 ~ 2 ! 4 ! 5 ~ ~ ! 1 ! 1 ! , _ ! 1 1 ; 1 I ~ 1 ! 1 1 ! ! ! s . in 154 X 527lsq. in. = 5 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,739 X loc. 85% = S 2 430 Total Value 483 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ; x ' 12.01 ' 18\13; 35 1 35 1 ! 3 1 5 ~ 7 I , i ' ~ f ! ~ 1 ~ ! ~ I 1 ! ! ! ! I 1 ' I I ! I I ~ , ~ s . in 234 X 527/sq. in. = 5 8,318 X sp. class 100% = 58,318 X cond. 75% _ $ 4,739 X loc. 85% = 5 3,080 Total Value 485 Coast Live Oak 43.0. , ~ ~ 44 ~ 50 ! 70 ! 1 ~ 3 1 5 ~ 8 1 ~ ~ I ! ! I 1 I ! ` ' ! I 't ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ~ i ! s . in 1451 X 527/sq. in. = S 39,190 X sp. class 100% = 539,190 X cond. 75% = 5 29,392 X loc. 75% = S 22 044 Total Value 488 Coast Live Oak , 8.0 ! x ; 4.0 ! 11 ! 15 ! 15 2 ! 4 8 I 1 ! 1 ~ ~ , I ! , 1 ~ ! ! ` { ! ! ~ ~ I 1 ! ! I I ! I s . in 57 X 527/sq. in. = 5 1,539 X sp. class 100% = 51,539 X cond. 45% = 5 893 X toc. 50% = 5 348 Total Value 487 Coast Live Oak 13.0 ! ! ! 118 ! 35 ! 30 1 ! 1 1 2 ! I I ! ~ ! I 1 ~ ! I I I 1 ! ! I 1 ! ! 1 i s . in 133 X 527/sq. fn. = 5 3,582 X sp. class 100°k = 53,582 X cond. 100% = i 3,582 X loc. 50% _ S 1 791 Total Value 488 Coast Live Oak 13.01 ! 115 ! 30 25 1 ! 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ! ! ! ~ ! ~ ! ; 1 I 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ! I { 1 ! , s . in 133 X 527/sq. in. = 5 3,582 X sp. class 100% = 53,582 X cond. 90% - ; 3,224 X loc. 50% = S 1 812 Total Value 489 Coast Live Oak 14.0 ; x ; 12.0 ; 121 1 25 ! 40 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 ! 1 ! ! 1 , 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 I 1 1 ! I ; I 1 I I , s . in 211 X E27/sq. in. = 5 5,897 X sp. class 100% = 55,897 X cond. 100% = 5 5,897 X loc. 75% = 5 4 273 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = $1,320 ~"~ 32"box = 57,000 " Job # 11-00-286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Pa~of 21 , 1 01/00 Job T~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition Prunlnq/Cablina Needs Pest/Dlseasa Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (40fi353.1052 23535frsitAad La Gir, G 9!030 ey ~ Plant Name i i I i i i ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ILL ~ I W ~® ® I} ~ w h 1 I I-- ~~ ~ I= ; x ~ m I O f m I m I -~{^ I^^ I ^ i ~ i~ C~ i x w~ a x~ I i o ~ i N ~ ~ IF I c~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ O~ x i~ i~ ^ ~ U i ~ ~ i^ i^ ~~ m t z ~ I F I O x y U I ~ ' ` I ~ i Q I S i , z Iz I~ IOw I^ ~ I= w i m I Z l w ~ O I F I x I~ l w i Z i Z I Z Z I Z i~ i !n i i ~ w i 3 i3 13 13 ~ ~~ O I O I O I O i i~ ~ tr ~ m ~ x ~ x ~ w ~ U U U U I m i ~ N ~ ~ ~ ? z ~ x a I ~ ' " ~ ~ ` ' ~ i i i ^~ i N i W I N . ~ ~o ~~ ~ ?~ o ~" 3^~~ I g g f o I O I w f p I p F I V~ i^ i U i U i ~ Y U lw {^z i~ I~ w; w ~ i^ p I O m l m ~~ x l 0 ~ ? I F^ i~; x I x ` ` I I ' I~ I I p ~w w W I F ~ OZ < I w l W (A I (n ~ LL i V ^ ^ w I w I U w o w ~ w z z~~ _ 7 = : 490 s Li Oak 7.0 ~ x 8.0 15\3 18\8 1 20 20 1 3` 4 I i I I j ~ I I ~ I ~ I 1 I i I i ~ I I I i i I ~ i ~ i i I ~ I I ~ ~ I I i ~ s . in 88 X S27/sq . in. = S 1,782 X sp. class 100% = 51,782 X cond. 75% = S 1,337 X loc. 85% = S 889 Total Value 491 Coast Live Oak 5.0 i x i 5.0 i i 8\7 ; 15 ~ 10 1 I 3 I 4~ i i I 1 I I i i t { I i I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I i i ~ ~ I s . in 29 X S27/sq . in. = S 783 X sp. class 100% = 5783 X cond. 75% = S 587 X loc. 85% = S 382 Total Value 510 Coast live Oak 11.0 i x l 3.0 I I 12 120.25 1 I 3 i 4 I 5 I I ~ I i i I I I i I I I I I i I i ~ i I I s . in 99 X S27lsq . in. = E 2,873 X sp. class 100% = 52,873 X cond. 75% = S 2,005 X loc. 85% - S 1 303 Total Value 531 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ; I 14 30 25 2 i 1 3 j I i I i I I I a . in 113 X S27/sq . in. = S 3,052 X sp. class 100% = E3,052 X cond. 90% - S 2,747 X loc. 80% - S 1848 Total Value 532 Coast Live Oak 8.0 ; x i 8.0 ; I 12 ; 25 20 2 3 5 I j ~ I I ' : i i e I l i l u l l ~ i 4 1 s . in 75 X S27ISq . in. = S 2,025 X sp. class 100% = 52,025 X cond. 80% = Z 1,215 X loc. 80% = S 729 Total Value 533 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ~ I I I 12 ~ 25 ~ 20 1 i 2 ~ 3 1 I I I i 1 ' I I i i ~ i ~ I i I ~ I ~ I s . in 79 X 527/sq . in. = S 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 52,133 X cond. 9l)% = S 1,920 X loc. 70% = S 1344 Total Value 534 Valle Oak 9.0 I I j 10 35 120 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 ~ I I ! I 1 : I I ; I I i I i I ~ I I i I ~ i I ~ I I I I I s . in 84 X S27/sq . in. = S 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 100% = E 1,728 X loc. 75% = i 1 298 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box =$5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box - $16,000 Job # 1286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 1 01/00 Page 14 of 21 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurements Condklon Pruninq/Cablinq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES 4 ( 08)353.1052 23535fr•aAAad Loc Giw, U 95030 e # Plant Name Y 1 1 i I ' 1 ' I I I ~ 1 ~ i 1 i ~ i w i i ~ i N ~ i i i i 1 1 1 ~ I F 1 ~~ i x l x I I p i o 1 ` 1 r~ I u+ i~ i® i Q: I W i 1 l i p 1 i i ; ' i I 1 i F i p x l~ 1 Z i h ~~ 1 i ~° 1 i ~ ' Cl i (~ ~ i } z i r~ i F i~ N i W i~ i Z ~ i Q: i 2 1~ =~ F=- i~ l 0 ~ V l p i x J 1 7 ~ I~ i Z l~ x l~ i O 1 1 1 1 ~ i i i i ' i ' i ! 1 i z ` ' ~ 1 ' ° ~ . i I i 1 i H i (~ 1 i ~ I U' I~ i I I~ z r z i O~ Z i 3 p i W i Z i y I y I d i W I U i H 1~ 1 g2 i W I W i Z i Z i Z i 2~ ~u i (~ i 3 3~ ~ I W i i i i i Q J i O O O 1 0 1 2Q I U 1 U I V i v i v i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O-a. a Z z = ii 1 1 1 i i 1~ i ` ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ W i ~ W W ` y 1 ~ ~ Q 1 i Q i W 1 i '> W I fA i I 'Q I y 0 ~ I O I p ~ I z i O I~¢ 1 CQ i RQ .r'. i O 1~ i w I J I J y i tY I O i p i ~ ~ c~i ~ 3 I Y i -- I r i W p 1 Z p op W I W 1~ 1~ i 0 1 0 ? i~ I p i~ i 0: i 0= i i i ~ i~ 1 I ' ~' N i i ~ D.' `' I W i a. W i F i 0 a l W i 3~ LL i~ y I ~n W I W p l p z i i I~ ~ = 535 C Live Oak 13.0 i i 1 14 ~ 30 i 25 l i 1 i 2 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 I I ' i i i i i r i i 1 I r i i I i i i i I ` I s . in 133 X 527/aq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 100°k = 53,582 X cond. 100% = S 3,582 X loc. 70% = S 2 507 Total Value 536 Coast Live Oak 11.0 i x i 9.0 1 i 14 30 i 25 1 l i 2 i i i i i I I i i i I I I I i i 1 t I 1 1 1 { i 1 1 ~ ' I I I I I I I 1 ~ i I I s . in 127 X $27/sq. in. = S 3,429 X sp. class 100% _ $3,429 X cond. 100°'0 = $ 3,429 X loc. 80% _ $ 2 057 Total Value 538 Coast live Oak 1 1 13.0 I x l 9\8 181 1 1 5 '15\121 ' 1 30 40 1 1 1 I 3 i 4 I ~ 1 i I 1 I i ~ 1 1 1 1 'I I 1 1 t I i i I i 1 1 i i ! i i I i j 1 i i i j i s . in 225 X S27lsq. in. = S 8,075 X sp. class 100°% _ $8,075 X cond. 75% = S 4,558 X loc. 75% = S 3 417 Total Value 539 Coast Live Oak 10.0 x 5.0 ' 12 ~ 25 E 25 1 i 1 i 2~ i i I { I i 1 I 1 I I i I i i i i i i i ~ i i i i 1! i ' I i i I I s . in 89 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 2,403 X sp. class 100% _ $2,403 X cond. 100% _ $ 2,403 X loc. 70% = S 1 882 Total Value 542 Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 14.0 I I i 15 j 30 i 35 ~ I 1 1 1 i 2 1 I I i 1 1 ' I I I 1 1 I 1 i ~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ~ I 1 1 I i 1 i 1 1 ~ I 1 1 I I i i 1 i s . in 154 X 527/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 100% = S 4,154 X loc. 50% _ $ 2 077 Total Value 552 Black Oak 1 ~ 8.0 1 x ~ 7.0 ' 1 I 1 I i 11 ~ 30 ~ 20 1 1 1 i 2 I 3 I 1 1 ~ ~ i 1 I ~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 I i l i 1 1 1 l 1 1 l i 1 1 i i i 1 1 1 s . in 70 X $27/sq. in. = S 1,890 X sp. class 100% _ $1,890 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,701 X loc. 70% = S 1 191 Total Value 553 Coast Live Oak 12.0 i x i 11.0 i 18 i 35 i 35 2 1 2 1 4 ' i 1 i i I 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 I i i 1 I I I 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 i i 1 i i i ' I in 181 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,347 X sp. class 100% _ $4,347 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,280 X loc. 85% = S 2 119 Total Value Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES Q 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 Q ~"~ ~ S2"box = 57,000 " 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Pa~of Zl 1 01/00 ~"~ Job Ti~obrato Job Address:1480~1man Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition PrunlndCablin Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES 4t1~ 35310.52 23535fsislAosd tncG~t,u9w:lo ey ~ Plant Name ' I ~ ~ ,~ 1 ~ I I i i w i v_ ~ 1 W 1 i N@J' ~!~ 1 i i~ i 1 i i i W ~1~t i ! J I m i m ! '~ ° ° i ° i ' 1 I i i I° lug w i~ x l uai i i o i v y ' Z i p i'r' t~~ c~ ~ i w 1~ 1~ ~ i~ io f ~ x' F- 1 t I ° ~Qi~1°i W I~ Z I x i v~i i °~ i i ' ` Z i ` ~ p! ~_ ~ i v 1 ~ 1 ~ i W~ o~ ~ ~ iZ i~; i i i o 1 i 3 1w f~ ? I v~i 1 N d I W f~ ~ i~ i~ i~{WU iii a Z i Z i Z' Z i> i (n i Z 313 i3i31~1~iz O I O i O i 0 I i m i ~ c~i i c~i i v i U i ~ f ~ f a ~ i i i i ` " i ~ ' ~ i W ~ ' w i W i N 1 I 1 x i~ I i~ u^, ~ "; i O i~ i~ l ~ i ~_ I ~ 1° ~~ Z f° i~ 1 0: I~ vio i°o i~gg ~ i V i~ ~ O i 0 f U vlwi°iz1~1~ W W i 1 7 1 0 1 0 ? i it i o i ~ i ~° i ~° i 1 ` ~ i 0 w 1~ 1~ f W f~ 1° < 1w 1w ~' iL i~ o;oi~ LLJ 1 W 1 V iii ! ~ ' - ~ - ~ t 554 t Li k 10.0 x 8.0 ; 1 128 i ~ 35 20 3 ~ i 2 1 5 i ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ i I ~ ~ 1 1 i ' ~ i i i i ~ i i i i f i i~ f i 1 ! i i i i s . in 93 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,511 X sp. class 100% = 52,511 X cond. 80% = 5 1,507 X loc. 80% - S 904 Total Vatue 558 Coast Live Oak 14.0 i x 12.0 110.0 i 25 i 30 i 30 2 i 2 4 i i 1 1 i I I I 1 ~ i i ~~ ~ i i 1 ~ ~ 1 i I I i 1 i i I 1 s . in 307 X E27/sq. in. = 5 8,289 X sp. class 100% = 58,289 X cond. 75% = S 8,217 X loc. 80% = S 3 730 Total Value 557 Coast Live Oak 58.0 i i ~ 1 75 ~ 50 1 135 2 ~ ~ 1 2 1 4 1 I i i I I 1 1 3 I 1 3 1 i i I I 1 i I ~ I i I 1 1 I i i I I i i 1 II i s . in 2859 X 527/sq. in. = 5 71,793 X sp. class 100% = 571,793 X cond. 75% = 5 53,845 X loc. BO% - 5 43 078 Total Value 583 Coast Live Oak 10.0 ~ x i 4.0 i 12 25 i 20 1 i 3 1 4 i l 1 i ! i i 1 i 1 1 1 I I i 1 i i ~ i~ 1 , s . in 85 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,295 X sp. class 100% = 52,295 X cond. 75% - S 1,721 X loc. 85% - S 1 119 Total Value 564 Coast Live Oak 17.01 1 1 i 19 i 25 1 35 1 i 2 3 I 1 1 k 1 i i i ' 1 1 i i i 1 1 i I E 1 t 1 1 l i s . in 227 X 527/sq. in. = 5 8,125 X sp. class 100% = 58,125 X cond. 90% = 5 5,513 X loc. 85°h = S 3 583 Total Value 585 Coast Live Oak 17.0 ~ ~ i 18 i 30 ~ 35 1 ~ 2~ 3 E ~ E i i E I i i i I 1 i i 1 i ~ i i ! I l i I I s . in 227 X 527ISq. in. = 5 8,125 X ~. class 100% = 58,125 X cond. 9tl% = 5 5,513 X loc. 80% = S 3 308 Total Value 588 Coast Live Oak 14.0 1 15 1 25 i 25 1 1 2 1 3 1 i i 1 i i , i ~ f i ~ 1 i i 1 ~ I i i 1~ i i s . in 154 X 527/sq. in. = 5 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 90% = 5 3,739 X loc. 60% - S 2 243 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = Sl?A 24"box =5420 36"box =51,320 48"box =55,000 52"box =57,000 72"box =515,000 Job # 1186 , 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 16 of 21 1 01/00 4~ Q Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Meaauremsnta Condition Prunlnq/Cablln Needs PesUDlsease Problems Recommend . ' i 1 i i I i 1 N i 1 BARRIE D COATS 1 i ; i ~ 1 1 i i ; s 1 i i 1 1 i i i i ~ ' " 1 ~ 1~ ' o ' . i 1 i i ~ I z~ I u~ i w I w i w ` ~ `~ i I~ 7 and ASSOCIATES i ' ~ i i v ~ 0 ' ° ' _ ' ~ 1 ~~ i~ i i `~ ~ ' 1 ~ = (4~ 353.1052 1 I ~ ~ N i ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ I 1 1 ~ ~~ ~~ i O i .- (~ z z ~ r i Z ~ w i 0 i z ~° I t i z O i 3 1 w 0 i i° ~ ~, i~ i ~ o ~ o i ~ i W? a i~ i~ - ~ 33535WaadAoad ~ I w 1 I~ 1 ~ .., z ,~ i w i~ F ~ 1? 1 u~i i cn I d i w i m ~ i 3 ~ l> ~° i ~ I m o: i g I g m ~ i~ t o _ Lr Gtr, G 95030 ~ i~ i ~ } i~ ~ ~ 1 0: 1 z I q~ ~ i~ i 0 ~ O x i w~ i z; w I a i F i~ l ' W i z i Vr ~~ `~ i 0 c i O i 0 i W ~ ~ I ~ i Q i 0 <~~{ u=i i w { ~ J ; y{ ~11 i i W {° ~i x i s{ t i° ~ ~ I~ z 3 l z z l z i~ l v> I z '313 i3! 'W' F i V i 3 1° ; ;Y U I U ~ i LL 1~ ~,i~,l~ I~ Ix lx i~ l I I I g ~ ~ Im i° ~ !'~ z 1 1~ O io to lO l~ im ~ l I I i Q w i W m l l° i~ l~ ~ ~ to io 1 ,°„ ~„°, i~ Key # Plant Name ~ m m - 1 °° 1° w i a x m ~ O x l v~ v I m O m o: m w ~~ ~ I O I O I v A l a ~ ? 1~ ~ o: ° i~ 0 O I m i~ w w w~ z l z 1 587 st Li Oak 14.0 i ~ i 15 30 i 15 1 i 4 5 i i i i ~ i ~ ~ i ~ i i i ; 1 ; I 1 ; ; 1 1 I ; 1 i ~ ~ I I 1 i i i I 1 I i 1 s . in 154 X 327ISq . in. = S 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 34,154 X cond. BO% = S 2,493 X loc. 85% = S 1 820 Total Value 577 Coast Live Oak 12.0 i 14 1 35 i 20 1 1 4 1 5 1 i I i i i i i ~ i i 1 1 1 I I i i , 1 s . in 113 X 327/sq . in. = 3 3,052 X sp. class 100°% = 33,052 X cond. 80% = 3 1,831 X loc. 70% = 3 1 282 Total Value 578 Coast Live Oak 18.0 ~ i 1 i 18 i 30 130 1 i 2 I 3 i i i i ~ I I i I ; I ~ i I l i i i ! i i i i l i l i i l i i i l i s . in 201 X 327/sq . in. = 3 5,428 X sp. class 100% = 35,428 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,683 X loc. 70% = 3 3 418 Total Value 579 Coast Live Oak 9.0 1 10 1 30 15 1 2 1 3 1 ~ i ~ i ~ i ii i i i i ! I i i i l i i i i i i! l s . in 84 X E27/sq . in. = 3 1,728 X sp. class 100% = 31,728 X cond. 90% - S 1,555 X loc. 80% = 3 933 Total Value 580 Coast Live Oak 1 10.0 ; ; i 11 30 ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ 1 2 1 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ; ~ 1 i ~ ; I ~ ~ 1 ; 1 ~ I i '~ 1 i i ' i i' i I ; i; ; I 1 II 1 , s . in 79 X 327/sq . in. = 3 2,133 X sp. class 100% = 32,133 X cond. 90% = 3 1,920 X loc. 80% = 3 1 152 Total Value 581 Coast Live Oak 17.01 x i 14.0 I ; ~ 127 135 i 30 ~ ~ ~ 1~ 2 I 3 i 1 ~ ; ~ I i ; i I I i i' I I i 1 I i I 1 ~ 1 i i 1 ! ! i 1 1 i I I ; s . in 304 X 327/sq . in. = 3 8,208 X sp. class 100% = 38,208 X cond. 90% = 3 7,387 X loc. 70% = S 5 171 Total Value 582 Coast Live Oak 7.0 ~ x 8.0 ; i 10 1 25 { 20 1 3 1 4{ i 1 i 1 1 1 I i i i ? i i l i i l i t s . in 53 X 327/sq . in. = 3 1,431 X sp. class 100% = 31,431 X cond. 75% = E 1,073 X loc. 85% = 3 898 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box =~ 52"box = 57,000 72"box = Job # 11-00-286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Pa~f 21 , 1 01/00 W Job T~Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition Pnunlnq/Cablinq Needs PestlDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (40~ 353.1052 2353Sir.silRo~d La 1,~, G 9!030 Key * Plant Name ~ ~ ~~ W I ® I> i '~ I I i -+ ~ x i x ~~ I m I m to o ~ I w !® ' K I w l~ I o ~ c7 ~ w i a x Irn o iv; ~, ~, iz i ~' ~ I F I C7 N i w i~ ~- .r. i j I O ~ J i~ i ~ i ~ I m t z t u~ I 1- I O I~ x vi iv I ` ~ ~ i o _ ~ i i~''~ W i#i t Z i z O~ Z 1~ i w i x u~ I? I v~i I N d i W i~ U I~ i~~~' w~ Z i a 3 i 3~ i 3 ~~ I W I? O O~ O i O~ j m~ K ~ Q: I m o: t w t~ l 0_ v v iv U m ~ a i ' u~ ' ~ ` ~ v ' ~ I v I p ~ ~'~ ; ~ ; ~ Ic_n i j~'o~ ~ i ~_ I V~ v~ ~ Z O i Q Y4 i xQ f~Q ~ i 0 i 0 i-~ J I J ~ ~ 3 x v i v y t w { O I~ I O i O Z I~ I~ I m O i 0 ~~ o ~~ I~ Io: i i I ' '~ ~ W ~ ~" i J` ~~ w i F I Z O a' w I W can i vwi w w i V w~ w w z z Io: n ~ ~_ : 584 t Li Oak 8.0 ; x 14.0 ; 10 25 ' 25 1 i 2 3 i i I I j I i I ' I I i I i I i i ' i I I { i I I I i I I I i I I I ' I i ~ 3 1 i I s . in 57 X E27/sq. in. = S 1,539 X sp . class 100% = 51,539 X cond. 90% = S 1,385 X loc. 70% = S 970 Total Value 585 Coast Live Oak ' 14.0 I x; 13.0 18.0 I 18 35 45 1 I 1 i 2 { ~ i { I I i I ~ I I I I I I I I 1 i i I I I I I s . in 248 X 527/sq. in. = S 8,842 X sp . class 100°'0 = 58,842 X cond. 100% = S 8,842 X loc. 75% = S 4 982 Total Value 588 Coast Live Oak 17.0 ~ ~ ~ t 20 35 ~ 40 1 ~ 1 i 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { i I I I i I I ~ ~ i I ~ ~ i I I! I II s . in 227 X S27/sq. in. = E 8,125 X sp . class 100% = 58,125 X cond. 100% = S 8,125 X loc. 75% = S 4 594 Total Value 587 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ; { i 17 30 = 40 1 i 2 i 3 I! ` ~ I t I ~ I i i i i i I i ~ E i I ~ i i i f i I ~ I ~ ~ I I s . in 177 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,789 X sp . class 100% = 54,789 X cond. 90% = 5 4,292 X loc. 70% = S 3 004 Total Value 588 Coast Live Oak 11.0 = i i i 13 i 35 i 30 1 i 2 i 3 i i i 1 i I i i I ''' I i i i ' i { i { ' ' i i I i ; ~ a . in 95 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,585 X sp . class 100% = 52,585 X cond. 90% = S 2,308 X loc. 70% = S 1 818 Total Value 589 Coast Live Oak 9.0 { i I 10 125 ~ 20 I 1 ~ 2 ~ t 3 i ~ t { I i I I I I I : I I i : i t s . in 84 X E27/sq. in. = S 1,728 X sp . class 100% = 51,728 X cond. 90% = 5 1,555 X loc. 70% = S 1 089 Total Value 590 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ; x ;15\13i 7\7 ~ m~ 30 50 1 1 2 i i I I I i i { I i 8' i ~ I ~ 3 i f I I ~ ~ ~ I I ' I i I s . in 388 X E27/sq. in. = S 10,422 X sp . class 100% = 510,422 X cond. 100% = S 10,422 X loc. 75% = 5 7,817 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = 5120 24"box = $420 36"box = S1,320 48"box =$5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Job # 11286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 1 01/00 Page 18 of 21 C ~r F~ Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Measurements Condition Pruninq/Cablinq Needs PestlDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES 40~ 353.1052 2353SSr,mARwd La GiNe, G 95030 y Ke N Plant Name I I i ' i i ~ 1 i I I I~ w a ~ I LL ~ w j i~ ® i v~i i f ~ 1 N i i i w l i p I I~ I I~ ~ i~ 1 m i m 1 - 1 ° i° i° I i ' 1 I I I ;^ ~ i~ w i a~ x 1 ~n s ~ " ~ I l i °' li I `~ i~ ~ I ~~ c9 in i w i~~ H v I o: I z I q~ x i (~"' i~ i ° v ~ J i m i° l~ ~ i~ 1 0 i~ x 1 ~n i U I 1 i I i i i i ' ` ' i ~ I i Z i i i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 1 '~ i 1x i 1 O Ic7 1 i~? I#i z I ~ Z ~? i 0 i Z i~°~ w I ~ i? i y i N b i W i ~ I x i w I ~q ~ W I w ~ 2 i 2 i Z I z i~ i N i ~ ~ 3 1 3 3 1 3 i~ l ~ l ~ 1~ i~ i~ ~ w~ Q ~ U i U U I U I~ N v ~ ~ ~ a Z z ~ a I 1 v~ ` ~ o I I w i w i ~ i ~ 1 y ~~ , '~ 1~ IN I i~ I0 IN ~~ ~ I D ~ I U i° I 'n 3 p0 ~ I~ i g ~ I O~ w I I ~ U i~ i O i° i OU i O ~ v, 3 x U i w° i z l -- i ~ i~ i u~ I~ 1 0 i 0 ? I t- t o I~ i~ l~ I 1 ' i ~ i I ~o ~ Ix IM ~ I y I W ~ W I~ 1= a i w ~ I LL i ~ 'VF o i o i w i w i w z l z l~ 7 ~ ~ 591 C t Live O k 13.0 ~ x ; 13.0 ; 8.0 i 21 i 30 1 40 I 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 i I 1 i I 1 i 1 ! i i i ' i i i ' ~ I ~ ' ' I I ~ i ' i ~ ~ i , i ~ I I ; i I ; 1 s . in 214 X E27ISq. in. = S 5,778 X sp. class 100% = 55,778 X cond. 90% - E 5,200 X loc. 70% = E 3,840 Total Value 843 California Ba Laurel 11.0 ~ x ; 11.0 110.0 ~ m i 40 50 1 ~ ~ ~ 3~ 4~ ~ I i ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ( I I i~ i~ i i i 1 i i i 1 i I i i i I s . in 407 X 527/sq. in. = E 10,989 X sp. class 50% = 55,495 X cond. 75% = E 4,121 X loc. 75% = E 3 091 Total Value 844 Coast Live Oak 25.0 ~ ~ ~ 127 ~ 45 ~ 40 1 ~ 1 I 2 l t ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 i I 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i ~ ! i i i i ' 1 j i E s . in 491 X 527/sq. in. = E 13,247 X sp. class 100% = 513,247 X cond. 100% = E 13,247 X loc. 75% = E 9 935 Total Value 845 Coast Live Oak 14.0 1 x 113.01 127 ' 35 i 35 1 1 3 1 4; I I I , i i i ' ~ i i i ' i I I I I I I ~ I i ~ I I I I I I ~ i I ~ ~ i I i s . in 221 X 527/sq. in. = E 5,987 X sp. Gass 100% = 55,987 X cond. 75% = E 4,475 X loc. 75% = S 3 358 Total Value 848 Coast Live Oak 12.0 i X i 10.0 ; i 14\121 35 i 25 l i 3 i 4 i I i 1 i i 1 i i i i ' I I I I I I I I i i ~ i i i I i s . in 153 X 527/sq. in. = E 4,131 X sp. class 100% = 54,131 X cond. 75% - E 3,098 X loc. 75% = S 2 324 Total Value 847 Coast Live Oak 12.01 ~ i i 13 i 35 i 25 1 1 2 i 3 i 1 !~ i i ~ i I i E i i i i 1 I i i i I ~ ~ i 1 ~ I i ' I s . in 113 X 527/sq. in. = E 3,052 X sp. class 100% = 53,052 X cond. 90% = S 2,747 X loc. 75% = E 2080 Total Value 848 Valle Oak 11.0 ~ i 12 ; 30 1 30 1 1 1 2 i I I I I I i I I I i I ~ I I I I I 1 i i I s . in 95 X 527/sq. in. = E 2,585 X sp. class 100% = 52,585 X cond. 100% = E 2,585 X loc. 80% = E 2 052 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = 5120 24"box =5420 36"box = $1,320 48"box =~ 52"box = 57,000 72"box = Job # 11-00-286 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Pa~f' 21 1 01/00 Job Ti1~l.'Sobrato Job Address:1480~hlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 1286 Measurements Condition PruninalCabllna Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . ~ r 1 BARRIE D COATS ' I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . i~ i Z i N p i w i i W I W r r and ASSOCIATES ! ~; ~ ; ° ; ~ ~ ~ ~ o (4~353•iQ52 ~ f I I~ "' i~ c9 Z Z ~ O p e w I o I~ i 3 h~ v, ~~ O~ o ° ~ 1 w~ uMi 23535S~adRad i ~ I F t f n ' ~ Z I w ~~ ~ z l Z ~~? I cn l z 1 w I p > ~ d I o I v ~ ~~ i t~ 1 z ,;., I Z a W~~~~ ~ ~_ Los Gfr, G 95030 ®~ l J I o: , I v, ~ 1 0: I z ~ ~ I x I w _ ~ I W t w ~ a v t p i p l~ t g l g a t x w N i H I i ' I W i ~ F i Q O x i W x I~~ t~ 0 J i ~ ' 0 ~ ~ 2~ Z 1 2 + ' ~ i ~ 1 2~~ I N i z ' ~ i J i Z N ~~ i pj ~ O ~ V i 0 V ' i >0 1 Z i ~ i ~ i LL i ,sT~, ' E I ~ I x f x I~ C7 1~ ~ I~ I z ~ p t p t p l p t~ t m > W O w I w 1 I> p, W W ` V Key # Plant Name g~ p o o = I~ x c~i~ U U 1 0 0 0~~ c~ a ? F o~~~ i i i ~ 849 Black Oak 18.0 ; 17 35 25 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 I s . fn 201 X E27/sq. in. = E 5,428 X sp. class 100% = E5,428 X cond. 100% = E 5,428 X loc. 80% = E 4341 Total Value 850 Coast Live Oak 15.0 I r 1 ~ 1 18 30 1 20 2 1 1 3 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 I I E 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ~ ~ I I ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ , ~ 1 s . in 177 X E27/sq. in. = E 4,789 X sp. class 100% = E4,789 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 75% _ E 3 219 Total Value 851 Coast Live Oak 14.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ~ 35 ~ 30 2 1 ~ 3 1 ~ ~ i I 1 1 ~ I I ~ 1 1 ' , 1 1 ~ ~ I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 , i I s . in 154 X E27/sq. in. = E 4,154 X sp. class 100% = E4,154 X cond. 90% = E 3,739 X loc. 75% - E 2 804 Total Value 852 Valle Oak , 40.0 t I ~ 145 180 100 1 1 1 2 1 1 I I I 1 1 , I t i , I i i ~ ~ ' 1 1 ~ i i i i I 1 , i i i ~ , i i s . in 1256 X E27/sq. in. _ $ 33,912 X sp. class 100% = E33,912 X cond. 100% = E 33,912 X loc. 80% - S 27 130 Total Value 853 Valle Oak 11.0 1 ~ , ~ 1 12 ~ 40 20 ~ I 1 1 2 1~ ~ I I I I ~ ' I r t I ' E 1 1 , 1 1 1 ~ i , ~ 1 1 I I j 1 1 ' , i s . in 95 X E27/sq. in. = E 2,585 X sp. class 100°'0 = E2,585 X cond. 100° = E 2,585 X loc. 75% _ S 1923 Total Value 854 Coast Live Oak 15.01 , ~ ~ 17 125 ~ 25 1 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 1 ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ` 1 , I 1 , 1 I I 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 r I ~ 1 , 1 s . in 177 X E27/sq. in. = E 4,789 X sp. class 100% = E4,789 X cond. 90% = E 4,292 X loc. 75% = E 3 219 Total Value 855 Valle Oak ' 8.0 1 x 1 i 8.0 , 1 I 13 35 25 1 2 3 1 I 1 1 I I ~ I I ~ ` , 1 , s . in 84 X E27/sq. in. = E 1,728 X sp. class 100% = E1,728 X cond. 90% = E 1,555 X loc. 80% - E 933 Total Value 0 ~w J~w, REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal =536 15-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 48"box =55/000 52"box = 57,000 72"box = 515,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 20 of 21 1 01/00 Job Title: Sobrato Job Address: 14800 Bohlman Rd. Lot 1 Job # 11-00-286 Measurement Condkion PrunlnalCablin Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend . 1 1 I ! 1 1 1 1 ~ ! ; BARRIE D COATS 1 ' ~ 1 , ` ! ' ! ! ! 1 , ; ' ~ ! v ' ~ ~ , ! i , ! s ! i i i Z ` ! i , ! N i w i i W i W `~ i i~ _ 7 and ASSOCIATES ! ` 1 ' ! ~ ! ! v ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ' ! _ ! ` ~ ~ w ! `~ ! 1 ~ ! ~ ` = ~+ 1 W ! ~ ! ? 1 ~ i ! z ! ~ ' ~ I W ~ # ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ } ) F (4353.1052 ! ~ i~ i ' ! I L i i '~ , H i U' i i 2 _ ~ Q i Z i U ' p, I Z i~ i W i m O _ ' U 1 0 ! o ~ ! ~ ' i i i ' : i ~ , 1 W y R ~ d' - 13939fradAoid ~ ~ ! ~® 1 ~ 1w 1~ ! -= ! LLl !? lu~i v~ Id !W! w ~ ~ > Q ~ ,;, Izo t ~ I W I~ !o La G~Ne, U 99030 ~ ~ v~ ' ! 1 m W 1 ~ ~ I O ~ U ! ~ ! ~ ! Z ~ ! a ~ ! O ' 0 ! w ~ 1 JO < ~ w ! W ~ J i y i i 1 i ~ i o ~ r Q x i F' U i t i o ~ ~ m Z' Z i Z i I Z i~! (n ! , Z ~ 1~ i~ i p' U i U F i U , Y i 3 1 w S < ~! F I 1 -+ ! x l x I m m 1 1 ! UJ S? C w I ~ ~ p ~ 1 Qr t o I 1 Z 0 ! 3! 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 : r 1 3 I I C I 1 0 ~~~ m I l z p I U! w ~ o I z I~ !~ W w l¢ 1~ 0 1 0 N l a o! o ! W 1 W v ~ Key * Plant Name l ~ I~ 0 1 0 o a x! cn ~ F 1 x rn U I Q e z U I U ! U o: w U!~ c~ I m a 1 m o: OO O ? 1 -- 0 1~ ~! m w w w z I z o: oc 858 Vall Oak 35.0 ! ! 1 38 ! 1 45 ! 80 1 ! 1 ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ~ ! ! 1 ! ! ! ' ! ! ! , I 1 ! ! 1 I 1 ~ ~ ~ ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 , 1 s . in 982 X 527/sq. in. = 5 25,984 X sp . class 100% = 525,984 X cond. 100% = S 25,984 X loc. BO% = S 20 771 Total Value 857 Coast Live Oak 18.01 ' 1 17 35 ! 35 3 1 4! 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! I 1 , 1 1 t 1 I 1 ~ ! 1 ~ ` 1 ! I , s . in 201 X 527/sq. in. = 5 5,428 X sp . class 100% = 55,428 X cond. 75% - S 4,089 X loc. 75% = S 3 052 Total Value 858 Coast Live Oak 14.0 j x ~ 12.0 ! 11\9118\15! 25 ! 35 1 1 2 ! 3 ! ! I I I I I ! ~ ~ ! I ! ! ! ! ! ~ ! ~ ! 1 ! ! ! ~ ! 1 ! ! I 1 ! s . in 291 X 527/sq. in. = 5 7,857 X sp . class 100% = 57,857 X cond. 90% = E 7,071 X loc. 70% = S 4 950 Total Value 859 Coast Llve Oak , 13.0 ! x ! 10.01 115\121 25 ! 35 1 ! 2 ~ 3 ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! , ! 1 ! ! , 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 I ! 1 1 1 s . in 173 X 527/sq. in. = S 4,671 X sp . class 100% = 54,871 X cond. 90% = S 4,204 X loc. 70% - S 2943 Total Value 881 Coast Live Oak 10.01 1 ! 1 11 15 1 15 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 ! i ! I i 1 1 ~ ' t 1 ! ~ 1 ! 1 { 1 , 1 1 1 ! s . in 79 X 527/sq. in. = 5 2,133 X sp. class 100°k = 52,133 X cond. 75% = S 1,800 X loc. 70% = 5 1,120 Total Value /~ • • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = $120 24"box =5420 36"box = 51,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box ~ 52"box = 57,000 ~"~ Pa of 21 , 1 01/00 ' BARRIE r~ COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for Pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18".long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. - DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4'/s') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, dr adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototillling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequerrtly irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. 0000 O O O 00 GUIDELINES FOR TREE PROTECTION ROOT DISEASE CRTITCAL ZONE The most crucial area is within ten feet of the tnmk. Do not imgate, plant or disturb the soil in this area. Organic mulches are very beneficial in this zone. ~s -. ~ w ..r.o . t 10' -~-~ ~ ..__-._.._..M.Vr ~ - .----- .. ~. _ . ~.._ _---_..~._..__~ ~~1IM -~` I ~ ( ., ' ' i DO • Select appropriate plants • Mulch with 2" to 4" of organic matter • Protect from compaction • Tunnel through soil for utility line installation • If paving is required, use porous paving, such as brick on sand or gravel BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES.. Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Sumaut Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 ROOT PROTECTION ZONE Adequate mot protection is usually provided by preventing or limiting impacts within the dripline. _ Roots may grow 2 to 3 times beyond drip line and near the surface. ` iu ~ ~ E-- Dripline __._._- ' r.~.__' ~ 1~ ~ 3' ~`` ~ I ~.. t ~ • ~ DO NOT • Compact soil with heavy machinery, vehicles, livestock, etc. • Change drainage patterns • Raise soil grade • Lower soil grade • Trench or otherwise cut roots • Till • ' ~9 Barrie D. Coate ~ Associates The Do's And Don'ts Of (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 Irrigation Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: CONSULTING ARBORIST SCALE: ~JJ ~_J ,~----..--~.~.r-:-- - ~ - j'P Cih ~ /~ ~~ `~°-- Shallow :,~ ~!'y r~fJ~ trot ,rte absorbing Root protection zone ~~~ - % O,~a ~~ root ti s 1 ~ times the dripline ~`~/_ _ _._ - y `~-;;, •- -- r `~~ ' diameter -~ ~,- - _ - ... _ "' ~ ;~-~.:.-; _-~-_ ~_.~= _T f i~• ,~-..- ~c ~~ -~ ;' mss...-..= . ~~-I a~h~~he ~~'./ - J _~ 5 times trunk diameterL~-~ - ;.. ~-= e Not- O~ ~' ~-_: -- _~; _. ~~. lateral line 12-inches deed, ~'' ~,% ,_ . , - pkay ;. ; O O O O Q1 CD Irrigation lateral lines may be installed (12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk as opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside Crf the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within S times the trunk diameter of the trunk. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 0000`70 • BARRIE D. SATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 April 5, 2001 Mark Connolly, Senior Planner Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 1tE: 14800 Bohlman Road Lot 1 February 27, 2001 Attachment 5 Comments: Notes from a 2-27-01 on site meeting with Mark Connolly, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga. Trees #658 and 659.are in conflict with the driveway as presently proposed. However, it is highly desirable to retain trees #658 and #659, which provide a valuable screen between this property and the property towazd the east. I suggest that the driveway be relocated to retain these two trees, if it is feasible in accordance with engineering standards. To achieve this objective, I suggest that the driveway be relocated and that it would pass between trees #463 and #468, between trees #462 and #464, would arc around the west side of tree #646, and would conform to its original alignment (as noted by the site plan prepared by Kier and Wright, dated 10-25-00) approximately at the location of contour 7l 0. However, relocation of the driveway alone is not sufficient to preserve the adjacent trees. The grading that would be required to construct the new driveway would result in moderate to severe root damage to adjacent trees unless the grading is limited to specific distances from the trunks. The minimum distances that would be required are as follows: Tree #464 - 25 feet from the trunk Tree #659 - 20 feet from the trunk (this would also protect tree #658) If these clearances aze not possible, I suggest that retaining walls be considered as a way of reducing the extent of grading that may be otherwise required. • ~ ~~~~ d~ APR o D 9 2001 COMMC. ITV ~~ R^~ ~~~~A~ , .. OOOO'71 Unfortunately, it appears that trees #472, 473, and 474 would be in conflict with this proposed realignment of the driveway and would be removed should this revision be approved. These three specimens aze all coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Although these three trees are in good condition, they are small young specimens. In my opinion, the loss of these is much preferable to the loss trees #b58 and #659. I have no recommendations for the remainder of the driveway to the turnaround. Relocation of the driveway for a few feet to either side of the location, presently proposed (roughly south of tree #655), would affect some trees to a greater extent and other trees to a lesser extent. The net impact, in my opinion, would be about the same as presently proposed, depending on the extent of the relocation, should relocation of this section become an issue. The proposed building site makes full use of a large open space in the midst of an urban forest. With mitigation of a few of the design features, and with mitigation of typical construction practices, this design is compatible with the existing forest environment. The driveway, which requires a very long approach to the construction site, would have the greatest impact on the urban forest compared to the other features of the proposed plan. However, the driveway approach appears to have taken a route that would result in the least impact possible. If you have any questions about this or other areas in which trees would be affected, please contact me at our office. Respectfully sub 'tted, w- Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~~~ ~' Barrie D. Coate, Principal Encl: Map Section MLB/sl • ~000~2 Barrie D Coate Revision of Tree Preservation Recomme ions . F.r Associates (408) 353 1052 At the Sobrato Property - 23535 Summit Road L t CA 95033 G 14800 Bohlman Road Lot I, Saratoga os a os, Prepared For: City of Saratoga, Planning Dept. HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: A ril 5, 2001 - Site Visit: Feb. 27, 2001 CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: ma reduced `` \ ~5: ~~` ?~~~ i`l. ; ~ ,1' - :.E -~ c - 'J -. I ,~ 1' s lire ,..,wl., , .\~I J.. ,....,,..,.:~ ,..~~ a,,,,yl~.~~ ~~- - - - -- *rot~tti~ra ~a~ntir~,~ ~_ ,, .Y'om` _.__ __- __ __ -_~ '~iA Sug~~sts~d Lo~at ~~f Ths Drirrewa~ ~ • ~'~ . T;~ I, 0 I~ ~ • • Attachment 6 ~~~~ o~ ~~ ° ° BOO c~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: September 20, 2001 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review (S4130A) RE: Sobrato, DR-00-056 14800 Bohiman Road Lot 1, Les Chateaux Des Notre Dame At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: • Final Geotechnical Investigation, Lot No. 1 (report) prepared by Lowney Associates, dated April 9, 2001. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files pertaining to the f proposed subdivision of the Sisters of Notre Dame property, discussed geotechnical aspects of the application with Lowney Associates ("Lowney"), and attended a meeting with the owner/developer, City staff and representatives from Lowney on June 19, 2001. DISCUSSION Previously submitted plans indicate that the applicant is proposing to develop an approximately 6.19- acre, irregularly shaped parcel (Lot 1). The proposed residential development includes: three residential structures connected by corridors; two basements; asplit-level swimming pool; pool pavillion; detached carport; approximately 14 retaining walls; and appurtenant structures and improvements. Approximately 8,300 square feet of living space is indicated. Proposed earthwork activities for the residential development and private driveway will involve 4,020 cubic yards of excavation and 1,100 cubic yards of fill, including a 16- foot-high cutslope for the driveway cul-de-sac and up to 20-foot-deep cuts for the basements. The proposed development will be accessed by a 1,200-foot-long private driveway from Cuvilly Court, which is the proposed entrance road to the subdivision from Bohlman Road. In our previous review memorandum (dated June 4, 2001), we noted that the proposed residential development is potentially constrained by deep slope instability associated with an underlying ancient landslide and Dormant landslide, shallow active landsliding and downslope creep along drainage ravine slopes, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, surface fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking. 0000'75 John Cherbone September 20, 2001 Page 2 S-1130A The previously submitted geotechnical report provided geotechnical design criteria for the proposed development; however, the recommendations were based on only a sparse amount of subsurface geotechnical data. Consequently, we recommended that site-specific geotechnical data be acquired and analyzed prior to Geotechnical Clearance. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Our review of the referenced report indicates that Lowney has performed asite-specific geotechnical investigation of the proposed building area, and provided geotechnical recommendations based on the identified site conditions. We note that expansive claystone was encountered in the residence area, and will likely be exposed during basement excavation. Expansive claystone also may underlie other structures, where the depths of exploratory borings were limited to the anticipated basement elevation (i.e., did not explore the full depth of proposed piers). Lowney has provided modified geotechnical design criteria for both the basement and pier foundations. As previously noted, no subsurface data have been collected, and no evaluation or mitigation measures have been provided for development over the Dls in the southeastern portion of the parcel. It is our understanding that landslide exploration, characterization and evaluation of the landslide will be • undertaken during construction of the driveway. We again note that a portion of the access driveway, including gas, sewer and water lines, will cross the Dls. In addition, the proposed carport is located on, or adjacent to, the margin of the Dls, and a portion of the proposed residence may be very close to the landslide margin (the actual location of the landslide margin has not yet been determined). General recommendations for cut and fill slope gradients are provided in the referenced report. However, Lowney has not specifically explored or evaluated the proposed 16-foot-high cutslope located south of the driveway cul-de-sac. Expansive claystone or other, unforeseen, geotechnical conditions may impact the design and construction of this slope. It is our understanding that the City is prepared to issue a grading permit for construction of the driveway. We recommend that the final driveway plans be reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in accordance with Item 1 below. We also recommend that the supplemental geotechnical work (Item 2) be satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of building permits for structures: 1. Revisions to Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans - We previously noted that Lot 1 development plans were locally inconsistent with subdivision roadway plans dated November 2000 (i.e., Plan for the Improvement of Cuvilly Way and Cuvilly Court prepared by Kier & Wright). Consequently, the 00006 . John Cherbone September 20, 2001 Page 3 S4130A applicant's consultants shall review the subdivision plans and Lot 1 plans, and standardize and modify plans where appropriate, in accordance with comments presented in our previous review memorandum (dated June 4, 2001) and red-line comments previously provided to the City. The revised (corrected) plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 2. Supplemental Geotechnical Chazacterizations and Evaluations - A portion of the access driveway, including gas, sewer and water lines, will cross the Dls. Consequently, we recommend that the landslide be explored and characterized prior to making decisions regarding the need for, or type of, slope stabilization (as discussed in a meeting held on June 19, 2001). A key aspect of the landslide characterization is to determine whether any proposed structures are currently sited over the landslide. Depending on the results of geologic and geotechnical analyses, mitigation measures might involve removal of the upper portion of the landslide and replacement with engineered fill, construction of a shear pin wall across the landslide, or drainage improvements and limited grading to help maintain stability of the Dls (if stability evaluations demonstrate adequate long- term stability). In addition to the landslide issue outlined above, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall address the following: • We note that PVC SDR 35 is significantly weaker than SDR 40, and may crush under medium loading. Consequently, we recommend that SDR 40 be specified in lieu of offering an option for a SDR 35 subdrain pipe. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall consider the benefits of recommending drainage improvements beneath the proposed basements and pool. Typically, a gravel (drain rock) blanket underlain with a central subdrain pipe is installed at the base of basement and pool excavations. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Characterizations and Evaluations shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. s oooo~~ John Cherbone September 20, 2001 Page 4 S4130A 3. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Reviews -The applicant's geologic and geotechnical consultants • shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Geologic and Geotechnical Field Inspection -The geologic and geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations, basements, swimming pools, and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe and log foundation pier holes and excavations for basements, foundations and cutslopes during construction, and utilize that data to modify geotechnical recommendations in the field (as needed). The results of these ins ections and the a - it p s bu t conditions of the protect shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • ~000~8 • O:\IvetaHarvancik\GeotechClearance\Sobrato-Lotl-cleazance conditions.doc Created on 10/3/2001 8:38 AM MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Sullivan, Community Development Department Director CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer ~'~ ' SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Lot No. 1 of Sobrato Subdivision, DR-00-056, located at 14800 Bohlman Road DATE: October 3, 2001 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. The conditions of approval based on attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated September 20, 2001 are: 1. Lot 1 development plans are locally inconsistent with subdivision roadway plans dated November 2000 (i.e., Plan for the Improvement of Cuvilly Way and Cuvilb~ .Court prepared by Kier & Wright). Consequently, the applicant's consultants shall review the subdivision plans and Lot 1 plans, and standardize and modify plans where appropriate, in accordance with comments presented in City Geotechnical Consultant's previous review memorandum (dated June 4, 2001) and red-line comments previously provided to the City. The revised (corrected) plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 2. A portion of the access driveway, including gas, sewer and water lines, will cross the Dls. Consequently, we recommend that the landslide be explored and characterized prior to making decisions regarding the need for, or type of, slope stabilization (as discussed in a meeting held on June 19, 2001). A key aspect of the landslide chazacterization is to determine whether any proposed structures aze currently sited over the landslide. Depending on the results of geologic and geotechnical analyses, mitigation measures might involve removal of the upper portion of the landslide and replacement with engineered fill, construction of a shear pin wall across the landslide, or drainage improvements and limited grading to help maintain stability of the Dls (if stability evaluations demonstrate adequate long-term stability). 0000'79 In addition to the landslide issue outlined above, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall address the following: • We note that PVC SDR 35 is significantly weaker than SDR 40, and may crush under medium loading. Consequently, we recommend that SDR 40 be specified in lieu of offering an option for a SDR 35 subdrain pipe. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall consider the benefits of recommending drainage improvements beneath the proposed basements and pool. Typically, a gravel (drain rock) blanket underlain with a central subdrain pipe is installed at the base of basement and pool excavations. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Characterizations and Evaluations shall be summarized in a report addendum with appropriate illustrations and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 3. The applicant's geologic and geotechnical consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 4. The geologic and geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations, basements, swimming pools, and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe and log foundation pier holes and excavations for basements, foundations and cutslopes during construction, and utilize that data to modify geotechnical recommendations in the field (as needed). The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of Grading Permit. ~~~08~ • 5. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 6. 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 prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 000081 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000082 ~.- . ,.. , A NEW RESIDENCE FOR JOHN M. & ABBY SOBRATO S A R A T O G A C A L I F O R N I A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION : DR•00.056, 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD VARIANCE APPLICATION: V00.022 VICINITY MAP ?D L F AND Hwr M PROJECT DIRECTORY ARCHITECT; THBBREINBERG GROUP 60 Pierce Ave. 408!285-5446 Jeffrey T. Berg AU San Joee, CA BStlC 408/185-3916 FA% ONNBR : IONN RL L ARIIr 9ORMTo 10600 N Do AI¢a BhN, Style, 100 408/446-0100 John M. SDbroID Cuprtia, LA 85014 4087446-058) FA% CONTRACTOR : YP.HUS (X)NEf1tUC[ION,1NC. T 618 N. Smm Cruz Ave, 4081)95-2388 Pnul Mehus rD xwr Ds Loe Oaroe ,LA 85030 4081383-7028 FA% CN[L ENGINEER: RIER L M810HT 3350 SmN Blvq Ndg 11 408!711.6665 Mlke Le6ar SaNa ~ CA 95054 4081727-5641 FAX LANIIBCAPB STRIC);IAND DESIGN ARCH[[ECT: 605 Palle Ave 650/861-81)8 %Dlhy SlricklaM MwlWain View, CA 84041 650!961-81)8 FA% EIOLOGICAL fl.T. HARVEY L ABBOC CANSULTANT: 906 Flizabalh St P.D.box 1160 40B8fi3-IBM Rlck Nopkine JYiN Alvieo, CA 85001 40B8fi3-k13 FAM IGA ARBOR[ST: RP. YC CLENANHAN L C0. et Armlrodan Rd 6501316-8781 Jamas Nc CeraMDn Ponda Ycllet, CA 94018 6301854-1167 FA% ENVIRONMENTAL POKERS L ASSOC. CONSULTANT: 1865 TM Alameda 5N 104 408848-)500 DDad Powers ~~ <j Ban Jo», CA 85116 40B/148-Bfi4] FA% ~\VI /^/ \ \ / / GOVERNMENTAL CITY OP SARATOI9A VVV////// AGENCY DEPI'.OP PLANNING NORTH 13777 FRNNALE, AVE 4081868-1231 Mr. Thomae Sullivan X,7.5. SARAT06q CA 94070 40Bf868-1181 FA% ARCAREGTURE 60 Pisa Avenue FLANN[NG Sen Jae, CA 95110 INTERIORS Tel:10F29S5116 Fuc IOF295.5928 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA SHEET INDEX A•I TTTLB SHBET C•1 LOT I PRELIMINARY GRADING L UTILTCY PLAN G7 LOT I PRELIMINARY GRADING L UTILTCY PLAN C•7 SBTRAC[ DELINBATION !SITE PLAN GI LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN G2 LANORCAPB CONCEPT PLAN A•1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A•7 ®ITBRIOR ELEVATIONS Ai RUILD[NO SECTIONS A•5 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Ai L01YER LEVEL PLOOR PLAN b1 ROOP PLAN Ad MAIN PI.OOR AREA CALCULATIONS A•9 LONBR LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS A•10 700E PAVILION A•11 CARPORT TITLE SHEET TMiP riW) la2aoB l A•1 view n-m-m P~PeDn~PLWD-A-1.mg8wc PROJECT DATA nmAea Amass . ws6o amur calAr 6MAi0rrA cA esaro A96e65DAa PAeCfl ND. ZaNDG -. w+wACD 511[ A4A ~ b.B AC save a emlaeM s1rz ~ IsA AYa elge SLOPE m IwADUD sem+as nmWr : »a aAA ma poll : es LB1. es 61ZE OF 61M10fUl[5 5e[ SX[tr6 Ai J M tM1611Ni U.YO DS[ YACANi 011 NOWUND AND NAVY[ DAA65LAM PAAL Df lt6 DHA1eNJl O[ NOtAf DwE PAaeL Meelan6a6 uwD uu asalPrtu, Au Slav PAOJECI OpLW@rION aw 61X61.• FNAILT RESWMIC! OF 5NIM6L[ Sine xM6A canErf wlgN PAn•AtE ADADwAr. L.erD6cA1D16 100. w0 PAV0.NNl FlR DBAAIIlIm NOfEe t ALL WOIOK WARAWS SXI.LL M W55'A'. t w W11 WAMMe PDIE MAIM SYS1Ee SHALL e[ 1NetuLED AND aukrueea w AaelmA,rce WI1N rxe PAavlsmNS, cllr DP sAUraA co6e ~ AAil0.e 14w s. Ax wra6Lrlc IMt snax%1Ee snreW SHALL eE ros1AU[D rxnau6XU1r iN! IIOUbt ?N[ 9fSi[M SXILI BE OES10a0 IN AGCOAOwC[ WIgN NFPA aH{ a-X[10. iiw SRRM SXALL 6[ IN9EPEN1eNTLi Pq[551U7[D. aYIS10X6 l An6101 AEMBIArim LO n1e11a6 •. ~ , .; _ - -- \ g '. .. ,~ . ~~~ r TPR ~i ~1 Gam' •: ` l '~\ .,,,,,..~ ~ _ `~ ~ \* ~~~ '• ~ ~l ~ rte-. ~~,/`' ~ ~\ s I / ~, . =i ~, j l ~'~. ~ ,1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ', ~ f --,~F ~ ~' ~ ~ . '~ ~ ~ ' , ~ } c \ , r, tit ~ Ill '.. `~;' Yt5 "'X - ha N ~ _J 7 ~ 'J' l~ ~ ~I ~ I I ' i / ~1 1' / 1 ~~ 3~ ~- ~~-( s ~ ~ fir _ ~_~ ,~' . ~ y l \, ' V~` v~, ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ w A .~~I ~+ A ' p " _ - p~`tlG~~~ ~ f i~'~~ ~ ~' ~~ ? ` ~ III ~ „'y y r ~~ ~xc ~w g1; '~ y ~~ >~~ ~ _ ~~~` a1/ ~. ~ ~~ ~, ~'~ ~, /~ 1 I 1 I i I l ~ ~I I~ , 5 , ? I. t; d i ~,~ ~~ goyy :,, ~ -- ~i,lj~ ~~ ,~ y _yc9''h_: ~ _~y ~ ~ S_ ` , .. i :, . ~. a; ~ ~ .. _ ,. L ~ h, ~~~ ~ ~~~~ I ~'~ ~~ '~~' a L ~s t, A\s L' 1'~' I ~ si . ~,. .•~•':. _ u A. _ '%. ~~~3~ ~ ~J~~ ~ t ~ ` `fit ~ ,s t ? ~. ~~ ..: ~~ :~ 1, ~~., ~ r ~~~~~ ~ , ,, ~~~ ? ~;. 0. ffS ~ r r f ~ ~ ~ lj , i ~ ~ ~r ~. ~ \ ~ I~ `- , . y y"-.,. _ - _ "`~,•*.. ~`~ ~' f~' I ~ i~:9~ <~~ ~ "~~ 115 +~ ,1.,',° '~ \' ~ '~. _ _ -~ .:i'` :.w. '~~ {~y \ , "~ ~ {~ ~, f, /,, rte ~f ~ ~i 7 ` ~ ~, ; ~' ~ ~ ,\; ~_~. A , , ~,,.''~ f' ~ M:' qty ~ ` ~ ~\ J ~ ; ~ n~ {z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pn' 2 ~ k O ~i `\ \ i r, l J *~ ~.' ~ U V1 O a ~ ~ Zf fC'1 v~~ '~ -~ t, ~ mot,. ~ ~ '~'~. ,/ I ~7 \ •` \ ~ \ ~` 4 ,-_~.=r _ ;`.,,. ~., r~.rs a~ss~~4~ *. Lei K. _ __ ~ -_ _._,,_ .. ~, ,~. a ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ LOT 1 PRELIMINARY CiRADINO AND UTILITY PLAN K I ER & WR I GHT ~° ""` "`°"'"'" "-"° u n ~ LES CHATEAUX DE NOIRE DAME ~ C1VIL ENGINEERS 8 SURVEYORS, INC. „'~,~~;,r ,...,,w~ '~ i ~ "k ~ ~ ~ 3350 Scott Boulevard, Building 22 (406)127-0665 SARATOGA FOR: MR. k MRS. JOHN M. SOBRATO CAIJFORNIA Santa Clara, California 95054 FIU( (408727-5641 • _f- >a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LOT 1 PRELIMINARY aRADINQ AND UTILITY PLAN ~L~MIMN011UYMMTT1l4'I W~ LES CHATEAUX DE NOIRE DAME KIER & WRIGHT '" w CIVIL ENGINEERS b SURVEYORS, INC. N ~ "k ~ g ~ 3350 Scott Boulevard, Bu[lding 22 (406)727865 SARATOCA FOR: MR. k MRS. JOHN M. SOBRATO CALIFORNIA $enla Clore, Callfornla 95054 FAX (408)727-5641 •. _ ,- •~•' o ;'r. ` m '_~ I GD ., ,.. .~ ~. s ) .. ., t " ~. :_ :, ~ _ . • +, ~ , r 1 j ~ <34:'~~ t i ~ ~ ~ •~~a',yy! ~ ~ ~. d,r 2f 'llf'~`~' ,1 .. s ~ .'' ~ t 1 '' / ~ ~, fir' " ~ ~nI ^, ~- i , ~~ ~, t,. ~ .'~1 F ' ~" ~ J"K'. '~,.. --c 6 ~ ~ r V-y:.. V a -. it : `~ `~ °;, , N" 1 "~' - - ~ ~ i ) I ti •~.~.~.` ~ ~., ,~ _f ~ ~,~'~/ `fir'?~` /~ t \ 1 1 , ~ ~1 ~ti /~ ''/\ >:.~,4. ~+ \ ~;~.. 4..,-~ ~ •N ` .g _ ] I ~ ,~+ 't •~ ~`t ; ~'\ s s \ 1t `\ i1 ~ -, f l 1 /l ~i , '~~ I\ 1. /n ~`[' ~ ~ // e/ \ ~J -~7: I !-......9~ ~~ - ~.. - ~ ~,~ I s'f /~ Fps '?•k' t / l ~ j y~1't; * 111 \,~~ 1~ \, \ ~ ~~'";~ ~'~ --..:.....~~ ~ f r j ~t 1 . • ~. ,. y' 1 \ ,. _- _ { { t 7,y~ .,a:Z a i ~,!- t Q \ • r >, ~ t, ~` w -., 1 ! 1 ; ~\ \ ~ ~„+ + ,.ro v '~, ~, ~~' ~~~ J ~ ~A ~,4i~~a,~, ~' i.;~s ~?`~. ~ ~~` ti •\ `~"\\" ~~~'~`.......r'Ir ter!/'f~'+va,'~ ' ~~ • i i~ ~ Y,,.--~, . ~• '+~ ~ / \ '" ~. !~ r p~ i , f ` ~.~ ~t~ 4 '\.,~, ~• - - ~~~'... '....ice ~ ,, r ~," `tiv .A. '! ~~~ ~ \ \• \~, ~~1~ `t7 '~J' f ~ppp ~f1~. j :':Y ` ~~` O'~. .~i ~•. J J ~ \ `~ ~ / ~~ 1. ~ ~ . ~,',~~~' \ ~ ,.,`_/ye \. r - 1 ""M~~ ,l: ~ 1 ,~\'~ ~ ~ llf ~,r~ -! ~Ik -,~rha 4~ + .,e.a " Aa7 ,; `~?';F e'+ ,. -. .. . III .. .-. .- , g T Jf ` ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ J' ~1 ~ ~} r~ "x ~"'~r- c, ~ ~~i 7 r ti~ ~- '...`'• - ~• ' d. f. k ~ ., _ _ w i+ ; w` _~. '? ~"',;~ ~ , `~v~ two- '',:t I a t' F~`'" .- \ \ ` e~ , '~ //// • 8 ~)~ 1 zt i =` _ ~ - _ j ~~ s 1 ' ~\., y .11 ~t /r ''~ l r+h I .'~~ an _ ( !t 'A ,~ ~~ j. ~ gay / / ~.,' - I`- '1 ~\ }V ~ ; N ~ ~a'~ ~~~ a. ~.. t p "- . A " C°* / tw Y,~ 4~ ~ ~.: S , ri '~ {t -- ~~ SCI `, .. ~ °~ p} 1 _ - ' . ~_ ~ , . K ~ f ~> d~ Y'7~' \' ' 't. ,~ .~4•-' > FS a ,c w, ~ ~ / r Vii; r~C \ _., ' . `, d I ;~. a n~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ BETBACK DELINEATION d- 811E PLAN K I ER do WR I GHT """`"° """"'rT+~y,wr LES CHATEAUX DE NOIRE DAME M CIVIL ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS, INC. t ~ ~ ~ 3350 Seott Boulevard, Building 22 (108)72T•~865 SARATOCA FOR: MR. d< MRS JOHN M. SOBRATO CALIFORNIA Santa Clara, Californlo 95051 FAX (408)727-5641 • ~ ~ e \ u ~ p. I{ J t /l/ 1 ~ i ^__ __ \ e \ ~• s U• ~fC .\ • • \ ~~ ~ . ~, ~ \~ ~• • ~ ~ ~yy \' ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~. ,.. ,~. '~. y • JM r y `\ ~ L• \~ jj SSSSS ~• ~ ~ ~ iii ~~ ~-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,.~ _ ~- -~ ~ 1 I ~ i ~~ a~z r ~$. \ • ~ ~ ` ~ S~ --~_ \G r---~ _ I _-~ / - -- _ ~ ~-~ / I ~~ ~ 1 ~- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ -, / / / 11 ` ' / I \ ,l ~,. / ~ ~ I ,., N / / \ ~ / ~ I\ I \ ~ 1 ,~ / '1' /, 1 ~ \ ~N k Y ~ \ a. e~ ~J V ~' t ~`' _ t ~. y ~ ~ / \ o , / \14) ® ~ i .~~ ,~e ~~ n i ~ .,~( ~• •~~ i J \ A \\\ ~ i ~ ~r~ ~ :• / ,.. ~` /Jt"/ J~ '~ / ~.. \ ~ iii... • ~ / \ ~ a ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~.~ 1 ~ ~~ ~. ~' i / \ \ ~ ~- / ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~_ ~ , / ~ ~, i ~ \ \ / ~ ~ \ . ~, ~ ,~ ~~ / I I ~~ I I ~ ,, ~ ,. , . ~ ,~~, ~ ~~ . -~ ~ /-~~ ~1 ems, -, ~ -_ , • ~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ I i \ \ `\ ~ ~ - ~~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ A ~'~ f ~ ~, / \ ., MATGHLNE LANDSCAPE GONGEPT PLAN 50~3i~T0 R~51D~NG~ °~`~" '~' ~ sm~ka~e, w5u Bohlman Road .w `~~ ` ~° :1~. Mbnecwre .MI G..Mk~ Saratoga, California ° ~ '°°"°"~ "'°°°°'°""`""'"" aw-sae ow vnw e Y"J '~ayY ul~; 9V W w~u~ S ~i~,~M~'~-~ "SN'N w f~Y visv wvvm ~~ ~iu,~o~i~~~ '~60~~,~~s p~o~ u~ua~Uog 3~t~3QIS~Z! Ol'~l805 N'dld 1d~~N0'~ ~d~7SQN'd"i 1 x 1- N J W V d 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ d~s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ # ~ ~ .~. i J • J d ~ 33~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~J~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a~aaa,aa~~~aaaa~~aa Y~9~9~e~tta~8 ~YYYatm933~~~~~99~'i'~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ • ~ • ~~ 2 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION elEt QR1F6 6 OOx%SYIRS L>/ICM ~~~~.~_~ ~~ .~~ ~,; xoan o~ •i669V AON GOIRi ~, r~ 6i0xt Y!1[CR NC6 SttIL' -ns_~ .1010 NU6i ~ FRONT ELEVATION j ,~xi.„,~ -- -------fi nxxMC Uwfirnua~lxrol 1/8" .p.px ARCHR'EL111RE 60 Pierce Avenue PLANNING Snn lose, CA 95110 INTERIORS Tel• 40F295.5416 Fu: 40C29S~S928 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i r r 6P Isar fFm wxao A•2 • • nsad -~~--. ~rt 3 REAR ELEVATION ARCHRECIURE 60 Pisa Axnne PLANNINU Sm Ime, CA 93110 INTSAIORS Te4.40&2fS•5116 Puc 40&2934f28 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ~~~ ~~ RY SRLl 61JLL MC VEN[EA JLII Y[RE! 68.10[ Raww v ooa ruw6666suewnuXiaoi irep.r-a w EXTERIOR '~~ >~ ~.~ ELEVATIONS A•3 • SECTION•E exa e~® - _ ------ ___ x+n~xwae ~- ~ -~-_ .,,y DEN GRE T ROOM - nx~lea~ -___ _--_-- ----_- ,,,~ BATH MECH. -__- i ~•na STO GE ~, SECTION•B SECTION•A AACHfI'HCfURB 60 Pisa Avenue PLANNINU Sw JoW CA 95110 INTERIORS PeL• 4082955446 Fec 40&2955928 - _, _~ ¢ ~~ LIVING ROOM PDR. ~ •n9 RXnNee _. --. ~ canc. verso b CRAWLSPACE .nv _.. _______ .. SECTION•D SOBRATO RE_SIDENCE_ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA I %xMNxa xFSaIYTfLL1~16e1 ve° = r•ox ~p P ~ IP BUILDING ~"~ ~~ SECTIONS A•4 e:mul n-n-w v.\9eonU~llxcnrnse.vmic • Y4MWMG PF111 W IilAl LI1M ue° =r•a A8lCH1T8CfURB 60 Fiery Avenue PI.ANNINU San Jow, CA 9JlID INTSAIORS TeL• 408.2955146 Fax 10&1955938 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA MAIN LEVEL '~ ~" ~'~ FLOOR PLAN A•5 c i ~yyp gEyyW11A11'IW1 I~EII ~ II.QA ARCNITHCNRE 60 Pierce Aremu PLANNING Een Lose, CA 95110 INTERl0E;3 Tel• 4062955{16 Pu 406295592E SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA LOWER LEVEL ~' '~ "'~ FLOOR PLAN A•6 s:sew a-as-m v.~ssors+v,~vo-A-e-~Ne.u.v~c • • ARCBTfEC[URH 60 tierce Avenue PLANNINd 8su lase, CA 93110 IN1'ERIORB TeL• {06295.5116 Fsx {06295.5928 S_OBRATO RESID_ENCE_ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ROOF PLAN nurincnrsowrru~idoi 1I6n ,p-fin r r ~ Tape ~oTS uuao A~7 i'.l6W 01-0}-0I V.\9~15~f11Po-A-I-MFMaN OMd • AREA IS LESS THAN 5'-0" HIGH 4-TOTAL 1 920 SF 2 140 SF ,3 210 SF ,4 52 SF 5 1,675 5F , 6 960 SF ~7 271 SF ~ 8 550 SF i 9 920 SF ~ 10 507 SF ~L 6,205 SF • ~L AREA SUMMARY I[TH OUT VARIANCE FLOOR 6,205 SF R FLOOR 820 SF _ MAIN HOUSE 7,025 SF AflCHf18C1'URE 60 Pisa Avenue PLANNING Sm Jae, CA 95110 INT13pOR8 TeL• 4011d9S5116 Fnx X0&295.5926 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 11 TOTAL PAVIL]ON TOTAL S0. FT. S. F WITH VARIANCE 724 SF 162 SF 1,350 SF 7,187 SF ~ 2,074 SF 9,261 SF nexxxn nesuewnu~~aoi ua~~ = r-a' I r r N' T1ff~ fI-015 IFM00 MAIN FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A•8 e.nur a-as-oi a.~emrsvlVO-e-e-x<e.aaaic • AREA-1 820 SF ~ INCLUDE IN PLANN]NG DEPT. ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATIONS I AREA-2 302 SF AREA-3 1,758 SF AREA-4 57 SF AREA-5 1,014 SF AREA-6 277 SF AREA-7 536 SF AREA-8 974 SF TOTAL 4,918 SF ~ NOT INCLUDE IN PLANNING DEPT ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATIONS nwxc irtwrn~is~~w~ 118' • 1'-0" ARCAR'BCfURE 60 Pisa Avenue PLANNINO 9~u ]o+e, CA 9SI10 INTBRIORS TeL• 408.295.5416 Pu 108.295.5928 SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1Mi~ M~WS I61H0I A•9 >.71w 01-OS-0~ P'\~e075~1~-~-B-xEwe.yU, ~~i` ii f-~1 .~ a ILA, ~ ~ ~V ~ ''..'~ Imo' ~I AREA 1 1350 SF AREA 2 162 SF ~, I i ~~~~ I ~iJ ' r ~~I `_l~ - _______.- __ ___ t ~ ~y ~ I _ -_~~~++--=~~__ ~_-r _ -- _ ___ I ~_~~ I ~ ~~~~ j ~ITERRACE~ ~~ ~ pZU ~ y' l I pyp c i I ~----- ~-~-------~-~-------~ ~ __ ~ -1 ~~;~ =1 _ ~ __-- I ---- ~ ~ ~~ ` 'i `, OPEN ' ~ ly~l ~ 6 ~ r-------------------- ~ ILAi~I PAVILION ~_ i ~-- ~ 1 --- - ~~,--- ~ i i ~ I i -- i I ~___ i ' _ __________, I T i ppp4 '~ EOUPYFTIT i i i I~____________________ ______________J ' L_ 41WIOOII ~ GUNeu6 N1 i~ FLOOR PLAN WEST ELEVATION ~~ ,~ r~ EAST ELEVATION ~~~ ARCHRflCIVRfl 60 Pirae Avemx/ PLANNING 8w loer,~A 95110 INTfl1IlORS Tel• /pR3lS5116, Puc ~295~ 1"' S_OBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA r ~ w POOL ~' ~" Ip~ PAVILION A10 SLE ROOFING LEFT ELEVATION CARPORT 0 waoo sxlNGLg onHOERUxlexr, UM 6TPSW SHGTNIMG, RTWOOD SIEATXRI6 R U RAFTERS Qz sroNE NENEER caaNm ceTaD 03 STOIE W:NEER OANIOERl.AT1ENT ADD 7%6 WWO STLM. xo STONE VENEER OS GAl RETARiIX6 WALL, 550 G CONCRFR GRADE eEARR AXD acuEO neA, sso. 0 DONCREIE Gub aAGGRF6ATE BASE AAO ENGINEERED Flu OE FINISH 6RAOE 0 G.A DRAINAGE STSTEN to PGRrwlo cFwart CONLRER DRINEWAT 01 A66 RASE 1 LOYPACIED GRRGRADE CARPORT ROOF PLAN sTaNE MFR onxG waoo sTUOs Ot CONCAEIE SLAE OS FOGE 4F LONL. SUD ~ sroxe waL CAP OS PWITRN6 AREA, 510. U ENITaP GTONF YEtREA COCNAV Qi ulro couEr ENIRT GATt; SL D. CARPORT REFLECTED CEILING PLAN CARPORT 118" = 4-0' SOBRATO RESIDENCE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA r r tsa+ sa~ms lu,-0l CARPORT All 16.IIAY Il-pi-0i P\RRp151PL~Pp-A-tl.ErypNC FLOOR PLAN CARPORT AIill11V1\ D CARPORT REAR ELEVATION CARPORT SECTION 'A' !• ~. :~ • • ITEM 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Dcpamnent MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner DATE: November 14, 2001 RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GARROD/COOPER VINEYARDS BACKGROUND The project was continued from the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff time to research various options for the Planning Commission to consider. The applicant is now requesting a continuance to January 9, 2002 to allow additional time to review the options outlined by staff (see attached letter). In the spirit of working with the applicant staff is recommending that the Planning Commission allow the continuance. 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 would have a 3,000 square feet 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item to January 9, 2002. ATACHMENTS 1. Applicant's letter requesting a continuance 000001 .t ,~". • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000002 ~ SENT BY: LAW OFFICES ; ~/[atteani ~ axe ~~ , La ~ L A W Y E R • • November 7, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE - (408) 867-8555 4410752; John Livingstone, Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 NOV-7-01 Re: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GarrodlCooper Vineyards Conformance With Saratoga's Genera! Plan Bequest for a Hearing Continuance Dear Mr. Livingstone: Attachment 1 1740 TPa:hnnluj7 U,ivt' 5urt.` Z5(` ~cai Jr~cr., C:A 95!!0 4Cy 441.7ti~~0 r,~x ao~v 341-7;Oz Nnrnua, t'. !vintrenni i1I!<,n Rr,hcTt 4u. !'cam Ai. i)'1.a,u~tGr I37[1t11cY M ?~iNfrnnt ji(tr,.pn l i. Hcrhnnctn This law firm has just been retained by the Garrod family and the Cooper family to assist them in their request before the City of Saratoga that their proposed plan with the County of Santa Clara to build three new homes on their property on Mount Eden Road, be found by the City of Saratoga to conform with its General Plan Policies. On behalf of my clients I respectfully request that this matter, which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2001, be continued to a later hearing date sometime in January, 2002. The reason for the continuance request is to provide the opportunity for the Garrods and Coopers to meet with the City's Planning staff and legal counsel to discuss the staff's recommended options which were presented to the Garrods and Coopers since the last hearing before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2001. As you know at the October 24'~ hearing this item was continued by the Planning Commission to seek legal advice. George Cooper was advised by staN that there are three options that the City Attorney was recommending to be presented to the Planning Commission. One option was a "no" recommendation. The second option was to establish a conservation easement on the property at the ratio of one house per 20 acres: and the third option was to process a General Plan amendment. As to the latter two options, my client needs to have further discussions with staff and legal counsel to better understand the parameters of these options and what they 000003 SENT BY: LAW OFFICES ; 4410752; NOV-7-01 17:03; PAGE 3/3 ~ r 1' r~ John Livingstone, Associate Planner November 7, 2001 Page 2 entail on both substantive and procedural grounds. Also, based on my preliminary review of this matter I have questions concerning the General Plan Policies identified to be applicable to the families' proposed plan. We believe it is in the best interest of the City and the property owners to continue the November 14"' hearing to a January date to allow the parties to meet and discuss the unique, legal and planning issues involved in this request. We believe it will be time well-served and we appreciate the Commission's consideration of this continuance request. Very truly yours, ~~ O~~ ~~ PEG .O'LAUGH IN Attorney for GarrodlCooper PMO:jg cc: David Cooper (Garrod/Cooper Winery) • • 000004 ~~ • C~ ITEM 5 City of Saratoga Community Developmcnt Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner DATE: November 14, 2001 RE: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GARROD/COOPER VINEYARDS BACKGROUND The project was continued from the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff time to reseazch various options for the Planning Commission to consider. The applicant is now requesting a continuance to January 9, 2002 to allow additional time to review the options outlined by staff (see attached letter). In the spirit of working with the applicant staff is recommending that the Planning Commission allow the continuance. 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 would have a 3,000 square feet floor area with an additional 840 squaze foot three-caz garage. The third proposed home would be 2,595 squaze feet with a 546 square foot two- caz gazage. The proposed project would require approximately 1,575 cubic yazds of cut and 1,295 cubic yards of fill material with 280 cubic yazds of material being exported off the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item to January 9, 2002. ATACHMENTS 1. Applicant's letter requesting a continuance 000001 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000002 SENT BY: LAW OFFICES 4410752; NOV-7-01 ~atteoni ~ axe ~~ , 0 La ~ L A W Y E R • November 7, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE - (408) 867-8555 John Livingstone, Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: 22600 Mount Eden Road, GarrodlCooper Vineyards Conformance With Saratoga's General Plan Request for a Hearing Continuance Oear Mr. Livingstone: Attachment 1 1740 Tl~-hnuluyl Ur d r Sur(.' 15(' 4Cb 441.7~~~~ rr~x ae,~s 441 ~73oz Nnnnun t !vt(itr,~nrti r11Lrn Roh~T1 4ixr [3ruc~lev M. Mntrrnni Brtrcpn L i. licrhurtctti This faw firm has just been retained by the Garrod family and the Cooper family to assist them in their request before the City of Saratoga that their proposed plan with the County of Santa Clara to build three new homes on their property on Mount Eden Road, be found by the City of Saratoga to conform with its General Plan Policies. On behalf of my clients I respectfully request that this matter, which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2001, be continued to a later hearing date sometime in January, 2002. The reason for the continuance request is to provide the opportunity for the Garrods and Coopers to meet with the City's Planning staff and legal counsel to discuss the staff's recommended options which were presented to the Garrods and Coopers since the last hearing before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2001. As you know at the October 24'~ hearing this item was continued by the Planning Commission to seek legal advice. George Cooper was advised by staff that there are three options that the City Attorney was recommending to be presented to the Planning Commission. One option was a "no" recommendation. The second option was to establish a conservation easement on the property at the ratio of one house per 20 acres: and the third option was to process a General Plan amendment. As to the latter two options, my client needs to have further discussions with staff and legal counsel to better understand the parameters of these options and what they 000003 SENT BY: LAW OFFICES ; 4410752; NOV-7-01 17:03; PAGE 3/3 , r~ John Livingstone, Associate Planner November 7, 2001 Page 2 entail on both substantive and procedural grounds. Also, based on my preliminary review of this matter I have questions concerning the General Plan Policies identified to be applicable to the families' proposed plan. We believe it is in the best interest of the City and the property owners to continue the November 14"' hearing to a January date to allow the parties to meet and discuss the unique, legal and planning issues involved in this request. We believe it will be time well-served and we appreciate the Commission's consideration of this continuance request. Very truly yours, PEG .O'LAUGH IN Attorney for Garrod/Cooper PMQ:19 cc: David Cooper (Garrod/Cooper Winery) LJ • 000004 COMMISSION ITEM C B~~Z op ~°~`~° BOO C~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 OTICE OF SPECIAL MEETIN SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2001 TIME: 5:00 pm PLACE: 13601 Saratoga Avenue, St. Andrew's Parish and School AGENDA COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehal/ey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith 1. Call to Order/Roll Call (Chair Barry) 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS for the Commission to receive comments and concerns from the community on the proposed project. (Opportunity for members of the public to comment only on the item appearing on the Agenda.) 3. SITE REVIEW at 13601 Saratoga Avenue for the Commission to view the site of the proposed project (DR-O1-035, UP-O1-013). (Action will not be taken by the Commission on the project at this time. A hearing date for action by the Planning Commission on the proposed project has not been set.) 4. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT PLANS at 13601 Saratoga Avenue for the Planning Commission to review the proposed project plans and model with St. Andrew's staff and consultants. 5. ADJOURNMENT (Adjournment will take place at the project site.) NOTE: The limited purpose of this meeting is to introduce the scope of the proposed project to the Planning Commission through a site visit and review of project plans and model. THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND. If you have any questions about this item, please call Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner at (650) 868-1286.